Somehow No One Seems To Think



<[email protected]> 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.
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> <[email protected]> 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?
 
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 10:28:03 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mar 27, 5:47 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>>
>> > 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.
 
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:35:36 -0400, [email protected] (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
 
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:35:22 -0700, Fred Fredburger
<[email protected]> 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
 
"RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.
 
>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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (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.
> 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.


What an interesting post, Mike - I like the vaguely menacing tone. Yes, there's
some hypocrisy going on here but it isn't me. As for me not defending you when Paul
called you a racist ("You said: "Next, simply free the slaves... Again this
option was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian reasons."
You clearly said the slave owners kept their slaves "for humanitarian
reasons". It doesn't get much more racist than that." [1]), well, he does have
something of a point (though I wouldn't have been so forthright about it, perhaps
saying that you were giving racists a pass). And that's why I didn't defend you on it.

Secondly, that's immaterial to the issue I brought up. You chopped a single
sentence out of one of his posts that without the rest of the post (the context, you
know) becomes very incendiary and the meaning of which is completely changed. That,
Mike, is poor form. Obviously, you chose to go that route for a reason. I'd bet tall
cash that Tom Kunich read Paul's original post, but he chose to reply to *your*
variation on it. That would be the Tom Kunich who has advocated the lynching of
Democrats but whose original post in this thread was about suggesting that "Liberals"
were going to be fascistic and limit the speech of people. If that's who you want to
ally yourself with, that's fine but sometimes one is judged by the company they keep.
Just sayin'.

And just for the sake of clarity, I'll add in the part of Paul's post that you
snipped.

"[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.

"The Republican'ts can't get anything right."

[1] http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/f863a49b8e6f7cd6

--
tanx,
Howard

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

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
 
Howard Kveck wrote:

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


To the extent that anyone's talking about the end of anything, it's just
in response to our resident Drama Queen who once again raised the issue.
"End of the USA/Civilization/Universe" is a recognizable Kunichism.
We're all gonna die. It's a liberal plot. Etc.

I sometimes suspect that Kunich is a liberal who acts the way he does in
order to make all Republicans appear insane. It's working.
 
On Mar 29, 1:18 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> 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.


WTF, Kunich. Even for you, this is batshit crazy.
We are talking crazier than the homeless guy downtown
with a cardboard sign about how the President is spying
on him (OK, I'm not sure he actually is crazy, or wrong,
but the rest of you know what I mean).

First, even if there had been no money, what does that
have to do with making it impossible to free slaves. And
the comments you make about slave labor sound like
something out of a paternalistic 1900s apologist text about
how good the slaves had it. But leave all that alone.

Where did you get this no-money idea? The early USA
wasn't some kind of primitive hunter-gatherer society.
They were colonials of the British Empire and understood
money perfectly well. The Continental Congress and the
states started printing paper money around 1775 to finance
the Revolutionary War. So there was money even before
there was a fully independent nation. If anything, there
was too much money, as in too many different issuing
authorities; after the Constitution was set up in 1789, they
rationalized it into a single currency and central bank
(an arrogation of federal authority that Greg White has
never gotten over, but I digress).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar
http://www.ronscurrency.com/rhist.htm

So, why do you deny the reality and history of the
US Constitution and the dollar and hate America?

Ben
 
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> I sometimes suspect that Kunich is a liberal who acts the way he does in
> order to make all Republicans appear insane. It's working.


I get it. Bush is really a liberal who acts the way he does in order to
make all neo-cons appear insane.

Hang on a second though, don't the neo-cons appear insane without
needing any help ?
 
[email protected] wrote:
> If anything, there was too much money, as in too many
> different issuing authorities; after the Constitution was set up in 1789,
> they rationalized it into a single currency and central bank (an
> arrogation of federal authority that Greg White has never gotten over, but
> I digress).


You mean our SLAVE has been sponsoring fatty master teams doing afternoon
training rides since the 1700's ? No wonder he's so cranky.
 
Howard copies a _direct_ quote, and the uses it out of context to call
me a racist!

>You said:   "Next, simply free the slaves... Again this
>option was not chosen by the anti-abolitionists for humanitarian

reasons."
>You clearly said the slave owners kept their slaves "for
>humanitarian reasons". It doesn't get much more racist than that."


Again Howard, the point _IS_ not all _abolitionist_ had the _slaves_
best interest in mind in opposing slavery. Example, Van Buren despised
slavery, but he hated slaves even more, _FACT_. Liberia was established
by _ABOLITIONISTS_.
You are, by choice, ignoring the emancipation faction. They opposed
slavery _and_ the exportation of slaves back to Africa. They were
ANTI-slavery & ANTI-abolitionist.
Within this tangent of the thread, there's been _NO_ comment on the
Lincoln / Springfield address that I've now quoted twice. To paraphrase
Lincoln, he said the Framers & Founders got it right.
What I _did_ say was, I've yet to note a flaw in their _original_
work. The Declaration of Independence _and_ The Constitution were
drafted to announce to the _world_ ,independence from Great Britain and
how these new states could remain united in their independence through
compromise.
And Howard, I've yet to say "slave owners kept slaves for
humanitarian reasons".
I fully expect to be mocked by modern day Liberals ignorant of the
period correct language, terms and phrases. I'll never understand how
Liberals can lie, even to themselves though, just in order to re-write
history.

.....yes, we landed in Bosnia under sniper fire...


just regards - Mike Baldwin
 
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:05:02 -0400, [email protected] (Michael Baldwin) wrote:

>>Ron wrote


>>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".


