or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Somehow No One Seems To Think
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Somehow No One Seems To Think - Page 9

post #121 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

In article <18642-47EDA7F4-334@storefull-3115.bay.webtv.net>,
MLB5611@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

> >Personally, I can't wait to see the end of our
> >country as we now know it.

>
> Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 10:28am (EDT-3) From: carbide@egine.com
> (Paul G.)


Hey Mike, you were recently (in this thread, as a matter of fact) complaining
about being "taken out of context." Wouldn't you say that's what this is?

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
post #122 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

On Mar 24, 3:31 pm, MLB5...@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:
>  Ben  called me out so,  maybe he would like to  level his charges
> against Mr. James Madison as well,  who wrote:
>
>    It ought be considered as a great point gained in favor of humanity
> that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these
> States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the
> barbarism of modern policy; that within that period it will receive a
> considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be
> totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which continue the
> unnatural traffic in the prohibitory example which has been given by so
> great a majority of the Union.            Happy would it be for the
> unfortunate Africans if an equal prospect lay before them of being
> redeemed from the oppression of their European brethren!
>
> James Madison - #42, The Federalist Papers  
>
> just regards - Mike Baldwin  


What I wrote was indecorous, but it was not wrong.
While Madison may have hoped for the end of slavery -
and you'll notice it took much longer and more blood
than he hoped - many of the slave-state founders did not.
Furthermore, decent men among the founders made a
moral compromise in order to keep states (particularly
South Carolina and Georgia) in the union. Many of them
knew this was a great flaw in the Constitution, although
I don't believe any of them predicted the magnitude
of the bloodshed it would take to resolve the unresolvable
dilemma of a document that enshrines democracy and
equality while effectively recognizing slavery. Having
effectively put slavery into the Constitution, it became
impossible to take it out, and the result was a slaughter
on a previously unknown industrial scale.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=293
http://www.wwhp.org/Resources/Slavery/constitution.html
http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116852
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9B0DE1D6153EF935A35755C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all>

None of this is particularly controversial as American
constitutional history. It is not America-hating to say
that the Constitution was flawed. It's pointless to sit
around arguing about whether the founders who wrote
the 3/5ths compromise were good or bad men, as if we
were deciding whether to put apples or coals in their
Christmas stockings. That does nothing. Putting one's
head in the sand and declaring that the outcome was
good, therefore the original document must have been
right all along - now that's hating freedom.

http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geog...ensus_1860.htm
The slave population of the US increased from 698,000 to
3,954,000 from 1790 to 1860, despite the abolition of
the slave trade. The total population increased from 3.9 to 31.4
million in the same period (much of that in the more populous
North, I think). Somebody in this thread gave the apologetic
argument that the slaves couldn't have been freed in 1800
without a bloodbath. Yet it's not as if slaveowners then went
on sitting on their hands waiting for the slave population to
go down so they could get out and retire to Key Largo to sip
mai tais. Bloodbaths didn't enter into the 3/5th rule. It was
about slave-based economics first, and then economics and
the romance of the self-proclaimed agrarian society, and now
when people swoon about the old south and states' rights,
all they are remembering is the romance. Not the blood.

Ben
post #123 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

In article
<969b9262-c319-480b-88c8-843a4e295348@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote:

> What I wrote was indecorous, but it was not wrong.
> While Madison may have hoped for the end of slavery -
> and you'll notice it took much longer and more blood
> than he hoped - many of the slave-state founders did not.
> Furthermore, decent men among the founders made a
> moral compromise in order to keep states (particularly
> South Carolina and Georgia) in the union. Many of them
> knew this was a great flaw in the Constitution, although
> I don't believe any of them predicted the magnitude
> of the bloodshed it would take to resolve the unresolvable
> dilemma of a document that enshrines democracy and
> equality while effectively recognizing slavery. Having
> effectively put slavery into the Constitution, it became
> impossible to take it out, and the result was a slaughter
> on a previously unknown industrial scale.


I think you overestimate the importance moral attitudes
toward slavery had in the hostilities circa 1861-1865.
Industrialization had gotten going in the north and the
north was kicking southern ass. Overt slavery was losing
big time to wage slavery and interchangeable parts.
The south missed the economic boat and were looking to
cut a better deal. They lost hugely.

Shermans's march through Georgia? That was a practice
run. Fort Sumter is in South Carolina, and that is
where Sherman went after he perfected his scorched
earth holocaust.

--
Michael Press
post #124 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

Howard ask

>Hey Mike, you were recently (in this thread, as a
>matter of fact) complaining about being "taken out of context."
>Wouldn't you say that's what this is?


