BLM vs Bundy

[MAKAVELI]

TOS.

Nice of you to try and put words in my mouth, but I never said that.

Slavery is the 2nd biggest evil you could impose on an individual or a group. Right behind murder/genocide.

What I am saying is the current welfare state is doing more harm for the African-Americans than good.[/quote]

What would your solution be?

 

[realbrown1]

Nice of you to try and put words in my mouth, but I never said that.

Slavery is the 2nd biggest evil you could impose on an individual or a group. Right behind murder/genocide.

What I am saying is the current welfare state is doing more harm for the African-Americans than good.

What would your solution be?[/quote]

Ease the u.s. off of the welfare state over the next 5 years.

End public housing over the next 10 years.

Put a 2 year lifetime cap on all future welfare and food stamp programs.

That would give bigger incentives for men to take care of their own children instead of letting that responsibility fall to the taxpayer.

If your family is given free housing, free food, and a monthly check, do they really need you there?

 

[moreluck]

Did you see Roots? They were allowed.

I guess different slave owners acted differently.

That top quote is from TOS.....I forgot to mark it. The second line is mine.

 

[MAKAVELI]

What would your solution be?

Ease the u.s. off of the welfare state over the next 5 years.

End public housing over the next 10 years.

Put a 2 year lifetime cap on all future welfare and food stamp programs.

That would give bigger incentives for men to take care of their own children instead of letting that responsibility fall to the taxpayer.

If your family is given free housing, free food, and a monthly check, do they really need you there?[/quote]

You cannot simply take away safety net programs without investing heavily in education, training, jobs, and drug rehabilitation programs in the impoverished areas of the country. Your solution of just taking away these programs is just a recipe for disaster and would exacerbate these problems.

 

[The Other Side]

Did you see Roots? They were allowed.

I guess different slave owners acted differently.

ROOTS was a movie bro, history is a record.

Learn the difference.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

Wow. If slaves were so expensive and so important for the crops, it's hard to believe the the plantation owners were losing that many to malaria?

That just seems to go against their best interests as business owners.

At 10 dollars a head as our constitution provided, buying slaves was as easy as you signing up for this forum.

TOS.

 

[oldngray]

At 10 dollars a head as our constitution provided, buying slaves was as easy as you signing up for this forum.

TOS.

Was the price set at $10 in the Constitution? I think slaves sold for more like $20 to several hundred dollars. The theoretical value of slaves in the South was greater than the GDP. Lincoln considered just buying all the slaves in the South but that would have been too expensive. Slave owners did value them as property and a financial investment so mostly tried to keep them healthy. Slavery was wrong but economics was the primary reason it persisted as long as it did.

 

[Rainman]

At 10 dollars a head as our constitution provided, buying slaves was as easy as you signing up for this forum.

TOS.

The constitution does not set prices. The market does. Surprising you would come up with something that illogical.


Kmart sux. So does Walmart. And Orion.

 

[The Other Side]

The constitution does not set prices. The market does. Surprising you would come up with something that illogical.


Kmart sux. So does Walmart. And Orion.

Oh great, another constitutional expert on our hands...

You "Patriots" are a joke.

Constitution of the United States[edit]
The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I forbade the Federal government from banning the "importation" of persons that state law considered "proper to admit" until January 1, 1808, though a tax of ten dollars each was allowed. Article V prohibited amending those portions of Section 9 before 1808. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.[26]

As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited states from freeing slaves who fled to them from another state, and required the return of chattel property to owners.

In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.[27] This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation.[28] The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years.[28]

TOS.

 

[oldngray]

Oh great, another constitutional expert on our hands...

You "Patriots" are a joke.

Constitution of the United States[edit]
The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I forbade the Federal government from banning the "importation" of persons that state law considered "proper to admit" until January 1, 1808, though a tax of ten dollars each was allowed. Article V prohibited amending those portions of Section 9 before 1808. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.[26]

As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited states from freeing slaves who fled to them from another state, and required the return of chattel property to owners.

In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.[27] This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation.[28] The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years.[28]

TOS.

That was a tax by the government and not the sale price of a slave.
http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

Average Price of a Slave Over Time

 

[The Other Side]

That was a tax by the government and not the sale price of a slave.
http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

Average Price of a Slave Over Time

So, first point, you are OK with the government then setting a TAX on a good or human? Second, as I said, the CONSTITUTION set a PRICE of 10 dollars each for the IMPORTATION OF SLAVES.

