Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

the "new" Obama School of Racism

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • the "new" Obama School of Racism

    Race-baiters have been very busy making us hate each other... for nothing ! But it puts money in their pockets and gets THEM great publicity.

    When will we tune out these dirty fools who do nothing but talk us into hating and killing each other ??

    The whole bizarre notion of everlasting hatred between different races is stupid, ignorant, and malicious beyond belief.

    Why?

    Because it fits none of the facts, and it suits all of the divide-and-conquer demagoguery of the left. Biology is more complicated than the newest racist fascist fashion. Live with it, dummies.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Sane people have to wonder at the doped up left on the campuses, which keeps trying to turn reality upside-down.

    Today we hear that the AP has a new "history textbook" with the premise that "white people have a hard time adjusting to becoming a minority."

    This is another Marxist lie, of course, and it is also racist and malicious.

    Obama kept dropping hints that Caucasian Americans didn't build this country. It is statistically false and misleading, and it accuses American whites of racism more than half a century after the Civil Right Revolution. This is utter and complete trash, and by implication, it is racist, of course.

    Hillary proclaimed that normal people who voted for Trump are "deplorables." But of course it's Hillary and Obama who are the extreme demagogues, outliers in the long course of human civilization on the great Eurasian continent, in the Americas, in Africa, and in the Indo-Pacific region.

    Polynesians are not black. Chinese are not black. Malay peoples are not black. The Irish are not black, except for the ones born to Spanish sailors. Africans in the Maghreb are not black. The famous San click-speaking peoples of Africa are not black. But equatorial peoples need a darker skin to avoid skin cancer. Big deal.

    Meso-Americans (who are Mongolians genetically) have a beautiful bronze color. So do some Eurasian peoples. The Andaman Islanders of Australia are black. Michelle Obama is a genuine African-American and therefore has a great mahogany color. Obama is half-white and half-Luo, and his skin is kind of yellowish. Go figure.

    This whole AP "history text" is part of the old Marxist divide-and-conquer strategy that has taken over our precious universities, largely by fear and mob intimidation, and certainly not by rational persuasion. Rational persuasion is dead. The left has killed it, the way it always does.

    But our tradition the tradition of civilized peoples around the world is not the Nazi-like Farrakhan race-hate that too many young people are being taught. This is a huge, mendacious scandal, and it's about time to call them on it. The U.S. Constitution is not white. It is a product of the greatest and most successful political tradition in human history, and its basic insights are the most anti-racist in history. Since the AP has been peddling "racist anti-racism" it's about time for parents and teachers to speak up against this trash, and to tell kids never to buy it. Or, as Churchill had it, never, never, never, never!

    It is high time to take our education system back from the new fascists, whatever color they claim to be. It is their minds that are poisoned. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. probably had both African and Caucasian ancestors. Who cares?

    These people are so deluded that truth may not make much of a dent in their skulls, but we must try.

    Where to start?

    The New Racism is just like the "Kill Whitey" theme peddled by Obama's portrait ah-tist, Kehinde Wiley. "Kill Whitey" is Wiley's own interpretation of his White House masterpiece for Obama, and if that's the case, it should be withdrawn by Obama today. It is beyond scandalous. We want no symbols of race-hatred in our White House. Take it away and burn it.

    The whole bizarre notion of everlasting hatred between different races is stupid, ignorant, and malicious beyond belief. Why? Because it fits none of the facts, and it suits all of the divide-and-conquer demagoguery of the left. Biology is more complicated than the newest racist fascist fashion. Live with it, dummies.

    Now, about the claim of whites becoming a minority in the United States, always the hate target it is false and bizarre beyond belief.

    First of all, so-called "white" industrial and computer technology, even the plumbing used by AP fake history writers all that stuff comes from Europe or North America. It turns out that the Chinese had all those inventions around the same time, but the Mandarin class in China prohibited the spread of that beneficial science and technology.

    What is cool and distinctive about European culture is that nobody could slam the lid on benevolent inventions (although they tried). So the lesson of "white" culture is freedom, free speech, free thought, and especially freedom from the ignorant power-mongers of the world.

    The new racism is putrid, just like the old racism. If the AP goes through with this racist fake history, every decent person in the world should boycott the AP.

    Conservatives don't use boycotts often enough, and the left therefore wins by intimidation.

    This is stupid, conservatives. Stop being stupid.


