1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Irresponsible 'Education'

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Oct 16, 2014 1:32 AM
continuing "problem that the freed slaves of Europe and the Americas had was the sudden plethora of choices available to them, i.e., what to do with their freedom, and not all of them rose to the challenge. Of the latter group, the responsibility was theirs and theirs alone, though, as no one forced them to make bad decisions upon emancipation. Historically, there are far too many examples of those of good character who did well as a result of good decisions and so the modern "our ancestors were slaves" is absolutely no reason to choose a life of evil, nor excuse for choosing a life of evil. If it was, then most persons of every race in Europe and the United States would be doing the same things. Most people in Latin America, Asia and elsewhere would be doing the same things. Most peoples move on from their pasts. The modern wallowing in the sins of the past by some minorities in America and Europe as an excuse to do wrong is a moral evil. And that excuse of "my ancestors had it bad" does not impress God. Read Ezekiel 18. Every person is responsible for what they themselves do. Not for what another does." "Those living in Communist nations were slaves of a different sort. They had no real rights, were frequently killed at the whims and wars of their political masters, couldn't move or travel from one place to another without permission from their governments, had to take the jobs that the governments permitted/chose for them, and were subject to famines and disease that other nations were not normally subject to. In the few Communist nations left today, it's still the same." I've never asked, but I really wonder what east Europeans think of the whining about black slavery. Unlike today's black America, those in Russia, east Germany, Poland, etc. lived in slavery, and in far worse conditions as black slaves in the U.S. and they didn't even the right to live, unlike black slaves in the U.S. where it would be tried for murder if a slave was killed. One wonders how many of the black community today would believe that in 1860, one quarter of all slaves in the U.S. were owned by blacks. Having black members of the family, the thing I'm most concerned with now is the 40+ % detected HIV rate among blacks in the U.S. It's probably 2/3ds, which is an astronomical number of people. Since it was extreme promiscuity and a lack of personal responsibility that created this problem, what are most U.S. blacks looking at for life expectancy? 5 years? 6 years?
In response to:

Irresponsible 'Education'

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Oct 16, 2014 1:16 AM
Every person on the planet is directly descended from slaves. Whether called serfs or thralls or something else, every group has had slaves or been slaves. From my book series "National Wave of Foolishness" "The U.S. under Jefferson fought the Barbary Pirates, who were white slavers as well as pirates. Even today, several nations in Africa and Asia still practice “white slavery," doing as they have done for centuries. Let's talk of slavery. For most of the history of humanity, the average person was a slave to one degree or another. Whether one called them serfs or subjects or the masses, most humans on the planet until the emancipations of the 1800s were slaves. From the subjects of the Sumerian Kings to the Egyptians selling themselves into slavery for food to Pharaoh Thutmose III (Genesis 47) to Europeans swearing themselves into serfdom at the onset of the Dark Ages for protection from various invaders, to slavery at its end in most of the world in the 1800s. Slaves of black descent made only a very small minority of the total number of slaves freed in the middle 1800s. The typical person in the Aztec and Inca Empires was a slave. So was the typical person in eastern Europe before the emancipations of the 1800s. The latter type of slaves were called "serfs," who were people tied to lands and to their lords. They had few rights, could not leave their lands (some could travel, but had to return), and had to toil for their lords. Indentured servants were slaves, but of a different type: the parents wanted something "better" for their kids, so they "sold" them to a master who would teach them a trade. Often for 7 years, the indentured servant has few or no rights and was beholden to the master in the hopes that the master would be honorable and teach them the trade that had been agreed upon in the contract. Many persons didn't live long enough to finish their indentureship. Indentureship was a common way for Europeans to arrive in the Americas: people who had nothing would indenture themselves, their kid or kids, to a master in the Colonies in exchange for passage across the Atlantic and for learning a trade. Some masters were cruel and some were kind. And all shades in between. The serfs of Europe lived in slavery and millions of them were not finally freed until the 1800s. The 1840s through 1860s saw the freeing of slaves in many countries. Russia, the United States, central and eastern Europe, etc. Oddly enough, the biggest problem that the
In response to:

Irresponsible 'Education'

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Oct 16, 2014 1:12 AM
Almost every tribe in the U.S. had slavery. The U.S. Army freed them, too. When a local mural in The Dalles depicted local indian life, the tribes had a fit when the slave trading center of Celilo Falls was depicted. They had a fit because it was true, not because it was in any way inaccurate. Celilo is always touted for fishing, but it's conveniently forgotten that it was the largest slave trading center in the western U.S. by the indians.
In response to:

