Jump to content

American Swindle

banned
  • Posts

    624
  • Joined

Posts posted by American Swindle

  1. 2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Well, as much as I like HEB, you make a lot of assumptions about what they have and haven't done as a corporate entity.

    I was talking more in principle.  H-E-B has likely made some backroom deals, has done things in a grey area, or used the state to urge landowners to give up their property so they can build at some time or another in their history, but the beauty part is you're not forced to have to buy groceries there.  

    So you like certain corporations...good to know. 

     

  2. 1 minute ago, elguapo said:


    76cadd7e381a413b4746a12b2ee5f221.gif

    It was a good example.  One that would lend to the argument that Trump has contempt for democracy.  I'm sure you would agree that all Presidents should follow the Constitution no?

     

  3. Just now, elguapo said:

    One could argue that, and they'd be a fucking fool.

    You have a lot of time for ad hominem but no time for arguments I noticed.  

    Care to enlighten the board as to why the Trump Administration has a contempt for Democracy?  Off the top of my head, his veto Congress' measure to block the sell of arms to Saudi-Arabia would be in the mix, but what threshold would the Trump Administration as a whole have to hit to be in the "contempt for Democracy" zone? And by the same measure, would past administrations meet said threshold?

  4. 12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Take it a step further . . . corporations are the enemy of the people.

    I disagree.   H-E-B is not an enemy of the people, they provide an abundance of food at a low cost and high quality. As long as a corporation is not committing fraud/theft, using the government to push out competitors and respecting property rights, then they are only a provider for the demands of the people.  

     

  5. On 7/27/2019 at 3:23 PM, David Dennison said:

    Someone doesn't know what fascism means.

     

    Quote

    Fascism, political ideology and mass movement that dominated central, southern, and eastern Europe between 1919 and 1945 and was characterized by extreme militant nationalism, hatred of communism and socialism, contempt for democracy, and belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites

     

    Can the argument be made the Corporate Press is in Cahoots with the Deep State actors within the government to maintain the "trump is a racist/Putin Puppet" Narrative?  I think so. 

    One could also argue that there is a disdain (rightly so imo) for socialism from the Trump administration but not a contempt for democracy.  If anything, the media role in fanning the flames of the anti-trump narratives is a product of the "rule of elites" from the literal definition of fascism (which I believe comes from the unelected powers that be in the federal apparatus.)   

     

     

  6. 29 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    If the right cares so much about preserving investments, why have they shut down so many medical practices that provide abortion services? 

    TRAP laws are an interesting example of government intervention in the free market (this being private abortion clinics not funded by tax dollars.) These laws are arbitrary and lead to burdensome regulations that hinder the cost of operations for private abortion providers.  Some posit that these arbitrary TRAP laws are political in nature and even claim that they are administered by the evangelical powers that be within the state.  

    It's ironic in a way.  You have the Right agenda to make it hard for private abortion clinics to thrive in Texas, thus leading to more demand for Planned Parenthood which (irony again) is funded with tax dollars that the Right is against going toward abortion?!?!!

    Make sense?  Hell nah. 

     

  7. 1 hour ago, elguapo said:

    There's no connection between having a gun and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun and not shooting someone.... and you'd be a fool and a communist to make one.

    What is your point?  

     

  8. Yeah Trump's wrong on Capital Punishment for sure.  

    Humans will always be violent, gun control measures are not the answer in my, what appears to be unpopular on Surly, opinion.  

  9. 45 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

    Tulsi Gabbard's run for president is going nowhere, so it's not a big deal. If people want to waste money on her campaign, they are free to do so.

    Yeah but her message of anti-regime change wars is getting major publicity and many are happily donating because they believe so strongly in that message.  I wouldn't call the spreading of this idea a "waste."

     

     

    • Like 1
  10. 1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

    It's a stupid question as her meeting with Assad does not imply that she supports Assad murdering civilians.  To ask that is just meant to smear her by associating her with Assad and his crimes.  This bullshit is no different than when every critic of the Iraq war was smeared as being a closet Baathist.  What makes this even more absurd and nauseating is that there are no shortage of murderous thugs we actually do support, but since these people are our "friends" obviously no one is expected to disavow them.

    Tulsi has explained in detail why she visited Syria.

     

    Great post.

    She's genuinely anti-war and wants Peace.  Anyone claiming that she is an Assad apologist and a tool of Russia is just another NPC. 

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  11. On 7/31/2019 at 1:27 PM, SmokeyTheBear said:

     

     

     

     

    It's great we have this central authority that gets to push a button to delay the much needed economic anguish we should face to liquidate the malinvestment and allow the market to correct itself. 

    Another meltdown is in our future.  