    Marxism-Leninism is a so-called "white" phenomenon, but revolutions and genocide are unfortunately a shared human misery. In Obama's childhood home of Jakarta, the Overseas Chinese were scapegoated. In Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta killed white British farm families by cutting off heads, but when Obama Sr. arrived on the scene (after the revolutionary war), Mr. Kenyatta took a dislike to him, and Mr. O Sr. had two consecutive drunk driving accidents. The second one killed him.

    The ancestors of most current African-Americans were Bantu-speaking people, who were raided, raped, and kidnapped by other African tribes, who brought those painful caravans of human beings in chains to Arab Muslim slave-traders, where they were sold to mostly Caucasian slave ships for the horrible trans-Atlantic voyages. Arabs are a kind of tanned Caucasian people, and the Maghreb (North African) population, and the Egyptians, are not black. They look quite different.

    African tribes colluded in the kidnapping and sale of other Africans, because human tribes have always traded in human slaves.

    I'm sorry it's very a bad thing, but it's true. The Vikings took white slaves in Europe; the Arabs raided the south of England until well into the 19th century; and yes, African tribes routinely raided and enslaved other African tribes.

    The Atlantic slave trade was finally abolished after a long campaign by white Christian abolitionists in Britain and America, a campaign that also ultimately gave us the Civil War. Close to a million Americans died to make men free. Almost all of them were white.

    Glory, glory, Hallejujah!


    The truth is marching on!

    This hymn is definitely not in the new race-baiting AP "textbook" of mendacious fake history. Make sure your children are never indoctrinated in that pack of malignant lies.

    You can take kids smart enough to go to Harvard, and by simple indoctrination you can make them dumb as a brick wall. That is what we are dealing with here, paid for by the usual billionaires.

    This is a time to speak out, please.



    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...re_poison.html

  • #2
    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
    Race-baiters have been very busy making us hate each other... for nothing ! But it puts money in their pockets and gets THEM great publicity.

    When will we tune out these dirty fools who do nothing but talk us into hating and killing each other ??

    The whole bizarre notion of everlasting hatred between different races is stupid, ignorant, and malicious beyond belief.

    Why?

    Because it fits none of the facts, and it suits all of the divide-and-conquer demagoguery of the left. Biology is more complicated than the newest racist fascist fashion. Live with it, dummies.



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Sane people have to wonder at the doped up left on the campuses, which keeps trying to turn reality upside-down.

    Today we hear that the AP has a new "history textbook" with the premise that "white people have a hard time adjusting to becoming a minority."

    This is another Marxist lie, of course, and it is also racist and malicious.

    Obama kept dropping hints that Caucasian Americans didn't build this country. It is statistically false and misleading, and it accuses American whites of racism more than half a century after the Civil Right Revolution. This is utter and complete trash, and by implication, it is racist, of course.

    Hillary proclaimed that normal people who voted for Trump are "deplorables." But of course it's Hillary and Obama who are the extreme demagogues, outliers in the long course of human civilization on the great Eurasian continent, in the Americas, in Africa, and in the Indo-Pacific region.

    Polynesians are not black. Chinese are not black. Malay peoples are not black. The Irish are not black, except for the ones born to Spanish sailors. Africans in the Maghreb are not black. The famous San click-speaking peoples of Africa are not black. But equatorial peoples need a darker skin to avoid skin cancer. Big deal.

    Meso-Americans (who are Mongolians genetically) have a beautiful bronze color. So do some Eurasian peoples. The Andaman Islanders of Australia are black. Michelle Obama is a genuine African-American and therefore has a great mahogany color. Obama is half-white and half-Luo, and his skin is kind of yellowish. Go figure.

    This whole AP "history text" is part of the old Marxist divide-and-conquer strategy that has taken over our precious universities, largely by fear and mob intimidation, and certainly not by rational persuasion. Rational persuasion is dead. The left has killed it, the way it always does.

    But our tradition the tradition of civilized peoples around the world is not the Nazi-like Farrakhan race-hate that too many young people are being taught. This is a huge, mendacious scandal, and it's about time to call them on it. The U.S. Constitution is not white. It is a product of the greatest and most successful political tradition in human history, and its basic insights are the most anti-racist in history. Since the AP has been peddling "racist anti-racism" it's about time for parents and teachers to speak up against this trash, and to tell kids never to buy it. Or, as Churchill had it, never, never, never, never!
    ....

    This hymn is definitely not in the new race-baiting AP "textbook" of mendacious fake history. Make sure your children are never indoctrinated in that pack of malignant lies.

