Media Honesty

[Jwaksman]

At least this newspaper (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920570) admits their liberal bias. Quick summary, the St. Louis Post Dispatch (as well as some other companies) were bought by Lee Enterprises. That company had to agree, in the contract, to keep the newspaper's liberal slant for atleast 5 more years. I wonder if the New York Times is signed to the same contract... :D

[Zat0pek]

My in-laws live in St. Louis. That paper drives them nuts. Gotta give them at least a little credit for not pretending to be neutral a la the NYTimes, at least.

[Sebrle]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B 63

[mzungu]

okrent's article is very telling, but it is actually inaccurate to say that times' articles do not account for various sides of issues. in fact, its articles, as any well-written article will do, typically raise and answer objections. the paper certainly reflects the social-cultural location, and that is solidly democratic and culturally open or tolerant. there's no reason to apologize for a critical openness or tolerance. and let's face it, the new york times does not have all the best newspaper writers but it has the highest percentage of the best, it has many, many pulitzer prizes, and it is the best american paper by far. i would like to analyze times' articles vs. say, washington times articles to demonstrate the differences, but then i'd have to read the lockstep, unthinking crap of rev. moon, so i'll leave that onerous task to others. well, maybe one article.

[Jwaksman]

But sometimes the NYTimes goes too far. I don't know how many times the big front page article (and picture) are a story about some family in Ohio that is struggling to pay for medicine and lost their insurance after their factory closed... while a bombing in Tel Aviv gets relegated to page 7.


If the New York Times wants to be a straight partisan paper then so be it (they basically are, they haven't supported a non-Democrat for any office in my lifetime) - it's fine. Freedom of speech, of course. But just be honest, and admit that it's what you're doing, so that perhaps a real objective newspaper could develop in the NY Metropolitan area.

[mzungu]

pretty hard to top the times for 'objectivity' and they have okrent in there to criticize editorial positions that individual reporters would not recognize, in terms of the choice of headlines and articles. it is highly, highly competitive to become a times' reporter and they are some sharp people there. they don't have graduate degrees other than journalism, for the most part, but they are extremely well-educated. the only way they could do much better is to skip the journalism degree stuff for a lot of them and get people in there with specific graduate degrees in particular areas--history, economics, physics, literature, etc. but if they wrote at a more advanced level they would diminish their market.

here's the hard-hitting, objective op-ed stuff you get at the washington times. at least he quotes shakespeare:
"An awkward GOP spring

By Tony Blankley


It has been an awkward winter and spring for the Grand Old Party, but as the city sanitation department sweeps away the last of the cherry blossoms, the Republicans seem to be re-forming as a coherent fighting mechanism.
Winter got off to a bad start when the tidal waves killed hundreds of thousands of Asians and, more to the political point, swept away the aura of good feelings following the Republicans' triumphant November election results. That gave Democrats a chance to feel good about themselves again by beating up on "American stinginess," while Republicans had to apologize for the mere billion dollars and the 7th Fleet rescue mission we dispatched.
After a rousing inaugural address, President Bush set Republicans to further nervous fidgeting with his State of the Union "cry havoc and let slip the dogs of Social Security reform." Republican congressmen naturally feared that "this foul deed shall smell above the earth With carrion men, groaning for burial" (Shakespeare's version of the third rail). Then, the Republicans apparently irked the public with their efforts to save the poor Terri Schiavo woman, which in turn launched the DemocraticPartyNewYorkTimesWashingtonPostCBSCNN mudball attack on Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. For about three weeks, the House Republicans, leaderless, wandered around bumping into each other and thinking about throwing Old Tom overboard.
At the same time the Senate Republicans, without the benefit of any White House planning or leadership, were letting the Democrats use Mr. Bush's nominee to the United Nations, John Bolton, as a human pinata (except that in this game, the pinata was blindfolded and the Democratic children with sticks had their eyes wide open.) Further enervating Republican elan was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's tedious, slow-motion, half-threat of ending judicial filibusters.
It was a sorry picture indeed: A city full of large, ivory-tusked, bull battle elephants driven to fear, distraction and goring each other by the braying of a pack of mangy jackasses.
But the Democrats appear to have overplayed their hand. The tactic of "boo" must be used sparingly — preferably when it is dark, and preferably at unsuspecting targets. After the donkeys with alligator masks on have jumped out from behind the capitol columns three or four times in succession in broad daylight shouting "boo," it has begun to dawn on the Republican elephants that the only danger to them is if they stumble down the steps in response to the "boo." The Democrats are powerless to do much of anything in national politics of a functional nature. All they can do is malfunction and hope to induce the Republicans to join them in their malfunctioning. By using angled light, the Democrats have been able to spend the winter and spring casting a larger shadow than their actual stature would justify.
Slowly, the Republicans have come to notice that the only thing they have to fear is fear itself. As FDR explained: "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." Finally, the advance has begun.
First, the House rallied around Mr. DeLay and started to fight back — much to the discomfort of Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel and at least two dozen of their quickly retreating flock who are too busy correcting their own ethical lapses to give full throat to phony charges against Mr. DeLay.
Then the White House re-stiffened the spines of the Republican senators who are now ready to confirm John Bolton to his ambassadorship to the United Nations. It will bring a grateful smile to many a Republican face (and a rueful grimace to Sen. Joseph Biden and his Democratic associates) in the coming months and years whenever Ambassador Bolton is prominently quoted saying needed, if unpleasant things to the corrupt rabble posing as diplomats up at the United Nations. And given the prominence of his confirmation process, his quotes in office also will be more prominently reported than they otherwise would have been.
Next week should see the official trigger pulling in the Senate to kill the judicial filibuster. Then for the next three and three-quarter years, Mr. Bush, needing only 50 votes (plus the vice president's) will be able to nominate and have confirmed solid, smart conservative judges — most of them under 45 years old. He may replace up to four Supreme Court justices and a broad range of circuit justices. It will be an historic policy accomplishment that will last at least 30 years.
Even Social Security reform has been clarified for Republicans, as they have been put on notice that Mr. Bush does not intend to back down. So they have to decide whether to fight with him or against him. My guess is they will fight with him to force passage of some meaningful fiscal reform. Now that the fighting spirit has been re-engaged, Republicans will prefer to take the odd wound in the chest fighting for something, rather than a wound on the backside running away from their responsibilities.
Or, as Shakespeare reminds us: "Our doubts are traitors, And make us lose the good we oft might win By fearing to attempt."

[Zat0pek]

The one who does arranged marriages, and in fact, did one for Yong Sung Leal (awesome HS runner a few years back)?

Whatever happened to Leal? I was wondering about him the other day.

[MoMo]

I don't know how many times the big front page article (and picture) are a story about some family in Ohio that is struggling to pay for medicine and lost their insurance after their factory closed... while a bombing in Tel Aviv gets relegated to page 7.


How many times? Umm, maybe once? I read the paper daily and don't remember the last time I saw that on the front page. Please provide a date.

As to a Tel Aviv bombing picture being on Page 7 -- are you now suggesting that the Times is not sympathetic to Israel?

[MoMo]

jwack, are you unaware that a newspaper can have completely independent news and editorial-page operations? most do. a paper like the times can editorially support certain candidates; that doesn't mean the news pages do the same.

[Jwaksman]

If a newspaper ONLY endorses Democrats because of the (D) next to their name and never endorses anyone else because they have different letters, then that is not being independent - it's a euphamism for leftist-bias. Now, I know that the Lenin Times would be conservatively biased for you... but to the rest of us, we'd like a newspaper that might actually surprise us with an endoresment every once in a while.


Also, the editorial page is not really the problem. Everyone knows that if you read a Krugman article that he is just going to bash whatever Bush has done in the last week. So you know what you're getting from him. And it's a page for opinions, so everyone has to pick a side. What's a problem is when newspapers simply only focus on one side of the story in the news section.


As George Orwell wrote (I'll paraphrase), bias is about what isn't written.

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, don't even try to tell me that they don't have one of those "sympathetic" stories about a poor family on the front page atleast once every two weeks. Don't lie in order to prove a point.

[MoMo]

in response to my simple request -- that you back up your assertion about nyt stories on page one about poor ohio families -- you've called me a liar and a leninist.

your response to repeated requests -- politely made by several of us -- that you simply stop insulting people is to deepen the level of insults, to engage as a FIRST line of argument in ad hominem attacks, almost your only line.

you don't deserve further response. i think we should all boycott your posts, at least in the lounge, until you show the vaguest bit of maturity.

[Kalaby]

The ironic thing is that many years ago the NY Times was the right leaning paper and the NY Post was the left leaning paper.

[Jwaksman]

Whatever, MoMo, you just can't let anything go... You want me to go to a library to go microfiche back through dozens of old NYTimes to prove to you that it has a liberal bias....


This is like asking me to prove that the primary language of the reporting is English...


And I didn't call you a leninist. I just said that there is not a newspaper on this planet that you would consider leftist biased, because you're as far left as someone can be. So, a leftist bias paper seems just fine to you, even though it's far to the left of normal people.

It's not an insult, it's just pointing out that you're a leftist, which (I'm pretty sure) you acknowledge. It's just like how Pat Buchanan would never say that Foxnews is conservatively biased, he'd say that it was just objective and that it's the rest of the media that is too far to the left...

[KenA55]

you're as far left as someone can be

Move over, Che Guevera.

Haha, pull your shorts back up, J.

[Jwaksman]

Che Guevara wasn't a pure leftist. He was a self-proclaimed Stalinist. That means he pushed for, developed, and ran their forced-labor camps where people were tortured & killed for being gay or for being capitalists. Doesn't sound like a liberal to me...

[Jwaksman]

Alright, MoMo, I'm not going to microfiche old NY Times, but I'll look at the one in my house. My family (I'm home from college for a couple weeks) has put every section into recycling but the Sunday Business Section (Section 3), so we'll analyze that. This section should be an unbiased, purely news section. This isn't the Editorial page. So, let's analyze the front page (for those with the NY Times at home, you can read along):


There are three front page articles, with seven other articles mentioned (titles only) in the bottom left corner. The biggest article is called "Who's Preying on Your Grandparents" - about insurance companies that sell annuities that lock up money for years, often until the people who invest are dead. Not exactly a business friendly article...


The second largest article is called "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Succeeding", about how airline CEOs are making huge amounts of salary & benefits even while their companies are nearing bankruptcy and firing thousands of workers.


The third (and smallest) article on the front page is the only article not bashing business. It's called "Some Things You Just Can't Teach", describing the stock of a corporation that provides educational services. That's the kind of objective business information that you're supposed to have in this section.


Now, as I said, there are 7 articles that are mentioned (titles only) on the bottom left corner. The first is an oddity article on sea monkeys. The second is called "Walking the beat with a new corporate cop", about stopping those evil business CEOs. The third article is an Internet information article. The fourth article is self explanatory: "No losers in Social Security? Not likely". I'll let you guys guess whether he's supporting or opposing the Bush plan, haha. The next article is about Carl Icahn, a guy "who loves to make corporate executive squirm," who just won a few seats on the board of Blockbuster. Atleast this article is more about the business of Blockbuster than anything else. The next article is pure investment advice article. The next article is called "Why the dollar's slide isn't over". His reasoning? Bush's budget deficit & current account deficit, among other things. The final article is about how policies that give parents extra vacation time from work are hurting.... get this... childless people who aren't getting the same vacation time. In other words, all of those laws weren't to help parents, but to stop people from working.



Final tally:


2 of the 3 front page articles are blatantly anti-big business.

Of the 10 total articles mentioned on the front page, 4 were pure information, 5 had to do with anti-big business issues, and one (about Icahn) only has a few anti-corporation comments, although the main gist is business oriented.


Hmm... no articles about people in Taiwan who are now middle-class thanks to American outsourcing, no articles about corporations that are offering higher wages than similar companies that are unionized. No articles about some business that is now making big profits thanks to capital earned from the tax cuts, or from increased investment due to the cutting of the dividend tax. I wonder why..... :D



To make my own personal conclusions, it's not that anti-business stuff should be excluded. On the contrary, it's extremely important for a capitalist society to know when businesses are acting in the wrong. It's the consumer's self-defense mechanism. However, it's also important for pro-business news to not be ignored. It's important to give both sides of the story. A newspaper should be presenting the news, and letting the reader come to his/her own conclusions, not force feeding them pre-chewed opinions.

[Biscuit_AQ]

readers are stupid. Thats what you're forgetting about the times (and assuming about the lounge).

[KenA55]

Che Guevara wasn't a pure leftist. He was a self-proclaimed Stalinist. That means he pushed for, developed, and ran their forced-labor camps where people were tortured & killed for being gay or for being capitalists. Doesn't sound like a liberal to me...

Far leftists can't be despots? That's sure news to me. In fact, and I'm taking the word of others on this one, I never spoke with the joe- but someone told me Stalin was actually a member of the communist party.

[Jwaksman]

I was saying that Che Guevara's legacy wasn't on the economic side of things. It was on cracking down on minorities, gays & nonbelievers. In other words, he was more of a Nazi than a Communist. I'd call him an extreme rightwinger.

[Sebrle]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0516NewsweekQuran16-ON.html

[KenA55]

I was saying that Che Guevara's legacy wasn't on the economic side of things. It was on cracking down on minorities, gays & nonbelievers. In other words, he was more of a Nazi than a Communist. I'd call him an extreme rightwinger.

The nationalization and attempted industrialization of Cuba were the direct responsibilities of the post-revolutionary Guevara. That is his primary legacy during the period following the revolution of '56-'58 to his eventually leaving Cuba in '64 ; he spoke and wrote extensively in that arena. He directed the socialist economic 'reforms' and was a member in an eventual position of leadership on the board of economic planning and coordination. He took Castro to task over spending too much on military vs. economic vitalization.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/heroes/guevara.htm

It's interesting that you equate 'right-wing' with persecution of these groups. Historically they have always been fair game for despots of all stripes.

[Jwaksman]

Well I'm just going with the way people usually generalize these things. I mean, why is Hitler a right-winger then? Part of the "NAZI" stands for Socialist, since it was the Socialist Party of Germany. So if he was a Socialist, isn't Hitler an extreme left winger?


But like I said, in our world, there's no real difference between leftwingers and rightwingers. All that matters is which freedoms you care more about taking away.


In reality, it's "big government" vs "small government." And Stalin, Hitler & Che were all big government. That involves extreme economic regulation, persecution of dissent, etc.

[Jwaksman]

By the way, what websites are you visiting where Che Guevara is a "hero" and not a "killer" of the 20th Century? He personally tortured and murdered tens of thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention how many more were killed by his policies. He was Pol Pot or Mao on a smaller scale. The great villains of the 20th Century:


Hitler
Stalin
Mussolini
Che Guevara
Mao
Pol Pot
Milosevic


I might be missing some, but Che Guevara is on that chart... How anyone can call him a "hero" is just ignorance of what Che really did.

[KenA55]

In reality, it's "big government" vs "small government." And Stalin, Hitler & Che were all big government. That involves extreme economic regulation, persecution of dissent, etc.

Very true as glittering generalities go.

And I really don't think anybody posting on this board can compete in the big gov't arena with some of these guys who advocate state ownership of virtually everything. There are simply acres and acres of real estate to the 'left' of MoMo, Mzungo, myself, and others here in this regard. That's why it's offensive and dishonest to suggest otherwise.