There is the danger of an over-powerful state that meddles, distorts and
corrupts, I'd say we're seeing a lot of that in this country. There is also the
far worse condition of local and popular tyranny which you see in places with
weak states. We have the luxury of not having experienced those in this country,
much. There have been exceptions, some urban areas where police are either
unwelcome or have become a gang unto themselves. Those places have far crueller
problems than my fusses with the zoning board. The same with small towns and
rural counties that often existed outside state governance. Honest, the company
town was bad. So's the county run by the one rich family and the village that
happily beats into conformity whomever it disdains or anyone disliked by a
sufficiently fearsome faction.

I'd rather have an elected government to lobby, persuade or fight; or even a
baron or prince to assassinate than have a mob, gang or syndicate with which to
negotiate. Anarchy turns to mobs and feudalism. These rule where there is no
state to assert power or where that power has abdicated.

I think far too many libertarians fail to realize the foundations of peace and
order necessary to make their philosophy possible. Not that they are wrong to
resent the intrusiveness of the modern state, they are wrong to not acknowledge
the need of state power in some things. Sorta like the pacifists who don't
realize how dead, raped and robbed they would be in the absence of someone
willing to do violence on their behalf. Sometimes it takes a big, ugly someone,
and that someone is the state. Indeed keep the thing on a leash, but don't
complain that your guard dog ***** the lawn. Or do, but with the understanding
that this is its nature.

Ron
 
[email protected] wrote:

> So, why do you deny the reality and history of the
> US Constitution and the dollar and hate America?


He's also an atheist. Money is mentioned in the Bible, so it predates
1800 by at least 1800 years. Any Christian would know that.
 
Ron writes

>I think far too many libertarians fail to realize the
>foundations of peace and order necessary to make their philosophy
>possible. Not that they are wrong to resent the intrusiveness
>of the modern state, they are wrong to not acknowledge
>the need of state power in some things.


Ron, here I'm in total agreement with you. I've been alone in the
Libertarian wilderness since 1973.
Once in awhile someone comes along claiming to be a Libertarian when in
fact their philosophy is little more than "bong-anarchy".

Thanks for the sharing your POV.

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:af35f894-59d9-4b94-8a12-797b200841d3@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> WTF, Kunich. Even for you, this is batshit crazy.


Too bad you'd fallen from someone capable of discussion to someone that
reacts like some sort of idiot.

> First, even if there had been no money, what does that
> have to do with making it impossible to free slaves.


Here's a hint - it was already illegal to import slaves. Instead they were
importing people who signed contracts to work several years to pay off their
transportation fees. These were overwhelmingly white Brits and something
like 80% of them died worked to death and those who survived often had to
sign another contract to find work at all and get fed. Slaves were an
investment and hence were treated a great deal better than these contract
laborers.

I wonder why you would rather go off into outer space arguing about total
**** instead of using this group to have sane discussions. You used to be
one of the more intelligent posters here and now you're something akin to a
moron.
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3350a458-5328-4009-9a60-3e207995f16e@c26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 8:16 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
> He got to pick up the pieces of folks with second rate body
> armor, and thin skinned vehicles, but is still blind to the reality.


Tell me Bill, what do you know about body armor and armored vehicles? Do you
suppose that if they can prove that there is stronger armor that they ought
to cease their patrols, cancel their actions and wait until such time as
they can totally replace the body armor and vehicular armor?

Why are you being led around by the nose by moronic fools who haven't a clue
what they're about?
 
On Mar 30, 3:41 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3350a458-5328-4009-9a60-3e207995f16e@c26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 30, 8:16 am, Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > He got to pick up the pieces of folks with second rate body
> > armor, and thin skinned vehicles, but is still blind to the reality.

>
> Tell me Bill, what do you know about body armor and armored vehicles? Do you
> suppose that if they can prove that there is stronger armor that they ought
> to cease their patrols, cancel their actions and wait until such time as
> they can totally replace the body armor and vehicular armor?
>
> Why are you being led around by the nose by moronic fools who haven't a clue
> what they're about?


Tom go read through what's happening, over at SFTT and talk to me
then. I'm only going on 25 years experience, and direct contact with
the military. Martial cultures, and our military were the focus of
study since I was a kid. My wife still works for the military, so
while I'm not an expert I have a pretty good idea, and I know how and
where to find real experts. SFTT is a great place to start.
Miltary.com has lots of good stuff, and GlobalSecurity.org is great.
Blind defense of the folks in the Pentagon is ridiculous. How'd you
feel about things when Cohen was SecDef and Shelton was CJCS? How
about Wesley Clark?
Tom I could tell a bunch of stories and folks who helped me form my
opinions, but 3 of the most influential were a family member who was
one of the few to go in with Merrill's Marauders and walk out at the
end, toughest ol ******* you'd ever want to meet. A guy named Robert
"Bob" Cleary who was this wiry, tough, old retired Marine who used to
kick my ass at the gym in Kaiserslautern. Read his hand tooled lifting
belt one day. "Dedicated to SMMC Bullet Bob". Look him up. The last
was a SFC at Augsburg, who on his 2nd of 3 tours, was at the embassy
in Saigon during Tet.
I was blessed that these folks bothered with a snot nosed punk like
me. Those are the type of folks who are over at SFTT. We can support
our folks by getting them the best equipment out there, not burying
our heads in the sand.
Bill C
 
[email protected] wrote:
> WTF, Kunich. Even for you, this is batshit crazy.
> We are talking crazier than the homeless guy downtown
> with a cardboard sign about how the President is spying
> on him (OK, I'm not sure he actually is crazy, or wrong,
> but the rest of you know what I mean).


If you recall, I wrote him to scan the internets, especially
news sites, to allow him to reference current events. With
this being an election year I'm not particularly surprised.

Bob Schwartz
 

Similar threads

A
Replies
7
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Q