    You can take kids smart enough to go to Harvard, and by simple indoctrination you can make them dumb as a brick wall. That is what we are dealing with here, paid for by the usual billionaires.

    This is a time to speak out, please.



    https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...re_poison.html
    Sure, there is some crap on the left about widespread racism, or splitting hairs between ignorance, bigotry and racism. Racism is one form of genetic-based bigotry, falling under the more general heading of "ignorance". If some claim that only whites can be racist, while accepting that all ethnic groups can practice the principle dysfunction of bigotry, then perhaps you and I can agree -that is merely splitting hairs on an ignorant head.

    OTOH, the claim in your OP that the US constitution has no defect based on ignorance -if you prefer to avoid the term "racism"- is patently false. Your homework assignment for today: The "3/5 rule (or compromise)" in the original constitution. Then there is the lack of application of said document for some 100 years after the Civil War, aka "Jim Crow" laws. Proceed.

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by radcentr View Post

      Sure, there is some crap on the left about widespread racism, or splitting hairs between ignorance, bigotry and racism. Racism is one form of genetic-based bigotry, falling under the more general heading of "ignorance". If some claim that only whites can be racist, while accepting that all ethnic groups can practice the principle dysfunction of bigotry, then perhaps you and I can agree -that is merely splitting hairs on an ignorant head.

      OTOH, the claim in your OP that the US constitution has no defect based on ignorance -if you prefer to avoid the term "racism"- is patently false. Your homework assignment for today: The "3/5 rule (or compromise)" in the original constitution. Then there is the lack of application of said document for some 100 years after the Civil War, aka "Jim Crow" laws. Proceed.
      I t all reminds of the White man's burden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by radcentr View Post
        Sure, there is some crap on the left about widespread racism, or splitting hairs between ignorance, bigotry and racism. Racism is one form of genetic-based bigotry, falling under the more general heading of "ignorance". If some claim that only whites can be racist, while accepting that all ethnic groups can practice the principle dysfunction of bigotry, then perhaps you and I can agree -that is merely splitting hairs on an ignorant head.

        OTOH, the claim in your OP that the US constitution has no defect based on ignorance -if you prefer to avoid the term "racism"- is patently false. Your homework assignment for today: The "3/5 rule (or compromise)" in the original constitution. Then there is the lack of application of said document for some 100 years after the Civil War, aka "Jim Crow" laws. Proceed.
        I find this;

        The U.S. Constitution is not white. It is a product of the greatest and most successful political tradition in human history, and its basic insights are the most anti-racist in history.

        I believe is the statement you refer to.

        The statement that the constitution is "not white" IS a true statement. . in the context we're in here. It's not black or yellow or about race at all.

        As for the 3/5, Constitutional racism rule myth you mention, here's what we have

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        ...the three-fifths clause has nothing to do with the idea that black slaves were being described as three-fifths of a white person.

        The issue of slavery was a major concern at the Constitutional Convention and was discussed at length in the debates. A significant minority of the delegates to the Federal Convention were staunch opponents of slavery, primarily those who adhered to the Federalist philosophy. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton opposed slavery. John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, was president of the New York anti-slavery society. Northern Federalist leaders Rufus King and Gouvernour Morris were outspoken opponents of slavery and the slave trade.

        Elias Boudinot (17401821), who was a lawyer, served three congressional terms representing New Jersey (17891795), was a delegate to the Continental Congress, and presided as President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783, making him the chief executive officer of the United States. Boudinot signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that ended the Revolutionary War. He was an early opponent of slavery. Southern and Border State Federalists also openly opposed the institution.1 Many people do not know that the original Constitution words race, slavery, slave, white, or black. Such omissions are curious since there are many who view the Constitution as a racist document. Actually, the word slavery did not enter the Constitution until after the War Between the States in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.

        The so-called racist intent of the Constitution is seen by some (many?) in the three-fifths clause found in Article I, section 2, clause 3. Contrary to what some historians claim, the three-fifths clause is a clear indication that a number of our constitutional founders wanted to end slavery; it is not a statement about personhood. The Northern states did not want to count slaves. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the population statistics in order to acquire additional representation in Congress to advance their political position.

        It took 30,000 people to get one congressman, and slaves outnumbered whites in slave states. It was the Democrat hope that with enough pro-slavery congressmen, they could overturn much of the abolitionist legislation Northern Republicans had previously passed.