[KenA55]

By the way, what websites are you visiting where Che Guevara is a "hero" and not a "killer" of the 20th Century? He personally tortured and murdered tens of thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention how many more were killed by his policies. He was Pol Pot or Mao on a smaller scale. The great villains of the 20th Century:


Hitler
Stalin
Mussolini
Che Guevara
Mao
Pol Pot
Milosevic


I might be missing some, but Che Guevara is on that chart... How anyone can call him a "hero" is just ignorance of what Che really did.

ok, we'll make you official web-search censor in the next libertarian adminitration's cabinet.

[KenA55]

And by the way, the only reason Che Guevara and Castro were such heroes in the late fifties is because enough Cubans had had enough of our guy, Batista, that they joined in to do something about it. They were tired of giving complete free reign to unfettered american capitalists, aka organized crime- to use the island as their personal playground. Its easy to create miscreant heroes when you are in the business of propping up and in fact strongly desiring such miscreant government offshore.

[Jwaksman]

ok, we'll make you official web-search censor in the next libertarian adminitration's cabinet.




I guess that was supposed to be an immature attack on me, but I was just wondering what you were doing on that website. I mean, I've been to a website called "nukeisrael.com" - which is a white supremacist website. There are pictures of neo-nazi rallies, and "****er jokes," "spic jokes," and "kike jokes". I went there once and laughed my head off. But I wouldn't go there normally. I also wouldn't go to a website that would list Che Guevara or Mao or Stalin as a hero..



Edit: How come the N-word got censored but not the other two (equally) derogatory terms??

[exjersey1]

The ironic thing is that many years ago the NY Times was the right leaning paper and the NY Post was the left leaning paper.


You're definitely going back in time on that one.

When was the real turning point of the change? I kind of miss the days when SF still had two papers with different viewpoints. With the death of the Examiner, and the demise of the real Oakland Tribune, we're pretty much down to the Chronicle and the SJ Mercury, and they're really not much different.

[KenA55]

I guess that was supposed to be an immature attack on me, but I was just wondering what you were doing on that website. I mean, I've been to a website called "nukeisrael.com" - which is a white supremacist website. There are pictures of neo-nazi rallies, and "****er jokes," "spic jokes," and "kike jokes". I went there once and laughed my head off. But I wouldn't go there normally. I also wouldn't go to a website that would list Che Guevara or Mao or Stalin as a hero..



Edit: How come the N-word got censored but not the other two (equally) derogatory terms??

I wasn't fussy; simply picked up on the first search result comprehensive enough to cover his history both before, during, and after the Cuban revolution. Any site that had that would do. I could care less about the political philosophy being put forward, that wasn't the point. The point was that he was the primary shaper of Cuban economic socialism and spoke around the world on the topics revolving around socialism and economics. Do you have a problem with the information on that, is it necessary to go get it from a site more to your liking? Apparently these search engines lack political filters to keep socialism in check, but under your libertarian guidance I'm sure something can be done about that.

[Jwaksman]

Apparently these search engines lack political filters to keep socialism in check, but under your libertarian guidance I'm sure something can be done about that.



Why are you always so snotty to me?? What did I do to you?

[KenA55]

You're snotty as matter of routine, when it comes to particular posters and ideologies, and I'm choosing to send a little of that back at you. Part of the reason I didn't go beyond that particular site and get the same timeline on him from a more balanced source was that I thought you might enjoy that site, and wanted to see whether that was going to become an issue.

The fact remains, though, that many Cubans at the time- don't know if any polls were ever conducted to assign percentage estimates- did see the revolution as a Godsend. Over time I expect that support has at least privately waned, but I guess we'll never know until possibly after Castro's out of the picture.

I'll lay off the snottiness, you do the same.

[Jwaksman]

"I think you're being a jerk, so I'll be a jerk back to teach you a lesson!!!"

How old are you....???



Anyway, I'm enjoying the silence from our leftist duo of momo & mzungu on this thread. No response to the fact that the first random NYTimes section that I picked up was so blatantly biased towards the left? Hmmm....

[mzungu]

you're enjoying silence, while i was enjoying two days of not going to dyestat.
I find it interesting in your 'analyis' that 1) you examine none of the evidence in the articles, and thus do not prove that the authors fairly weigh the evidence, 2) you regard articles about corporate crime as leftist when this was also one of george w. bush's (late) emphases (recall his very late response to the enron scandal and his pushing of corporate governance reform in congress), 3) you associate democracy in corporate governance and critiques of poor corporate governance with leftists; if that's the case, then I will happily accept that the left is the only side pushing for democracy in publicly owned companies and pushing for good corporate governance.

about che guevara, i know little or nothing, but my suspicion is that a little bit of looking is going to show that he does not in any way belong to a list of evil 20th century titans. mao killed 50-60 million people in the 1950s. hitler is responsible for the deaths of nearly as many. same with stalin. pol pot is responsible for probably over 1 million deaths. how many million are you accusing che of killing? Which massive genocide did he commit?

[mzungu]

here's the worst I could find, and the guy is not exactly on the level of a stalin, etc. the reason he is put in such a category is probably not because his actions were on any kind of world-historical level, but because 1) he contribute to the revolution in cuba over the u.s. backed tyrant batista, 2) he championed revolution against oppressive, american-backed regimes throughout latin america. the worst he is accused of is definitely very bad, but by no means close to the century's great villains.

from slate:
"The cult of Ernesto Che Guevara is an episode in the moral callousness of our time. Che was a totalitarian. He achieved nothing but disaster. Many of the early leaders of the Cuban Revolution favored a democratic or democratic-socialist direction for the new Cuba. But Che was a mainstay of the hardline pro-Soviet faction, and his faction won. Che presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims. To get himself killed, and to get a lot of other people killed, was central to Che's imagination. In the famous essay in which he issued his ringing call for "two, three, many Vietnams," he also spoke about martyrdom and managed to compose a number of chilling phrases: "Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become …"— and so on. He was killed in Bolivia in 1967, leading a guerrilla movement that had failed to enlist a single Bolivian peasant. And yet he succeeded in inspiring tens of thousands of middle class Latin-Americans to exit the universities and organize guerrilla insurgencies of their own. And these insurgencies likewise accomplished nothing, except to bring about the death of hundreds of thousands, and to set back the cause of Latin-American democracy—a tragedy on the hugest scale."

[KenA55]

"I think you're being a jerk, so I'll be a jerk back to teach you a lesson!!!"

How old are you....???


Do the math, it's in the username. I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say that I consider you 'teachable,' the cranial concrete seems to have set up pretty stiffly already for you. Mostly I just did it just because I felt like it. Don't go there often but something about the sight of your cerebellum dangling there when you drop those mental drawers has been setting me off lately.
;) (hope you don't mind if I wink at you)

BTW, Mzungu, Che Guevara was notoriously ruthless with his own troops as well as non-compliant civilians, after setting his medic kit aside to carry weaponry, but he certainly didn't have the time and the resources that Mao had available to him to achieve the same sort of scale.

[mzungu]

please inform me about the numbers on guevara and then we can compare him or not.

[Jwaksman]

you're enjoying silence, while i was enjoying two days of not going to dyestat.
I find it interesting in your 'analyis' that 1) you examine none of the evidence in the articles, and thus do not prove that the authors fairly weigh the evidence, 2) you regard articles about corporate crime as leftist when this was also one of george w. bush's (late) emphases (recall his very late response to the enron scandal and his pushing of corporate governance reform in congress), 3) you associate democracy in corporate governance and critiques of poor corporate governance with leftists; if that's the case, then I will happily accept that the left is the only side pushing for democracy in publicly owned companies and pushing for good corporate governance.




In typical fashion, you did not read my entire post. As I stressed, this type of corporate-crime reporting is extremely important. But as I've said over and over and OVER again, bias is not about what you report but about what you don't report. And what the NY Times did not report, was a single positive story about business. By ignoring the good companies, and focusing only on the few bad apples, the NY Times will give any naive reader the opinion (like you have) that all businesses are evil. It is important to present both sides of the story.


And, Ken, don't worry, you're not too old to learn. I'll teach you how to be mature and be a good debater. You're not beyond hope.






.... see, I can talk down to people also.... :rolleyes:

[Jwaksman]

please inform me about the numbers on guevara and then we can compare him or not.


No, he didn't kill millions. I don't want to look it up, but I'm sure the deaths that he caused were only in the tens of thousands. But he was in power in a tiny country for a small period of time.


But tens of thousands of innocent deaths... how can you sweep that under the table? Not to mention the many more people who were sent to forced labor camps? Che Guevara was even proud to talk about how he used hate to drive his people, because you could get them to do crazy things if they can hate enough.


He's certainly NOT a hero...

[exjersey1]

There are three front page articles, with seven other articles mentioned (titles only) in the bottom left corner. The biggest article is called "Who's Preying on Your Grandparents" - about insurance companies that sell annuities that lock up money for years, often until the people who invest are dead. Not exactly a business friendly article...


The second largest article is called "How to Succeed in Business Without Really Succeeding", about how airline CEOs are making huge amounts of salary & benefits even while their companies are nearing bankruptcy and firing thousands of workers.


The third (and smallest) article on the front page is the only article not bashing business. It's called "Some Things You Just Can't Teach", describing the stock of a corporation that provides educational services. That's the kind of objective business information that you're supposed to have in this section.




I'm confused here:

Since you label the first two articles as anti-business, does that mean you agree with the policies they're describing? You think those are good things and believe that article should be written praising people who engage in those types of behavior?

[MoMo]

It also appears that articles that are sympathetic to the poor are considered a bad thing.

Perhaps they should all be bulldozed into the Grand Canyon, which could then be paved over to make a really grand new business location.

[Jwaksman]

I'm confused here:

Since you label the first two articles as anti-business, does that mean you agree with the policies they're describing? You think those are good things and believe that article should be written praising people who engage in those types of behavior?



So you don't read my posts either, do you? Our discussions would go a lot smoother if everyone actually read what I posted and didn't just pretend that I wrote something that you know I would never write.


As I've said over and over and over and over, articles attacking businesses that do bad things are EXTREMELY important. HOWEVER, bias is not about what is put in, but what ISN'T put in. Therefore, a newspaper should ALSO write about the good things that businesses do. But you will never see that in a paper like the NY Times. They ignore those stories. And THAT is where the bias is - not in the articles I mentioned...

[Jwaksman]

It also appears that articles that are sympathetic to the poor are considered a bad thing.

Perhaps they should all be bulldozed into the Grand Canyon, which could then be paved over to make a really grand new business location.



You STILL aren't reading my posts.


I NEVER SAID THAT THE ARTICLES WRITTEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN.



What I said was that the NY Times is ALSO LEAVING OUT ARTICLES THAT SHOULD BE WRITTEN.


Articles that show you the vast majority of businesses that do good for society. You'll never hear about those in the NY Times.

[KenA55]

And, Ken, don't worry, you're not too old to learn. I'll teach you how to be mature and be a good debater. You're not beyond hope.

Ok, perfect time for me to learn the tricks, my son made me give him my belt because his pants wouldn't stay up saturday- I haven't replaced it yet, and I'm already doing the crack exposure thing in the meantime. I like the roll-eyes smiley, how often do you recommend that?

Woah, upper case! LET ME WRITE THAT DOWN BEFORE I FORGET.

[MoMo]

Fox News London bureau chief Scott Norvell recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal's European edition: "Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. ...Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting."

[Jwaksman]

Yes, we know, Fox News is biased. I don't know why you keep repeating yourself. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the first MoMo post pointing out leftist bias at CNN.


Let's just say I'm not holding my breath..........

[MoMo]

I will post something about CNN when, say, Aaron Brown or one of their other anchors says something like:

"Even we at CNN manage to get some righties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to James Carville and Al Franken....That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting."


Your attempts at moral equivalency fall well short, my friend.

[Jwaksman]

How about when the chief news executive at CNN last year charged that US troops were specifically targetting reporters and trying to kill them, without any evidence whatsoever? Even Democratic Congressmen were appalled at the anti-Americanism, and I believe he eventually had to resign. CNN was created, if you don't remember, by Ted Turner, who is 100 times more leftist than Rupert Murdoch is right-ist.

[Jwaksman]

Of course, you will never post anything about CNN. Even most Democrats realize that CNN is leftist. In fact, I bet that you realize it also. But all you ever think about is promoting the leftist agenda. And saying things like that in public would not support your agenda.


I would give 100-to-1 betting odds right now, with anyone here, that MoMo will never, ever post an example of CNN bias. Just like I would give 100-to-1 betting odds that MoMo will support every Democratic candidate in 2006, even though some of them (like Bob Casey) are far more conservative than many Republicans running (like Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani).


Partisan games are silly, which is why I won't play them. I will stay here and post examples of Fox News bias as well as CNN bias, when they are large enough. And MoMzungu will call me a liar for every CNN example, but that's just par for the course...

[MoMo]

Arguing with you is like teaching chess to an Alzheimer's patient. You have to start over again every day.

We already argued about the CNN guy saying journalists were being targeted. I made the point, which you'll ignore now as you did then, that there were in fact several questionable incidents involving the shootings of journalists in Iraq which -- if a person sympathized with the plight of journalists -- might seem very dubious. One example involved a journalist who was killed while aiming a camera (not a gun) from a Baghdad hotel that everyone knew was the main journalists' hotel in town. There have been serious questions raised about the rules of engagement (ROE) used by U.S. troops, and whether they set conditions for a shoot-first-and-identify-later approach. The CNN guy obviously spoke out of passion, but it was not anti-U.S. passion, it was pro-journalist passion. Given his profession, I think that was quite understandable. And there's NOTHING from that incident to suggest that he, or anyone else at CNN, was REPORTING in a biased way. Sure, plenty of journalists lean left of center. That doesn't mean their every story oozes and drips of commie propaganda -- most, as I've said a hundred times, are professionals who put the highest emphasis on REAL fairness and REAL balance.

Yes, Ted Turner tips left.

But you always demand evidence (though you rarely recognize it). Please cite your evidence of the CNN REPORTING that you consider blatantly leftist.

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, talking to you is like talking to an alzheimer's patient.



If there was so much evidence about what he said, he wouldn't have had to step down from a company run by a man who is virulently anti-American. That's because there was no evidence. And everyone except for people on the looney left recognized that. It was an embarassing incident for CNN, and it's embarassing that you are so afraid of admitting that you're wrong to admit that.


You want an example of bias? How about during every month of 2004 when the job data came out they had a negative title. 300,000 new jobs created? It was "Unemployment rate fails to fall yet again". Unemployment rate drops 0.3%? It was "Only 75,000 new jobs created".



In fact, I can't even believe we have to have this dicussion. If the statement that "The sun rises in the east" was somehow against the leftist agenda, you would deny it and insist that I was a moron for not admitting that the sun rose in the west...



You said last month to prove that the NY Times has a leftist bias. So I picked up the only section of the NY Times in my house and showed how obviously biased it was. And you denied it. So why should I try again with CNN? There is absolutely nothing (NOTHING) that I can find that will make you admit that you are wrong. If I showed you that the first news article on CNN.com was "analysts call Bush worst leader in World History, even worse than Stalin", you would say, "Well of course. That's fact. That's not bias, they're just pointing out the TRUTH."

[MoMo]

The CNN guy's resignation obviously proves nothing.

Does Rumsfeld's FAILURE to resign prove that he had nothing to do with torture at Guantanamo or Bagram?

In good Alzheimer patient's fashion, you neglected to point out that, in our NY Times discussion, you claimed that the Times had failed to report on Soviet transgressions DURING THE COLD WAR and I then provided a few dozen exact examples -- extensive quotes from published stories -- proving they had done exactly that.

Your CNN examples, meantime, are provided from your (obviously less than objective) memory.

