M14 Forum banner

101 - 120 of 130 Posts

·
MGySgt USMC (ret)
Joined
·
7,066 Posts
LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1LOL1

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous and at the same time hilarious assertion. Ranks right up there with a claim I once heard about how YT men used YT women to lure Africans onto ships to bring them over.
Well, that has to be the most absurd thing I ever heard on the subject. Up until then, the oft quoted myth that white men got off ships and just went in and with use of force - rounded up Africans for slavery was the most absurd thing I had ever heard. Though that MAY have happened in a few isolated circumstances, the fact is that most African slaves were enslaved by other Africans and then sold to Europeans.
 

·
MGySgt USMC (ret)
Joined
·
7,066 Posts
One also has to be a little careful quoting Ben Franklin. He was often known to say things he really didn't mean to shock people. It is always best to find the quote in context of where he was at and what he was doing at the time he said something. Ben was a "Libertine First Class" or in more modern terms, he put Hugh Hefner to shame. He was even a member of "The Hellfire Club" when he served in England. Yet no one should ever take that to mean he was not a Patriot of the first sort.

We must also never discount the fact that not only was Independence preached from pulpits all over the 13 colonies, but there were MANY instances of where the local preacher was also an active Militia Member and sometimes local Militia Commanders - especially in the South.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,420 Posts
People still argue about what the Gospels say. To many, politics are a religion.
More like fans of team sporting event. One roots for their team even if they do something underhanded, because whatever they do, the focus is that the other team is worse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
More like a team sporting event. One roots for their team even if they do something underhanded, because whatever they do, the focus is that the other team is worse.
And generally speaking the fans of each team have little or no basis for why they are fans, but are vicious in asserting their fandom and the superiority of their team regardless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,156 Posts
BTW, it wasn't just the South who made so much money off the slave trade. MOST slaves came over on NORTHERN owned ships .
I always felt that it has been pretty hypocritical of Northerners to claim moral superiority because they claimed to not allow "slave" labor while they did allow sweat shops, mines, indentured servants, and other forms of labor that were no different then the slavery of the South.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
This is quite possibly the most ridiculous and at the same time hilarious assertion.
James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787

Mr. GHORUM. This ratio was fixed by Congs. as a rule of taxation. Then

it was urged by the Delegates representing the States having slaves that

the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At present when the

ratio of representation is to be established, we are assured that they

are equal to freemen. The arguments on ye. former occasion had convinced

him that 3/5 was pretty near the just proportion and he should vote

according to the same opinion now.



Mr. BUTLER insisted that the labour of a slave in S. Carola. was as

productive & valuable as that of a freeman in Massts., that as wealth

was the great means of defence and utility to the Nation they were

equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently an equal

representation ought to be allowed for them in a Government which was

instituted principally for the protection of property, and was itself to

be supported by property.



Mr. MASON, could not agree to the motion, notwithstand it was favorable

to Virga. because he thought it unjust. It was certain that the slaves

were valuable, as they raised the value of land, increased the exports &

imports, and of course the revenue, would supply the means of feeding &

supporting an army, and might in cases of emergency become themselves

soldiers. As in these important respects they were useful to the

community at large, they ought not to be excluded from the estimate of

Representation. He could not however regard them as equal to freemen and

could not vote for them as such. He added as worthy of remark, that the

Southern States have this peculiar species of property, over & above the

other species of property common to all the States.



Mr. WILLIAMSON reminded Mr. Ghorum that if the Southn. States contended

for the inferiority of blacks to whites when taxation was in view, the

Eastern States on the same occasion contended for their equality. He did

not however either then or now, concur in either extreme, but approved

of the ratio of 3/5.


Mr. GERRY thought property not the rule of representation. Why then shd.

the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of

representation more than the Cattle & horses of the North.
http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0000.htm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,263 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,156 Posts
What little I've read of the debates seem to show that the 3/5 number was actually a compromise in regards to how to account for representation vs. taxation, not the value of a human being.

About half way down the page at this link - http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc-1787.txt
Mr. GHORUM. This ratio was fixed by Congs. as a rule of taxation. Then it was urged by the Delegates representing the States having slaves that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At present when the ratio of representation is to be established, we are assured that they are equal to freemen.
I added the highlights to show the argument that they were dealing with. For the purposes of taxation a census was taken and all the inhabitants were counted. Some argued that it wasn't fair to count any slaves for the purposes of taxation (the larger population number would increase the state taxes). And yet the same people argued that they wanted the slaves counted for the purposes of deciding representation in congress.

Other arguments were that the slaves didn't count in either case. While some argued that they counted for both, taxation and representation.

