The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:50 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:30 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:18 am ...if 'ownership' matters, our system is 'owned' by the Queen.
Hogwash. :D You can't "own" people.
uless your are Henry the 8th or Muhammed Bin Sallmin

;-).

then you do ;-(.
Well, or a Southern Democrat. They were the only people who owned others in the U.S.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by Impenitent »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:15 pm
gaffo wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:50 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:30 am
Hogwash. :D You can't "own" people.
uless your are Henry the 8th or Muhammed Bin Sallmin

;-).

then you do ;-(.
Well, or a Southern Democrat. They were the only people who owned others in the U.S.
there were a few northern democrats who did as well...

-Imp
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Impenitent wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:15 pm
gaffo wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:50 am

uless your are Henry the 8th or Muhammed Bin Sallmin

;-).

then you do ;-(.
Well, or a Southern Democrat. They were the only people who owned others in the U.S.
there were a few northern democrats who did as well...

-Imp
Well, yeah. But no Republicans, interestingly.

I met a guy from Florida...went to Flo State, studied Communications and History, then became a teacher. He was "a person of colour," too. He didn't know that slavery was Democrat, that the KKK was Democrat, and that all the Segregationist governors were Democrats. He thought the Democrats were the party of "black rights." He was stunned when he looked back, because he had been told it was "Southern conservatives" (tacitly, Republicans, he assumed) that had done all that. Somehow he didn't even remember which party was the blue and which was the grey in the Civil War.

Now, how does a black guy from the deep States loose touch with who did slavery, who fought to free his ancestors, and who tried to reverse it when they did? He hadn't even heard the old nonsense about "the Southern Strategy" of Nixon, after which the Dems started claiming that the Repubs were responsible for everything the Dems had actually done.

That shows you just how effective the Democrats have been in killing historical knowledge and erasing their past from the public imagination. That's why they have hold of our educational institutions: they get to rewrite the past any way they please, and offload all they've done on others.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by henry quirk »

they get to rewrite the past any way they please, and offload all they've done on others.

And, after a fashion, they keep right on leashin' folks under the guide of bein' the caring ones.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by henry quirk »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:54 am they get to rewrite the past any way they please, and offload all they've done on others.

And, after a fashion, they keep right on leashin' folks under the guide of bein' the caring ones.
And, nowadays, the repubs are no less guilty.

Pretty much anyone who gets involved in governance, especially on the federal level, no matter how principled he might have been at the start, after a length of time, is dirty.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by Immanuel Can »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:13 am Pretty much anyone who gets involved in governance, especially on the federal level, no matter how principled he might have been at the start, after a length of time, is dirty.
It seem so. The Socialists seem to think that the powers-that-be are so corrupt they must be overthrown...and replaced with much more powerful powers-that-be, that for some reason, they seem to think will be supernaturally forever immune from corruption. The cure for oppressors is bigger and bigger oppressors...until we have global-sized oppressors...and then everything will finally be fair. :?

But almost nothing they advocate actually makes sense, even on it's own terms.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:15 pm
gaffo wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:50 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:30 am
Hogwash. :D You can't "own" people.
uless your are Henry the 8th or Muhammed Bin Sallmin

;-).

then you do ;-(.
Well, or a Southern Democrat. They were the only people who owned others in the U.S.
yes per the us - my understandiong is that Canadians/Brits could own folks until only 20 yrs prior - 1840.

and that Brazil was the last to legalize ownership of person - in 1889 - after inslaving American Indians (I was born in North american - so am a native - so refuse to use the term for those other folks who are no less nor more native than i am - the birht of my anscestors is not relivent to me). and if it is to some folks note that the anscesters of NA were born in siberia 20,000 yrs ago).

I diid hear something about Saudi Arabia allowing "ownership" of persons until 1964 from a history teacher in HS in the early 80's - but not resarched it.

- also, i perosnally think if American had the widsom to run out the clock - not go to war (South was hot headed and fked thmeselves - otherwise they would have had 20 more yrs of legal slavery) had the south not gone to war, slavery would ahve evoved itself out by 1890 - and been replaced with tenant farmers.

as it was post war - but would have been the same result without war - and would have saved countles live lost for esentaully nothing (for i do not affirm the Civil war as a moral one - not ww2 -not a moral one - since the North Delaware and Maryland had slaveery - fully legal - even the emancipaton proclaimation did not make Del/Maryland slavs free - only the states in rebellion) - we call this hypocricy.

fact is slavery was becoming a relic - where tenant farmers could play the ame role (i.e. slavery would ahve gone out of sight without the need for a 20 yr poir civil war ) - i.e. just look to Brazil of the globbal trned.

- as always thanks for reply - no i have not looked into the powers of your GG - but shall - i gave you my word - to me that means somthing about my character, so will eventually do so. not next year or next month - but in the next 2 weeks - when i say something i mean/do it - otherwise i disshonour myself.(i.e. think before your say! - otherwise don't say it!)

as always thanks for being you and for the reply Sir.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by gaffo »

utterly off topic - but whatever.