[MoMo]

Bush worst leader in World History, even worse than Stalin

jwack, when you go off the deep end like that, I have to draw a line.

:cool:

[exjersey1]

as long as it's a coherent line, MoMo.

[MoMo]

Coherence is my middle name, exj1!! :D

[Jwaksman]

What are you talking about, MoMo? Provided extensive evidence??? That's laughable.


My uncle is a college professor and, as such, is uber, uber leftwing. He even believes a lot of the crazy leftist conspiracy theories like you do (for example, one time when Reagan was sick in the 1980's he was convinced that Reagan was dying and the conservatives were lying to the American people). But anyway, even he acknowledges that the NY Times covered up the Holocaust and the horrors of the Soviet Union.



There's a fine line between leftist and crazy person. You have to get yourself under control, because there are only like 2 or 3 regulars left here who even read your posts anymore.

[exjersey1]

He even believes a lot of the crazy leftist conspiracy theories like you do (for example, one time when Reagan was sick in the 1980's he was convinced that Reagan was dying and the conservatives were lying to the American people).


Most of us knew at the time that he was merely brain-dead and that Bush, Schultz, and Weinberger would continue to run the country as they had since day 1.

[MoMo]

Gee, jwack, where would I get my entertainment if not from you? So, you mean that the one or two remaining posters who DON'T have you on their ignore lists are as wrong-headedly, delusionally, unforgiveably anti-MoMo as you are?

Gosh, you've completely crushed my fragile ego.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA







That'll be the day.

[MoMo]

But since you clearly are crying out for help with your shambling house-of-cards, seat-of-the-pants argumentation techniques, I'd just like to make a modest suggestion: Try arguing or debating in the future, and not labeling or libeling people.

If you think I'm a leftist, well, that's your problem. It has nothing to do with whether my arguments are logically sound, or factually supported. Your constant sliming of people is why virtually everyone in the lower 48 states, and millions of people in Central and South America, plus the vast majority in Eurasia, Africa and Oceania, have given up reading your posts.

This according to a recent Oxnard/Meshuggenah opinion poll with a margin of error of plus or minus 62 percent. I'll be happy to provide the link, if you like.

[jersey_guy]

Please cite your evidence of the CNN REPORTING that you consider blatantly leftist.

I don't have time for details this late, but I suggest you turn on Lou Dobbs any evening and listen to his 1-hour long socialist whining about "exporting America" and trashing Bush for his free trade policies.

Not to mention that they refer to murderous Islamofascist terrorists in Iraq as "insurgents."

As for NY Slimes, this morning they are running a hugeass story on Page 1 of the local section about how a suspected al Qaida terrorist arrested in NYC is being singled out by the Bush administration for being Muslim. You can't make this **** up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/nyregion/01terror.html?

And of course an even longer article praising the opposition to Bush by socialist thug Chavez

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/international/americas/01letter.html

Just a normal day in the office of the English translation of "Pravda."

[MoMo]

Lou Dobbs a socialist??? He's a nativist, isolationist,
nationalist, xenophobe -- of a type rarely found on the left. If he bashes Bush, it's for not being anti-immigrant enough.
I turn the channel whenever Dobbs comes on. He's a broken record of extremely limited imagination or insight; I think it's a big mistake for CNN to have him on, simply because he adds nothing new or interesting; I consider his show commentary -- a la O'Reilly -- and not news.

As to the Times article on Venezuela, j_g, I find your reaction informative. I think this has a lot to do with people's feelings of bias in the press. The Times reports on a very real, undeniable phenomenon -- the huge popularity in Venezuela of the populist Chavez, through his skillful use of anti-American rhetoric and dispensation of oil millions to help the country's poor -- and you take this as an endorsement of Chavez.

The story nowhere endorses him, it doesn't even hint at endorsing him. It merely says he's very effective -- comparing him to Castro -- at what he does. And that's obviously true.

If you don't think it's important for American readers to know about the huge popularity today in parts of Latin America of a sharply anti-American leftist populist, then you simply must want to live in a world of denial and illusion. We NEED to know about those forces that may be inimical to us, as we need to know about the successfully resounding messages of our critics -- so we can figure out why they're successfully resounding, and what we may need to do about it.

Bad or unpleasant news does not, perforce, constitute bias. It is always better to know as much as we can about our enemies, rather than live in ignorance of them. We learned that lesson most painfully on 9/11.

[Jwaksman]

He can't be that popular if despite various governmental threats and cheating they managed to pull off a recall, and then vote him out. A guy who has to fix elections in order to win and who has to threaten his citizens against saying negative things to the foreign press is not popular.


I mean, how many articles did the NY Times put out during Stalin's reign showing how popular he was, as well? The importance of going to a lot of different news sources is to learn what the truth is, not just what one source is telling you.

[MoMo]

He got 59% of the vote in the referendum.

A new independent poll shows 70% of the people supporting him.

The conservative Economist says he is "justifiably confident of winning another six-year term in December 2006" and that "following the failure of their latest attempt to remove him from office, the deeply divided opposition is now widely seen as incapable of fielding a winning candidate.... Mr Chavez now seems unassailable."
"...The opposition remains fragmented. Its disarray was a contributory factor to the sweeping wins for Chavez loyalists in the October 2004 elections, where they won 20 of 22 governorships."

[Jwaksman]

Haha, please. The exit polls, run by a Clinton pollster, showed him losing by 15%. Unfortunately, the votes were tallied by Chavez associates. And the thing is, I'm sure he's a lot more unpopular than even that vote suggests. Government employees who were discovered to have voted against him were fired, assaulted, or just ended up "missing." Private citizens also feared the wrath of Chavez, should they vote against him.



If I lived in that country I'd also tell people that I approve of Chavez! Better to lie and live, then to tell the truth and die.

[MoMo]

You're thinking, then, that the 70% approval is an invention? That voting for the 20 governorships was rigged? That the tens of thousands in the streets chanting for him are phantoms?

[jersey_guy]

I believe Saddam Hussein got about 99.9% of the vote in the presidential "election" at the end of 2002. Chavez still has some ways to go.

Like Comrade Stalin said, "it doesn't matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes."

And NYT and other leftist papers have a long pattern of running stories about how allegedly unpopular Bush is abroad, as if we Americans should give a crap about it. I have yet to see an article about the unpopularity of Chirac or Putin among Americans. Choosing what to cover can create bias by itself.

[MoMo]

seriously, fella, if you think anti-american feeling abroad is not worth paying attention to -- not even when we've seen what the horrific results can be -- then you're flying completely blind.

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, you seem to not realize how totalitarian governments work. It's truly sweet that you're naive enough to think that 20,000 people are just spontaneously coming out in the streets to show their support for Chavez. Just like I bet you believe the huge people out in the streets showing their support for Kim Jong Il.


Approximately 300,000 Venezuelen government workers were either fired or threatened after signing the petition to recall Chavez. Can you imagine how many people were terrified of signing it just because of that?


And even still, after all of those threats, the two polls that I saw in the leadup to the election showed Chavez losing the recall with 57% of the vote, and 60% of the vote. And the exit polls showed him losing with 59% of the vote, right in line with the previous polls.


But just like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, when a government is powerful enough - they can get what they want.



What really bothers me is that you constantly charge that Bush is stealing elections, and yet you defend Huge Chavez??? What sort of grotesque moral equivalency is that?

[Jwaksman]

And NYT and other leftist papers have a long pattern of running stories about how allegedly unpopular Bush is abroad, as if we Americans should give a crap about it. I have yet to see an article about the unpopularity of Chirac or Putin among Americans. Choosing what to cover can create bias by itself.



Well, that's not true. They do point out that Chirac is unpopular among his own people. That's the biggest reason that they lost the EU vote. There isn't a huge leftist media conspiracy, JG. Not every writer and every article is out to get Bush...

[MoMo]

What really bothers me is that you constantly charge that Bush is stealing elections, and yet you defend Huge Chavez??? What sort of grotesque moral equivalency is that?

Excuse me? How did I defend HugO (not HUGE) Chavez?

I "constantly" charge Bush steals elections? Pls remind me of when I ever said that.

Finally, please provide a source for the "300,000" Venezuelans fired or threatened.

[Jwaksman]

You can google it yourself, it comes up a bunch of times. One good article is here (http://www.wirednews.com/news/print/0,1294,64687,00.html).

[MoMo]

I'm not denying that Chavez and his people harassed or threatened Venezuelans, but 300,000? The only reference I can find to a number is from the Associated Press (I know, another lefty news organization), which reported on May 13:

CaRACAS, Venezuela: Nearly 150 people say they were fired from government jobs and hundreds more have complained of harassment...

--
Maybe you added a few zeroes, just for effect? Gee, every day I see new reason to believe that you can't believe everything you read...

[Jwaksman]

I gave you a link.


And isn't any intimidation wrong? And all of those people who were denied the right to vote, or people who were brought in from other countries to vote for Chavez? And just the threat of being thrown in one of Chavez's labor camps?


The fact that anyone went through the effort to bring about a recall and to vote for it inside a Stalinist regime is unbelievably courageous to me. Everyone behind it will end up dead or in jail eventually, once enough time passes that no one will notice.

[mzungu]

bush's people, infatuated with their venezuelan oil, were busy trying to 1) stage a coup to depose chavez and 2) when that failed, to recall him, and 3) to finance chavez's opposition, 4) and when that failed, to falsely charge that chavez had politically intimidated them or suppressed the vote. when we went over this last year, i showed that there was no proof whatsoever of such a thing, and in fact you are going to see just how shoddy were the methods supporting those initial claims that chavez had lost, paid for by bush's people.

[mzungu]

by the way, trashing free trade policies is hardly "socialist." that's core american nationalism and it has a 216 year history in this country.

[mzungu]

News from PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Office of Communications
22 Chambers St.
Princeton, New Jersey 08542
Telephone 609-258-3601; Fax 609-258-1301

For immediate release: Sept. 2, 2004
Media contacts: Steven Schultz, Princeton, (609) 258-5729, sschultz@princeton.edu; Phil Sneiderman, Johns Hopkins, (443) 287-9907, prs@jhu.edu

Media advisory: Analysis of Venezuelan election does not substantiate fraud claims
Computer scientists release study on Venezuelan referendum

PRINCETON, N.J. -- An analysis of polling data from the Aug. 15 referendum in Venezuela to recall President Hugo Chávez indicates that certain forms of computer fraud were unlikely to have occurred during the electronic voting process, according to a study by computer science researchers from Johns Hopkins and Princeton universities.

Groups opposed to Chávez charged that statistical anomalies in polling data indicated that election results were fraudulent. However, an independent analysis of the same data by Edward Felten, professor of computer science at Princeton, and Aviel D. Rubin, professor of computer science, and Adam Stubblefield, a doctoral student, both at Johns Hopkins, did not detect any statistical irregularities that would indicate fraud.

The study and related information are available at http://www.venezuela-referendum.com. Professors Felten and Rubin are available for interviews and can be reached at felten@cs.princeton.edu or rubin@jhu.edu.

"The opposition's claims that statistical anomalies in the reported results indicate fraud seem to be incorrect," Felten said. "However, this does not rule out the possibility that other types of fraud, which would not have left statistical traces, may have occurred."

The researchers classified the study as a statistical analysis and not a comprehensive investigation or audit of election procedures and documents.

Rubin added, "The types of fraud that would be most likely to be employed by a cheating government would not leave the kinds of statistical evidence that opposition groups have been charging. Simply changing some number of 'Yes' votes to 'No' votes inside the machines would not produce statistical anomalies, but could change the outcome of the election."

The researchers warned that electronic voting is susceptible to fraud and that electronic voting systems are generally more susceptible than less automated polling techniques.

A faculty member at Princeton since 1993, Felten's research focuses on computer and Internet security and technology and the law. Rubin's areas of research are systems and networking security and computer privacy. Prior to joining the faculty at Johns Hopkins, Rubin was a researcher at AT&T Labs.

[MoMo]

jwack, the link you provided on the "300,000" Venezuelans being fired or threatened cited as its source .... SOME GUY.

some guy, as it happens, who was involved in the recall effort.

if, say, moveon.org organized a huge demonstration in washington,
and you wanted to know how many people turned out, would you
accept moveon's number, or the police's estimate?

for someone constantly harping about evidence and sources, you've got your pants down on this one.

meantime, allow me to reiterate that i have NOT defended chavez, and do not, but i do question some of the claims against him, and i definitely defend the proposition that we need to know exactly who he is, what he's up to, what sort of threat, if any, he poses to us, and what we should do about it -- even if people like j_g prefer just closing their eyes.

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, Chavez is a Stalinist. His hero is Castro. This you do not deny, it's obvious fact.


And you're trying to tell me that a Stalinist would allow fair elections? You admitted that he tortured, threatened, and fired people. So what if it's not 300,000? Even if it's 3000, isn't that 3000 too many?

And for every person that is brave enough to speak their mind and who gets arrested, there are 10 people who are afraid of being arrested and who do nothing.


I told you that two polls taken before the election showed Chavez losing by the identical 57-60% margin that the exit poll showed.


Unfortunately, this whole issue has become too political now. Because opposing Chavez is now seen as pro-Bush, which doesn't make any sense to me. So you have people who are believing Chavez's propaganda about an American-led coup (don't you know that rule #1 for a totalitarian dictator is to convince your people that they are threatened by a foreign power?), and who are defending him, just to stick it to Bush. So it's no surprise that you could find a couple of university professors who support the study. Also, if you even read the study that you posted, here is what it says on page one:


"We emphasize that there are types of election fraud that would not create statistical anomalies and hence could not be detected by statistical analyses such as ours. For example, if electronic voting machines were programmed to change each Yes vote into a No vote with 10% probability, statistical analysis could not detect such fraud. (It could probably be detected, though, by manually recounting paper ballots.) Our results, at most, can shed light on whether certain types of fraud occurred; but an analysis like ours cannot rule out fraud altogether."



In other words, there are still plenty of ways that fraud could have been done. It's a shame that all of this has become a "With Bush" or "Against Bush" thing. Jimmy Carter only got the peace prize because the committee was sticking it to Bush (the peace prize committee chairman told reporters that Carter's award "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken"). And meanwhile, Chavez is keeping his country under an iron fist, with no one able to help the brave revolutionaries in that nation.

[MoMo]

that was mzungu.

we follow this quaint convention of each having his own name.

makes it a little easier to differentiate.

[Jwaksman]

There's no real difference. You both make the identical Democratic Talking Points arguments, so whatever I say is always directed towards both of you.

[MoMo]

And if either of us two quite different and discrete guys DOESN'T make the point you expect us to make, you just bulldoze ahead as if we had anyway, with your Wackheimer's Talking Points.

but anyway, that's fine. i know it's hard to keep track of TWO things -- two people, two names, two different ideas -- at one time.

[Jwaksman]

Whatever, it really is irrelevant to the discussion at hand... :rolleyes:

[mzungu]

the distinct views of different people--too much to cram into your tiny brain?
or is it a moral problem? you enjoy dismissing other people's arguments by pretending not to be able to distinguish them?

what you have thoroughly absorbed is the logical fallacies, because you commit them in virtually every post. the only difference between you and zat0pek is that the latter sometimes rises above the ad hominem attack or the hasty generalization to provide genuine reasons.

[mzungu]

Also, if you even read the study that you posted, here is what it says on page one:

"We emphasize that there are types of election fraud that would not create statistical anomalies and hence could not be detected by statistical analyses such as ours. For example, if electronic voting machines were programmed to change each Yes vote into a No vote with 10% probability, statistical analysis could not detect such fraud. (It could probably be detected, though, by manually recounting paper ballots.) Our results, at most, can shed light on whether certain types of fraud occurred; but an analysis like ours cannot rule out fraud altogether."

