Why do 90% of black people vote for Democrats?

[Felch]

Congratulations, you identified a social convention that is stupid. Lots of social conventions are stupid, like sending people to prison for growing marijuana in their home and smoking it. However a semantic inconsistency, unlike the persecution of pot smokers, isn't really worth fighting.

It's not stupid. It's rooted in the language. "-stan" means it's the "land of". Do you really not get the difference between that and the criminalization of cannabis?

So Somalia must be one of the most polite societies in the world?

If I were in Somalia, I would certainly behave myself.

[giblets]

Wait, there's a slippery slope. If we let people get offended when someone says "paki", pretty soon more words will be added to the offensive list until eventually all words are offensive. Then everyone will just shut up because they don't want to be seen as bigots. Awesome, I could get some more peace and quiet

[Ben Kenobi]

You have no understanding of the american way of thinking. In fact, your comments are offensive.

Yeah, well, this argument has been made since the declaration of Independence in condemnation of the refusal to free the slaves. The British successfully ended the slave trade in 1808 and ownership later on well before the Americans got a crack at it. Look at the underground railroad, where blacks in the South escaped to Canada.

If an American gets pissed that he gets called out for this, then tough. It's the truth. Americans were among the last to give up slavery in the western world. They had a shot to be the first but chickened out and the result was a brutal war later on.

From an early age, americans who don't know anything about the declaration of independence know the phrase life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. From that point on americans have fought to make those words really true.

Hah!

Yeah, not really. They sure took their sweet time. It wasn't until the 1960s that you guys permitted black people to vote and the Democrats STILL voted against it!

Also the idea that a state can secede from the union is treasonous to a real american.

Hah! You are going to call Calhoun, not a real American? How about George Mason? No. You're assuming that what you believe equates with what Americans as a whole believe. You are very, very wrong. Americans, right from the very beginning (which is why the 10th is in the bill of rights), argued against the centralization of power by arguing, successfully, for states rights. Calling states rights position as treasonous is frankly, ignorant of American History.

We believe that we are much stronger united than we are apart.

Lincoln believed that. You believe that, but not all Americans believed that America was or ought to be a unitary state ruled by the federal government. Yes, centralization has been the inevitable push, but there is still great opposition to the centralization of power into the federal government, even today. Plenty of patriotic Americans are arguing against the intrusion and encroachment of the federal government into the affairs of the state.

America is a federalist, not a centralist republic, like in France. States have way more power here than in Europe. I'm surprised you don't see what a crucial factor this is to making America what she is. It's also one of the reasons why Texas prospers and other states suffer.

"We should all hang together are we will surely hang apart." You may have read about this stuff in textbooks as a "Historian"

I have read Patrick Henry. I have also read the arguments of George Mason, and John Calhoun. Arguing that Patrick Henry's response to an EXTERNAL threat (Britain), is not the same as arguing that the INTERNAL policies should favour the imperial presidency.

The points you make about King George letting the colonies go may be something you learned in Canadian schools

I'm telling you that this is the truth. I've read William Pitt the Youngers memoirs, and his speeches in the house of parliament. He spends considerable time discussing the Revolutionary War, and his argument that the Americans should be permitted to go free.

He believed it very strongly and consistantly voted in favor of ending the war with the US, and continuing the war with France. When he became Prime Minister, that was the tack that he continued to follow, all the way through the French Revolution, friendship with the United States and war with France. He believed that Americans were the friends of the UK, and that letting them go free would strengthen both the Americans and the UK. He was right, and had quite a bit of foresight.

but believe me americans don't see it that way.

I don't expect Americans to be well-versed in British History or to even know the name William Pitt the Younger. It doesn't even register on their horizon that the decisions concerning the Independence of the United States are dovetailed with the policies of the British Cabinet. I don't see this taught in America, but that doesn't make it the truth.

There are not very many governments/countries on the planet that are willing to let territories secede without a struggle and Great Britain was not one of them.

The UK has generally, chosen peaceful devolution vs territorial struggle. Look at Canada. Look at South Africa. Look at Australia. Look at New Zealand. The Revolutionary war cost the Americans 2000 military casulties, fewer than in the war on terror. I am arguing that the Revolutionary war is far closer to the former than to, say, Vietnam (France), Algeria (France), etc.

On Texas, the reason why texas has prospered is access to natural resources and a stable U.S. government.

Texas has and continues to prosper because of sound tax policy, and good state government.

You also don't realize that the south fired the first shot in the civil war.

You also don't realize that Buchanan wanted to let the South go. Is Buchanan a traitor too? The Southern state legislatures, voted and decided to leave. If the US sincerely believed in the principles of the Declaration of Independence, they would have let the South go in peace. They did not, and the cost was heavy.

So it was the south that decided that blood must be shed.