        However, there was one philosophical problem: blacks in Southern states had no rights thus The North deemed it a joke they only be counted when beneficial to Democrats. Northern abolitionists argued that since the South considered blacks their property, all property should be counted for the purpose of determining congressional representation. Thus the Northern abolitionists would include their property: horses, cattle, homes, furniture, pets, etc. in their population tallies.

        The South denounced the proposal, so anti-slavery northerner James Wilson of Pennsylvania came up with a compromise. Blacks in the Southern states would be counted as three-fifths of a person. That way, it would take 50,000 people (instead of 30,000) in a district to earn congressional representation. That had the effect of limiting the power of the slave states.


        The compromise was to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of the pro-slavery Southern states.

        The goal of the Northern delegates was to dilute Southern voting strength so as to outlaw slavery by constitutional means.

        The struggle that took place in the convention was between the Southern delegates trying to strengthen the constitutional supports for slavery and the Northern delegates trying to weaken them.2 If none of the slaves had been included in the population count for representation, as Northern delegates wanted, the slave states would have had only 41 percent of the seats in the House. If all the slaves had been included, as the pro-slave states wanted, the slave states would have had 50 percent of the seats. By agreeing to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, the slaveholding states ended up with a minority voting position47 percent. Robert L. Goldwin concludes:

        [T]he point is that the three-fifths clause had nothing at all to do with measuring the human worth of blacks. Northern delegates did not want black slaves included, not because they thought them unworthy of being counted, but because they wanted to weaken the slaveholding power in Congress. Southern delegates wanted every slave to count equally with the Whites, not because they wanted to proclaim that black slaves were human beings on an equal footing with free white persons, but because they wanted to increase the pro-slavery voting power in Congress.

        The humanity of blacks was not the subject of the three-fifths clause; voting power in Congress was the subject.3

        Was it right for the Northern delegates to agree to this compromise? We will never know. Second guessing the actions of men who lived two-hundred years ago is a waste of time and energy. Distorting the facts of history is reprehensible.


        https://americanvision.org/3918/the-...e-fifths-myth/

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

          I find this;

          The U.S. Constitution is not white. It is a product of the greatest and most successful political tradition in human history, and its basic insights are the most anti-racist in history.

          I believe is the statement you refer to.

          The statement that the constitution is "not white" IS a true statement. . in the context we're in here. It's not black or yellow or about race at all.

          As for the 3/5, Constitutional racism rule myth you mention, here's what we have

          -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          ...the three-fifths clause has nothing to do with the idea that black slaves were being described as three-fifths of a white person.

          The issue of slavery was a major concern at the Constitutional Convention and was discussed at length in the debates. A significant minority of the delegates to the Federal Convention were staunch opponents of slavery, primarily those who adhered to the Federalist philosophy. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton opposed slavery. John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, was president of the New York anti-slavery society. Northern Federalist leaders Rufus King and Gouvernour Morris were outspoken opponents of slavery and the slave trade.

          Elias Boudinot (17401821), who was a lawyer, served three congressional terms representing New Jersey (17891795), was a delegate to the Continental Congress, and presided as President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783, making him the chief executive officer of the United States. Boudinot signed the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that ended the Revolutionary War. He was an early opponent of slavery. Southern and Border State Federalists also openly opposed the institution.1 Many people do not know that the original Constitution words race, slavery, slave, white, or black. Such omissions are curious since there are many who view the Constitution as a racist document. Actually, the word slavery did not enter the Constitution until after the War Between the States in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.

          The so-called racist intent of the Constitution is seen by some (many?) in the three-fifths clause found in Article I, section 2, clause 3. Contrary to what some historians claim, the three-fifths clause is a clear indication that a number of our constitutional founders wanted to end slavery; it is not a statement about personhood. The Northern states did not want to count slaves. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the population statistics in order to acquire additional representation in Congress to advance their political position.

          It took 30,000 people to get one congressman, and slaves outnumbered whites in slave states. It was the Democrat hope that with enough pro-slavery congressmen, they could overturn much of the abolitionist legislation Northern Republicans had previously passed.

          However, there was one philosophical problem: blacks in Southern states had no rights thus The North deemed it a joke they only be counted when beneficial to Democrats. Northern abolitionists argued that since the South considered blacks their property, all property should be counted for the purpose of determining congressional representation. Thus the Northern abolitionists would include their property: horses, cattle, homes, furniture, pets, etc. in their population tallies.

