Kids should work...

On 24 Nov 2003 08:49:34 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

I do believe I caught the Kensian fever in that I believe that
movement of money is the key, not accumulation.

I do believe you are referring to Keynesian economic theory,
and that's not it either.

Given that I was proposing that money flow was more important to a
healthy economy than money accumulation and Keynsian economics is
based on the concept of pumping money into the economy by whatever
means, but primarily government works and projects as per FDR, then I
have to ask...

Where'd you take your economics Commander McBrag?

....did you take your economics the same place you took your legal
"motion" writing courses?

Kane

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:38:06 GMT, "bobb" wrote:


"Ignoramus3100" wrote in message
...
They say that we owe reparations for black slavery, obviously owed
to
the generation of people who never experienced slavery.

But the alternative to their slavery was to remain in Africa, where
slavery was also rampant, and many diseases and civil wars continue
to
this day. Not an enviable existence.

The very generation who wants reparations, would be living in
appalling conditions, starvation, illiteracy, civil war etc.
Instead
they have air conditioning, tap water, police protection, relative
peace, enough food etc, stuff that all of us have in the great USA.

So... they are better off due to slavery than they would be without
slavery and their ancestors being brought here.

Why do they deserve any form of reparation then?

Obviously I think that bringing all those slaves was a very bad
idea. With bad consequences. A typical story about immoral acts
exacting revenge in ways completely unforeseen. Civil war, etc etc,
was a consequence of slavery.

i


Uh oh, you're gonna get in big trouble talking like that. That's for
too
intelllectual for most to understand.

You maybe....and it's quasi intellectual given that it is all too
limited in scope, misses the point of European and Arab incursions
onto the African continent, and the repartitioning of african nations
into little tribal feifdoms.

He got nowhere near the subject of exploitation of both natural
resources in Africa....a huge extraction of a continent's wealth..or
should I say a people's wealth, as well as centuries of colonization
that also extracted the production of people who were slaves,
sometimes actually and often economically, in their own lands.

The ONLY reason for the miserable state of some parts of Africa today
is the outcome of European incursions.


bobb


But that of course is more than enough excuse for you to get the
shivery chills when you see a black person in "your" country.

And those Mexicans, my oh my, they are surely invaders.

Kane

Kane wrote:

On 24 Nov 2003 14:46:50 GMT, Ignoramus3100
wrote:

They say that we owe reparations for black slavery, obviously owed to
the generation of people who never experienced slavery.

But have suffered the result.

Or, may have benefited. There is no way to prove it either way, and I believe
that proof is very important here.

The Irish potato famine was by all measure a "bad thing" and my ancestors
suffered as a result. Certainly the English share some responsibility for
their suffering, but they don't owe me anything.

I am most likely better off that my forbearers suffered, as my life, and as
the lives of every descendant of slave or immigrant, is for the better.

If you had a large valuable inheretance due you earned by the labors
of say your grandfather, and you were diddled out of it because you
had little or no political and economic power..well...you get the
drift here.

Certainly. Punish the guilty, not the people who happen to remind you
of the guilty.

But the alternative to their slavery was to remain in Africa,

snip

where slavery was also rampant,

Driven by Arabs, into a major industry instead of a local issue, who
in turn sold them to Europeans. And we whites had slavery at least as
far back as Africans did.

Incorrect. Africans bought and sold Africans for centuries prior to any
European setting foot on the continent, just as slavery still exists in
Africa. Blaming it entirely on whites and Arabs is revisionism.

and many diseases and civil wars continue to
this day. Not an enviable existence.

The intervention into the body politic of Africa by Europeans had
something of a disruptive influence on an already advanced medical and
academic based civilization.

It was not advanced in medicine nor academics. You had people who
built Cathedrals and used calculus meet peoples who have no written
language, have no concept of numbers and have yet developed the wheel

While, just as in other parts of the world, there certainly were such
conditions, there were centers of learning and power and commerce that
were once the equal and even surpassing the outside world. Africa
wasn't much different than anywhere else in the world, and in many
ways superior.

In the time frame being discussed, this is totally incorrect.

What was developed when the Europeans landed in West Africa was a
successful slave traded, which the Europeans benefited from. In fact,
when the British began to outlaw slavery not only in Britain but in their
colonies, it was the Africans who protested the strongest as it was bad
for their business.

The very generation who wants reparations, would be living in
appalling conditions, starvation, illiteracy, civil war etc.

From the result of incursions and disruptions by European invaders.

Canada, The USA, Australia, Hong Kong etc. all were invaded by
Europeans. How do their economies survive?

Do you, for instance, understand the history of the Middle East and
why we REALLY are there at war today?

Africa had a stable political climate with set borders based on tribal
allegences and treaties...we Europeans disrupted that according to
economic exploitation we saw fit to do. We used rivalries between
tribes to set one group over another and THAT is the cause of the
current bad conditions.