I affirm just war concepts - that leaves only ww2 as a just war.

at the same time I personally if i were born in 1920 would not fight in that war - yes BOTH Japan was a bad as Germany - japs were as racist against Chinese as the Germans were towards Slaves (Germans were beyond all WRT to the Jews) - but the japs were able to rewirte thier history via not affirming it (unlike the Germans! - good for the germans - fk the Japanese) - i.e. the jap/american war was just a missunderstanding.

ya - um no.

per my personally - though aknolegling the concept of a just war - would never sign up - as above if i were born in 1920 - and love my nation - i could not in good concience allow myself to kill or attempt to some smuck that just happened to be born in Germany and was drafted by Hitler to shoot me - its too impersonal! - to kill him would be a sin for me personally (regardless of his beliew - be he like me or some SS thug).

so i take my personal code over social justice - maybe a personal falt of mine - not sure - i only know i have a code and have to live by it. maybe my code is wrong or too limited for a greater good. i don't know.


also - related my code is personal and reciprocity based (Judaic/Islamic - not Christian) - if some smuck tried to kill me ffor being me i will try to return the acton and kkill him (but will not place myself on the battlfiedl to welcome him killing me or vise versa - since the battlefield is not personal).

I'm like Henery in that regard - i do my own personal stuff and mind my business - but if some asshole tries to kill me for some reason not related to any pior action by me (I affirm reciprocty - that means if i start a fight and am a dick - i have whats coming to me) I will try to kill him back.

but not for just wearing the wrong uniform.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by Immanuel Can »

gaffo wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:55 pm yes per the us - my understandiong is that Canadians/Brits could own folks until only 20 yrs prior - 1840.
Canadians didn't really have slaves. The practice was effectively eliminated there the earliest...about 1793, when all practice of keeping someone working against their will was abolished. But they didn't really need or use slaves anyway, probably more as a matter of climate than of virtue, admittedly.

The British were led in the abolitionist movement by a politician named William Wilberforce, a devout Christian. He devoted his life to abolition, and it came about in 1834, one year after his death, largely as a result of his efforts. That was official again in Canada, of course.

In the northern states, some aboriginal tribes enslaved others, but that was more about intertribal tyranny than about slavery per se. Elsewhere, taking captives and enslaving them was a common practice among tribes like the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, the Seminoles, the Creeks and the Choctaws. People like the Sioux and the Iroquois had more...direct ways of dealing with other aboriginals, ways not necessarily better than slavery.

It's worth knowing that no Republicans owned slaves, though some Northern Democrats were pro-slavery, of course. Slavery wasn't really an economically useful arrangement in the north, for the most part.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:51 pm
gaffo wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:55 pm yes per the us - my understandiong is that Canadians/Brits could own folks until only 20 yrs prior - 1840.
Canadians didn't really have slaves. The practice was effectively eliminated there the earliest...about 1793, when all practice of keeping someone working against their will was abolished. But they didn't really need or use slaves anyway, probably more as a matter of climate than of virtue, admittedly.

The British were led in the abolitionist movement by a politician named William Wilberforce, a devout Christian. He devoted his life to abolition, and it came about in 1834, one year after his death, largely as a result of his efforts. That was official again in Canada, of course.


I have actually heard of this person - the mname - noting fore sadly.

perhaps i need to learn more about him ( as i did Rodger Williams)
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:51 pm
In the northern states, some aboriginal tribes enslaved others, but that was more about intertribal tyranny than about slavery per se. Elsewhere, taking captives and enslaving them was a common practice among tribes like the Cherokee, the Chickasaw, the Seminoles, the Creeks and the Choctaws. People like the Sioux and the Iroquois had more...direct ways of dealing with other aboriginals, ways not necessarily better than slavery.



es the Chocktow and the Simonw had black slaves - both allied with the Confereacy - in the last few yr i think there was a lawsuit over if blakcs could be regonized as Chocktow if not "of blood" (gee just ancectors taken and owned by the tribe and offsping not of the same tribe?2!>? ( - of course its all about $$$ not principle nor blood) - one that knows right from wrong knows that all balack slav wand decendants are valid Inians and should get the monies.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2021 8:51 pm
It's worth knowing that no Republicans owned slaves, though some Northern Democrats were pro-slavery, of course. Slavery wasn't really an economically useful arrangement in the north, for the most part.

I dopn't kow - never say never (did you know that there were black slavers? - full freed blakcs that had plantatios in the south - supported the South -a nd had 10-100's of slaver?) - so ya i bet there were a few REpublicn slavers.even in the north.