No Howard, what "this" _is_actually is hypocrisy, on _your_ part.
Maybe I missed where you were defending me when Paul G.'s levelled his
racist charge against me.
You just stepped in it good Howard. The choice is yours, keeping
getting in deeper or back-out now. Let's see if you can do the right
thing.

just regards - Mike Baldwin
post #125 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

Ben wrote;

>What I wrote was indecorous, but it was not wrong.
>While Madison may have hoped for the end of slavery
>- and you'll notice it took much longer and more
>blood than he hoped - many of the slave-state founders
>did not. Furthermore, decent men among the founders made a
>moral compromise in order to keep states (particularly South Carolina
>and Georgia) in the union. Many of them knew this
>was a great flaw in the Constitution, although I don't
>believe any of them predicted the magnitude of the bloodshed
>it would take to resolve the unresolvable dilemma of a
>document that enshrines democracy and equality while effectively

recognizing slavery.
>Having effectively put slavery into the Constitution, it became

impossible
>to take it out, and the result was a slaughter
>on a previously unknown industrial scale.

Hello Ben - I _sincerely_ appreciate your thoughtful, factual, accurate
rebuttal.
I think we'd both discover more common ground on this subject in a
more conducive venue then "abusenet".
You're exactly right. The Framers & Founders _had_ to strike great
compromise in order to even form the nation which would be known as the
"united states". And while it's true the then huge territorial state of
Georgia was very willing to break away, so to was New York.
I'm of close acquaintance with a gentleman who teaches Civil War
History at a major university. Your points mirror his to great degree.
Especially the point over the amount of "miscalculated bloodshed".
Well I do again wish to say I sincerely appreciate the effort you've
put forth in having a real discussion.
In closing I've included a portion of Lincoln's Springfield
addresses that really summarizes my POV.

Best Regards! - Mike Baldwin


They [the Declarations signers] meant simply to declare the right,
[equality] so enforcement of it may follow as fast as circumstances
should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society,
which would be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked
to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly obtained,
constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening
its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all
people of all colors everywhere. The assertion that "all men are created
equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from Great
Britain; and it was placed in the Declaration not for that, but for
future use. Its authors meant it to be as,- thank God -, it is now
proving itself - a stumbling block to all those who in after times might
seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism.
Abraham Lincoln
post #126 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

Michael Baldwin wrote:
> Howard ask
>
>> Hey Mike, you were recently (in this thread, as a
>> matter of fact) complaining about being "taken out of context."
>> Wouldn't you say that's what this is?

>
> No Howard, what "this" _is_actually is hypocrisy, on _your_ part.


You've assigned some meaning to Paul G's statement, but coyly left that
meaning implied. The Queen of Drama assumes you mean that Paul G hates
America. Being a drama queen, she's probably made too much of it.
post #127 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Michael Baldwin" <MLB5611@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:18642-47EDA7F4-334@storefull-3115.bay.webtv.net...
>
>> Personally, I can't wait to see the end of our
>> country as we now know it.

>
> Date: Fri, Mar 28, 2008, 10:28am (EDT-3) From: carbide@egine.com
> (Paul G.)
>
> Well I don't think that you could be more significant than that. What do
> you want to bet that changes of that nature would be far and away from
> what Paul G. would actually want? However, silly people often cut their
> own throats trying to piss off all of the authority figures around them.
>


This is RBR. No authority figures here, except for your pretend ones.
post #128 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Mar 28, 11:51 am, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 27, 7:35 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>> <FredFredbur...@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:
>>>> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>>>> The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
>>>>> kind. They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.
>>>> Right. Strangely, however, that's also what conservatives are.
>>> "Memo to Jonah Goldberg and National Review: free means free.
>>> Regulation means regulation, whether it is Robert Reich or Jack Kemp
>>> who write the regulations."
>>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman31.html
>>> http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?opt...ask=view&id=46
>>> In a two party system, such as in the USA, LIBERAL (not "liberals" in
>>> retarded pop parlance) are more or less forced to make hay in the
>>> opposition party. "Opposition" in the USA for the last century has
>>> basically meant coalescing to "Republican" because the ideological and
>>> political dominance came from democrats,

>> I was following perfectly up to this point. Political dominance in the
>> US does not come from the Democratic party. From 1932 to 1980, I'd buy
>> that. But today or even in 1996, not so obviously.
>>
>>> who are essentially
>>> socialists. The opposition has been focused on inhibiting the drift to
>>> statism: conservatives oppose because they conserve what already
>>> exists; LIBERALS because they believe in freedom.