Slave empires in Africa predated major contact with Western Europeans.
It is interesting that you use terms like "invasion" when describing the
actions of the Europeans but use "rivalries" to describe brutal wars
between African tribes.

Instead
they have air conditioning, tap water, police protection, relative
peace, enough food etc, stuff that all of us have in the great USA.

They do? You haven't seen South Sacramento, or parts of Phoenix AZ
have you? Other big cities boast similar centers of urban affluence
and comfort. You need to get out and about.

So... they are better off due to slavery than they would be without
slavery and their ancestors being brought here.

Well, if they had stayed in the pit that Europeans created in some
parts of Africa (by the way, not all African nations are as you
describe) yes, you are correct. But had their not been and
international slave trade the incursions probably wouldn't have taken
place either.

Virginia is a "pit?" Canada? The slave trade was big business before
the Europeans had any part. African leaders were over-joyed to have
a new market for their product.

Why do they deserve any form of reparation then?

Because they ancestors labored for free for tens of generations. I'll
give you a hint. Do you know what capitol goods are? Do you know what
fixed resources are?

So did mine. I'm not demanding any money from the British.

What about blacks in the US who owned slaves? What about families who
lost sons and fathers in the Civil War? Do they own money as well? What
about people that have came to this country 50 years ago? Two years ago?

What do you think the rate of ownership might be between white america
and black america and this true indicators of wealth and power?

I have no idea, and neither do you. To steal money from person A, not because
they are guilty, they most certainly are not, only because they LOOK LIKE
people who did bad things a century ago and give that stolen property to people
who LOOK LIKE people who suffered a century ago is racism pure and simple.

Obviously I think that bringing all those slaves was a very bad
idea. With bad consequences. A typical story about immoral acts
exacting revenge in ways completely unforeseen. Civil war, etc etc,
was a consequence of slavery.

It was more a consequence of economic pressures by the north on the
south. Slavery was, sadly, a side issue. Do some studying.

I am constantly amazed and frequently amused at the ignorance that we
Americans allow those with economic power to foist on us.

This country is still a colony being exploited as surely as King
George did. It's just our own folks doing it too us and the brits
never did really get out.

Remember when we were, about 15 years ago, all atwitter when it was
disclosed in the major media that the Japanese were major investors in
US fixed resources, real estate mostly, but with mineral deposits,
timber, grazing lands, etc.

That was a caluculated bit of propaganda the GOBs (good ol boys) like
to put out from time to time. The brits own far more of the US than
the Japanese could have ever hoped to.

Your sexism is obvious.

Do you know who the major holder of gold mining interests is in the
US. Her name starts with an E and you better courtsey.

Bigots, and you ARE one, whether you like to admit it or not, are the
tools of these manipulators.

You are the bigot. You believe that people can be given the fruits of one's
labor and have it taken away based on their skin color.

In fact the natural instinct that underlies bigotry has been a major
tool for elitists to gain and maintain power since the middle ages.

The greatest crime that the Europeans have ever committed, was the
export of Marxist collectivism. This failed orthodoxy has destroyed more
Africans than all the colonizing powers combined. In 1960 Africa was
a net food exporter and had an economy greater than Asia. Once
countries gained their independence they adopted the left socialism
that has ruined dozens of countries and continues to rob the people
of their ability to support themselves.

Have a nice day.

Kane

On 23 Nov 2003, Ignoramus22857 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in the 50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent a "race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in 1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are a small
fraction of the population.

And how what percentage of professional sports are black? The issue is
not a "race issue". You have to look at other social factors. What is
the unemployment rate in black community, how many kids are born to
unwed mothers....

In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

HUH?

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well reported in
1950s, either.

As so did the lynching of blacks!

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white middle
class people.

You will be surprised on how many while middle class people are in jails
today - mostly because of drugs!

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown in
nonviolent homes. I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful, attentive
methods of child rearing.

And what do these have to do with spanking?

Doan

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:42:57 -0800, Doan wrote:


On 24 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

I think that I am being dragged into a debate in which I have
little
interest. I came here when I saw a statement that said that less
child
beating means more crime. And now somehow I am being dragged into a
discussion as to whether illegal immigration is a good thing.

Then you are mistaken! Nowhere did I ever say that less "beating"
means
more crime. The issue here is whether spanking (not beating) leads
to
crime - as the anti-spankings claimed. All I said is there is no
evidence of it and if you look at the studies they cited, the
'correlations" is even stronger for non-cp alternatives!

Shall we kindly put aside your Singapore example then. Or is caning
just another form of spanking?

Or might there be some "confounding" factors in the Singapore
experience, eh?


Doan

What a child you are Doan.