          The South denounced the proposal, so anti-slavery northerner James Wilson of Pennsylvania came up with a compromise. Blacks in the Southern states would be counted as three-fifths of a person. That way, it would take 50,000 people (instead of 30,000) in a district to earn congressional representation. That had the effect of limiting the power of the slave states.


          The compromise was to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted the fewer number of representatives. It had NOTHING to do with the worth of a person and EVERYTHING to do with diminishing the power of the pro-slavery Southern states.

          The goal of the Northern delegates was to dilute Southern voting strength so as to outlaw slavery by constitutional means.

          The struggle that took place in the convention was between the Southern delegates trying to strengthen the constitutional supports for slavery and the Northern delegates trying to weaken them.2 If none of the slaves had been included in the population count for representation, as Northern delegates wanted, the slave states would have had only 41 percent of the seats in the House. If all the slaves had been included, as the pro-slave states wanted, the slave states would have had 50 percent of the seats. By agreeing to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, the slaveholding states ended up with a minority voting position47 percent. Robert L. Goldwin concludes:

          [T]he point is that the three-fifths clause had nothing at all to do with measuring the human worth of blacks. Northern delegates did not want black slaves included, not because they thought them unworthy of being counted, but because they wanted to weaken the slaveholding power in Congress. Southern delegates wanted every slave to count equally with the Whites, not because they wanted to proclaim that black slaves were human beings on an equal footing with free white persons, but because they wanted to increase the pro-slavery voting power in Congress.

          The humanity of blacks was not the subject of the three-fifths clause; voting power in Congress was the subject.3

          Was it right for the Northern delegates to agree to this compromise? We will never know. Second guessing the actions of men who lived two-hundred years ago is a waste of time and energy. Distorting the facts of history is reprehensible.


          https://americanvision.org/3918/the-...e-fifths-myth/
          Of course it wasn't about race. It was about slavery and how to count those -er, "subjects" for purposes of representation in the House of Reps.

          -Do you really believe that argument?

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            Of course it wasn't about race. It was about slavery and how to count those -er, "subjects" for purposes of representation in the House of Reps.

            -Do you really believe that argument?
            It's not an argument, it's the factual history of what happened and why it happened.

            The north wanted to outlaw slavery.

            The south didn't.

            The south wanted the slave to be counted in order to continue, in a way enslaving himself !!

            The north wanted to "..dilute Southern voting strength so as to outlaw slavery by constitutional means."

            Because; "...The Northern states did not want to count slaves. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the population statistics in order to acquire additional representation in Congress to advance their political position."

            Take the time to read - https://americanvision.org/3918/the-...e-fifths-myth/

            By the way, slavery itself has zero to do with "racism."

            If it did, peoples of the same races all over the globe throughout history, wouldn't have made slaves of one another.

            Racism and slavery are two different applications of human ignorance and cruelty. That's all.

            The North wanted to end it. The South did not.

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

              It's not an argument, it's the factual history of what happened and why it happened.

              The north wanted to outlaw slavery.

              The south didn't.

              The south wanted the slave to be counted in order to continue, in a way enslaving himself !!

              The north wanted to "..dilute Southern voting strength so as to outlaw slavery by constitutional means."

              Because; "...The Northern states did not want to count slaves. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the population statistics in order to acquire additional representation in Congress to advance their political position."

              Take the time to read - https://americanvision.org/3918/the-...e-fifths-myth/

              By the way, slavery itself has zero to do with "racism."

              If it did, peoples of the same races all over the globe throughout history, wouldn't have made slaves of one another.

              Racism and slavery are two different applications of human ignorance and cruelty. That's all.

              The North wanted to end it. The South did not.
              I read the article, which depends heavily on ignoring the racial basis of slavery in that part of the world, at that time. The confederate states depended on biblical references to Ham (among other passages), which they interpreted as racial and/or ethnic inferiority. Their use of the general state of slavery in biblical times was used in conjunction with, not apart from, references to Ham and "inferior races". Let's start here...
              ... Social Reasons

              Just as women are called to play a subordinate role (Eph. 5:22; 1 Tim. 2:1115), so slaves are stationed by God in their place.

              Slavery is Gods means of protecting and providing for an inferior race (suffering the curse of Ham in Gen. 9:25 or even the punishment of Cain in Gen. 4:12).
              http://www.christianitytoday.com/his...d-slavery.html

              If the slave-era south had legalized enslavement of anyone, regardless of race, do you think this would have made the "3/5 argument" stronger? Why do you believe a racial basis for slavery is worse than any other basis for the institution of slavery?