---BTW Delware and Maryland - not northern states - nor Southern ones either), but part of the Union. where slavery in the Union was fully legal from 3-65 - i.e. as siaid above Emancipation proclaimation only applied to states outside of the union - per slavery - so Lincoln affirmed slavery in thse 2 states being in the uion for 2 full years after his so called proclaimation.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by gaffo »

I don't like licoln beasue he was a hypocrite - slaver y is wrong, unless you are one of the 2 stat in the uion then its ok, i reject the right for a state to succeed using the articel of conferation - when joiniing the union was voluntary adn no state would jopin with the understanding they can never leave later - and the fac tthat the articles of confederation is not legally binding and has no stading unlike older comon brit law and latter Constitutioal law.

fk licoln and all other hypocrites.

i affirm the rule of law - at the time of the civil war the southern states left the union legally under both the northern and southern standards - white/male/l;and owners - by 60/40 - so legal to leave the union.

so fuck Lincoln - "slavery is fine in Delaware and Maryland".
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by gaffo »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:59 pm
Impenitent wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 6:15 pm
Well, or a Southern Democrat. They were the only people who owned others in the U.S.
there were a few northern democrats who did as well...

-Imp
Well, yeah. But no Republicans, interestingly.

I met a guy from Florida...went to Flo State, studied Communications and History, then became a teacher. He was "a person of colour," too. He didn't know that slavery was Democrat, that the KKK was Democrat, and that all the Segregationist governors were Democrats. He thought the Democrats were the party of "black rights." He was stunned when he looked back, because he had been told it was "Southern conservatives" (tacitly, Republicans, he assumed) that had done all that. Somehow he didn't even remember which party was the blue and which was the grey in the Civil War.

Now, how does a black guy from the deep States loose touch with who did slavery, who fought to free his ancestors, and who tried to reverse it when they did? He hadn't even heard the old nonsense about "the Southern Strategy" of Nixon, after which the Dems started claiming that the Repubs were responsible for everything the Dems had actually done.

That shows you just how effective the Democrats have been in killing historical knowledge and erasing their past from the public imagination. That's why they have hold of our educational institutions: they get to rewrite the past any way they please, and offload all they've done on others.
yep, and your friend should ahve known histyroy as well -0 had he he would kow th rebuplicans were the architects of the undergrown railroad.

adivce to your firend - read more book of history.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by gaffo »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:54 am they get to rewrite the past any way they please, and offload all they've done on others.

And, after a fashion, they keep right on leashin' folks under the guide of bein' the caring ones.
you do now the rebublicans and Democrate (per race) reversed roles in the 60's - yes?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by henry quirk »

gaffo wrote: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:58 am
henry quirk wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:54 am they get to rewrite the past any way they please, and offload all they've done on others.

And, after a fashion, they keep right on leashin' folks under the guide of bein' the caring ones.
you do now the rebublicans and Democrate (per race) reversed roles in the 60's - yes?
You do know I'm condemnin' the lot of 'em, yeah?

Red, Blue, Donkeys, Elephants: all the same, then and now.
gaffo
Posts: 4259
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Capitol building is breached by the Retrumplicans NOW!

Post by gaffo »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:14 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:30 am
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:18 am ...if 'ownership' matters, our system is 'owned' by the Queen.
Hogwash. :D You can't "own" people. And the Queen gave up her official governmental role long ago, even in England. Nowadays the "monarch" only signs whatever is given her by parliament, and doesn't do it for Canada anymore at all.
Get it in writing. We may lack official support of 'slaves'. But what this MEANS requires proof that no one is 'indemnified' to servility to others in order for them to obtain the equal freedom to have minimal SOCIAL necessities as equal individuals among the whole. We each require a minimal of necessities and real INITIATING opportunities on par with one another, ...not merely realized 'outcome' nor illusory ones.

Feudalism WAS the prior status of 'dictatorship' (derogatory modern meaning) to which capitalism freed by making the artison classes able to rise up. Today it is beyond that as the '(private) corporation' has now gone far beyond the means to act as a replacement representing all people. But the formal means to ACT to preserve the status of the Constitution by the Monarchy is no different in meaning to Marx's intended "dicatator of the proletariat" who was only removing the concept of a presumed 'right' to rule by some 'god'.

Note the Monarch's veto power is the final check on ALL laws that get past the House of Commons and the Senate. Nothing becomes laws without it. Our 'Governor General's' serve this role but it lacks any REASON to keep and acts as a 'welfare' for special select people. I CAN see it be potentially useful and don't frown on the 'romantism' of it. But the only reason it is kept is precisely what Marx had in mind of 'dictator' except that given it is not supposed to be religious, Marx version is a REPUBLICAN type head similiar to the U.S. President but, more like royalty, could serve for potential life. [See "philosopher king" of Plato's Republic for evolution of 'republican' ideas.]
exactly! the qween has no power per Canda since 82, but her GG still does.

if the cnadian parlement does not like the GG' powers make laws to limit it - in wrting - until then the GG has the same power she/he had in 1920 (when drafting million of canadians for ww1) - and declairing marshall law in 74(the right call and illegal for the PM to do so - only the GG can do so).

if the candaisn hate the GG - remove his her power by letter o fthe law - via parlement - not via social conventin.
Post Reply