Kane

"Ignoramus3100" wrote in message
...
In article , Doan
wrote:

On 24 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

I think that I am being dragged into a debate in which I have little
interest. I came here when I saw a statement that said that less child
beating means more crime. And now somehow I am being dragged into a
discussion as to whether illegal immigration is a good thing.

Then you are mistaken! Nowhere did I ever say that less "beating" means
more crime. The issue here is whether spanking (not beating) leads to
crime - as the anti-spankings claimed. All I said is there is no
evidence of it and if you look at the studies they cited, the
'correlations" is even stronger for non-cp alternatives!

If you substitute word "beating" to "spanking" in appropriate places
of my original followup, the meaning of that followup will not change.

i

Well put, and it would be fruitless to try and improve on your response.

bobb

On 24 Nov 2003 12:09:48 -0800, (Tom Enright)
wrote:

Kane wrote:

On 24 Nov 2003 14:46:50 GMT, Ignoramus3100
wrote:

They say that we owe reparations for black slavery, obviously owed
to
the generation of people who never experienced slavery.

But have suffered the result.

Or, may have benefited. There is no way to prove it either way, and
I believe
that proof is very important here.

You haven't visited the worst urban slums then, have you? It's just
like a third world slum experience. No garbage service, phone, water
and electrical service spotty. Poor police protection, and in fact BAD
police protection.

Take a walk there white boy. I have, and I'm as white lookin' as you
I'd bet. It's a thrill a minute.

It becomes all too apparent, if you aren't lost in your bigotry, what
is up and going on there. White trash neighborhoods and black ghettos
have one thing different about them...they are NOTHING alike.

The Irish potato famine was by all measure a "bad thing" and my
ancestors
suffered as a result. Certainly the English share some
responsibility for
their suffering, but they don't owe me anything.

The Irish Potato Famine was a political ploy. There was no "famine"
other than by political manipulation by the British. The loss wasn't
to the potato blight, but to Brit marketing manipulation.

You were conned and you ate it. You need to do more study of the times
and the politics. The Irish were to be driven out of Ireland and
replaced with protestants. Scots mostly. I've ancestors on both sides
so it's of interest to me...enough to study it more deeply.

I am most likely better off that my forbearers suffered, as my life,
and as
the lives of every descendant of slave or immigrant, is for the
better.

Well, I guess you managed to get out of the Irish ghettos then. How
are things back in the American Irish ghetto, by the way?

If you had a large valuable inheretance due you earned by the
labors
of say your grandfather, and you were diddled out of it because you
had little or no political and economic power..well...you get the
drift here.

Certainly. Punish the guilty, not the people who happen to remind
you
of the guilty.

The "guilty" took the inheritence of others and gave it to their
children, etc. down over the years. And the capitol goods produced,
while more easily identified is in other names than those of blacks
now...lost long ago.

But the alternative to their slavery was to remain in Africa,

snip

where slavery was also rampant,

Driven by Arabs, into a major industry instead of a local issue,
who
in turn sold them to Europeans. And we whites had slavery at least
as
far back as Africans did.

Incorrect. Africans bought and sold Africans for centuries prior to
any
European setting foot on the continent, just as slavery still exists
in
Africa. Blaming it entirely on whites and Arabs is revisionism.

On the contrary. YOUR claim is revisionism. No such wholesale buying
and selling took place until international slavery opened the door to
it.

Slavery was local and a minor factor at the SAME TIME INHABITANTS OF
EUROPE were also ingaged in slavery of their own.

Your revisionist claimers of revisionism are just bull**** artists
ignorant of history.

Africans participated in slavery, they didn't originate it.

and many diseases and civil wars continue to
this day. Not an enviable existence.

The intervention into the body politic of Africa by Europeans had
something of a disruptive influence on an already advanced medical
and
academic based civilization.

It was not advanced in medicine nor academics. You had people who
built Cathedrals and used calculus meet peoples who have no written
language, have no concept of numbers and have yet developed the wheel

That was Turtle Island natives, known now by some as Native Americans,
you have mixed up with the peoples that built the pyramids.

http://24.24.31.212/literature/POL-H...in-Writing.htm

You are amazingly poorly read for someone that leapt into this thread
full of opinions. The ancestors of current Africans seem to have been
the originators of the alphabet.

If you want to claim that they were from somewhere else THEN fine, but
their blood runs in African's veins today.

While, just as in other parts of the world, there certainly were
such
conditions, there were centers of learning and power and commerce
that
were once the equal and even surpassing the outside world. Africa
wasn't much different than anywhere else in the world, and in many
ways superior.

In the time frame being discussed, this is totally incorrect.

Translation: "in the time frame I am only willing to discuss."

No time frame was set. If you say Africa and Africans you can't very
well limit it to just a sort time frame when discussing it and them
and assigning blame for their plight to them.