In other words, slave owners could contract with a slave trader for slaves for whatever cost and then would have to PAY the government 10 bucks a head for them.

THE GOVERNMENT SET A PRICE FOR SLAVES.

Whatever the slave owners did with them is another story alltogether. Of course, you and the other "patriots" would call it the "FREE MARKET" capitalist way.

You couldnt get a SLAVE unless you paid the government its due money.

Now, back to the point, Both BUNDY and REALBROWN believe blacks had it better at that time, you know, being captured, sent across seas, beaten, tortured into submission, separated from families, then sold on the open United States of America market.

Then forced to work without pay, without adequate medicines, without proper shelter,without proper food, without healthcare, without original family, without rights, without freedom and without dignity.

As you would also claim, "blacks had it much better then, than today".

This country, presumed to be glorified for its founding of freedoms, was in fact, an aparthied country hurting human beings for its own gains.

YAY the red white and blue! BUNDY made us all remember what really happened.

Now you can call bundy a racist.

TOS.

 

[oldngray]

So, first point, you are OK with the government then setting a TAX on a good or human? Second, as I said, the CONSTITUTION set a PRICE of 10 dollars each for the IMPORTATION OF SLAVES.

In other words, slave owners could contract with a slave trader for slaves for whatever cost and then would have to PAY the government 10 bucks a head for them.

THE GOVERNMENT SET A PRICE FOR SLAVES.

Whatever the slave owners did with them is another story alltogether. Of course, you and the other "patriots" would call it the "FREE MARKET" capitalist way.

You couldnt get a SLAVE unless you paid the government its due money.

Now, back to the point, Both BUNDY and REALBROWN believe blacks had it better at that time, you know, being captured, sent across seas, beaten, tortured into submission, separated from families, then sold on the open United States of America market.

Then forced to work without pay, without adequate medicines, without proper shelter,without proper food, without healthcare, without original family, without rights, without freedom and without dignity.

As you would also claim, "blacks had it much better then, than today".

This country, presumed to be glorified for its founding of freedoms, was in fact, an aparthied country hurting human beings for its own gains.

YAY the red white and blue! BUNDY made us all remember what really happened.

Now you can call bundy a racist.

TOS.

I never said I was OK with it but you have so many facts wrong I don't know where to begin other than suggest you read things again. Tax "could" be assessed on imported slaves but wasn't required and had no effect of slaves sold within the US. You weren't buying the slave from the government as you suggest. As to the rest, its all strawman arguments.

 

[MAKAVELI]

If Bundy's racist views were correct, does that mean those 3 girls in Ohio were happier and better off as sex slaves?

 

[The Other Side]

I never said I was OK with it but you have so many facts wrong I don't know where to begin other than suggest you read things again. Tax "could" be assessed on imported slaves but wasn't required and had no effect of slaves sold within the US. You weren't buying the slave from the government as you suggest. As to the rest, its all strawman arguments.

What is wrong? You dont have the first CLUE about slavery in this country. Our government set it up and taxed it.

It justified it and promoted it. It was abused for decades and thousands and thousands of slaves died in the process. Men, Women and Children.

You did say, "i never said i was ok with it" , but you also didnt CONDEMN the practice or the history relating to slavery.

You also didnt say Bundy has his facts wrong. You just cant bring yourself to that level of intelligence.

Rush Limbaugh and the likes promote the idea that slaves had it better off than today, and you folks simply gobble it up and repeat it as if it truly represents the black experience in this country.

Slavery is just something white people want to forget about, todays problems in black communities is nothing more than a societal problem created by white people when they tried to segregate blacks and delay the assimilation into general society.

Now you dont like the outcome. Its too expensive.

But really, answer truthfully, how many black people do YOU want living on your block? Dont worry, I dont expect an answer, I already know.

When you socially herd people of color into one common area, and remove jobs and prohibit movement upwards, what do you think gets created???

Dependancy. Whos to blame?

YOU.

You want to help people of color move forward and get off government aid?

Ok, how about congress passing laws that allows corporations to move into people of color neighborhoods tax free and providing good paying jobs?

But you know and I know, that aint going to happen. Its alot easier to argue for tax cuts for the rich and then outsourcing those jobs to third world countries where they can pay peanuts to children to make shoes.

Get your arguments straight.

You cant have everything both ways. White americans created the problems you see today, and people of color are only living the life "you" guaranteed them when you drove them into ghettos like cattle.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

I never said I was OK with it but you have so many facts wrong I don't know where to begin other than suggest you read things again. Tax "could" be assessed on imported slaves but wasn't required and had no effect of slaves sold within the US. You weren't buying the slave from the government as you suggest. As to the rest, its all strawman arguments.