>> I believe in the existence of such people. I believe that they would
>> have issues with both the Democratic and Republican parties.
>>
>>> A LIBERAL calling a truce with a conservative for the basic point of a
>>> common enemy (democrat-socialist) is really a case of an odd
>>> relationship, but one born of political reality. It so happens that
>>> "Republicans" are a far more diverse coalition due to the fact of
>>> political reality forcing the coalescence of disparate interests into
>>> one opposition, since political realities in democracies become,
>>> unfortunately, binary in nature. So as it goes, the democrat party is
>>> less diverse -- it represents monolithic statism with only minor
>>> detailed differences within.

>> I almost agree, but not quite. While I agree with your assessment of the
>> Democrats, I don't see any significant group in the Republican party
>> that favors liberty either. There are multiple groups in the Republican
>> party that would deny individual liberties in various ways. The statists
>> that would deny you the right to own guns and who favor social welfare
>> programs tend to be Democrats, all the other statists become Republicans.
>>
>> Yeah, some libertarians vote Republican. But that's only because they
>> get tired of voting for candidates who lose.
>>
>>> Heck, look at the democrats whacked prez
>>> primary selection procedure: it is the height of irony that
>>> "democrats" have no confidence in democracy.

>> Yep. It was strange when Kennedy made this type of noise in 1980, but
>> not completely indefensible. He had won a lot of the late primaries and
>> was more popular than Carter when the convention came around. So the
>> (lame) argument was that the primary results did not reflect (current)
>> public opinion. This time there's been no demonstrable shift in public
>> opinion and Clinton donors are apparently working to promote
>> overthrowing the primary results. When you threaten to take a
>> politician's money away, that's unAmerican!

>
> I think you might be asking for too fine of distinctions in a small
> post. Statists certainly exist in both _parties_, and I don't
> necessarily disagree with you on trends in the last 10-15 years or
> so. I am also not saying that any particular Republican was not a
> statist or was in opposition to advancing statism. My point was that
> more-or-less over the last 80y democrat politicians and the people who
> vote democrat are/were more monolithic in their statist impulses, but
> you could not be so sure for someone who decided to vote for a
> republican, as due to the political structure it was the only place
> for opposition to coalesce. "They may be, or they may not be." I am
> only suggesting the yardstick of uncertainty has been higher for the
> aggregate of persons who voted for a Republican.
>
> If the neo-cons are reaching parity with democrats, it might all be
> awash. A vote for either would be about the same, meaning even the
> opposition voter had no way to distinguish the margin, as vague as
> that notion can be. I'm not quite saying "it would not matter who
> gained power in that case," but that the voter would simply have
> grossly insufficient clues as to which political party/politician
> would turn out to be least bad -- which would harm him/her the least.
> The only hope then would be institutional strength (really balance).
>
> Also, I am not saying that _within_ those who have voted Republican in
> the past, the percentage of those who were LIBERALs made up a large
> fraction. I do think the percentage is probably small, but large
> enough to have swayed some prezidential and congressional elections.
> I am saying that when those people went and voted Republican, it was
> because that was the only place for them to go as _opposition_ to the
> dominant statist party (democrat) because of the nature of the
> political structure.
>
> To be a LIBERAL is to be in a small minority.
>


A large part of the difference in what we've said has to do with the
time period we're talking about. Many Republicans in the 60's and 70's
were more socialist than Democrats generally now. The rhetoric has
shifted "right", if not the actions.

I appreciate your precise use of the word "liberal". It seems you might
classify yourself both liberal and fiscal conservative. Which, while
reasonable, might cause someone's head to explode.
post #129 of 276
Thread Starter 

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:969b9262-c319-480b-88c8-843a4e295348@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> What I wrote was indecorous, but it was not wrong.


What would you consider "wrong"?

> Somebody in this thread gave the apologetic
> argument that the slaves couldn't have been freed in 1800
> without a bloodbath.


You still don't understand. There wasn't any MONEY at that time. Got that?
Without money everything is settled on the BARTER SYSTEM. If you freed
slaves then what did they have to barter? Their labor? For the uninitiated,
they didn't work very hard and produce very much and THAT is why the slavery
system would have resolved itself and Lincoln and most of the other
northerners knew that and that's why they were will to leave slavery alone
in order to maintain the union.

Perhaps the slaveholders didn't much care whether their (ex) slaves lived or
died if they were freed but most right thinking people in the north were
actually concerned about what would happen to the slaves if they were dumped
upon the labor market without the market being prepared.

What happened to the MAJORITY of slaves after the Civil War? They remained
on their plantations doing just what they'd done before.
post #130 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

Tom Kunich wrote:
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> news:969b9262-c319-480b-88c8-843a4e295348@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> What I wrote was indecorous, but it was not wrong.