If I get sore on my heel from new shoes shall we, when I go back to
the store, leave out the past when I bought the shoes and only discuss
how I walked in them later?

What was developed when the Europeans landed in West Africa was a
successful slave traded, which the Europeans benefited from.

It was not a successful African slave trade. It was a successful Arab
slave trade with Africa being the exploited resource.

In fact,
when the British began to outlaw slavery not only in Britain but in
their
colonies, it was the Africans who protested the strongest as it was
bad
for their business.

Yep. I wouldn't ever attempt to claim that any race or people could
not be subverted. Black Africans are no different than Asians (slavers
for thousands of years) or Europeans (slavers for thousands of years),
the red peoples (asian forebears) of North America (slavers
themselves).

So what's with this "they are better off now so they don't deserve
anything" bull**** about. No, they AREN'T better off. A few are.

The very generation who wants reparations, would be living in
appalling conditions, starvation, illiteracy, civil war etc.

From the result of incursions and disruptions by European invaders.

Canada, The USA, Australia, Hong Kong etc. all were invaded by
Europeans. How do their economies survive?

I wasn't making a claim that all incursions result in bad outcomes
(though I have a hunch some Amerinds, some Australion Abos, a few
ethnic locals in Hong Kong might like to answer your question).

I was only claiming that the African experience came out badly for
Africans.

Now, Shall we chat with the Amerinds and Abos?

Do you, for instance, understand the history of the Middle East and
why we REALLY are there at war today?

Africa had a stable political climate with set borders based on
tribal
allegences and treaties...we Europeans disrupted that according to
economic exploitation we saw fit to do. We used rivalries between
tribes to set one group over another and THAT is the cause of the
current bad conditions.

Slave empires in Africa predated major contact with Western
Europeans.

Slave based economies predated European incursion in Africa in many
parts of the world. China, Europe (ask the Russian peasants in the
1800's...they went from nearly nothing to totally nothing under the
Czar), all of the Americans, had slave based economies.

It is interesting that you use terms like "invasion" when describing
the
actions of the Europeans but use "rivalries" to describe brutal wars
between African tribes.

Yep. It is interesting in that it differentiates the intra-continental
and local vs the intercontinental and international. Local wars were
local. A study of say the South African Zulu battles internally and
with other tribes locally shows, against the backdrop of a continent,
how very territorial and small such wars were.

By the all "wars" are "brutal" to the victims. Why the hyperbole?

Instead
they have air conditioning, tap water, police protection, relative
peace, enough food etc, stuff that all of us have in the great
USA.

They do? You haven't seen South Sacramento, or parts of Phoenix AZ
have you? Other big cities boast similar centers of urban affluence
and comfort. You need to get out and about.

So... they are better off due to slavery than they would be
without
slavery and their ancestors being brought here.

Well, if they had stayed in the pit that Europeans created in some
parts of Africa (by the way, not all African nations are as you
describe) yes, you are correct. But had their not been and
international slave trade the incursions probably wouldn't have
taken
place either.

Virginia is a "pit?" Canada?

I would say so. If you are a slave, yanked out of your familiar home,
made to travel and watch your relatives, brothers and sisters,
children, grandparents, die and be raped and brutilized, then find
yourself living in squalor on half rations and being worked to death
day by day, I think "pit" is kind of a mild term.

You can't accuse me of overstating..not in the least.

And the fact that those places are wonderful today is based as much on
the industry of Africans after freedom as white. Now as to the matter
of the work products of the black african slaves the hundreds of years
before their freedom.............well, we'll go into that later.

The slave trade was big business before
the Europeans had any part.

Everywhere in the world.

China is a good example, though often not understood in this sense so
not used often. If you have the power of life and death over a person,
the power to use their body in any way you see fit, and to pay them or
not exactly as you decide, you have that person as your slave.

That was the case for the Emperor and his courtiers and Mandarins
throughout China for thousands of years.

Dig into the Middle Ages in Europe. Serfs were slaves in the sense
that if they didn't give over to the Lord what he said they had to
they could have their lands taken, be left to wander and die.

African leaders were over-joyed to have
a new market for their prodct.

Any people can be subverted.

I believe that slavery in Africa would have faded out as surely as
slavery in other parts of the world did around the same time, had
their been no incursion of Europeans THAT HAD JUST LOST THE ADVANTAGES
OF SLAVERY AND NEEDED NEW BODIES.

With out that outside pressure from us slavery would have evolved out.

So you see I agree with you, but not your apparent claim that Africans
were somehow less moral than we.

Why do they deserve any form of reparation then?

Because they ancestors labored for free for tens of generations.
I'll
give you a hint. Do you know what capitol goods are? Do you know
what
fixed resources are?

So did mine. I'm not demanding any money from the British.