The South voted to leave peacefully. Lincoln decided to follow up with the invasion of the South and sparked the civil war. The ball was in his court, and he chose war.

After the civil war the south was rebuilt

The south was occupied. Why do you think the South voted solid democrat until the 1920s? Because of reconstruction. They hated the Republicans, they hated the North, for the devastation that the North wreaked upon the south. Her industries were destroyed. She was crippled and the behest of the northern industries, and still has not recovered. But, they are catching up slowly, as the North pursues bad economic policies. We shall see if the Imperial President permits the south to host such industries like Boeing.

and the United States as a whole continued to prosper eventually becoming the #1 country in the world.

In spite, not because of the Civil War.

I argue that the U.S. would not be as powerful if there was a USA and a CSA.

They would likely be number 1 and number 2 if they had remained apart.

As an outsider from Canada your views are academic.

As a historian, my views are backed up by many other Americans.

As a black southerner, my views are personal. My ancestors were slaves and I would have had them free as soon as possible. You also have no idea of the black experience in America. Racism existed openly in the North and out west up until the 60s. So it stands to reason that if we would have waited to free the slaves we would have more racism in your alternative history than we do in the real history.

Let me ask you a question, Pax. Did anyone tell you that you could not attend public school?

Also, There is today and was racism all over the british empire, including Britain.

Again, Britain freed their slaves long before America.

The racism varied by country under British rule. Your argument that we americans would have had equality on par with Britain is unprovable because British ruled countries all practice different levels and types of racism.

My argument is based on the fact that slaves were free in Canada and slaves in America. I see no reason why they would not have been free in Canada and in America, should America have chosen to stay. Britain banned the slave trade outright in 1808, throughout the Empire, but that's a fact you won't find in your history books.

[kentonio]

It's not stupid. It's rooted in the language. "-stan" means it's the "land of". Do you really not get the difference between that and the criminalization of cannabis?

I imagine if you and your folks spent half a decade being discriminated against by a majority who used American as a pejorative you may also not want to hear it. Why is some semantic thing more important than not offending a group of people? What exactly do you lose (apart from having to say an extra few syllables) by respecting their wishes? It just comes across as dickish.

[Sava]

Okay, it looks like BK is going to nitpick away the argument. I'd just like to point out that you make a number of claims here that traditional Christianity, particularly the Orthodox variety we both grew up in, has a contradictory or else more nuanced view of, particularly:

I wouldn't say "contradictory". I would agree with "nuanced". I was taught by my grandmother, who converted from Catholicism, strangely enough. I'm not sure if Serbian Orthodoxy is quite different from other forms. But there are a few maxims that can some up the way one can go about living life and figuring things out.

"God gave you a mind. You can use it, lose it, or abuse it."

So it is a mistake to abandon one's intellect. Faith requires the use of the mind. God created everything... the laws of physics... a rational world... and so everything at our disposal we can use to navigate the world to find truth is a tool given to us by God.

"God is love. Love is patience and kindness."

There are many definitions of love. When one is supposed to "love" or follow a loving behavioral framework based upon "love", it is really about patience and kindness. This is probably where the most interpretation comes into play. What constitutes patience? What is kindness? Smiling like an idiot and putting up with nonsense? There are certainly degrees of love... degrees of kindness and patience. Jesus said don't murder. The limit to my patience with most people is to not murder them. It seems that despite how angry I may get with a random stranger ("my neighbor"), I'm probably ultimately still a good person as long as I don't end up killing them. Although, perhaps I shouldn't behave in such a way where things end up coming to blows. But still, if I'm playing hockey and being kind of a dick and end up fighting a guy, I'm not going to hell. I'll sit in the box, but just for a few minutes.

1. Deathbed confessions being invalid--this is a matter of basic outlook, really
2. The death penalty being always wrong
3. Kings being necessarily bad people, assuming that it is possible for a human being to be really "good" in the first place
4. This is a really dinky point, but when exactly people go to Hell ("right now" or otherwise) is a matter of doctrinal dispute.

I tend to agree. I don't recall a specific teaching to this point, but I seem to "feel" that killing is always wrong... even in war. You are suppose to escape war. Violence is generally something that one moves towards... a situation one puts themselves in. Jesus died on the cross. So yeah, surrender and let them shoot you in the head. But at least run away first! It's popular to bang the drums and call people heroes. But there are no heroes. Even the people we call "heroes" don't consider themselves "heroes". And the ones that do are just psychopaths that get off on killing people... but are just calculating enough to wait to do it until they are allowed to and then bask in the glory. What kind of person is good at murder? A murderer. It takes a killer to kill. Not every soldier is bad. Of course not. The good ones feel awful about what they've done. That's the point! The psychos are the ones that love the glory. And the psychological tools used in getting otherwise good people struggle with PTSD back into the fight typical involve rationalizing gruesome, evil acts as "good".