Women Lying to Women

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Oct 03, 2014 6:48 AM
The most common form of rape in the 1980s and 1990s was not of women. It was of men who were drunk or stoned. I'm hoping this has changed, but I doubt it. But because "only men rape" it has been ignored by district attorneys and legislatures. When pregnancy resulted, the women were rewarded for their felonies by getting child support so that they could continue their chosen lifestyle. And what about the women who deliberately get drunk or stoned so that they will grab someone at a party? Men don't get a pass for that. Why have women gotten a pass for that since the mid 1980s. Equality does not mean being treated differently under the law.
What's scary is that all laws of this kind have been unequally enforced. The most common form of rape in the U.S. for at least 30 years has been the woman at a party grabbing a guy who is drunk or stoned. Can't consent. But DAs don't care if it's a man, because it's never been convenient to prosecute. In the 1980s and 1990s, it was common to hear women "just have to tell someone" of the exciting time they had, and how they'd committed this or that crime. We guys had to put up with that. It's the same system that created the mess of sexual harassment at the Federal level being rampant against men since the early 1990s and ignored. Legal officers would tell victims "just ignore it" despite the perpetrators being female bosses and other employees. Imagine if the roles had been reversed. The idea of laws that treat the sexes differently must end. Pretty much anything domestic is that way. It's common for police and DA's to ignore when a woman is beating people in a home, but then to notice when someone fights back. Moral iniquity by our CJ system. The 14 Amendment seems to be completely ignored today, except by judges creating new rights for homosexuals from the equal rights clause.
re: jwllliams The number of born again Christians in the U.S. is about 35%. That is hardly a majority in anything. The Congress and President constantly attack Christians in legislation, from the 2009 H.R. 1913 that would have made pedophiles protected classes under civil rights law to the executive order this week that seeks to remove all accountability from homosexuals for not taking "no" for an answer. Media has attacked Christians for at least 25 years. Employers frequently won't hire Christians because their work is too good and because having one on the staff makes them "feel uncomfortable" despite the latter being ruled by the Supreme Court as no basis for legal actions. Despite the usual slander (which is another attack by our media), in 30 years of work, I've never actually seen a slacker be a born-again Christian, but I do know they sometimes make employers "uncomfortable" because they won't compromise on moral issues like "don't steal" and "don't lie". When you have the government, the media, and a considerable chunk of the public constantly attacking and denigrating Christians, then it's reasonable to consider Christians an oppressed minority. I'm sorry that you don't see that, but that ignoring of ambient conditions is typical of liberals, who generally see what they want, rather than seeing what is.
The school was breaking the common law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that students don't leave their First Amendment rights behind when they enter the school building. Further, they have ruled that student prayer and other Christian activities are legal as long as the students are the ones who do it. Essentially, the school was engaging in a Soviet or Nazi style Socialist censoring of the student's right to free speech and religious speech, even to the blacking out of words that might offend the Socialists of the state. Hardly what Jefferson intended in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, is it?
In response to:

Bowe Bergdahl, Just Deserts

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jun 04, 2014 11:10 PM
Bergdahl's parents look like classic 1960s rejects. Even to the man having a pony tail. The Slovik story reminded me of J. Davis commuting the sentences of deserting soldiers, saying "the poorest use of a soldier is to shoot him." Eisenhower could have learned something from that. Slovik should have been reassigned to second echelon duties like so many others were. The fact is that you don't want an unwilling soldier next to you. You have to depend on that person doing their duty. As found in vietnam in particular, when you had unwilling troops, they could be just as bad as the enemy who was trying to shoot you. Not everyone can look a gun in the face and still think coolly. (I've done it, from a drunk who pulled a gun. It's hard to think logically when the adrenalin is pumping and you know your next action may well mean you die.) Plenty of people who couldn't face a rifle directly found honorable service as medics, cooks, drivers, pilots, mappers, recon, mechanics, amphib drivers, etc. Shooting Mr. Slovik was a moral evil. One wonders how many cowards died as a direct result because while they couldn't do their duty in the field effectively but they wouldn't request being reassigned, either, for fear of being shot. And so hesitated a fatal moment to shoot when a German soldier was shooting at them. Or didn't move fast enough to get away from a grenade. Or froze up when artillery was falling and didn't get under the nearest cover. Or otherwise failed and died. Not everyone is cut out for rifle and bayonet. But they still can serve in other ways honorably. Eisenhower wasn't much on being questioned when he did something he knew was wrong. His book Crusade in Europe makes that plain. His dishonest complaint about armchair quarterbacking said it all. Such quarterbacks get things right frequently because they are not embroiled in the situation they are analyzing. The person IN a situation often cannot see what an observer will see.
True. It needs to be kept in mind that EVERY person blacklisted by the Unamerican Activities Committee under McCarthy turned out later to prove him right. Particularly Hollywood. Every person, not a few, not most, EVERY person that the committee blacklisted turned out to be a Communist, National Socialist, International Socialist, Parliamentary Socialist, or other type of Socialist. And yet our schoolbooks describe him as a loose cannon. I wish every committee in Congress was that thorough. One of the things that burns me up from that period was the media's tarnish of Edward Teller. The media claims that he didn't exonerate Oppenheimer out of ambition. Considering that Oppenheimer was a Communist who was a member of Communist organizations, it's not really all that reasonable to make such a claim. Apparently Teller didn't know about Oppenheimers' dishonest activities and he said he didn't know at depositions. The media essentially wanted Teller to lie for Oppenheimer. Gee, we had a few dishonest people in the media even then...
In response to:

The Heroism of Wendy Davis

Nabuquduriuzhur Wrote: Jan 23, 2014 2:42 AM
this happened under nazism and communism. The idea of filing charges that are political in nature.
1 - 10 Next