Funny, I think there are some Irish (some my own relatives) running
about making them pay to this very day. Not getting a lot but they
take their penny here and their penny there and more than a tiny
portion of the blood of British boys.

What about blacks in the US who owned slaves?

What about them? How does these moral shortcoming of some blacks
excuse the moral shortcomings of millions of white slaveowners, or
evev ONE?

Lousy argument. See it all the time. Childish school yard whining,
"Well Billy got to play on the big swings."

What about families who
lost sons and fathers in the Civil War?

Economic conflict between northern industrialists squeezing the south
for machinery and manufactured goods (the mills where in the north
were the coal was to run them) by banding together and setting the
prices they would pay (today that would be prosecuted under federal
law) for the raw baled cotton is what set things off.

Slavery was a convenient distraction for the populace so it wouldn't
be so obvious their sons were dying for industrialist profits.

It was a good one because abolishionists had been pushing for many
years prior about the slavery issue. And it was a moral sickness, no
question.

I consider the question you ask below more of that moral sickness we
still haven't cleaned up.

Do they own money as well? What
about people that have came to this country 50 years ago? Two years
ago?

I am reminded of my question of the non-existent jewish, irish,
polish, welch, german, italian, ghettos of today. Which still stands?

There is only one, and I didn't name it.

Until you have gone into black ghettos...not black "neighborhoods"
which aren't a whole lot different than white neighborhoods...you have
no idea what you are talking about.

Were I the big boss and could have things my way, I'll levy some
reparations, through taxes, on the top 20 percent earners in the US,
all of then, all colors and ethnicities. They all have profited by the
black experience, even the better off blacks.

And I'd put that money into those still existent hell holes.

I wish had been in one...the really bad bad ones like Pheonix and
Sacramento. I mean you can't believe it from what I say here, but the
stench, the babies showing signs of malnutrition, the hopelessness,
would answer you right off.

Every person there needs an education, decent living conditions, and a
heartfelt and genuine invitation and welcome to change it or leave it.

The chance of failure would be very high, but that is a moral question
I don't care about... doing what's right shouldn't be about risk.

The risk would be the failure through the mental condition, the
psychological historically based mental state of the people there.

Ever been a slave? Your ancestors within say four generations?

You have to really roll that term around in your mouth and your head
like black people sometimes do. You have to read about the bodies of
black women found in NY slave cemetaries with their spines driven up
into their skulls from being forced to carry huge loads, the signs on
the bones of the tendons torn from limbs by those same kinds of
labors, the wear on bones that is NOT found on white bones of the
times, even on servants.

They were worked, literally, until it killed them.

And their children were.

They were raped at the pleasure of the owners.

What do you think the rate of ownership might be between white
america
and black america and this true indicators of wealth and power?

I have no idea, and neither do you.

Yes I do. Very few blacks own capitol goods outright or control them,
but they are learning. The resergence of black banking in the US is an
obvious sign of their awareness of "economics," not that it's a sign
to anyone but whites who don't get it that blacks know what's up and
been up for centuries.

To steal money from person A,

Labor is money. Yes, black people had their "money" stolen from them.

That's what the "re" in reparations is all about.

not because
they are guilty,

It's not a matter of guilt. That's liberal hogwash. I don't feel
guilty about my ancestors. I just know what is right and just.

If I have money in my pocket that came to me through the opporunity I
have to live and work in the conditions I do, then some of that
accrued to me from the work of others that DIDN'T GET PAID AT THE TIME
OF THEIR LABORS.

they most certainly are not, only because they LOOK LIKE
people who did bad things a century ago and give that stolen property
to people
who LOOK LIKE people who suffered a century ago is racism pure and
simple.

Backass as usual. Does whitey take lessons in double talk at a special
school? I guess I missed it when I was young...though I think I recall
hearing a little bit of it around me among my relatives.

The badness that happened can only be addressed in the present by how
any reparations are used. I'm not suggesting flying over black
neighborhoods and kicking bundles of cash out.

The "badness" can never be made up for, only addressed to heal some of
the damages....mostly psychological. The deaths far too young, the
pain and shortness of life, the incessant raping of black women, the
broken families, these aren't going to be "made up for" iun any way.

What can be though, is the looting of the labors, the money, that was
rightfully their's, and converted to its value today.

You can trust me on this: I'm not going to walk up to the first black
person I see and hand him some percentage of my pocket change with an
eye to fixing things between us. Neither he nor I would be so foolish
as to think that means anything substantial.

Obviously I think that bringing all those slaves was a very bad
idea. With bad consequences. A typical story about immoral acts
exacting revenge in ways completely unforeseen. Civil war, etc
etc,
was a consequence of slavery.

It was more a consequence of economic pressures by the north on the
south. Slavery was, sadly, a side issue. Do some studying.