In other words, there are still plenty of ways that fraud could have been done. It's a shame that all of this has become a "With Bush" or "Against Bush" thing. Jimmy Carter only got the peace prize because the committee was sticking it to Bush (the peace prize committee chairman told reporters that Carter's award "should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current administration has taken"). And meanwhile, Chavez is keeping his country under an iron fist, with no one able to help the brave revolutionaries in that nation.

you cannot be serious. that article states that one particular form of fraud charged by the radical right opposition has NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. of course, it states that there might be other types of fraud. And you, relying on the fallacy of ignorance, take that as evidence that there was other fraud. Yet, the Carter Center is the ONLY group that was present observing the election throughout the country and the Carter Center declares that there was NO EVIDENCE of widespread fraud. Your argument amounts to the specious claim that chavez is a stalinist, and then deduces from this invention that he must have distorted the election. Yet, there is zero evidence for this and the pollster you cite used incredibly shoddy, unreliable techniques, as you can see by looking through the web. In fact, the real crime there is that the Bush administration supported a coup and funded the referendum campaign.

[mzungu]

this pro-chavez article, rather than simply calling him a stalinist, quotes him as being pro-socialist democracy, siding with trotsky against stalin, praising castro but also MLK, simon bolivar, and cesar chavez. http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/chavez_speech_wsf.htm

[jersey_guy]

Carter Center is the ONLY group that was present observing the election throughout the country and the Carter Center declares that there was NO EVIDENCE of widespread fraud.


Karter Center is about as reliable as a North Korean news agency. Karter probably leaked inside info about the coup to his friend Chavez.


In fact, the real crime there is that the Bush administration supported a coup and funded the referendum campaign.

Uhh, no, that's not a crime. That's policy. The real crime is that Bush did not send a CIA squad to Caracas that would put a bullet (or a dozen) through Chavez's forehead.

[mzungu]

count yourself in the great minority of Americans. Carter, a legitimate Nobel Peace Prize winner, is widely considered the best ex-president.

[MoMo]

The real crime is that Bush did not send a CIA squad to Caracas that would put a bullet (or a dozen) through Chavez's forehead.

j_g, that kind of talk makes me nervous. i hope you're not serious.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, Carter only won the Nobel Peace Prize because the committee was trying to stick it to Bush. The committee chairman was even proud of that fact.


And I actually can be serious. Clearly, every poll showed Chavez losing and the results showed him winning. So, people came up with several ways that Chavez could possibly have committed fraud and cheated. Just trying to explain how the results were different. The study that you presented refuted some of them, but the writers admitted that many of the theories could be right. In other words, even if you accept everything in that study you still cannot refute the charge that Chavez cheated.

[mzungu]

au contraire, the only poll that showed chavez being beaten was administered by opposition workers.

[Jwaksman]

Are you allergic to doing research? There was only one exit poll, yes. But, like any election, there were polls done before the election. And they all predicted results similar to the exit polls. For example, from Bloomberg on June 23 (less than 2 months before the election):

"

June 23 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez would lose a recall vote scheduled for Aug. 15, according to a poll taken last month by independent Datanalisis polling agency.

Interviews of 1,300 Venezuelans, done in person between May 10 and May 19 in eight regions, found 57.4 percent of people who said they were likely to vote want Chavez removed, while 42.6 percent would vote for him to stay as president. The poll has a 2.7 percent margin of error.

The poll indicates that about 65 percent of the country's 12.5 million registered voters plan to vote, giving Chavez 3.44 million votes and the opposition 4.64 million, more than the 3.76 million required to oust Chavez, Datanalisis said.

``Chavez isn't completely out of the game, but he's in trouble,'' said Datanalisis analyst Luis Leon in a meeting with the foreign press. ``If the vote happens legally, Chavez should lose.''

The National Electoral Council said earlier this month that opposition groups collect the 2.44 million valid signatures required to trigger a referendum on Chavez. The 49-year-old former army lieutenant colonel has survived a two-day failed coup in 2002 and a two-month opposition-led national strike that ended in February 2003.

Datanalisis said two weeks before the December 1998 presidential election that polls showed Chavez would win with 54 percent of the vote against 38 percent for Henrique Salas Romer. Chavez won by a 57 percent to 38 percent margin.

Before Chavez won re-election in 2000 by a 59 percent to 37 percent margin, Datanalisis said polls showed Chavez would win with 54 percent of the vote against 33 percent for Francisco Arias.

A Datanalisis poll in March found that 59 percent would vote for Chavez to be recalled, while 41 percent would vote for him to stay in office."





And, if that's not enough for you, here is some more, from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (this one from back in April):


"CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela's Hugo Chavez could lose a referendum to demand he step down if it were held today, a survey by U.S. pollsters suggests.

Sixty percent of those surveyed said they would vote against Chavez in such a recall referendum, while 38 percent would support him, according to the poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and Public Opinion Strategies.

Two percent said they were undecided, according to the poll published Wednesday by the Caracas newspaper El Universal. The door-to-door survey of 1,000 adults was conducted Feb. 21-28 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

Venezuela's opposition is seeking a referendum on Chavez's presidency halfway into his six-year term, or in August."

[mzungu]

greenberg quinlan will not survive scrutiny over that poll, which was conducted by opposition workers, as i said. you have zero evidence for fraud. the carter center was the only organization to observe the election and found no significant fraud. current polls also show him to be extremely popular.
"VENEZUELA: Significant increase in Chavez’s popularity


A late February poll by Datanalisis, a company linked to the president’s opponents, found that support for left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has risen to 70.5%. This is a significant increase in support since August 2004, when a referendum to recall Chavez was opposed by 60% of the population. Analysing the full poll results, Datanalisis estimated that 73% of Venezuelans had benefited in some way from Chavez’s key reforms: free medical attention, free educational programs, the housing missions or the government-run supermarkets that sell food staples at up to a 40% discount. Meanwhile, a poll conducted by the Iberian-American Barometer of Governability released the same week found that Chavez is viewed by Latin Americans as the most important political figure on the continent after Cuban President Fidel Castro. The polls reveals that the continent-wide approval rating for Chavez has leapt from 25% this time last year to 65% now.

From Green Left Weekly, May 11, 2005."

[Jwaksman]

hahahaha, classic mzungu, you dismiss Bloomberg as a rightwing rag, but you take "Green Left Weekly" for the gospel.




I hope you realize that it's impossible to have an intellectual discussion with you. I present not one, not two, but THREE polls showing the exact same thing. And ALL of them come from established US companies. And do you debate their evidence? Do you present evidence of your own? No, you just say, "It's all rightwing propaganda" and dismiss it.



Dismissing everything that goes against your arguments as rightwing rag may fly in the insulated world of university professors, but that doesn't work in the real world.

[jersey_guy]

count yourself in the great minority of Americans. Carter, a legitimate Nobel Peace Prize winner, is widely considered the best ex-president.

Maybe in Iran but not in America.

[jersey_guy]

j_g, that kind of talk makes me nervous. i hope you're not serious.

Yes I am serious. If someone is openly hostile to America, we have the right to eliminate him. If Saddam were assasinated in 1991, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved, including thousands of Americans.

[Jwaksman]

jg, we can't just go around willy-nilly murdering people that we don't like. There is the idea of sovereignty. Even if some guy isn't the greatest leader of his country, it's still his country. We can't just pick who want to lead every country in the world.

[jersey_guy]

jg, we can't just go around willy-nilly murdering people that we don't like. There is the idea of sovereignty. Even if some guy isn't the greatest leader of his country, it's still his country. We can't just pick who want to lead every country in the world.

I said people who are openly hostile to America. We can take them out preemptively if they want to fight (and assassination is definitely better than a full-scale invasion).

And yes, we can pick who we want to lead every country in the world. We did so in Georgia, Ukraine, Lebanon, and Kyrgyzstan. Soon we will the same thing in Syria, Cuba, Belarus, North Korea, and Iran. And hopefully, also in China in the long term.

[Jwaksman]

Chavez is not a threat to US national security. He is not going to launch an attack on our country. He isn't being the greatest trade partner, but that doesn't give us a reason to overthrow him. He's a horrible, horrible, horrible leader. I would rank the most totalitarian leaders in the world as:

1) Kim Jong Il
2) Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
3) Chavez


But we don't have a right to just play World Police and choose who want to lead every country.

[jersey_guy]

Chavez is threatening to impose an oil embargo on the US. The moment he actually does it is the day when a Tomahawk will go through his window.

But yes we do have the right to choose any leader in the world. We ARE the World Police.

[Jwaksman]

Chavez is threatening to impose an oil embargo on the US. The moment he actually does it is the day when a Tomahawk will go through his window.

But yes we do have the right to choose any leader in the world. We ARE the World Police.



Layla's right. You really think that our country has the right to go to another country and murder their president and throw their country into chaos because they don't want to sell us oil??? What would you say if Castro had Bush assasinated cause he won't get rid of the boycott on Cuba?


Our constitution (which you claim to be a defender of) states that we only act in self defense. If Castro has missiles that are aimed at the US and ready to fire, then we can take them out before they hit us. But not wanting to sell us oil??? Come on....

[Jwaksman]

Do you ever consider this? Were you just a right winger to begin with, making fun of left wingers?



Either he's a right winger who used to be making fun of leftwingers, or he's a leftwinger who is now trying to make fun of rightwingers. Or maybe he's neither, and he's just making fun of both sides.


What is amusing is that the level of political discourse in this country is so bad now that his "making fun" of one side actually sounds a lot like what other people really say. I mean, let's say that JG is really a conservative. Then he spent the last year pretending to be a nutso leftwinger to make them look bad. And, most of the time, he sounded exactly like mzungu and momo. And they constantly defended him against me.


When your arguments don't sound any different from someone who is trying to make fun of you, perhaps you need to learn new arguments... :D

[jersey_guy]

Were you just a right winger to begin with, making fun of left wingers?

No, I just grew up.

Ted Kennedy is driving down the road is his taxpayer-funded Volvo, and he sees a boy with 5 puppies standing by the roadside. Ted stops the car and starts talking to the boy.

"Wow, those puppies look so pretty and cute. What are they?"

"They are Democrats," replies the smilling boy.

Delighted, Kennedy drives away smiling.

The next day he's driving down the same road, this time with John Kerry in the passenger seat, and sees the boy with the puppies again. He wants to show Kerry his discovery, so he stops the car and tells Kerry to ask the boy what are those puppies.

"They are Republicans," says the boy.

"But yesterday you said they were Democrats!," screams the outraged Ted.

"They can see through their eyes now," explains the boy.

[jersey_guy]

What would you say if Castro had Bush assasinated cause he won't get rid of the boycott on Cuba?




Let him try, Cheney for president!! Hehehe.


Our constitution (which you claim to be a defender of) states that we only act in self defense.



No it does not. It only says the Congress has the authority to declare war, and it does not prohibit the President from conducting military actions that do not constitute war.

[jersey_guy]

Yeah, whatever happened to a freaking Free Market, O Alleged Supporter of Laissez-Faire? (Directed at JG)

Creating an artificial embargo by a government is not laissez faire but a bureaucratic obstacle that should be removed.

[jersey_guy]

Excellent idea, JG. Let's deal with countries the way that Violent Gangs deal with one another!


No, lets deal with rogue dictators the way police deals with violent gangs: take them off the streets, and if they try to kill us when we do it, then they die.


Global stability was becoming such a pain in the ass.


WHAT stability? When al Qaida was growing in power throughout the 1990s and we did not do anything about it?


I disagree with the thousands of Americans statements. Thousands of Americans would've been killed EARLIER, that's all. What, did we have a bomb back then that could track ONLY SADDAM down?


No but we have some good CIA assassins, and even if that failed, we should have militarily supported the Shias and the Kurds during the 1991 rebellion.


If somebody is openly hostile to America, we have the right to sit them down and attempt to diplomatically solve the problem. Or is that phrase out of your vocabulary now that you've entered Pat Buchanan territory?


We don't and won't negotiate with terrorists. And when it comes to non-terrorists, it's always better to try diplomacy AFTER destroying the enemy's military capability (compare Milosevic BEFORE and AFTER the bombing of Serbia in 1999, two months of a little bombing was enough to change his mind about stopping ethnic cleansing).


Save me some time: when are you going to say that we should go over to the Middle East and convert people to Christianity, and if they refuse, we have the right to shoot them?


They can practice any religion we want. We only have the right to shoot them when they attempt to kill us.

[Jwaksman]

No, lets deal with rogue dictators the way police deals with violent gangs: take them off the streets, and if they try to kill us when we do it, then they die.



Except that they don't live IN OUR COUNTRY. Our police is in control of OUR COUNTRY. Do you understand the concept of sovereignty? You say that you care so much about the US being attacked by foreign powers, so why don't you think that people in other countries feel the same way?


And this is exactly the reason why our nation is only supposed to fight defensive wars. When you mess with sovereignty you will (no surprise) upset the country that you are invading. It will lead to the unnecessary deaths of American soldiers and it will lead to worldwide resistance. This is why war should only be waged when there is no other way to solve a major, major problem.


If Chavez doesn't sell us oil (which he won't ever do, American oil money is all that keeps that country afloat) then that will do what? Raise oil prices by $1? If you're so worried about that, why not invade Russia since Putin shut down Yukos?


I'll tell you what, those Playstations cost way too much. How about we make a declaration that Sony has to drop the price of Playstation II by $20 a box, or else we invade Japan. How about that?

[jersey_guy]

Pure Bull****. If a country does not want to sell us something, they do not have to.


Maybe not, but then it's not laissez faire anymore.


No country has to bow down to us.


North Korea doesn't, that's why they eat grass and tree bark nowadays. Japan bowed down to us and they don't have enough space on their little islands to put all their money.


How the hell do you propse we REMOVE embargos? Steal the oil? Force a sale?

It just so happens that embargos are ALWAYS more damaging to poorer countries than to richer ones. If Venezuela stopped selling oil to us, their economy would be at the same level as Cuba's within a few years. Then we could sponsor another Venezuelan coup or revolution that would bring a more sensible leader who doesn't starve his people. So yea, you could call it forcing a sale.

[Jwaksman]

Hey, JG, aren't conservatives supposed to be free-market supporters? I know that you claim to be one. So why would you believe that a country becomes rich by "bowing down to the US"? In other words, you believe that a country can become rich by forced government spending and planning?



If you really were a free market supporter, like I am, you would realize that Japan became rich by opening up its markets. The US gave it some capital to get started, but capital that is wasted does nothing. By opening up their economy to free trade and lower regulations, Japan was able to become rich.


If you really supported free markets then you'd understand that.

[jersey_guy]

We do not have the right to invade a country to overthrow THEIR government. Flat out unethical.


Don't mix ethics with politics. Playing nice and gaining political and military domination are quite contradictory.


And it's a great way to AGITATE people and cause TERRORISM!


Islamic terrorism is caused by the hatred of Western culture and values and not any action we do.


Global Stability: It's not WWIII yet.


Actually it's World War IV. The third one was against Soviet Union and we won. And we will also win World War V against China. After that there won't be any world wars for some time because there won't be anyone powerful enough left to challenge the American empire. Hopefully I will live long enough to see that time.


Good CIA Assassins, eh? Where were they in the War on Terror? How about Osama? Apparently not good enough.