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                I read the article, which depends heavily on ignoring the racial basis of slavery in that part of the world, at that time. The confederate states depended on biblical references to Ham (among other passages), which they interpreted as racial and/or ethnic inferiority. Their use of the general state of slavery in biblical times was used in conjunction with, not apart from, references to Ham and "inferior races". Let's start here...
                Picking parts of Scripture out of context and using them to justify unjust, even criminal actions and behaviours, is nothing new to humanity.

                We don't just do it with Scripture, we do it with our own laws and tax codes too ! Our own "leaders" do this !!!

                Which tells us about the condition humanity is, and always has been in.

                The practice of slavery is condemned in Scripture.

                And he that steals a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. - Exodus 21:16

                If a man is found stealing a person of his brethren, the children of Israel, and makes a slave of him, or sells him, then
                that thief shall die. And you shall put evil away from among you
                . - Deuteronomy 24:7

                In Scripture, human slavery is a crime punishable by death.

                The same doctrine is also seen in the description of one of the crimes of the mystical "Mother of Harlots" in Revelations 18:13

                And cinnamon, and odors, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. - Revelations 18:13

                ...The merchants of these things, who were made rich by her, will stand far off because of the fear of her torment, weeping and mourning,.. - Revelations 18:15

                Death and destruction are found as punishments due those who pursue this kind of merchandise or traffic.

                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                If the slave-era south had legalized enslavement of anyone, regardless of race, do you think this would have made the "3/5 argument" stronger?
                That isn't relevant.

                The idea was used to put an end to the practice of slavery. Against anyone regardless of race.

                That race played a part in THIS historical instance of ignorance and cruelty isn't the entire picture.

                Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                Why do you believe a racial basis for slavery is worse than any other basis for the institution of slavery?
                I said that; "Racism and slavery are two different applications of human ignorance and cruelty. That's all."

                They are both ignorant, cruel and wrong.

                They both illustrate a part of "the human condition," which as I pointed out, is always with us;

                "Picking parts of Scripture out of context and using them to justify unjust - even criminal actions and behaviours, is nothing new to humanity.

                We don't just do it with Scripture, we do it with our own laws and tax codes ! Our own "leaders" do it !!!


                ?


                • #9
                  Speaking of racism, now we have Starbucks taking part in Racial Sensitivity Training

                  ..because of the recent incident that's been all over "the news."

                  https://www.rt.com/business/424456-s...cial-training/

                  People are people. They're going to do dumb things and make mistakes.

                  This isn't going to ever be "fixed," it's part of what makes us human. Working on it is good though.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    Picking parts of Scripture out of context and using them to justify unjust, even criminal actions and behaviours, is nothing new to humanity.

                    We don't just do it with Scripture, we do it with our own laws and tax codes too ! Our own "leaders" do this !!!

                    Which tells us about the condition humanity is, and always has been in.

                    The practice of slavery is condemned in Scripture.

                    And he that steals a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. - Exodus 21:16

                    If a man is found stealing a person of his brethren, the children of Israel, and makes a slave of him, or sells him, then
                    that thief shall die. And you shall put evil away from among you
                    . - Deuteronomy 24:7

                    In Scripture, human slavery is a crime punishable by death.

                    The same doctrine is also seen in the description of one of the crimes of the mystical "Mother of Harlots" in Revelations 18:13

                    And cinnamon, and odors, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. - Revelations 18:13

                    ...The merchants of these things, who were made rich by her, will stand far off because of the fear of her torment, weeping and mourning,.. - Revelations 18:15

                    Death and destruction are found as punishments due those who pursue this kind of merchandise or traffic.



                    That isn't relevant.

                    The idea was used to put an end to the practice of slavery. Against anyone regardless of race.

                    That race played a part in THIS historical instance of ignorance and cruelty isn't the entire picture.



                    I said that; "Racism and slavery are two different applications of human ignorance and cruelty. That's all."

                    They are both ignorant, cruel and wrong.

                    They both illustrate a part of "the human condition," which as I pointed out, is always with us;

                    "Picking parts of Scripture out of context and using them to justify unjust - even criminal actions and behaviours, is nothing new to humanity.

                    We don't just do it with Scripture, we do it with our own laws and tax codes ! Our own "leaders" do it !!!