I am constantly amazed and frequently amused at the ignorance that
we
Americans allow those with economic power to foist on us.

This country is still a colony being exploited as surely as King
George did. It's just our own folks doing it too us and the brits
never did really get out.

Remember when we were, about 15 years ago, all atwitter when it was
disclosed in the major media that the Japanese were major investors
in
US fixed resources, real estate mostly, but with mineral deposits,
timber, grazing lands, etc.

That was a caluculated bit of propaganda the GOBs (good ol boys)
like
to put out from time to time. The brits own far more of the US than
the Japanese could have ever hoped to.

Your sexism is obvious.

Sexism?

Did I leave out The GOG's then? Sorry.

Do you know who the major holder of gold mining interests is in the
US. Her name starts with an E and you better courtsey.

Bigots, and you ARE one, whether you like to admit it or not, are
the
tools of these manipulators.

You are the bigot. You believe that people can be given the fruits
of one's
labor and have it taken away based on their skin color.

I believe that the fruits of black people's labor was taken away, and
it's time to give it back to their children.

If someone ripped off your father for wages, and now you found out
that his employer was being class action sued by the children of
other's of his employee's would it be morally improper of you to sign
up?

Particulary if he had ripped your father off for the current day
equivalent of a half to a million dollars or so?

Just think what a single slave produced in his or her lifetime.

Salaries today over a lifetime, even modest incomes, can amount to
close to a million.

In fact the natural instinct that underlies bigotry has been a
major
tool for elitists to gain and maintain power since the middle ages.

The greatest crime that the Europeans have ever committed, was the
export of Marxist collectivism.

Oh boy, here we go.

This failed orthodoxy has destroyed more
Africans than all the colonizing powers combined.

Over similar timespans and population rates considered, it can't hold
a candle to slavery more misery quotient.

In 1960 Africa was
a net food exporter and had an economy greater than Asia. Once
countries gained their independence they adopted the left socialism
that has ruined dozens of countries and continues to rob the people
of their ability to support themselves.

That wasn't a matter of Marxist collectivism except in name. The
brutal african leaders that claimed to be installing such systems were
lying through their teeth...a habit inculcated by a few hundred years
under colonial rule.

I think you are just ****ed about the white farmers, right?

True collectivism, though not my personal favorite, would not have
booted them, but in fact would have included them. That IS what
collectivism is supposed to be about.

No, it was avarice and corruption that was and is causing trouble in
Africa today. The fruits of European Imperialism.

We can never know what the path for Africa could have been (though
your mention of its success in food export suggests they have more
than enough knowledge, skill, and productivity) had they been left
alone.


Have a nice day.

Kane

Gosh, no salutation? Okay, have a nice day anyway.

Kane

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 17:59:34 GMT, "bobb" wrote:


"Ignoramus3100" wrote in message
...
In article , Kane
wrote:
On 23 Nov 2003 20:02:29 GMT, Ignoramus22857
wrote:

In article k.net,
bobb wrote:


"Ignoramus22857" wrote in
message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:
If this is true as you claimed why is the crime rate so in
the
50's?
Why is it so low in Singapore?

Do not forget people, US crime rate is to a very large extent
a
"race
issue". 53% of the offenders were black and only 45% white in
1996,
according to the FBI statictics. That's even though blacks are
a
small
fraction of the population.

That's why it's expressed as a percentage.

I think I feel a bigot baggin' comin' on.

Do you know anything at all about the black experience in this
country
beyond Rochester, Step and Fetchit'and Shaft movies?

No I do not.


In 1950s, blacks were not liberated as much, did not have easy
access
to weapons, etc. Liberation of them, while it had a lot of
desirable
effects, unfortunately had a great effect on black crime rate.

Like whites began to notice the prevalent black and black crime
that
had always been around.

An excellent point.

Like I said earlier, if all crime stats were properly broken down
and
analyzed, you would, first, see a much lower increase in actual
crime,
and second, you would not see any causal link that suggests that
child
beating leads to lower crime.

Funny, how when you press people into a Ghetto
with each other the crime rate for ghetto dweller upon ghetto
dweller
goes up.

Surely, you are quite right.

I don't suppose proximity has much to do with it though. "Those
folks"
can just mount up and go out to the burbs to do their crime where
the
police presence and response is not as high...oh wait...

Think about the LA riots and why the rioters trashed their own
neighborhoods.

You apparently haven't known any blacks well enough for them to
familiarize you with DWN or DWB...Driving While ****** or Driving
While Black is the common experience of black people, men
especially
(the women are though to be just servants coming and going to
work)
have of being rousted when they leave the Ghetto.

And surely you are right here, as well.

A lot of crimes, such as forcible rape, was not as well
reported
in
1950s, either.