Actually CIA conducts many assasinations in the War on Terror. A couple weeks ago they eliminated one of al Qaida's top leaders in western Pakistan. You will not of course hear about many of those activities because they are clandestine and politically sensitive because of the fragility of Musharraf's government.


We don't and won't negotiate with terrorists, eh? Who is a terrorist? Somebody who refuses to sell us oil?


I'm still waiting for you to say that All Muslims are Terrorists...you're headed on that path.


No, you need to blow something up to be a terrorist. I understand there is a long waiting list in Saudi because they ran out of cars in Iraq to put semtex into, so now they are experimenting with motorcycle bombs (2 in Kirkuk today). It really is an idiotic enemy who has a 100% casualty rate on the battlefield.

[jersey_guy]

Except that they don't live IN OUR COUNTRY. Our police is in control of OUR COUNTRY. Do you understand the concept of sovereignty? You say that you care so much about the US being attacked by foreign powers, so why don't you think that people in other countries feel the same way?


Our police is in control of our country and our military is in control of the world, and that's how it should be. Sovereignty is good for democracies but voided for #1 dictatorships (because then the people are obviously not sovereign anymore) and #2 countries openly hostile to the US.



And this is exactly the reason why our nation is only supposed to fight defensive wars.


You have a very skewed view of American history. We had am imperiailstic attitude from Day 1 (I don't believe the invasion of the continent and fighting the Injuns was very defensive) and will always have it. Such is the American nature. It's much better to attack than to defend.


When you mess with sovereignty you will (no surprise) upset the country that you are invading. It will lead to the unnecessary deaths of American soldiers and it will lead to worldwide resistance.


That's why it's of course better and cheaper to outsource the job to the locals through a US-financed revolution. I don't like ground invasions either unless it's impossible for the locals to do it themselves.



This is why war should only be waged when there is no other way to solve a major, major problem.

If Chavez doesn't sell us oil (which he won't ever do, American oil money is all that keeps that country afloat) then that will do what? Raise oil prices by $1? If you're so worried about that, why not invade Russia since Putin shut down Yukos?


Because he keeps selling oil to the west. If he has a problem, we can flood the market with cheap Iraqi oil a few years adown the road and drive Russia (and Saudi and Venezuela!!!) into serious financial trouble. That would be great.



I'll tell you what, those Playstations cost way too much. How about we make a declaration that Sony has to drop the price of Playstation II by $20 a box, or else we invade Japan. How about that?


We still have tens of thousands of troops in Japan, so that would be redundant. However, we could encourage China to make equaivalent Playstations for half the price.

[Jwaksman]

Hahahahahaha



Atleast one good thing has come out of all of this. We have a real hardcore conservative so people like TD, momo & mzungu finally realize that I'm NOT one. :D

[MoMo]

Chavez is threatening to impose an oil embargo on the US. The moment he actually does it is the day when a Tomahawk will go through his window.

But yes we do have the right to choose any leader in the world. We ARE the World Police.

O.K. Now I KNOW j-g has been putting us on. That or someone's stepping on his oxygen hose.

[jersey_guy]

Hey, JG, aren't conservatives supposed to be free-market supporters? I know that you claim to be one. So why would you believe that a country becomes rich by "bowing down to the US"? In other words, you believe that a country can become rich by forced government spending and planning?

If eyou really were a free market supporter, like I am, you would realize that Japan became rich by opening up its markets. The US gave it some capital to get started, but capital that is wasted does nothing. By opening up their economy to free trade and lower regulations, Japan was able to become rich.

If you really supported free markets then you'd understand that.

The US supports a free market more than any other country in the world. Thus, bowing down to us is simply embracing our free market and free trade policies, so I don't know what's your point.

And Japan became rich because we opened OUR market to Japanese products in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. If w did not do that, they would still be at the economic level of Vietnam today.

[MoMo]

Hahahahahaha



Atleast one good thing has come out of all of this. We have a real hardcore conservative so people like TD, momo & mzungu finally realize that I'm NOT one. :D

yeah, jwack, i never thought i'd say it -- but j(blowuptheworld)g makes you look like the soul of wisdom and moderation ... at least on this thread.

:cool:

[Jwaksman]

JG, you really don't know anything about free markets if that's how you view the world. Free markets can't be forced. Japan didn't get rich by "bowing down" (regardless of the fact that I don't even really understand what that means). They got rich by becoming capitalistic. Opening up your markets isn't "bowing down to the US". In fact, it's not even an American idea. Adam Smith wasn't a US citizen. Capitalism was born in Europe. To say that any country that opens its markets is just bowing down to the US is a pretty egocentric way to view the world.

[jersey_guy]

Laissez Faire: Sell when you want, buy when you want. They don't have to sell, nor do we have to buy. Normal supply and demand laws still apply. We cannot force them to do anything.


Laissez faire is based on the GOVERNMENT getting the hell out of trade, not on governments deciding whether to allow companies to trade or not.


Hm JG, Japan's economic system did a LITTLE CHANGE and that's why they became rich. Perhaps somebody who was interested in fact over spin would've known that. It doesn't seem like you understand Capitalism to begin with.


Read my previous reply to Jwak.


So let me get this straight. An embargo is bad for poor countries with bad leaders, so they should listen to what we say, so that they do better. If not, we will attack, or sponsor a violent revolution where citizens will die anyway. Lose-Lose situation for them. Way to go!

So staying under bad leadership and straving to death (like hundreds of thousands of Iraqis did under Saddam) is a "win" solution???

[jersey_guy]

Except the idea isn't to have DOMINATION, it's just to have stability. War seems to give you an erection these days. What's next, pure American race?
.

Stability comes from domination. That's a given since the ancient Persia and Rome. And there is no such thing as American "race."


It's amazing to me: You present Western Culture and Values as Greed, Desire to Dominate, War-mongering, and overall lack of respect for others and their lives. What's not to hate?


I'll take lack of respect over blowing up airplanes, how about you?


This isn't a Soccer Tournament. And I cannot believe you used the word EMPIRE. Yes, my question is answered: War indeed gives you an erection.
Vietnam must blue-ball you. Your American "Empire" would give you a constant state of orgasm, I'm sure.
.

America is a global empire, whether you like it or not. And it will only become more and more powerful during our lifetimes. Vietnam only blue-balled the Vietnamese who now beg the Americans to come back and occupy them again because aparently McDonald's is better than a communist sandwich.

[jersey_guy]

Um...not during WWII. Attacking results in the need to defend. It's never just one way or another. I'm not defending FDR, but you're wrong if you say that America has ALWAYS been of the pre-emptive mindset.

- pre-emptive attacks on the Injuns throughout the 1700s and 1800s
- pre-emptive attack on the Barbary pirates (early 1800s)
- pre-emptive Monroe Doctrine (since 1820s)
- pre-emptive attack on the Confederacy (1860)
- essentially pre-emptive war with Spain (1898)


.... should I continue??

[jersey_guy]

Hahahahahaha
JG It's time for your Prozac.

I'm not a Democrat anymore.

[jersey_guy]

This is precisely what I'm talking about. You are not interested in general stability or the well being of countries, you just want people to suffer. How is that any different from the mindset of a terrorist?

What the hell, I'm interested in stability under US domination and the well being of the United States of America. If you do not see a difference between that and killing as many infidels as possible, then we have a problem.

[jersey_guy]

JG, you really don't know anything about free markets if that's how you view the world. Free markets can't be forced. Japan didn't get rich by "bowing down" (regardless of the fact that I don't even really understand what that means). They got rich by becoming capitalistic.


And how did they become capitalistic? Because we occupied them and MADE them into a capitalistic nation.


Opening up your markets isn't "bowing down to the US". In fact, it's not even an American idea. Adam Smith wasn't a US citizen. Capitalism was born in Europe.


So was socialism, communism, and fascism. What matters is where each is applied RIGHT NOW.


To say that any country that opens its markets is just bowing down to the US is a pretty egocentric way to view the world.


Since the US has the biggest economy in the world and is the biggest trader in the world, that is also a pretty correct way to view the world.

[Jwaksman]

"infidels"??? Seriously, who uses that word anymore?... other than Bin Laden and Zarqawi...



I can't believe you used the phrase "we occupied them and made them into a capitalist nation". Perhaps you should read some Tocqueville, and learn how well humans can be "forced" to grasp their own freedom.


By the way, you throw around the word fascism. Do you know what fascism is? It's a government composed of extreme rightwingers. In other words, a country run by a bunch of people like you.

[jersey_guy]

HEY WHERE ARE THE ROMAN AND PERSIAN EMPIRES NOW? I'd like to see what a battered wife has to say about her Marriage being "stable."



And where are the states that they defeated??? I believe they went down the toilet a few centuries before Persia and Rome. Which side would you prefer to be on?

And don't compare it to a marriage because a marriage is a contract between two equal parties, at least in the Western world. Completely different from building an empire.

[jersey_guy]

If you do not see that Domination does NOT result in stability, then we have a problem. You brought up two DEAD empires to back up your point, for God's sake.

The Roman Empire had great internal stability for about 300 years until it stopped expanding. Empires are born and die, but I believe the American Empire will last a little onger than that because we, unlike the Romans, have the opportunity to expand our Empire to outer space (Moon, Mars) in future centuries to prevent it from imploding, just as the English and Spanish did in 16th century with the New World.

[jersey_guy]

You claim that it's always been pre-emptive. Providing one example where that isn't the case makes you wrong. Basic rules of debate.

How about 5 examples? How about 20? How about almost every single war in American history?

[jersey_guy]

"infidels"??? Seriously, who uses that word anymore?... other than Bin Laden and Zarqawi...


You really need to catch up on the Islamofascist rhetoric. maybe you should take a tour of an average Arab/Pakistani madrassa and see what **** the children learn there.


I can't believe you used the phrase "we occupied them and made them into a capitalist nation". Perhaps you should read some Tocqueville, and learn how well humans can be "forced" to grasp their own freedom.


But they can be freed from a dictatorship that prevents them from grasping that freedom. Besides, Japan is a different case because we were complete masters of their lives after 1945 and could force them to adapt any system we wanted to.


By the way, you throw around the word fascism. Do you know what fascism is? It's a government composed of extreme rightwingers. In other words, a country run by a bunch of people like you.


Fascism is a LEFT wing movement, based on the control of the economy by the state for military means. Mussolini nationalized almost everything in Italy during the 1920s and 1930s. Does that sound like right wing to you?

[Jwaksman]

That's because, as I said before, big government is big government. Extreme rightwing governments always end up having extreme leftist regulations, just as extreme leftwing governments have extreme rightest regulations. Stalin only allowed government-approved books and movies. That sounds rightwing to me.




And I'm assuming you've spent months and months in the middle east studying these people? Otherwise, how could you possible lecture Layla, who has spent a lot of time in Iran?



Atleast you admitted that Japan didn't get anything that was forced onto them. The US removed the Japanese government after Japan lost the war, and then Japan seized their own freedom in a Capitalistic (not American) fashion.

[jersey_guy]

That's because, as I said before, big government is big government. Extreme rightwing governments always end up having extreme leftist regulations, just as extreme leftwing governments have extreme rightest regulations. Stalin only allowed government-approved books and movies. That sounds rightwing to me.

That depends on your definition of "right wing." Even Nazism is a version of socialism (Nazi stands for National Socialist, which is bascially socialism with nationalistic ideology added on top of it). That's why a right-left spectrum is not always the best way to describe an ideology.


And I'm assuming you've spent months and months in the middle east studying these people? Otherwise, how could you possible lecture Layla, who has spent a lot of time in Iran?


Actually I've spent months in America studying this people, even taking a course exploring the roots and ideology of Islamosfascism and keeping close tabs on Islamist venom. And I'm not lecturing anyone but responding to your claim that nobody uses the concept of "infidel" while in reality the Koran call for the slaughter of non-believers and Islamofascist "leaders" have taken that literally since Hassan al-Banna and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood.


Atleast you admitted that Japan didn't get anything that was forced onto them. The US removed the Japanese government after Japan lost the war, and then Japan seized their own freedom in a Capitalistic (not American) fashion.



Japan accepted democracy and capitalism as terms of their surrender in 1945, so you could say it was not "forced" on them (and of course the fact that for the next decade it was ruled by the US military government had NOTHING to do with it LOL).

[Jwaksman]

in reality the Koran call for the slaughter of non-believers and Islamofascist "leaders" have taken that literally since Hassan al-Banna and the rest of the Muslim Brotherhood.



Haha, yeah, and the Bible calls for the Crusades and slavery. A few crazy people can manipulate religious texts to say anything that they want. But you have to manipulate the Koran a lot to get anything close to "kill the Jews".


Again, why do you think you know more than Layla, who actually is muslim and who has read the Koran? Sometimes when I talk to her she will randomly pop out Koran quotes. Why don't you put your ego in check and defer to her on that issue?

[KenA55]

JG, you're showing signs of bi-polar extremism- a condition I watched a couple cousins deal with on a lifelong basis. From '60's leftist radicals to Mennonite fundamentalists literally overnight. There is a middle ground; being one way or another on the flaming edge of all issues isn't a good thing in and of itself. What you need to do is just relax and quit worrying about everything. It isn't going to change the big picture anyway, unless you're willing and able to get out there and shed an awful lot of somebody's blood.

[TrackDaddy]

Why don't you put your ego in check and defer to her on that issue? :eek:

Are all of the mirrors in the house broken?

Every...one?

[Zat0pek]

I'm not a Democrat anymore.

A definitive sign that you are growing up! I've had a working theory for some time that liberals are really just arrested adolescents, which is one reason so many of them are in academia; they could never bring themselves to leave school, staying in the comfort zone of their youth, preferring to remain as perpetual Peter Pans. ;)

[Jwaksman]

Haha, well it is true that leftists tend to be adolescents and young adults who haven't ever had to worry about money or responsibility. And people do tend to become more conservative as they grow older. But it's certainly not normal to go from a momzungu leftist to a Pat Buchanan rightist overnight.

[Zat0pek]

But it's certainly not normal to go from a momzungu leftist to a Pat Buchanan rightist overnight.

Methinks the conversion might be less than sincere...

[Jwaksman]

Methinks the conversion might be less than sincere...


I agree. If I had to make a guess I'd say that either he's truly a conservative and was just making fun of leftists last year, or that he's neither - and he's just trying to make fun of both sides.

[mzungu]

"Datanalisis, a company linked to the president’s opponents, found"

so, no, that is not the result from left-wingers, jwaksman.

j_g, your list of U.S. pre-emptive wars is pretty absurd. The barbary pirates gave legitimate cause for war in attacking U.S. mercantile interests. The Civil War was NOT begun by the North. Or, was that the North firing on Fort Sumter? In WWI, we entered to support our european allies midway through. In WWII, we were attacked by Japan and our allies were under siege or conquered already by Germany, which declared war on us. The Spanish-American War was pre-emptive, and thus illegitimate according to every history book. Korea was in response to the communist-led war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution leading to escalation in Vietnam relied, like the Spanish-American War, on the invention of an attack. Interesting to see you now fully adopting Machiavellianism.

jwaksman's and zat's continued use of ad hominem attacks (the 'pet' thesis that liberals are juveniles) speaks for itself.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, the civil war was started by the north. In fact, if you take political science/justice classes, it is often the classic example of the problems with one of the two theories of war - that war should only be fought to protect sovereignty. The question is whether the north had the right to invade the south in order to preserve the union and free the slaves.