The final COMPROMISE was that each slave (actually it appears that they specified "non white" rather than just slaves) would count as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of the census and that number would be used for both taxation and representation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
Nowhere does that excerpt specifically say that blacks were 3/5 as productive as whites. All that's there are 2 arguments- whether or not blacks are inferior to whites, and whether or not 3/5 sounds like a fair compromise.
Which is why I said I was wrong about that a few pages ago. But it's certainly not "ridiculous" as they were alternately equating them with property and horses and freemen and indentured servants and Indians.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
The final COMPROMISE was that each slave (actually it appears that they specified "non white" rather than just slaves) would count as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of the census and that number would be used for both taxation and representation.
I think this is closer to the final (lost my search URL and don't feel like getting it again)

It was then moved by Mr. RUTLIDGE 2ded. by Mr. BUTLER to add to the

words "equitable ratio of representation" at the end of the motion just

agreed to, the words "according to the quotas of contribution." On

motion of Mr. WILSON seconded by Mr. C. PINCKNEY, this was postponed; in

order to add, after, after the words "equitable ratio of representation"

the words following "in proportion to the whole number of white & other

free Citizens & inhabitants of every age sex & condition including those

bound to servitude for a term of years and three fifths of all other

persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians

not paying taxes, in each State," this being the rule in the Act of

Congress agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue

on the States, and requiring a Census only every 5-7, or 10 years.
So Indians didn't count at all as far as I can see.

OH and whomever walk talking about lawyers (maybe in another thread) only has to read these pages to see what legalese these guys whipped around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Which is why I said I was wrong about that a few pages ago. But it's certainly not "ridiculous" as they were alternately equating them with property and horses and freemen and indentured servants and Indians.
Sorry, missed that. And yes, some of the founders were not exactly oozing with feelings for Locke, but generally the most influential and important ones (who are also my favorites) were.

The Indians... well that's a whole different can of worms, and a very difficult one to debate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,156 Posts
It's ridiculous to try to debate the correctness of the decisions of people in history from the perspective of modern times.

In our current times of safety and comfort you can easily judge a person as bad because your life isn't in the balance.

I watch Hulu and NetFlix for my video entertainment (I don't own a TV) and I watched the show "The Colony" last night. It was almost hilarious to watch how some people couldn't adapt to the realities of their environment.

One of the incidents in the show was the case of a female marauder who convinced the women in the group that she needed food and water, neither of which were in great supply for the Colony.

After the females won the argument and the marauder got some of the Colony's limited supplies, the marauder seemingly left. So everybody started to go about their normal routine and one of the Colony women put some bread in their outdoor over to bake. The "security" manager, a guy, told her not to do it. He was concerned that the marauder was setting them up for a raid. The woman ignored Mr. Security...and the marauder stole the bread.

So Mr. Security tells the woman and she goes outside to see if Mr. Security was telling the truth. Of course she finds the oven empty and then she and Mr. Security start to argue about her not following his orders. At the same time, Mr. Security was trying to get everyone inside in case of another attack. The woman wouldn't shut her yap and he pushed her in to the building.

Now all the women were all upset. They accused Mr. Security of hitting the Colony woman. The women even admitted that he didn't hit her but then they changed their claim when he demanded an apology for her lying about being hit. None of them saw that he was worried about an attack on the group and that standing in the open could get the woman and everybody else hurt. They ignored the reality of the times and reacted based on their feelings rather than the facts.

This is what people do today when they argue about what our founding fathers did or didn't do. They choose some emotional issue and argue esoteric garbage rather than the real world issue that is of greatest importance. Who really cares about the fact that they decided to count every non-white as 3/5s of a person for the census, last time I checked we no longer do that. Duke spends more time trying to destroy the image of our founding fathers rather than making valid arguments. His attitude is reflective of how the modern education system has focused on destroying the foundations of our society rather than education and critical thinking. With the benefit of hind site, we can always find something wrong with the decisions of our founding statesmen, and that's why they created a process for making changes to the laws; so that we could adjust or correct their system.

But what I find offensive is, just like the women in The Colony, so many people make a disengenuine argument. They aren't trying to solve anything, they just want to make themselves the center of attention and win while creating the most angst in the process of arguing. I have no problem with debating the facts of why a black slave was counted as 3/5s of a white person for the purposes of the census, but you have to be a fool to think that they did that with evil intent. No leader does things because of evil intent, he might be considered evil through history's eye, but he probably made his decisions based on what he thought was best for his society. Obama's policies aren't due to some nefarious evil on his part, he honestly believes that his policies will provide the greatest benefit to the most people. Just as most whites of those times felt that blacks were inferior, most non-white societies felt that whites were inferior. Black Muslims felt that all whites were inferior, Asians felt that non-Asians were inferior, and American Indians felt that non-Indians were inferior. That was just how things were in those times. Arguing the merits of that attitude in light of today's attitudes is childish and pointless.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
It's ridiculous to try to debate the correctness of the decisions of people in history from the perspective of modern times.
I agree. However, if you read all the debates, a very significant number of our founding dads had opinions that were spot-on with modern times.