I strongly suspect that if you break crime down well, the
difference
between 1950s and now would not be as huge for, say, white
middle
class people.

I would also be very surprised if trash criminals were grown
in
nonviolent homes.

Now you are on to something.

Thanks.

I am too lazy to look for it, but my sense is that
these criminals grow up amongst drunk, drug abusing, wife
beating,
child beating retards, and not paragons of respectful,
attentive
methods of child rearing.

More or less. What has the race of someone got to do with it,
given
your prior examples?

I was pointing out that the OP's statement linking nonviolent
methods
of childrearing to increased crime was absurd, and that other
reason
explain apparent rise in crime rates readily. One of those reasons
had
to have something to do with tha changes in how the black community
is
treated, and another one, as I pointed out, was that crime
statistics
today is done differently.

Does it change
anything in regards to what I said? Or let's say that it was
cheap. Would it change anything in regards to what I said?

I think so, if you can get your head around bobb's rabid racism.
He
thinks that if the hispanics and blacks would get out there would
be a
world of jobs for whites. Yeah, I can see all those white tomato
pickers now, and the landscape yard men, the ditch diggers and
cleaners, the chemical farm spray workers...sure.

I think that I am being dragged into a debate in which I have
little
interest. I came here when I saw a statement that said that less
child
beating means more crime. And now somehow I am being dragged into a
discussion as to whether illegal immigration is a good thing.

It is a huge social problem. Many of the CPS laws apply to blacks or
were
incorporated because of the black population. Absent fathers, etc.

Darn, I guess I been taken in. I didn't know whites had no problem
with absent fathers.

The
illegal immigrant population is leading down another path that will
be just
as badly mishandled by the government.

And that would be what path and what handling?

But more to your point... there are those who see any kind of
spanking or
slap on the butt as a terrible beating,

Bull****.

or at least like to protray it as
such and use it to justify bad behaviors in later life.

Since I can get better responses from children with close to zero
chance of unwanted side effects with non-violent means I find such a
portrayal pointless for my purposes.

Though in looking at the brainscans work on learning issues I'm coming
to the conclusion that any punishment is pointless when we are
teaching. Even we are teaching children about unwanted behavior.

That's like saying
anyone who chewed gum will turn out to be a criminal.

No, it's nothing like that at all. Though I wonder if we could work up
some grant money to study learning ability and characteristics while
chewing and not chewing gum.

You see bobb, it isn't about "turning out bad" because of the trauma
of being spanked (though there IS a fair argument for it) but the
turning out bad because of learning issues...inability to learn
without unwanted side effects, and not being able to fully learn what
we intended.

The Embry study is a classic in this mistaken bull**** by you
spankers.

Few kids get through
childhood without a slap on the butt.. or chew gum.

Which has no point whatsoever. The ones that do get through childhood
with a slap on the butt turn out exceedingly well, much to your
frustration and screeching refusal to believe.

As for gum, I ask kids that I'm teaching to take gum out for one
simple reason...one doesn't hear as well when chewing.

Simple practical things such as this is why I don't have to worry
about children parented by non-violent means, and I do have to worry
about children who are spanked and punished, when each gets out in the
environment with me.


bobb

bobb


Tah, bobb bobb.

Kane

On 24 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

In article , Doan wrote:

On 24 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

I think that I am being dragged into a debate in which I have little
interest. I came here when I saw a statement that said that less child
beating means more crime. And now somehow I am being dragged into a
discussion as to whether illegal immigration is a good thing.

Then you are mistaken! Nowhere did I ever say that less "beating" means
more crime. The issue here is whether spanking (not beating) leads to
crime - as the anti-spankings claimed. All I said is there is no
evidence of it and if you look at the studies they cited, the
'correlations" is even stronger for non-cp alternatives!

If you substitute word "beating" to "spanking" in appropriate places
of my original followup, the meaning of that followup will not change.

So here goes it: "I came here when I saw a statement that said that less
child SPANKING means more crime." CAN YOU SHOw ME WHERE IN THIS THREAD
SOMONE SAID THAT???

Doan

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:08:21 GMT, "bobb" wrote:


"Ignoramus3100" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Doan
wrote:

On 24 Nov 2003, Ignoramus3100 wrote:

They say that we owe reparations for black slavery, obviously
owed to
the generation of people who never experienced slavery.

Only if you are assuming that blacks don't have a past. What we
owed
their fore-fathers, we owed their offsprings. It's like if I owe
your
father some money and he died, do you think that money should be
yours
as part of your father's estate?

Except that there is no genuine debt.

The issue that that the present generation is entitled to money
from
white people as compensation of some ancient wrong. And I say, the
present generation _benefited_ from past wrongs. If those wrongs
were
not committed, they would be in Africa living a very destitute
life.