                    I understand the part about misusing biblical passages. But your claim that race "isn't relevant" to my point regarding the 3/5 rule is odd. You edge a bit closer to admitting that a couple of lines later when you wrote that race wasn't the "..entire picture". Southern states' leadership based their arguments for representation in the US Constitution -on slaves being included in the census. Their leadership (many of whom were slave owners) restricted their "supply" of slaves to non-white people. That is the basis for my observation (a step above a "claim") that the 3/5 rule -a portion of the original federalist gov't constitution- was based on racism. Few people bother to defend this imperfection in that otherwise fine document, for good reason. The article you quoted seems to ignore that imperfection. You said it yourself: People (including our leaders) sometimes do bad things with good laws. What was done (or not done) by the leadership of both north and south during the formation of that constitution is a sad example of men behaving badly, in this case.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                      I understand the part about misusing biblical passages. But your claim that race "isn't relevant" to my point regarding the 3/5 rule is odd. You edge a bit closer to admitting that a couple of lines later when you wrote that race wasn't the "..entire picture". Southern states' leadership based their arguments for representation in the US Constitution -on slaves being included in the census. Their leadership (many of whom were slave owners) restricted their "supply" of slaves to non-white people. That is the basis for my observation (a step above a "claim") that the 3/5 rule -a portion of the original federalist gov't constitution- was based on racism. Few people bother to defend this imperfection in that otherwise fine document, for good reason. The article you quoted seems to ignore that imperfection. You said it yourself: People (including our leaders) sometimes do bad things with good laws. What was done (or not done) by the leadership of both north and south during the formation of that constitution is a sad example of men behaving badly, in this case.
                      Was it actually racism that you're talking about ?

                      You'll - WE'LL never know for sure.

                      Slaves were a valuable resource for some people at that time, ... which is why they resisted getting rid of it maybe ? Lose their workers ? ... of course some want to chalk it entirely up to racism, which isn't entirely honest I don't think.

                      Southerners couldn't argue very well for giving slaves

                      - a "property" comparable to animals, they treated them like animals in many cases - .....complete rights.

                      Given the concept of people as property, it's pretty tough to make a case that they have all of the same rights as people...

                      ... so the Norths strategy worked in favor of abolishing the practice of slavery, because the south couldn't in practice, create a good enough argument for giving their slaves full citizens rights, like voting etc. if they were only property, a resource like cattle or land.

                      Want them to have complete rights ?

                      Treat them as humans instead of property and .... your slavery racket ends.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                        Was it actually racism that you're talking about ?

                        You'll - WE'LL never know for sure.

                        Slaves were a valuable resource for some people at that time, ... which is why they resisted getting rid of it maybe ? Lose their workers ? ... of course some want to chalk it entirely up to racism, which isn't entirely honest I don't think.

                        Southerners couldn't argue very well for giving slaves

                        - a "property" comparable to animals, they treated them like animals in many cases - .....complete rights.

                        Given the concept of people as property, it's pretty tough to make a case that they have all of the same rights as people...

                        ... so the Norths strategy worked in favor of abolishing the practice of slavery, because the south couldn't in practice, create a good enough argument for giving their slaves full citizens rights, like voting etc. if they were only property, a resource like cattle or land.

                        Want them to have complete rights ?

                        Treat them as humans instead of property and .... your slavery racket ends.
                        Using property is the first objective of slavery, while keeping a particular race down would be secondary in this case. I agree with your point, and that also explains slavery as first practiced on one's own race. That being said, southern slave owners were very careful in how they played the race angle. First they had to justify -in their own minds as well as their white neighbors- how they could keep slaves that "appeared to be human". Invent or re-interpret some biblical passages that "explain" how African (Bantu, etc.) are not human, as you note.

                        But the other result of this stripping of human identity was a subjugation of those whites who were not among the slave owning class (including direct merchants, field supervisors, etc.). If the black slave were not "really human", that meant the dirt-poor white farmer was "better" than the slave. If the white sharecropper was better, and that was the majority of free people who had some influence and consumed goods, that became a condition for operating in the entire southern economy. It didn't matter if a southern businessman wanted to open a manufacturing operation, using the best talent (black or white). He had to go along with the "black is not human" belief, an entire class that could not legally be educated, nor otherwise be allowed to become skilled labor -much less belong to the professional class. Because this did wonders for perpetuating the plantation system, it also guaranteed the south would not advance as much as the industrial north.