As for reading the constitution, I assure you, unlike YOU, I have. What you DIDNT read was that the GOVERNMENT was FORBIDDEN to END the practice of importing slaves under the law. Establishing a $10 a head tax/fee/levy was mandatory and NOT optional.

Better re read the section bro.

TOS

 

[realbrown1]

[/quote]You cannot simply take away safety net programs without investing heavily in education, training, jobs, and drug rehabilitation programs in the impoverished areas of the country. Your solution of just taking away these programs is just a recipe for disaster and would exacerbate these problems.[/quote]

Sure you can.

The only disaster would come to the truly lazy freeloaders who won't work no matter what.

 

[oldngray]

Oh great, another constitutional expert on our hands...

You "Patriots" are a joke.

Constitution of the United States[edit]
The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I forbade the Federal government from banning the "importation" of persons that state law considered "proper to admit" until January 1, 1808, though a tax of ten dollars each was allowed. Article V prohibited amending those portions of Section 9 before 1808. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.[26]

As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited states from freeing slaves who fled to them from another state, and required the return of chattel property to owners.

In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.[27] This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation.[28] The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years.[28]

TOS.

until January 1, 1808, though a tax of ten dollars each was allowed.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/allowed

 

[Rainman]

Oh great, another constitutional expert on our hands...

You "Patriots" are a joke.

Constitution of the United States[edit]
The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I forbade the Federal government from banning the "importation" of persons that state law considered "proper to admit" until January 1, 1808, though a tax of ten dollars each was allowed. Article V prohibited amending those portions of Section 9 before 1808. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.[26]

As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited states from freeing slaves who fled to them from another state, and required the return of chattel property to owners.

In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.[27] This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation.[28] The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years.[28]

TOS.

If you read your own post it says in black and white that slave owners pay a tax to own, not the selling price of $10.




Kmart sux. So does Walmart. And Orion.

 

[Rainman]

What is wrong? You dont have the first CLUE about slavery in this country. Our government set it up and taxed it.

It justified it and promoted it. It was abused for decades and thousands and thousands of slaves died in the process. Men, Women and Children.

You did say, "i never said i was ok with it" , but you also didnt CONDEMN the practice or the history relating to slavery.

You also didnt say Bundy has his facts wrong. You just cant bring yourself to that level of intelligence.

Rush Limbaugh and the likes promote the idea that slaves had it better off than today, and you folks simply gobble it up and repeat it as if it truly represents the black experience in this country.

Slavery is just something white people want to forget about, todays problems in black communities is nothing more than a societal problem created by white people when they tried to segregate blacks and delay the assimilation into general society.

Now you dont like the outcome. Its too expensive.

But really, answer truthfully, how many black people do YOU want living on your block? Dont worry, I dont expect an answer, I already know.

When you socially herd people of color into one common area, and remove jobs and prohibit movement upwards, what do you think gets created???

Dependancy. Whos to blame?

YOU.

You want to help people of color move forward and get off government aid?

Ok, how about congress passing laws that allows corporations to move into people of color neighborhoods tax free and providing good paying jobs?

But you know and I know, that aint going to happen. Its alot easier to argue for tax cuts for the rich and then outsourcing those jobs to third world countries where they can pay peanuts to children to make shoes.

Get your arguments straight.

You cant have everything both ways. White americans created the problems you see today, and people of color are only living the life "you" guaranteed them when you drove them into ghettos like cattle.

TOS.

Half of my block is African American, as is next door neighbor who I consider to be the best neighbor I have. I don't have a problem with this. So why do you have such a problem with whites? Some whites enslaved blacks over 150 years ago, but it was a small percentage of whites who were slave owners. Is it supposed to be the fault of modern day whites regarding something that a few whites in the past did? I don't think anyone would agree that owning another person is right. Get real. It is ridiculous to blame an entire race for the actions of a few. It isn't race that herded people of color, it was the people with money exerting influence to keep black and white fighting against one another, in order to preserve their wealth and control. Divide and conquer. Your bias and anger are directed at the wrong groups. Go after the people who are pulling the strings behind the scenes. Otherwise you are a patsy falling into their trap.


Kmart sux. So does Walmart. And Orion.

 

[realbrown1]

ROOTS was a movie bro, history is a record.

Learn the difference.

TOS.

Roots wasn't a movie. It was a mini-series. Learn the difference bro.