    • Like 1
  12. 1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

    The better case is that you are an abject, and sad, fool --  stupidly confusing the ideas of abuse of executive power, the status of the citizenship of slaves, and obviously racial jokes. 

    Not really an argument, but whatevs.  

    What was the racial joke you are referring to?

  13. 6 minutes ago, maninblack said:

     

    She smashed Harris.  Tulsi is a strong woman and it's sad to see the establishment and the NPCs just go all operation mocking bird with shit like "Assad toadie" etc.

    She worked in a hospital in the Sunni triangle and saw the effects first hand of our regime-change wars.  

    • Like 1
    • Fuck You 1
  14. 5 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

    You might have also highlighted another important part.

     

    The question is whether or not he made the Proclamation to preserve the Union or to Free the slaves?  By his rhetoric, it's well argued imo that he was more about Federal Power as the letter highlights.  

     

     

  15. 9 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    Typical gotcha stuff. I recently completed A Team of Rivals. Fabulous book about Lincoln and the men of his cabinet.

    Lincoln indeed shared the broad view that blacks were inferior. That had largely been ingrained across the whole country and even abolitionists included members who believed it to be true. The issue was should they be citizens. Lincoln believed yes.

    As president, Lincoln's opinion of blacks changed partially because he befriended Frederick Douglas who wrote about Lincoln being a rare white man to deal with him as an equal. Lincoln often consulted Douglas and thought of him as a good friend.

    This simple explanation, I expect, probably emerged from a graduate paper. It's hopelessly shallow.

    Lincoln's emancipation proclamation was part of the war effort to undermine the manpower advantage that slave labor gave the rebel army. I don't think you have a firm grasp of altruism. The move was wise and daring and well-timed. The Union needed the border states to remain in the Union. Slaves in those states were not aiding the rebel war effort. Expediency and the priority of preserving the Union dictated Lincoln's decision about the northern slave states.

    Your notion of it being some sort of Power grab is abstract and unsubstantiated. If anything, Lincoln risks losing support because the North was still reluctant to say the war was about freeing the slaves. Many believed that the Union should reimburse Southerners who had to give up their slaves because they were property.

    The pleasure of reading the book was getting a clearer vision of what America was like, what Americans thought, and how difficult it was to navigate the stormy waters which Lincoln did brilliantly.

    Edit: Next, I will bloviate about why we should all like and admire Ben Franklin. Stay tuned to this channel!

    No not really gotcha.  Just the history that is suppressed because it goes against the narrative that is convenient for the Federal  apparatus we see today.  

    What type of mental gymnastics do those on the left have to go through to get around the blatant fact he was racist by the standards that are used today?  Lincoln was about Federal Power, and as the letter to Greeley highlights, he would've done anything to preserve it.  

    Are you denying Lincoln didn't say those words in his debate with Stephen Douglas?  Are you denying that he didn't write the words to Greeley?  Are you denying he suspended Habeus Corpus?  

    The case can be made that these precedents during Lincoln's tenure paved the way for future presidents to abuse executive power not granted to them by the Constitution. 

  16. 33 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

    A Proclamation.

    Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

     

    "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

    "That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

    Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

     

    Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

    And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

    And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

    And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

    And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

    In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

    Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

    By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
    WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

    Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley:

     

     

    Quote

     

    The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

    I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. Yours, A. Lincoln.

     

  17. 20 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

    Lincoln changed. I guess he went so far left that he left the country.

    Reagan and the GOP have not changed. They don't want to change. They're sure they're right.

    How did Lincoln change? 

    People tend to forget in a legal and originalist constitutional sense, Lincoln set dangerous executive precedents that have been abused by GWB and Obama.  Namely war powers that were not constitutional, he deployed troops to swing elections in the north (Delaware,) and most notably suspended habeus corpus.

     

    Are you saying that since he said racist things like the below, that you are willing to forgive Lincoln because he "changed?"  

    "I will say that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and between the white and black raced which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.  And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -Abraham Lincoln, in his 4th debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858. 

    Even the Emancipation Proclamation was deemed illegal by abolitionists.  Lincoln's intent on the Proclamation was not altogether altruistic, but one to subdue the enemy (the South) at all costs. The mere fact that slavery still continued to exist in the North after the proclamation only strengthens the argument that he was a man concerned with Power more so than the perceived nobility of ending slavery.  Also, slavery didn't cease in the North until the 13th amendment was ratified. 

    My original comment on Reagan and Lincoln being both racist and overrated was definitely a troll post, but you can't deny Lincoln wasn't racist.  Reagan's rhetoric, like many have cited, doesn't surprise me given the time.  I'd say it's distasteful looking back for sure, but we're all human and I'm sure he's not the only white President that's said some distasteful things.  

    Given Lincoln's comments above, I'm surprised his monument is still up in Washington! 

×
×
  • Create New...