If you don't know the actualy history behind Ft. Sumter, it was a southern fort that was occupied by northern troops. The CSA ordered them to move and Lincoln ordered them to say. The south fired cannon at them and, without a single casualty, the northerners pulled out. Lincoln then built up an army and launched an attack on Virginia. There would have been no reason for the south to attack first, they already had all the land that they wanted. It would have been anathema to their cause to actually try to take over more land.



And why do you have to label EVERYTHING??? I present you three different polls showing Chavez losing, and you blow them all off as right-wing propaganda, cause that's how you like to label things that disagree with you. Why do things have to come from leftwing sources for you to believe them? I pointed out that the exit polls were done by Clinton's pollsters not to say that they were leftist biased, but to say that they were fair - that they weren't rightwing propaganda. Despite what you may believe, the whole world isn't in a huge conspiracy. Most pollsters try their hardest to come up with accurate results. Not everyone tries to lie 24/7...

[MoMo]

I've had a working theory for some time that liberals are really just arrested adolescents, which is one reason so many of them are in academia; they could never bring themselves to leave school, staying in the comfort zone of their youth, preferring to remain as perpetual Peter Pans. ;)

zat, i'm not sure how much of a "wink" that was said with.

i actually believe the opposite is true.
the hardest-core republican/conservatives i know are people who live in cosseted, white-bread, gated-suburb, 3-SUV-in-the-driveway outer America, who have never LEFT a comfort zone, who are often fearful of even venturing into big cities, who know or associate with few people of other races/religions/backgrounds, whose schools and churches are nearly all-white, and who quite often have no passport -- or if they do travel abroad, do so to comfortable (read: non-ethnic) destinations. i see conservatives as a fearful breed -- not, perhaps, a fear to be ashamed of, but one based on lack of exposure/experience to other ways of life.

this liberal -- if anyone considers me one, and i happen to view myself as a moderate centrist :cool: -- has hardly led a Peter Pan life. i've worked in factories (plural) including on an assembly line; i've worked plenty of hourly jobs doing yardwork, hard labor, and other back-breaking stuff; i've worked in food service; i went to a big state university; i've lived in towns as small as 20,000 and cities as large as Paris; and i also happen to have traveled a fair amount. i've worked side by side with plenty of high-school dropouts earning minimum wage to support families of five or six; and with plenty of ivy league grads born with pockets full of silver.

so castigate my views all you want; but don't tell me that somehow life-in-a-bubble conservatives (and i know from your past posts that you're NOT one of these insulated bubble boys) know more about the "real" world. i just don't buy it.

[mzungu]

congratulations, jwaksman, on agreeing with these racists that the north started the civil war. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=510&printable=1

legitimate historians say that the confederacy tried to take over fort sumter, in addition to others, by firing on it, which is the proximate cause of the war. fort sumter was not held by the south, but rather the confederate traitors had begun taking possession of AMERICAN territory.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, most members of the KKK believe that the world is round. Does that mean that by believing that the Earth is not flat that I am a racist? According to your ridiculous insult, I am.



Unfortunately, you don't know the first thing about the Civil War if you think that the south started it. Ft. Sumter was a southern fort that the north was occupying. Lincoln ordered them to stay as the first act of the civil war. The US armies then launched the first invasion of the south, several months later.



I know that it's asking a lot of you to give you a logic question, but riddle me this: Why would the confederacy attack the north? They seceded, and had their own country. If nothing happens then they win - they have their country. It was the north that wanted to re-unify the country, not the confederates. During the middle of the war, when it appeared like the Confederacy was going to win, they planned to offer a peace plan where they would not gain any more land. They weren't fighting a war to gain land, they already had all of the land that they wanted.

[mzungu]

that's hardly the case. if you believe the racist story of the civil war, you are probably a racist and you do believe the racist story of the BEGINNING of the civil war. do you believe the other parts--it was not about slavery, etc.?

the belief that the earth is round is 1) incontrovertible (in general) and 2) has nothing to do with racist beliefs.

the belief that the civil war was started by the north is 1) false and 2) is a keystone of the racist southern narrative. the forts were geographically in the south, but they were not the property of the south. they were federal property and the north (that is, the federal government of the ENTIRE COUNTRY) did not steal them away, but rather HELD ONTO THEM, a big difference. holding onto them is passive. FIRING ON THEM is active, and that started the war, as every single, non-racist history book will tell you. the act of secession was an act of war in itself but the attack on fort sumter, against federal troops, was the first shot.

[Jwaksman]

Okay, so clearly the person who has spent the last 10 years reading Al Jazeera and DNC.org knows a lot more than the guy who has been to half a dozen civil war battlefields and has read more than 20 civil war books (including the memoirs of about half a dozen confederates and about half a dozen northerners).


So, you tell me, why would the confederacy attack the north? Did Jefferson Davis send Lincoln a telegram asking him to launch an invasion with Gen. McDowell that ended with the battle of Bull Run? I guess I must have missed that in my civil war reading....

[jersey_guy]

But it's certainly not normal to go from a momzungu leftist to a Pat Buchanan rightist overnight.

I do not like Buchanan nor his isolationism. Remember that if it were up to Buchanan, Saddam would still be in power, free to conduct mass executions of his own citizens.

[jersey_guy]

the hardest-core republican/conservatives i know are people who live in cosseted, white-bread, gated-suburb, 3-SUV-in-the-driveway outer America, who have never LEFT a comfort zone, who are often fearful of even venturing into big cities, who know or associate with few people of other races/religions/backgrounds, whose schools and churches are nearly all-white, and who quite often have no passport -- or if they do travel abroad, do so to comfortable (read: non-ethnic) destinations. i see conservatives as a fearful breed -- not, perhaps, a fear to be ashamed of, but one based on lack of exposure/experience to other ways of life.



Yes, that of course explains why the military, including our soldiers deployed in Iraq, overwhelmingly supported Bush.

[MoMo]

There are different kinds of fear, and different ways to react.

[Jwaksman]

Hey Jersey Guy, when are you going to start becoming blindly religious and giving TrackDaddy lavish praise borderlining fellatio? (to paraphrase Maddox)




Hahahahahaha

[mzungu]

Okay, so clearly the person who has spent the last 10 years reading Al Jazeera and DNC.org knows a lot more than the guy who has been to half a dozen civil war battlefields and has read more than 20 civil war books (including the memoirs of about half a dozen confederates and about half a dozen northerners).

So, you tell me, why would the confederacy attack the north? Did Jefferson Davis send Lincoln a telegram asking him to launch an invasion with Gen. McDowell that ended with the battle of Bull Run? I guess I must have missed that in my civil war reading....

I was a double major in history and philosophy and studied the civil war. I have never read either Al Jazeera or DNC.org. Why would the confederacy attack the north? The question is DID THEY ATTACK THE NORTH. Well, they did attack the Federal troops at Fort Sumter. How clear could this get?

[mzungu]

Lincoln's inaugural address assured southern whites that he would not do anything about slavery in Dixie, he approved the first version of the 13th amendment guaranteeing slavery in the south and stated to the southern people that "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the agressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it. ... We are not enemies, but friends ..."

The South read this speech not as "conciliation, but provocation. The feverish Charleston Mercury even blasted it as a declaration of war." At the moment, "hostile rebel cannon ringed Fort Sumter and its lonely Union flag. The Confederates had already seized every U.S. fort in Dixie except for Sumter and one other in the Florida Gulf. Now Sumter became a symbol for both sides, as the rebels demanded that Lincoln surrender it and angry Union men exhorted him to hold." (all this from "Abraham Lincoln: The Man behind the Myths," Stephen B. Oates, 83). "Far from being an aggressive tyrant who forced the innocent South to start the war, the historical Lincoln vacillated over Sumter, ostponed a decision ... Then a report from an emissary ... reported that South Carolinians had 'no attachment to the Union', and that some wanted a clash with Washington to united the Confederacy ... There was no conceivable way that Lincoln could avoid an armed collision with southern rebels: if he did not hold Sumter, he would have to stand somehwere else or see the government collapse" (Oates, 84). Eventually Lincoln decided "he would hold Fort Sumter ... He would send a relief expedition to Sumter, and if the Confederates opened fire, the momentous issue of civil war was indeed in their hands. And so the fateful events raced by: the firing on the fort, Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops, the secession of four border states (in addition to the previous seceding states), and the beginning of war" (Oates, 85).

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, Ft. Sumter was a defensive attack. Northern troops were occupying a confederate fort. After those cannon were fired, the south had no plans for attacking the north. They were only going to play defense. The south just wanted to govern itself - if Lincoln didn't want a war then there wouldn't be one.



I mean, every poly sci class I've ever taken has used the Civil War as the perfect backdrop for Just War Theory. The question being whether it is okay to start an offensive war, and to not respect sovereignty, in order to bring about a greater good (like freeing slaves).

[mzungu]

no, fort sumter was a federal fort held by federal troops and the confederacy didn't possess any forts until it took them from the government. the confederates are the ones who fired on the fort. the feds didn't take over fort sumter at all--they held it.

the just war debate does not concern how the civil war began, but rather whether it is JUSTIFIABLE to prosecute a war in order to either hold a nation together or end slavery.

[Jwaksman]

You are looking at it from the point of view of Lincoln, who viewed the entire south as still part of the United States. They never recognized the CSA as a sovereign nation. From the point of the south, South Carolina was part of the CSA. Since Ft. Sumter was part of South Carolina, it was illegally occupied.




I mean, come on, why would the south want to initiate a fight? I know that you have these preconceived assumptions about the world, but just think for a second. If you were President Jefferson Davis you'd have to be borderline retarded to initiate a fight. You already have everything that you want - the only way you can lose is if you start a war and lose.



And if you ever were in a class were just causes of war are discussed, you will see that the Civil War is the textbook case for discussing Just War Theory. If any intelligent person thought that the Civil War was started by the Confederacy then this wouldn't be such a presupposed fact.

[mzungu]

are you saying that the south was not part of the united states prior to the civil war? ridiculous.

the south DID IN FACT start the war, so no speculation needed, but of course there were also CONSTANT exhortations to war coming from confederates. stupid? of course. these are people who went to war to sustain slavery.

[Jwaksman]

That's so absurd that I don't even know how to begin. Let's start with point 1:


If the south wanted to save slavery, then the LAST thing they would want to do would be to secede. As long as the US stayed together, slavery could not have been banned - atleast in the foreseeable future. It would have required an Amerndment, and barely half of the northern states even supported such an Amendment. No one in their dreams thought that they could line up 2/3 support.



Now, point 2:


Once the Confederacy was created, the LAST thing they would want to do would be to start a war. The only way they could lose would be to start a war. That's why the first invasion of the war was the north attacking the south.



I think you really need to read a book on the civil war, or on common sense... :rolleyes:

[mzungu]

o.k. i can respond to this now. you have got to be the most ignorant student there has ever been at columbia. seriously. it's really astonishing.

February 9 - The Confederate States of America is formed with Jefferson Davis as president.

April 12 - At 4:30 AM Confederates under General Pierre Beauregard open fire with 50 cannons upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina. The Civil War begins.

April 17 - Virginia secedes from the Union, followed within 5 weeks by Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina, thus forming an eleven state Confederacy.

April 19 - President Lincoln issues a Proclamation of Blockade against Southern ports. For the duration of the war the blockade limits the ability of the rural South to stay well supplied in its war against the industrialized North.

July 4 - Lincoln, in a speech to Congress, states the war is..."a People's contest... a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men..." The Congress authorizes a call for 500,000 men.

why would the south support secession in favor of slavery? every single step moving the nation toward civil war involved the question of whether new states admitted to the union were slave or free states. secession occurred after lincoln's election, because he was a republican and the republican party was on record as favoring abolition. lincoln did not wait for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery, as you should know. when the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments were ratified after the war, banning slavery, establishing citizenship and the right to vote for all persons born or naturalized in the u.s., several southern states were part of the ratification, but of course by that point most states were non-southern. secession was all about slavery, even though lincoln himself said he wouldn't abolish slavery. why don't you look up quotations from southerners concerning secession and war?

[mzungu]

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow in their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

Citation:

Journal of the State Convention and Ordinances and Resolutions
Adopted in January 1861 with an Appendix Published by order of the Convention.

Jackson, Mississippi: E. Barksdale State Printer, 1861, pp. 86-88.

[Jwaksman]

o.k. i can respond to this now. you have got to be the most ignorant professor there has ever been at an American University. seriously. it's really astonishing.




Let me try to repeat myself one more time. Maybe you'll understand.



THERE WAS A 0% CHANCE THAT SLAVERY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BANNED WITHIN 30 YEARS IF NO CIVIL WAR WAS STARTED.


Have you ever looked at the states that ratified the Amendments directly following the Civil War? Probably not, because you don't believe in the Constitution, so I'll tell you: Barely half of the northern states voted for them. Atleast 1 of the 3 Amendments even failed to get a majority of the northern states to vote for them. The only reason that they were ratified was because the southern states were forced to ratify them in exchange for being allowed back in the union. If the Amendments came up for vote and the southern states were allowed to vote how they wanted, then the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments would barely have gotten 1/3 of the vote. Nowhere close to passing.

The fighting that constantly went on before the war (such as the Missouri Compromise) was because slave states still wanted to keep 1/2 of the votes in the Senate. Not that slavery could be banned either way, but because they were worried about laws restricting slavery in any way. They wanted to keep electing presidents and packing the courts for cases like Dred Scott. It's like nowadays with abortion. Republicans have a majority and can pass things like partial-birth abortion bans. But there's no way that an abortion ban would have a chance of passing. And there is a lot more support for an abortion ban today than there was for a slavery ban back in the day.




Now that we've gotten that taken care of, I want to ask you a simple question:


If Lincoln did not send an army under Gen. McDowell to attack Virginia (ultimately leading to the battle of Bull Run/Manassas), would the southern states have launched an attack on the north or declared war on the north? Of course not. They didn't want to conquer more land.



The Civil War wasn't about slavery. It was about the fundamental interpretation of the constitution. It was whether the chief goal of the federal government was to be an arbiter between the states (like the EU is) or whether it was to be a protector of civil rights (as Lincoln re-interpreted it in 1863). That was the issue. It's sad that some people are just so uneducated about history....

[TrackDaddy]

The Civil War wasn't about slavery.LOL

[Jwaksman]

Don't quote me out of context. Obviously slavery was an issue, but it wasn't the most important issue. I think one could argue that atleast half of the US army that joined voluntarily did so to free the slaves, but it's pretty hard to argue that any sizeable percentage of southerners did. I mean, more than 3/4 of confederate soldiers didn't even come from families that owned slaves. And even if they did, they thought of them as animals, like cows - would you fight and die to save your cow?

[TrackDaddy]

Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, referring to the Confederate government:

"Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery . . . is his natural and normal condition."

[Augusta, Georgia, Daily Constitutionalist, March 30, 1861.]

[TrackDaddy]

Alfred P. Aldrich, South Carolina legislator from Barnwell:

"If the Republican party with its platform of principles, the main feature of which is the abolition of slavery and, therefore, the destruction of the South, carries the country at the next Presidential election, shall we remain in the Union, or form a separate Confederacy? This is the great, grave issue. It is not who shall be President, it is not which party shall rule -- it is a question of political and social existence." [Steven Channing, Crisis of Fear, pp. 141-142.]

[TrackDaddy]

Lawrence Keitt, Congressman from South Carolina, in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860:

"African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Later in the same speech he said, "The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States."

[TrackDaddy]

I mean, more than 3/4 of confederate soldiers didn't even come from families that owned slaves. Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves.

In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.

Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

[TrackDaddy]

Obviously slavery was an issue, but it wasn't the most important issue. From: Sterling Cockrill, planter from Courtland, AL, 18 Sept. 1865

"We have much to say in vindication of our conduct, but this we must leave to history. The bloody conflict between brothers, is closed, and we 'come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.' The South had $2,000,000,000 invested in Slaves. It was very natural, that they should desire to protect, and not lose this amount of property. Their action in this effort, resulted in War. There was no desire to dissolve the Union, but to protect this property. The issue was made and it is decided."

[TrackDaddy]

From: Ladies of Greenbrier County, WV, 22 Sept. 1865

"Our plain view of the war is simply this. For a long series of years the people of the North differed with those of the South upon the question of slavery and the relations between the states and Federal government. All peaceable means of adjustment were resorted to and failed to reconcile us. At last the controversy was referred to that tribunal from whose decision there is no appeal--to the tribunal of war,--the arbitrament of the sword."

[TrackDaddy]

Don't quote me out of context. Obviously slavery was an issue, but it wasn't the most important issue.Lincoln's second Inaugural Speech.


At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it--all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.

[TrackDaddy]

Um, take your "I'm Black and Oppressed" thinking cap off and stop quoting politicians: Lincoln was the President who "Freed the Slaves"--OF COURSE he's going to paint the Civil War as a Slavery Issue!Paint?

Did you notice the quotes from the South Carolina congressman or the SLAVE OWNERS!?!?!

[TrackDaddy]

If slavery is such a horrible thing to you, and the Confederacy wanted to own slaves while the North did not, why do you live in Texas, where people drive around with Confederate Flags on their Pickup Trucks?I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm correcting LIES being told in this thread WITH FACTS.

You think I should move because the people are ignorant?

My goodness...where would I go?

[Jwaksman]

Trackdaddy, you really are the gift that keeps on giving. Case in point: I make the correct statement that more than 3/4 of confederate troops came from families without slaves and you try to correct me by saying that 1/3 of confederate families had slaves. However, you might not realize this, but families with 2000 acres and 100 slaves are slightly less likely to send their children to war than a poor family.



And no one is denying that slavery wasn't a huge issue in the leadup to 1860. But what I'm asking you to do is to use just a liiiiiitle bit of logic. The issues over slavery were about tightening laws or loosening them. As I've proven, slavery could not have been banned unless a war was started.

Ergo, it is logically impossible for slavery to have been the prime reason for the war.

By the way, do you know that there was actually a big movement in the confederacy early on to free the slaves anyway? Not a majority, of course, but a decent percentage of southerners realized that it was in their interest to free the slaves. They knew that they probably couldn't win the war without British and French help. Napoleon III of France was weak and would just do whatever Queen Victoria of England wanted. But since Britian had just freed their own slaves, they simply could not be perceived as fighting for slavery. That's why Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was more of a war strategy than anything else. It actually didn't free a single slave. But what it did was to try to make the war about slaves. He realized that the confederacy was gaining momentum and that Britain and France were close to coming in on their side and ending the war. The Emancipation Proclamation served the purpose of keeping Britain out, by making slavery a bigger issue than it previously was.

[TrackDaddy]

The TRUTH is the Civil War was ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMICS OF SLAVERY.

Your persistent "jocking" of Jwaks, seriously injures your credibility. :cool:

[TrackDaddy]

but at least John Nash DID SOMETHING for society.I'm doing something.

Educating the ignorant.

[TrackDaddy]

Holy Sh!t, I almost forgot, I'm arguing with a guy who probably believes that the Earth is Flat, and that Humans Never Reached The Moon.

Layla out.You aren't arguing with me.

You're defending Jwaks and his asinine assertion that the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Funny though that y'all are incapable of refuting any of the FACTS I posted.

Just so you'll know... the ABSURD assertion that the Civil War was not about slavery is the propaganda of the pick up driving flag waving bigots you referred to earlier.

I post all this info and you call Lincoln a liar in his SECOND INAUGURAL SPEECH just so Jwaks can be jocked. :rolleyes:

[Jwaksman]

Trackdaddy, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't read my posts where I proved why slavery could not have been banned. Why don't you explain it to me. Explain to me how slavery could possibly have been banned before 1890 without the civil war occuring. How could there possibly be enough states in favor of such an Amendment?

[TrackDaddy]

Actually, that's what we're doing to you. Remember, you're delusional.I'm delusional, but you reject documented history.

Got it. :rolleyes:

Jwaks aint worth your credibility, sweetheart. You are a very bright girl, who's also very pretty and who has a tremendous future.

But your credibility is among an individual's most valuable assets.

[TrackDaddy]

Trackdaddy, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just didn't read my posts where I proved why slavery could not have been banned. Why don't you explain it to me. Explain to me how slavery could possibly have been banned before 1890 without the civil war occuring. How could there possibly be enough states in favor of such an Amendment?WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING!?!?!?!?!?

Lincoln acknowledged in his first inauguration that he didn't have the power to absolve slavery but he intended to CURB it by limiting it's spread.

[TrackDaddy]

Ugh, I'm going to have to spell this out for you:

First and Foremost, Don't Trust A Southerner. Not then, not now.

"The South had $2,000,000,000 invested in Slaves. It was very natural, that they should desire to protect, and not lose this amount of property. Their action in this effort, resulted in War. There was no desire to dissolve the Union, but to protect this property. The issue was made and it is decided."

BLOODY HELL THIS IS STATES RIGHTS ISSUE! It's SO CLEARLY stated! But your "I'm Black and Oppressed" filters won't allow you to see it! Slavery was one issue of a MUCH LARGER ideal: States Rights.LOL

States rights to do what Layla?

Huh?

Do what?

Uh...you think maybe THE RIGHT TO OWN SLAVES!?!?!?!?!?! :rolleyes:

[Jwaksman]

So you're telling me that the average southerner, who didn't even own a slave, was going to fight and die in a war because they were afraid that the north would slightly curb the use of slavery for other rich people???? Are you NUTS!!??

Slaves were viewed like furniture, or like a beast of burden. If the government was going to regulate your use of how some rich farmers used their oxen, would you fight and die for that???


Come on, let's be reasonable here... If you actually read stuff about the era from someone other than Sharpton and Jackson you'll realize that war was about a fundamental interpretation of the constitution. Slavery was the most visible issue, because it was the most cut and dry one. When our nation was founded it was simply a "union of the states". States were basically the sovereign entitites, and the federal government was a way for the states to strengthen themselves. So, all states would come to the defense of any state that came under attack, etc. It was actually a huge issue in the late-1790's whether our federal government could even have a standing army. Many argued that there should just be state militia.

Anyway, as time went on, people started to want to change the fundamental nature of what our government's purpose was. And, in this, I agree with them - this is how I interpret our constitution as well. That the federal government should be more than just a shell around many independent creatures, but that it should protect the rights of all citizens. The emphasis should be on the Amendments, and what rights they provide for people.

This struck many people as a huge attack on states' rights. You have to realize that southern states had been threatening to secede since the beginning - Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson and all the rest had to bend over backwards just to get those states in the country the first time. You probably don't know this, but our country was on the brink of a civil war in 1836, when slavery wasn't even a real issue yet. Andrew Jackson had raised tariffs on certain goods, hurting the economies of several southern states who didn't even believe that Jackson had a right to make those tariffs. He ended up sending troops down to South Carolina in a last-ditch attempt to prevent a secession, which he did. But that lingering hatred grew and finally erupted into the secessions of 1860 and 1861.


But you don't need to respond with long, reasoned arguments like that. Just make a single assertion, with no backup, because you know the TRUTH, and everyone else in the world is just stupid.

[TrackDaddy]

Lincoln's second Inaugural Speech.


At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention, and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it--all sought to avert it. While the inaugeral [sic] address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissole [sic] the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.Jwaks...what do the words of Lincoln's speech (AMONG MANY OTHERS including those written by the president of the confederacy Jefferson Davis) indicating that SLAVERY is the PRIMARY reason for the Civil War mean to you?

What's so hard about understanding these words of PRESIDENT LINCOLN AFTER THE WAR?

One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease.

[TrackDaddy]

Would you like for me to show you that the other guy (Jefferson Davis) thought he was fighting over slavery too?

:rolleyes:

[Jwaksman]

TD, perhaps you don't realize this, but Abraham Lincoln WAS TRYING TO SAVE THE UNION. I'm sure you know all of his quotes about how saving the union was the most important thing. So, of COURSE he kept talking about slavery and how important it was. It was for the same reason of the Emancipation Proclamation - he needed to keep the Europeans out of the war.


I'm glad that you again ignored my proof of why slavery simply could not have been the biggest factor. Remember, there were 11 states in the confederacy, and a bunch of other slave-owning states, and many pro-slavery people in the north as well. There were only 36 states total. There was just no way that any real legislation against slavery could be passed. And there was 0% chance that it could be banned.



Think about it (try really hard to think here, please...), we're going to do a reductio ad absurdum:


Let's assume that you are a southern slave owner. You make a ton of money off your slaves and don't want to lose them. You know that a slavery ban would require a vote of 2/3 in both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states, despite the fact that more than 1/3 of the states were never going to vote against slavery (11 of the 36 states eventually became part of the CSA, and atleast 3 others had heavy slave ownership and sent regiments to fight for the CSA).

So, you realize that if you stay as part of the United States that slavery will remain. However, if you go to war against a vastly superior army and infrastructure and lose then you will lose all of your slaves.


If slavery really was the most important thing to you, why would you put yourself in the ONLY SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD LOSE YOUR SLAVES???

[TrackDaddy]

Jwaks,

The REASON Lincoln said...

"... These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."

Is because it was. You can try and reason that away or argue legal suppositional strategies if you like.

BUT THE STATE RIGHT MOST DEAR TO THE SOUTH THAT THEY KNEW WOULD ULTIMATELY BE THREATENED WITHOUT SUCCESSION WAS...

Slavery.

The primary reason the southern states wanted to become an independent nation was the North's view on slavery.

The South wanted slavery and felt they needed it. Lincoln felt that the succession was basically illegal.

It is also true that the North's interpretation of the constitution which was a more liberal approach that would increase the power of the federal government in other matters played a part.

But the bottom line is that threat the North posed in regard to their view on slavery is the primary reason the war was fought.

No the war wasn't fault to "free the slaves" but it was fought BECAUSE of the slaves and their economic impact.

[Jwaksman]

TD, perhaps you don't realize this, but Abraham Lincoln WAS TRYING TO SAVE THE UNION. I'm sure you know all of his quotes about how saving the union was the most important thing. So, of COURSE he kept talking about slavery and how important it was. It was for the same reason of the Emancipation Proclamation - he needed to keep the Europeans out of the war.


I'm glad that you again ignored my proof of why slavery simply could not have been the biggest factor. Remember, there were 11 states in the confederacy, and a bunch of other slave-owning states, and many pro-slavery people in the north as well. There were only 36 states total. There was just no way that any real legislation against slavery could be passed. And there was 0% chance that it could be banned.



Think about it (try really hard to think here, please...), we're going to do a reductio ad absurdum:


Let's assume that you are a southern slave owner. You make a ton of money off your slaves and don't want to lose them. You know that a slavery ban would require a vote of 2/3 in both houses of congress and 3/4 of the states, despite the fact that more than 1/3 of the states were never going to vote against slavery (11 of the 36 states eventually became part of the CSA, and atleast 3 others had heavy slave ownership and sent regiments to fight for the CSA).

So, you realize that if you stay as part of the United States that slavery will remain. However, if you go to war against a vastly superior army and infrastructure and lose then you will lose all of your slaves.


If slavery really was the most important thing to you, why would you put yourself in the ONLY SITUATION WHERE YOU COULD LOSE YOUR SLAVES???



You don't read what I type, so maybe if I just flat out quote myself you'll understand. Abraham Lincoln was a politician. He was going to say whatever he had to say to win that war. I have proved to you why any southerner who treasured their slaves more than anything else would want to do anything BUT start a civil war. Therefore, the discussion is over. You are wrong.

[mzungu]

tdaddy, you're doing a great job on this one. layla is strikingly ignorant on this issue. she simply cannot think straight, because she wants to support her man. jwaksman is just being himself. you cannot convince him through facts or argument. notice that he has radically shifted his claims over the course of this discussion. he first said that 1) the south did not start the war and 2) the war was not about slavery. then he said PART of the war was about slavery. then he said a HUGE part of the war was about slavery. then he said, the war wasn't about slavery but states' rights.

for proof, he provides absolutely zero quotations and only the following tangential claims:
1) most confederate soldiers owned no slaves (if this is true, how does this have anything to do with states' rights on the part of the leaders of the confederacy? the same rank and file whites helped sustain segregation for over eighty years following radical reconstruction, out of racism and race privilege, right?)
2) slavery couldn't have been banned, so it was illogical to leave the union to save slavery.

But the historical facts are that the republicans had enough support to win the presidency, that there were additional states to be added to the united states that would likely be free states, tipping the legislative balance to the republicans and abolition of slavery, the republicans had made abolition their reason for being, that slavery might very well have been abolished either by presidential fiat (emancipation proclamation) or legislation without constitutional amendment (which might have been challenged but certainly could have been enforced, just as segregation was ended not through amendment but through legislation opposed by the south and enforced by the government), and MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE SOUTHERNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR SECESSION STATED THAT IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY:

again from Mississippi's own secession statement (I did indeed look at ratification of 13th-15th amendments, and Mississippi NEVER ratified some or even all of those):
"A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

[mzungu]

or to put it in terms intelligible by columbia's leading racist:

state's rights meant the right to have slaves.

that's PRECISELY WHY the compromise that brought in the south on the constitution was about slavery--the 3/5ths compromise, which meant that for congression representation, slaves would count as 3/5ths of a person, giving far more legislative power to the south than would have existed if they had excluded slaves from the count entirely. and why was that power necessary? of course, to prevent the north from abolishing slavery.

[TrackDaddy]

Very, very well presented, Mzu.

[Jwaksman]

(Sigh)... we're going to try this one more time:



Trackdaddy already said that 3/4 of southerners didn't have slaves. Now, slaves were expensive to own, so we can safely assume that the 1/4 with slaves were the richest southerners. Seeing as how soldiers tend to be poorer, we can safely conclude that less than 1/4 of troops owned slaves. And the number is even lower, I believe. As they began to run out of troops they instituted a draft but, like in the north, you could buy your way out of it for like $300. So, again, the rich slave-owners got out of the war.



So, let's say you're an average southerner. And you don't own a slave and neither do any of your family members. Why are you fighting a war and dying???


Secondly, there were ELEVEN confederate states. A Constitutional Amendment needs 3/4 of the states. The elimination of slavery required an Amendment. Even if we assume that only Kentucky and Maryland would have joined the CSA against the Amendment (we could add more. For example, Delaware didn't ratify the 13th Amendment until 1901) - we still would need 39 OTHER STATES to ratify the Amendments. That means that we'd have to wait until the US had 52 (FIFTY TWO) states. Even if we assume that only the CSA states would have voted against it (which is pretty safe if you're trying to argue that they would go so far as to start a war), then you still would need 44 (FORTY FOUR) states to ratify the Amendment. The 44th state to enter our country was Wyoming, in 1890.


Clearly, slavery could not have been banned for a very long time. Without a war, it obviously would have lasted until some of the southern states themselves decided to get rid of it (which probably would have been in the late-19th Century sometime).




I don't know if I have to repeat myself 8, 9, or 10 times for you guys to understand what I'm saying. I'm sure everyone else on this board gets this and is bored already, wanting to discuss something new. If so, this is probably the last time I'll repeat myself, because it's impossible to get a rational thought into mzungu's head and TD is just blinded by his hatred of white people, so it's not worth the effort...

