On the heels of Sean Bell, now this. WTF!!

Damocles said:
No, it isn't.

If it were there wouldn't have been restrictions such as land ownership on voting rights when the nation was first created. The idea that we all have an equal shot to make it did create the nation, but the idea that the rich should give all they have to equalize things did not.

You can pretend that the rich guys who helped create the nation really wanted to have all their money taken from them by force and given to others, but you would just be pretending.

Another nation supposedly started that way, it doesn't exist anymore.
Click to expand...

http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?category=5
Damo there reasons were flawed for chosing only landowners. You have to keep in the what society was like at the time to understand their failings.

It was not because thought the landless would steal their stuff it was because they thought the landless had not proved themselves knowledgable enough to have an independent mind. Adams actually thought they would just vote whatever way their landlord told them to vote.
 
Damocles said:
Awww... she added this last part. How cute.

Translation: I realize you haven't "agreed" but really want to associate you with that, so bad that I am willing to be as disingenuous as Cypress to do it.
Click to expand...


Two random, consecutive mentions of me in a discussion I was no part of? What's wrong cupcake? You can cruise my profile page if you think about me that much. :clink:


j/k
 
Cypress said:
Two random, consecutive mentions of me in a discussion I was no part of? What's wrong cupcake? You can cruise my profile page if you think about me that much. :clink:


j/k
Click to expand...
It's not random. Your name has become synonymous with disingenuous. Soon there will be a picture of cynthia mckinney in the dictionary next to the word. (People who write dictionaries don't understand avatars..)

:clink:
 
Desh said:
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/index.asp?category=5
Damo there reasons were flawed for chosing only landowners. You have to keep in the what society was like at the time to understand their failings.

It was not because thought the landless would steal their stuff it was because they thought the landless had not proved themselves knowledgable enough to have an independent mind. Adams actually thought they would just vote whatever way their landlord told them to vote.
Click to expand...
And this means that they wanted all the rich to no longer be rich exactly how? Or that they thought themselves to be "evil"? Your argument is flawed hugely. The founders believed that all people had equal potential, but believed strongly in their success due to their ability. They created no laws to punish the rich, they thought it was a good thing to be.
 
Damocles said:
It's not random. Your name has become synonymous with disingenuous. Soon there will be a picture of cynthia mckinney in the dictionary next to the word. (People who write dictionaries don't understand avatars..)

:clink:
Click to expand...


Wow, the old "your picture will be in a dictionary" joke. Thanks for the trip down memory lane; I think I last heard that joke in 1989!

Hey dude, if you and a handfull of assorted rightwingers and ronbots need to have that little fantasy, knock yourselves out.

I'm spending the weekend at a cool ass lighthouse, with a jacuzzi! Don't kill my buzz, man!
 
Damocles said:
And this means that they wanted all the rich to no longer be rich exactly how? Or that they thought themselves to be "evil"? Your argument is flawed hugely. The founders believed that all people had equal potential, but believed strongly in their success due to their ability. They created no laws to punish the rich, they thought it was a good thing to be.
Click to expand...


They fought to free themselfs from the grip of a entity that was requiring them to provide the wealth for a select few on the backs of the many.

Damo I have never said wealth was inherently bad. Strawmen arguements are beneath you. They believed women were to weak minded to vote. They believed non land owners were not well informed enought to vote(which is why they hand no land). This is why these things were changed. They were wrong. I think anyone now days can understand that refusing landless people the vote would encourage the landed people would work to keep people landless so their vote would not be diluted. This is why this was changed and not because someone wanted to Rob the rich. They were the landed people and they did not understand the plight of those who had yet to procure land.
 
Hamilton is quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries, bk. 1, ch. 2:]

"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."

From Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-79), 1:106.

They actually thought that these people would just vote as their landloards told them to vote.
 
To bring it back where we started Desh your party participates in dividing folks by economic status.
 
Cypress said:
Wow, the old "your picture will be in a dictionary" joke. Thanks for the trip down memory lane; I think I last heard that joke in 1989!

Hey dude, if you and a handfull of assorted rightwingers and ronbots need to have that little fantasy, knock yourselves out.

I'm spending the weekend at a cool ass lighthouse, with a jacuzzi! Don't kill my buzz, man!
Click to expand...
Shhh... Disingenuous-man! I picture you wearing a superhero costume... With a big "D" on the front and underwear on the outside of your tights.
 
No they are trying to keep the 1% from continuing to leave the rest of us in the dust.

Take a look at the deviding your party has created in the wealth gap.
 
Desh said:
They fought to free themselfs from the grip of a entity that was requiring them to provide the wealth for a select few on the backs of the many.

Damo I have never said wealth was inherently bad. Strawmen arguements are beneath you. They believed women were to weak minded to vote. They believed non land owners were not well informed enought to vote(which is why they hand no land). This is why these things were changed. They were wrong. I think anyone now days can understand that refusing landless people the vote would encourage the landed people would work to keep people landless so their vote would not be diluted. This is why this was changed and not because someone wanted to Rob the rich. They were the landed people and they did not understand the plight of those who had yet to procure land.
Click to expand...
Your argument was that the nation was founded on this principle. It was not. Now you are backtracking and showing that they believed themselves to be elite because of, then you begin to list stuff.

They were rich, they were elite. They believed that you too could be rich and elite, but they in no way said that it was bad to be so. You have, in this thread equated rich with bad except in your own special circumstances that you want. You then tried to say that the founders wanted it your way. Your argument that the "founders thought the same thing" is preposterous on its face.
 
Honestly I think it’s a damned disgusting shame that this thread has been deflected, I think purposefully, from the subject of racial oppression and into a discussion of the alleged oppression of the 1 percentile.
It’s beyond the pale.
 
Yeah I wish I had had this discussion on another thread, since I actually agree that original topic is an important issue.

We're still right though. :)
 
Quite disheartening.

Neither Sean Bell nor the occupants of the car were victims of classism, they were victims of a racist police force and its oppressive and racist policies.

Kenneth Walker, an engineer and college graduate, DID NOT HAVE THE BACK OF HIS HEAD BLOWN THE FUCK OFF BECAUSE HE WAS POOR.

He was murdered because he was black by a trigger-happy fucking racist pig bastard.

I knew Kenneth Walker

images


Why is this only a black issue?

WalkerCrowd.JPG
 
Last edited:
I have been keeping up with this thread but I am still so fucking enraged by it that I don't think I can keep shit in perspective and not come across as a cop hating, stark raving mad lunatic. (and my brother was a cop for 11 years). It is not just a black issue BUT black people get to deal with the shit end of the stick on this issue. I watched the video on the morning after it happened and watched cops stomping those guys like they learned that shit from skinheads. I watch all those fucking bullies with badges beat three men, that were each surrounded, with evil intent. AND NOW in the light of the Bell case cops will no longer choose trials by jury and judges will let them walk. I have done in excess of 300 criminal trials in the last decade and it has NEVER occurred to me to wave a jury trial. Most criminal judges are so jaded they see just about every defendant as guilty before they even get to trial. UNLESS those defendant's wear badges. I don't care what those three guys did, NOTHING excuses cops acting like thugs, and when they do they should go to jail and not any fucking PC wing, they should go to Gen Pop cause when they started as cops they KNEW if they committed a crime prison would be a world of shit. If that is not enough to keep you on the straight and narrow then fuck you.
 
Uh BAC...............

You might want to check your facts before you and soco go on the white against black tangent...half the officers involved in the shooting were 'Black'...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top