>
> What would you consider "wrong"?
>
>> Somebody in this thread gave the apologetic
>> argument that the slaves couldn't have been freed in 1800
>> without a bloodbath.

>
> You still don't understand. There wasn't any MONEY at that time. Got
> that?


What has led you to this belief?
post #131 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:28:03 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote:

>On Mar 27, 5:47 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "RonSonic" <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:uniou3htpqp4dr6k7349hes0encg2uk7r0@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > I feel blessed to live in a country where conservatives and libertarians
>> > are
>> > frequently mistaken for one another. It's a mixed blessing in that they
>> > are
>> > often forced to make common cause, but good that they can.

>>
>> The problem is that although none of us like McCain, it looks like we must
>> vote for him to prevent either Obama or Hillary from getting in and seeing
>> the end of our country as we know it.

>
>Actually I liked the old John McCain. Unfortunately he had to drink
>the koolaid to get the Republican't nomination. He's now saying he's
>going to cut taxes and increase spending, the things that got us into
>this mess. The old John McCain was a balanced budget type, like Bill
>Clinton.
>
>Personally, I can't wait to see the end of our country as we now know
>it. Just imagine what you'd be saying if everything were exactly the
>same, but the president was named Al Gore. 9/11, all Gore sitting on
>his ass as the attack continues, the mess in Iraq, the mess in
>Afghanistan, Bin Laden alive and relaxing in his safe haven, people
>drowning in New Orleans while Al Gore vacations, $4/gallon gas, the
>housing disaster, multiple recessions, the dollar worth half what it
>was when Al Gore took office, etc etc.


Yeah, but with Gore we would've expected it.
post #132 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:35:36 -0400, MLB5611@webtv.net (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

>Ron wrote
>
>>I feel blessed to live in a country where conservatives
>>and libertarians are frequently mistaken for one another. It's a
>>mixed blessing in that they are often forced to make
>>common cause, but good that they can.

>
> Ron, I think you meant to write _Liberals_ and not "libertarians".
> I'm of _Libertarian_ persuasion. My personal philosophy is "the
>reward of freedom is responsibility". I cannot imagine a Liberal ever
>repeating those words little alone living by them.


That's the thing, most liberals (meaning those whom we now call "liberals")
would consider that a very conservative statement. As would most politically
ignorant people.

I used to be libertarian until I saw enough of human nature to distrust it
sufficiently as to become a conservative.

Ron
post #133 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:35:22 -0700, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredburger@Where.Are.The.Nachos> wrote:

>SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>>
>> The so-called "liberal" in modern pop politics lingo is nothing of the
>> kind. They are just statists, pure, simple, and stoopid as it is.
>>

>
>Right. Strangely, however, that's also what conservatives are.


Much less so and with more local autonomy. I know, I know. But the present bad
examples shouldn't be allowed to redefine the term.

Hell, I'm conservative enough to make an argument for monarchy.

Ron
post #134 of 276
Thread Starter 

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nudtu3hukpafqkvag54bsqjq8pnv71ni6u@4ax.com...
>
> I used to be libertarian until I saw enough of human nature to distrust it
> sufficiently as to become a conservative.


Consider my position - I used to be a John Kennedy Liberal and not one of my
belief's have changed and now I'm considered extreme right wing. Imagine
what that has to say about today's Liberalism.
post #135 of 276

Re: Somehow No One Seems To Think

>Ron wrote
>I feel blessed to live in a country where conservatives
>and libertarians are frequently mistaken for one another. It's a
>mixed blessing in that they are often forced to make
>common cause, but good that they can.
>Ron, I think you meant to write _Liberals_ and not
>"libertarians". I'm of _Libertarian_ persuasion. My personal philosophy

is "the
>reward of freedom is responsibility". I cannot imagine a Liberal
>ever repeating those words little alone living by them.
>That's the thing, most liberals (meaning those whom we now
>call "liberals") would consider that a very conservative statement. As
>would most politically ignorant people.
>I used to be libertarian until I saw enough of
>human nature to distrust it sufficiently as to become a
>conservative.


Ron that last sentence is interesting indeed. Respectfully I'd like
offer another perspective. Are we truly "seeing" human nature in these
current times?
How much of our everyday trappings are falsely supported by an over
reaching state?
Examples include;
The tax code is actually the rule book for the "game" of political
corruption.
The farce that is public education guarantees government a measurable
means of bloodless control.
And finally, the only thing Social Security "insures" is that
politicians will always have most of the peoples attention at least some
of the time.
Hell, the Jerry Springer show isn't a reflection of our society in as
much as it's a example of governments "success".

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Road Cycling
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Somehow No One Seems To Think