But the alternative to their slavery was to remain in Africa,
where
slavery was also rampant, and many diseases and civil wars
continue to
this day. Not an enviable existence.

Oops! Basic logical flaw! We don't know that. Noone can
predict what
would have happenned. It could also be that without losing all
the
men power to whites, the blacks would have the resources to build
their
own society that would rival what we have today.

One need only look as far as africa.

Sure can.

They have had the resources,

Are you one of those that think the Brits in African spent their time
holding cricket matches and have to tea their neighboring German,
Dutch, Portuguese, French colonials?

How quaint. The resources of Africa were stripped bare. Now the cost
of getting what's left out has escalated hugely. Ask a mining engineer
about it.

Soils have been depleted in many areas by white cattle farmers
overgrazing and nearly depleting traditional herds.

and in
fact demanded their own destiny when they threw the British out,

Ah...the British were not the only folks vacationing in African and
talking back little trinkets with them, like Ivory, Gold, Copper,
Diamonds, etc. And the product of millions of black peoples labors.

and the
situation is now appalling.

Yes, in some areas the colonials left behind devastated economies and
political systems. On the other hand there are places in Africa that
are still like Eden. Quiet, peaceful, villages of well fed folks
happily playing with fat little babies, milking goats, picking their
crops.

Without a doubt Kenya can be looked upon as the
most progressive

One has to define what they mean by "progressive." Some African's
don't define it as you might.

but unless you've been there don't hark too loud. Crow
doesn't taste too good I'm told.

Loo! Zii! I don't think you've been there, rafiki.

Rafiki, Kiswahili zungumza kiasi gani?

bobb laghai.

Given that fact that blacks have had, and remain to have, the
opportunity
for self determnation and have failed,

Beg pardon?

I notice whites all over the world, and asians, and all races or
ethnicities failing sometimes in some places.

Do you just blindly agree with everything the media feeds you?

They tend to focus rather much on the negative. Rarely on the
positive. Blacks do quite well in many places and times. 1

is a fairly good indication that
their present status in the U.S. would not have been acheived except
for
whites.

R R R R R....you mean without bleeding their ancestors dry, lyching
those that tried to rise above their station, running them out then
keeping them out of white neighborhoods, denying them the vote by
lynching and threats, and them not rising up and cutting the throats
of every white person they could find.

Yeah, they sure wouldn't have achieved. I find them extraordinarily
patient and strong of character...and certainly compared to you.

Seen that list of black inventors yet?

bobb

bobb, when you put in a salute it appears you have stopped writing.
Just a friendly reminder....read on folks.

busily sitting there judging others he knows little about what his
childhood taught bigotry will allow.



you are grasping at straws here...

So... they are better off due to slavery than they would be
without
slavery and their ancestors being brought here.

Then that somehow makes slavery right??? We are doing them a
favor,
right?

The slavery issue is distorted. The only true difference between
working
for a low wage, or the basics, is the treatment of those doing the
work. We
are still 'slaves' to the work force except we are now treated
differently.

Yep, and the man knows how to set us slaves against each other.

In Japan, workers are still 'owned' by those who do the employing.
Employers own the workers cars, apartments, and control lives.
Slavery is a
relative status and even history speaks of the fact that not all
slavery was
bad nor were all slaves treated bad.

Could you provide us with some references for your claim...just
interested. You could well be right, but having met a number of
Japanese that own their own homes and work for corporations I find it
just a tad hard to believe.

Rather a few own their own cars as well. I've ridden around in a few
and recall the owners telling me the cost of the vehicle. Are my
friends lying, domo arigato. Sayonara, chee si tomadachi.

I once made my living as an importer, and loved staying in countries
long after my formal business was completed. Want to tell us some more
lies about other people and their countries and cultures? Or is it
just plain ignorance?


bobb


It does not make slavery wrong, but the present generation blacks
in
the US benefited from their forefathers being imported. Who
suffered
is their forefathers and not the descendants.

i


I loved that, "not the descendents" not suffering line.

It tends to fly in the face of the logic that tells me that the good
fortunes of certain families did no good for their descendents either.

I know that the fortunes of a black slave couldn't possibly have any
effect on a black descendent of today, just like the current crop of
Kennedies don't profit by their educations, estates, political power
their old poppa and grandpoppa didn't get by way of his rum running
back in prohibition...sure.

And those Rothchilds, well every generation had to start fresh,
don'tchaknow.

The great problem with reparations will be that the potentials of
those who died in slavery can not be known. There will be no parity
because while some were by genetic inheritence just ordinary folks,
some where geniuses who died in poverty without ever being able to
gain from their capacities...locked forever in the ground, lost to
their ancestors.

If you live in America every day of your life you enjoy the
convenience and sometimes your very life to inventions of black
geniuses.

But then, that can be left alone. Hopefully their children profited by
their legacy to them.

Kane