Duke spends more time trying to destroy the image of our founding fathers rather than making valid arguments.
USN3

You really don't know me, friend. I absolutely adore American history and our Founding Fathers. I've bid on original documents signed by Jefferson and Franklin numerous times (but never won). Benjamin Franklin being my favorite person in history. His documents are the rarest because he was never a real federal politician and thus didn't sign stuff a million times a day. Also he was older.

Just because I have different views than you don't presume to think you love your country more or any such nonsense. Above I linked the VERBATIM notes from Madison. Not sure how that is me "destroying" anything. I've also quoted our Founding Fathers regularly. Just because you don't like the quotes doesn't change the fact they said/wrote them.

I was just watching Good Night, and Good Luck again last night and McCarthy came up. Anyone who disagreed with him was a Communist, a pinko, or a "bleeding heart" (which from an etymology stand-point likely originated as a reference to Jesus).

It's okay, man. If it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,604 Posts
Venona project. That is all. GI3


I agree. However, if you read all the debates, a very significant number of our founding dads had opinions that were spot-on with modern times.


USN3

You really don't know me, friend. I absolutely adore American history and our Founding Fathers. I've bid on original documents signed by Jefferson and Franklin numerous times (but never won). Benjamin Franklin being my favorite person in history. His documents are the rarest because he was never a real federal politician and thus didn't sign stuff a million times a day. Also he was older.

Just because I have different views than you don't presume to think you love your country more or any such nonsense. Above I linked the VERBATIM notes from Madison. Not sure how that is me "destroying" anything. I've also quoted our Founding Fathers regularly. Just because you don't like the quotes doesn't change the fact they said/wrote them.

I was just watching Good Night, and Good Luck again last night and McCarthy came up. Anyone who disagreed with him was a Communist, a pinko, or a "bleeding heart" (which from an etymology stand-point likely originated as a reference to Jesus).

It's okay, man. If it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,684 Posts
...but you have to be a fool to think that they did that with evil intent. No leader does things because of evil intent, he might be considered evil through history's eye, but he probably made his decisions based on what he thought was best for his society. Obama's policies aren't due to some nefarious evil on his part, he honestly believes that his policies will provide the greatest benefit to the most people. Just as most whites of those times felt that blacks were inferior, most non-white societies felt that whites were inferior. Black Muslims felt that all whites were inferior, Asians felt that non-Asians were inferior, and American Indians felt that non-Indians were inferior. That was just how things were in those times. Arguing the merits of that attitude in light of today's attitudes is childish and pointless.
"Hell is full of good intentions or desires." St. Bernard of Clairvoux.

I cannot imagine a greater semblance of my own personal hell than myself in a coffee shop with friends. Then an armed perp robs the store and in a panic shoots the barista. Then decides that witnesses are a bad thing and a good source of extra cash and I am stuck there defenseless unable to help any of the others or my friends because I cannot legally carry into the establishment. My pistol is in a locked container in my cars cab and the ammunition is in the locked trunk. All of which is outside the establishment and the exit is on the other side of the perp.

Further I offer, this:

"Be careful when you fight monsters, lest you become one." Friedrich Nietzsche

Which one could easily substitute monsters for politicians or lawyers or any other destestable thing.
 

·
Cranky Old Vietnam Vet
Joined
·
10,663 Posts
Quotes are so freaking hit-or-miss with Nietzsche it's not even funny.
Agreed...

I can go days and weeks without quoting Nietszche...

Anyway, most guys I know would just say...RAY NIETZSCHE said that?

GI3

CAVman in WYoming
 
  • Like
Reactions: LausDeo

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
For those who wonder why we stay in Kalifornia, I can only speak for myself. The main reason is that my old gray-haired momma is 94 and is not relocating to Northern Idaho. Just trying to get her to field strip a FAL has become a problem.
In addition, "staying in Kalifornia" will become "staying in Amerika" if the Marxist in the White House wins in November. Think I'm kidding? The phrase here is that "we are living in Obama's second term".
I am fortunate enough to have dual US/Australian citizenship but from a gun standpoint, the hapless Aussies were relieved of those evil, dangerous firearms a while back. Still a great country and I think I would rather go to ground there than here. So I dunno . . . guess I'll just go surfin, dude.
 
101 - 120 of 130 Posts
Top