In the time of the Civil War one of the arguments between the North and the South was that the South wanted the black numbers to count towards their house of reps Representatives the north refused saying if they count as men they must be free Democratic party was the slave owners of this time. And if you think about it they were already feeding and clothing and housing all of these black people all they did is invent welfare so the people will continue to depend on the same people that were their owners before thus maintaining control see somebody living on welfare is going to make sure to vote liberal for fear that if they vote a Republican in they may shut down the social services systems effectively the Liberals made sure to never Free the Slaves by giving them free stuff to depend on the aim was to control the House of Representatives thru black population for example two white men who each owned 15000 black men could have their own House of Representatives representative so yes in giving away Social Services they managed to buy votes essentially maintaining control/slavery Note to self liberals I never said Homesteader was wrong I just said he was wrong about IC...
The red/blue dichotomy is beyond terrible for American civil cohesion. I do not understand why the parties' positions in the distant past deserve bickering over today, especially given the climate. Does it serve a useful purpose?
Obviously learning from the past is useful Viking We can't learn from the past till everyone knows what the past actually is and the past(and for that matter present)for the liberal party is a horrific fucking thing indeed...
I absolutely agree with the general statement of learning from the past, I hope you don't think otherwise. I am a strong believer that history gives us a massive amount of test cases we can use to further the human race. That said, I do not see the usefulness in arguing over which party supported slavery, when this is an issue of the far past, and there are a myriad of far more pressing issues. Could you expand on why the issue being discussed now is important enough to be in contention?
It can often be a useful Point made when liberals try to treat every argument as if it makes you a racist
In order to make people understand the negativities of Social Services you have to go back to where it began and why...
Mind you I'm not against Social Services I'm against Social Services being a government job the fact is social services for the longest time we're a job of the church and community Community responsibility went out the f****** window with the Great Depression pretty much churches became corporations capitalizing on the fact that they have the nonprofit status although they indeed are big profit machines there needs to be some kind of Regulation over non-profit organizations as to what degree they help their communities with the income in order to maintain that non-profit status social services are fundamentally a breach of the separation of church and state on a traditional basis...
They do do that way too much. Way too much. Perhaps we have to agree to disagree - I see your point, but in the same vein that I keep slapping my leftist factionmates around - is it smart? Is it effective? Does it work, does it help to balance the current chaos?
Not only did they not free the slaves but in kicking off Social Services they managed to get white people and all other races to willingly go on down Supply their paperwork to prove hopefully they're eligible to be enslaved to a political ideal due to economic dependency...
A) Remind me - where would you place yourself on the political scale? And, if I may take in a different direction, but one that touches on all of this - social services, community responsibility, regulation of large profitable entitites, seperation of church and state*: B) Back to our agreement on having an armed, trained and cohesive population: Would you be for state-sponsored firearms training, beginning at a young grade level? A smart system, of course, tailored to become more complex as the children grow older. But on the taxpayers dime. How would you feel about such a suggestion? *cornerstones of Norwegian civic policies, by the way, we see eye-to-eye through different-colored glasses
Just like my dad taught me and I taught my sons firearm training is a parental responsibility if the parent doesn't feel that he is adequate to teach his child and it's his responsibility to go get some training himself so he's adequate to teach his child...
All instruction must come from the parents not the government in order to keep the family intact in order to keep the order of respect and Allegiance correct in the Christian American household...
Expand on this example you're using to discount all of govt. sponsored projects. How is the failed M60 MG an example of why US veterans can't be hired to train school children to defend themselves?
My parents are both against firearms of all kinds. Am I just fucked as an American with anti-gun parents?