                        If the northern faction had thought this through, rather than assume the south would soon grow out of the slavery phase, they likely would have proposed a split before accepting the 3/5 rule. They failed to realize that their southern counterparts were both founding revolutionaries and slave owners who were too good at spreading the propaganda; slavery wasn't going to "fade away" without a fight. The plantation owners were more than slave owners: They owned the entire south, not financially, but everyone (in power) believed their racial basis for slavery.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          Using property is the first objective of slavery, while keeping a particular race down would be secondary in this case. I agree with your point, and that also explains slavery as first practiced on one's own race. That being said, southern slave owners were very careful in how they played the race angle. First they had to justify -in their own minds as well as their white neighbors- how they could keep slaves that "appeared to be human". Invent or re-interpret some biblical passages that "explain" how African (Bantu, etc.) are not human, as you note.

                          But the other result of this stripping of human identity was a subjugation of those whites who were not among the slave owning class (including direct merchants, field supervisors, etc.). If the black slave were not "really human", that meant the dirt-poor white farmer was "better" than the slave. If the white sharecropper was better, and that was the majority of free people who had some influence and consumed goods, that became a condition for operating in the entire southern economy. It didn't matter if a southern businessman wanted to open a manufacturing operation, using the best talent (black or white). He had to go along with the "black is not human" belief, an entire class that could not legally be educated, nor otherwise be allowed to become skilled labor -much less belong to the professional class. Because this did wonders for perpetuating the plantation system, it also guaranteed the south would not advance as much as the industrial north.

                          If the northern faction had thought this through, rather than assume the south would soon grow out of the slavery phase, they likely would have proposed a split before accepting the 3/5 rule. They failed to realize that their southern counterparts were both founding revolutionaries and slave owners who were too good at spreading the propaganda; slavery wasn't going to "fade away" without a fight. The plantation owners were more than slave owners: They owned the entire south, not financially, but everyone (in power) believed their racial basis for slavery.
                          Reading everything you put together reminds me that in different ways, slavery is still a big part of America. Slavery of a more hidden type, one that's easier to deny and talk their way out of.

                          Of course now it isn't about making certain "races" serve, it's about making certain classes serve.

                          Most Americans still are "a valuable resource" for certain elites.

                          They look down on us with the same arrogance old time Southerners looked at black people, even though they're no better.

                          So this practice isn't anything new to humanity. We have a tendency to institute it in one form or another no matter what.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                            Reading everything you put together reminds me that in different ways, slavery is still a big part of America. Slavery of a more hidden type, one that's easier to deny and talk their way out of.

                            Of course now it isn't about making certain "races" serve, it's about making certain classes serve.

                            Most Americans still are "a valuable resource" for certain elites.

                            They look down on us with the same arrogance old time Southerners looked at black people, even though they're no better.

                            So this practice isn't anything new to humanity. We have a tendency to institute it in one form or another no matter what.
                            Lessons to be learned: Get an education. There's a reason some (hopefully a minority) of the ruling class don't care for education among the masses. If their ancestors prohibited education for slaves, it was to limit competition as well as hobble resistance to the institution of slavery. It might be a trade/technical certification, an apprenticeship or college degree, but get an education.
                            Second lesson: Just because someone has "made it' to the Very Important Person category, consider the possibility that you still have to play someone else's fixed game. You might prosper, but if you run into obstacles, consider any source. Might be plain bad luck, lack of experience, or getting played by someone else who controls the strings.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                              Lessons to be learned: Get an education. There's a reason some (hopefully a minority) of the ruling class don't care for education among the masses. If their ancestors prohibited education for slaves, it was to limit competition as well as hobble resistance to the institution of slavery. It might be a trade/technical certification, an apprenticeship or college degree, but get an education.
                              Second lesson: Just because someone has "made it' to the Very Important Person category, consider the possibility that you still have to play someone else's fixed game. You might prosper, but if you run into obstacles, consider any source. Might be plain bad luck, lack of experience, or getting played by someone else who controls the strings.
                              Exactly as I was saying.

                              What bothers me is how open they are about it.

                              They seem to really believe that we're all too stupid to see, or be aware of their double standards and hypocrisies.

                              They don't even obey the same laws as the rest of us do and they... think we don't see this

                              Education isn't the complete answer either. Unless we want to talk about helping with the lifestyles & finances of educators. There are plenty of well educated people who aren't able to get, or even find employment. But they were told all their lives that getting an education was the answer... now we know why. Education is important ! For the educators !

                              I'm not discouraging getting an education, but people need to know that it guarantees nothing... but a big bill $$$



                              ?

                              Working...
                              X