And the jingoistic military fetish types will rubble rubble rubble in angry disagreement. But that's only because they are pussified little weasels who cringe at the thought of what would happen if people weren't out there killing for them. They don't have the balls to do it themselves and wet their beds dreaming about all the terrorists and commies out there... plotting... scheming!

Sorry if this is a half-assed post.

i donot forgive!

[Felch]

The Pak position is absurd. If Yank is used as a pejorative (and I believe that it is), do you think I care? We take that name for our own uses, and if others use it to mock or insult us, it might be irritating, but I wouldn't stab anybody over it.

[Sava]

An armed society is a polite society.

Well... Mogadishu didn't riot after the Canucks choked in the playoffs. So maybe you are right.

Although, they could have been Bruins fans.

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all, the King was traditionally the richest person in the country. Second, Jesus didn't include a "but" anywhere when he said don't commit murder.

That's an argument against the death penalty, not against George III.

You need to reread Matthew 18-19. When the church is sinful, treat them like pagans... i.e. Catholic child molesters.

So hate on of Catholics is a-ok.

Second, the rich are evil. The King is rich... therefore evil... let alone a murderous dickhole.

I don't see that verse in my bible. It does say, "Blessed are the Poor, for the Kingdom shall be theirs."

Freeing slaves doesn't absolve him of other sins.

Does in my book. Do you know how many died crossing the Atlantic? He saved thousands of people's lives.

[Ben Kenobi]

You seem to think you know what's best for the americans, irish and blacks.

This is a disagreement that has pretty much always been a part of America. I don't see why your position or my position is treason. It is a legitimate issue to discuss. Do I believe that Americans and the Irish and the Blacks in America know what's best for themselves? Yes.

Look at Justice Thomas. Is he not black? Look at Herman Cain? Is he not black? Yet both agree with me and not you. You don't speak for blacks, Pax.

[Sava]

That's an argument against the death penalty, not against George III.

It's an argument against murder. George III committed murder. The Chief Executive... the Head of State bears the responsibility of policies his regime executes... pun intended.

So hate on of Catholics is a-ok.

Only the ones that molest children. The ones that help conceal it. The ones that fail to acknowledge it. And the ones that fail to condemn it and vehemently push for reform... and/or leave the church. But don't blame me... blame Jesus:

I don't see that verse in my bible. It does say, "Blessed are the Poor, for the Kingdom shall be theirs."

Matthew 19... SON

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Does in my book. Do you know how many died crossing the Atlantic? He saved thousands of people's lives.

That's fine... "your book". But then "your book" would not be the Bible. And you would not be a Christian. You could call yourself one. That's fine. Christianity has a name for people that mislabel themselves... that bear false witness. They serve a master other than Jesus.

It's possible you are simply mistaken... simply misguided... simply... well, just led astray. Your heart may be in the right place BK. Read Matthew 18. Jesus says when a brother is wrong, point it out. Let them listen. But if they don't listen? Well, treat them like a pagan.

[Sava]

Look at Justice Thomas. Is he not black? Look at Herman Cain? Is he not black?

They're as black as Uncle Tom was.

But to be fair. We're way past race with those pukes. They aren't just Uncle Toms to the black community. They are Uncle Toms to the whole damn human race.

[kentonio]

The Pak position is absurd. If Yank is used as a pejorative (and I believe that it is), do you think I care? We take that name for our own uses, and if others use it to mock or insult us, it might be irritating, but I wouldn't stab anybody over it.

The difference is that you're in a majority in the country where you live. You're an American surrounded by other Americans, why would you care if some other folks call you yanks? If you were say one of a few million Americans living in India and you were regularly verbally abused on the street, occasionally physically abused and found your employment and social options severely limited by discrimination, then suddenly 'yank' might take on a whole new meaning to you.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yeah, because Yankee means northeasterner

The term you're looking for is "rebel scum"

[Ben Kenobi]

It's an argument against murder. George III committed murder. The Chief Executive... the Head of State bears the responsibility of policies his regime executes... pun intended.

Fair enough. However, as a ruler, I believe he did more good than harm and he was a good ruler of England.

Only the ones that molest children. The ones that help conceal it. The ones that fail to acknowledge it. And the ones that fail to condemn it and vehemently push for reform... and/or leave the church. But don't blame me... blame Jesus:

So what you are saying is what we should hate the sin of child molestation. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

Yes, because they find it hard to rely on Jesus and not on their own means. Not sure where it says that being rich is evil.

that bear false witness. They serve a master other than Jesus.

How is it false witness? The slave trade ban saved thousands of people's lives.

They're as black as Uncle Tom was

Why is a white person calling black people with whom he disagrees as 'Uncle Toms?'

[Sava]

The term you're looking for is "rebel scum"