[TrackDaddy]

That's how you got your reputation Jwaks. I guess you're intent on keeping it.

Why do you ignore the sentiments of those ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE from that era who CLEARLY INDICATE that the war was about slavery?

How can you ignore the reason that MISSISSIPPI herself gave for her succession?

What about her federal rep JEFFERSON DAVIS who resigned to become president of the confederacy?

You, my friend, are a real gem.

YOU IGNORE THE SENTIMENTS OF BOTH PRESIDENTS, CONGRESSMAN, ORGANIZATIONS, PLANTATION OWNERS and EVERYONE FROMTHAT ERA...

And take up the propagandist position of modern day bigots.

You are very, very special.

BTW...

Here's what I REALLY said:

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves.

In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.

Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

[Jwaksman]

TD, even if mroe than 1/3 of southerners owned slaves, we're still talking about a tiny minority of soldiers with them. It wasn't like every southerner owned 1 slave. It was that the richest families would own 100, and the rest would own zero. And those rich families didn't send children to war.


There is no question that the VAST MAJORITY OF SOUTHERN SOLDIERS DID NOT COME FROM SLAVE HOLDING FAMILIES - WHY WOULD ANYONE WITH NOTHING TO PROFIT FROM SLAVERY DIE FOR SLAVERY?

WHY WOULD SOMEONE START A WAR WHEN IT WAS THE O-N-L-Y WAY THAT SLAVERY COULD BE BANNED IN THIS COUNTRY?


"Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil in any country."
-Robert E. Lee, Commander, Army of Northern Virginia

[Jwaksman]

The final thing to understand, which all historians agree upon, is that even if slavery were a non-issue (like if it had been banned from the start, or if southerners no longer wanted slaves), there still would have been a Civil War. That war was going to happen regardless, it was about a fundamental interpretation of the Constitution. Not any one issue.



You would think that anyone with atleast a 4th grade education (or a 12th grade education in Texas) would know that wars are typically a little more complicated than one voting issue...

[Jwaksman]

The beggining of Jefferson Davis's first speech to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861:


"Gentlemen of the Congress: It is my pleasing duty to announce to you that the Constitution framed for the establishment of a permanent Government for the Confederate States has been ratified by conventions in each of those States to which it was re-ferred. To inaugurate the Government in its full proportions and upon its own substantial basis of the popular will, it only remains that elections should be held for the designation of the officers to administer it. There is every reason to believe that at no distant day other States, identified in political principles and community of interests with those which you represent, will join this Confederacy, giving to its typical constellation increased splendor, to its Government of free, equal, and sovereign States a wider sphere of usefulness, and to the friends of constitutional liberty a greater security for its harmonious and perpetual existence. It was not, however, for the purpose of making this announcement that I have deemed it my duty to convoke you at an earlier day than that fixed by yourselves for your meeting. The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month, rendered it necessary, in my judgment, that you should convene at the earliest practicable moment to devise the measures necessary for the defense of the country. The occasion is indeed an extraordinary one. It justifies me in a brief review of the relations heretofore existing between us and the States which now unite in warfare against us and in a succinct statement of the events which have resulted in this warfare, to the end that mankind may pass intelligent and impartial judgment on its motives and objects."

[TrackDaddy]

There is no question that the VAST MAJORITY OF SOUTHERN SOLDIERS DID NOT COME FROM SLAVE HOLDING FAMILIES - WHY WOULD ANYONE WITH NOTHING TO PROFIT FROM SLAVERY DIE FOR SLAVERY?Jwaks, this makes no sense.

Why would anyone with nothing to profit in Iraq die for it?

See what I mean...

Die, conquer and defend is what soldiers do.

[TrackDaddy]

The beggining of Jefferson Davis's first speech to the Confederate Congress on April 29, 1861:


"Gentlemen of the Congress: It is my pleasing duty to announce to you that the Constitution framed for the establishment of a permanent Government for the Confederate States has been ratified by conventions in each of those States to which it was re-ferred. To inaugurate the Government in its full proportions and upon its own substantial basis of the popular will, it only remains that elections should be held for the designation of the officers to administer it. There is every reason to believe that at no distant day other States, identified in political principles and community of interests with those which you represent, will join this Confederacy, giving to its typical constellation increased splendor, to its Government of free, equal, and sovereign States a wider sphere of usefulness, and to the friends of constitutional liberty a greater security for its harmonious and perpetual existence. It was not, however, for the purpose of making this announcement that I have deemed it my duty to convoke you at an earlier day than that fixed by yourselves for your meeting. The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month, rendered it necessary, in my judgment, that you should convene at the earliest practicable moment to devise the measures necessary for the defense of the country. The occasion is indeed an extraordinary one. It justifies me in a brief review of the relations heretofore existing between us and the States which now unite in warfare against us and in a succinct statement of the events which have resulted in this warfare, to the end that mankind may pass intelligent and impartial judgment on its motives and objects."It was because of the succession that Lincoln took exception.

It was because of slavery the succession occurred.

So, as Lincoln indicated...

"... These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war."

When Lincoln was elected the "expansion" of slavery as a industry was effectively aborted. His party was vehemently opposed and through some form of litgation or legislative measure (amendment?) slavery was going to end. Those that formed the confederacy were well aware of this and felt succession was the best option.

You keep talking about "would you fight a war if..."

Forget that, player.

Focus on the succession from the union which Lincoln felt was illegal.

Now go back and read Mississippi or SoCar succession documents.

Here I got your back...(from Mississippi below)

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

If you try really hard, you can get this. ;)

[Jwaksman]

First of all, Webster, it's secession. If you're going to try to debate a term intelligently it's often wise to learn how to spell it.


Our soldiers in Iraq are there to defend our country. The confederate troops were fighting to protect their country. Right off the bat we have already disproven mzungu's absurd claim that the CSA started the civil war.



Now, since I've already proven that the only way slavery could have been eliminated was through war, we have proven that point also. If people cared that much about slavery, then you'd think they would be smart enough to avoid the only activity that could result in its elimination. I've already proven that congress would not have been able to ban slavery, no matter how many slave-less states entered the union.


There had to have been atleast one person in charge of the secession who realized this. I mean, I know that Texas was involved and all, but it doesn't make sense why Virginians or North Carolinians would have made such a stupid decision :D

[TrackDaddy]

First of all, Webster, it's secession. If you're going to try to debate a term intelligently it's often wise to learn how to spell itLOL!

I know how to spell, Jwacky...LOL :cool:

There's a logical explanation why I've continually misspelled that word (something has been on my mind, but I won't get into it).

Your reply was funny though. The Texas thing too. :D

[jrun]

The TRUTH is the Civil War was ALL ABOUT THE ECONOMICS OF SLAVERY.


Quoted For Truth.

[KenA55]

An interesting debate; I see it as a clash between the idealist who insists on drawing the focus to the ideals at stake- states rights; and the pragmatist who insists that the actual 'state right' that was being threatened is the focus- the right to own slaves. Pretty clear to me that both are correct.

I don't think the argument over why the typical grunt went to war has any bearing- they go to war because that's their 'team' and it's never pleasant to end up on the losing side in particular, in such a thing. They no more got up in arms about the states rights issue than they did the slavery issue itself- and probably a whole lot less. Just because they didn't own any of the 'cattle' didn't mean they wanted the other guy's 'cattle' to be eventually be granted full rights as free men. That would cause all sorts of problems- measures would have to be taken to keep them penned up regardless, to prevent their eventually marrying their daughters, mixing socially at a thousand points, going to school together, voting, even wanting a seat on the white part of the bus once there was such a thing.

Many northerners could afford to be less worried about their own racist tendencies, which were certainly rampant at the time up there as well, simply because their states weren't as mixed. To deny the racial issues that whites on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line would be strongly swayed by is pure nonsense. The extent to which they would be swayed is directly related to how big the problems of granting rights to the negro would create in their particular neighborhood.

It borders on the absurd to suggest that the constitutional issues revolving around states rights in the abstract would outweigh the above in the mind of the common man. Slavery and racism was the fulcrum and lever that moved men; States rights was the window dressing applied to justify secession from the union among the constitutionally educated.

The war was about slavery, dressed up in the idealistic trappings of constitutional issues.

[Jwaksman]

I feel like no one is reading my posts. I already proved why slavery could not have been the largest factor in the war.



As long as there was no secession, slavery could not have been banned - it was impossible. If they started a war and lost, then they would lose slavery. If slavery was the most important to them, they would have to be mentally retarded to do the ONE ACTIVITY THAT COULD LEAD TO THE END OF SLAVERY.



And no historian would debate the fact that if slavery were not an issue that the civil war would still have occured. It almost happened in 1836 when slavery wasn't even an issue yet.


Abraham Lincoln fundamentally changed the basic meaning of our constitution and our federal government, it's pretty hard to do that without upsetting a group of people, especially a group of people that had been threatening to secede for 75 years.

[TrackDaddy]

Below is the Mississippi Secession Document in it's entirety.

I color coded the document and added "clarity" so that even someone who couldn't afford community college and was forced by dire circumstances to attend a less formidable institution such as Columbia University and the like could understand it.

Touche' :D

Confederate States of America

Mississippi Secession

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution (SLAVERY) commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility (TOWARD SLAVERY) dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY)advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It (THE HOSTILITY TOWARD SLAVERY) has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property.

For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

[TrackDaddy]

Now...

Only an idiot (OR A BIGOT...they're the same thing really) would continue to ask things like "why would you secede if by staying you knew there was no way to absolve slavery?"

"Why would you fight if you didn't "own" slaves?"

"Why would you start a war if you knew that would mean that slavery may end?"

Only an idiot or a BIGOT (who refuses to read ALL THIS proof).

*Waiting to see how many idiots the Lounge has... :cool:

Layla...when you and Jwaksbaugh get married...

Y'all can move to rural Mississippi, buy an old truck with a Confederate flag window sticker, rent a double wide with your government subsidy, have 9 kids you raise to hate, lose your shoes and your teeth...

And fit right in. :D

[KenA55]

Everybody responding is reading your posts. Whether or not slavery could have been immediately ended, the Feds were messing with their labor arrangement and its future was at risk. Monied slaveowners would have been all for secession to keep such stuff out of the hands of the non-slave states.

You're right about the whole thing changing the relationship between federal & state government and diminishing state autonomy- for the constitutional scholar those sorts of things do loom large. But in any final analysis, despite earlier issues, it was slavery and racism in general that pushed the country over the brink. That was the hot issue that fired up the masses.

If we had a civil war over abortion or gay rights issues today, because of federal heavy-handedness, it could certainly be called a civil war over states rights issues as well. It would be true- but just as true that it took a hot-button issue to catylize the thing. I just don't see that both points of view are necessarily incompatable.

[KenA55]

On a semi-related subject (back to AA again) how many saw the 60 minutes thing on Texas' 10% rule? I wasn't familiar with that until I heard that boadcast on a CBS affiliate radio station yesterday, they do the entire show on radio for an hour. If you're unfamiliar, Texas passed a law awhile back that if you graduate in the top 10% of your class, any Texas publc college has to accept you regardless of test scores, if I understand the thing. Sounds like the there are some issues, schools being overwhelmed with mandatory applicatants, parents moving their kids into weaker hs'ers to max out their chances of graduating at that level :confused: , and so on. TD, you're very close to that issue there, what's your take?

[TrackDaddy]

On a semi-related subject (back to AA again) how many saw the 60 minutes thing on Texas' 10% rule? I wasn't familiar with that until I heard that boadcast on a CBS affiliate radio station yesterday, they do the entire show on radio for an hour. If you're unfamiliar, Texas passed a law awhile back that if you graduate in the top 10% of your class, any Texas publc college has to accept you regardless of test scores, if I understand the thing. Sounds like the there are some issues, schools being overwhelmed with mandatory applicatants, parents moving their kids into weaker hs'ers to max out their chances of graduating at that level :confused: , and so on. TD, you're very close to that issue there, what's your take?You have a pretty good read on it Ken. I didn't hear the CBS commentary but you are correct that there are a few issues.

But overall, I think it's been a very successful program. Because people are generally products of their environments, it allows those who excel relative to their particulars an opportunity to attend public school. Every state univ. still has a minimum SAT relative to one's GPA for THOSE NOT IN THE TOP 10%... at the big schools like Texas, Texas Tech and Texas A&M, I believe it's around 1140-1200. Smaller public schools like Sam Houston Univ. and Stephen F. Austin I think it's around 1000.

I think what happens is that no one who has excelled in school is denied an opportunity for a public education because the uncontrollable "particulars" of their environment didn't produce educational opportunities as competitive as the more environmentally fortunate.

Of course, once a kid gets there, he/she still has to prove they belong.

I think if the numbers were produced we'd find that they indeed do belong.

This isn't AA in my opinion since it is COLORLESS and applies equally to ANY student in the Texas public school system.

I know kids of ALL RACES who have taken advantage of the program since they can skip the application process and pick the public school of their choice based on their top ten % class ranking.

[KenA55]

Yeah, it sounded like the college officials who spoke weren't so much negative towards it, they simply felt there ought to perhaps be a reasonable cap, percentage-wise, on a maximum amount of the mandated incoming freshmen at any particular campus.

By the way, what's Mark Yudof's position on it, and how's he been received back in his home state as chancellor? He was quite a popular president here and most regretted to see him leave, but home is home after all.

[TrackDaddy]

Way to go, jerk. Rest assured if he and I were to ever get married it'd be more like living in a several million dollar estate somewhere in the suburbs of NYC-him with his PhD, me with my MD.Yawls mine iffin' I wuk fuh yawl buh tendin' ta yawl yawd or in de fiel wen yawl dun git yuh ee-stait?

Kin yawls fine en ya heart tuh gimme sum meeger wages?

Cuz lawdy, ma'am, uh ain't nebber been what I calls free.

Massa Layla shud no Ise a purty good nigra 'ceptin I ain't git no skoolin'.

So I aint now wun of dese hifalutin' nigras wut dont kno his bidness.

No suh... :D

[TrackDaddy]

Yeah, it sounded like the college officials who spoke weren't so much negative towards it, they simply felt there ought to perhaps be a reasonable cap, percentage-wise, on a maximum amount of the mandated incoming freshmen at any particular campus.

By the way, what's Mark Yudof's position on it, and how's he been received back in his home state as chancellor? He was quite a popular president here and most regretted to see him leave, but home is home after all.I've never heard Yudof's position on the matter.

I'm guessing that it wouldn't be popular for him to publicly oppose it however as I understand that it's well recieved by the general population.

As you mentioned I'm sure some tweaking could only help.

BTW...I have two kids in the tri UT system (A&M, UT, Tech). It's a fine school system with a solid rep.

Even with this policy in place...I believe that less than 4% of the kids at UT, Tech and A&M are black. It may be as low as 3% at Tech and A&M. I'm not sure.

[jrun]

him with his PhD, me with my MD. .


Well, you'd fit right in in Mississippi.

---
KenA55, I saw the program on CBS.

My take?--So poor little Amy and Tyler can’t get into their dream school, however they still can attend a college/university? Meanwhile, less fortunate children (mostly minorities) are giving the opportunity to attend a college/university, many of whom never imagined it possible to attend an institution of higher learning?

Good program (overall).

[Jwaksman]

Everybody responding is reading your posts. Whether or not slavery could have been immediately ended, the Feds were messing with their labor arrangement and its future was at risk. Monied slaveowners would have been all for secession to keep such stuff out of the hands of the non-slave states.




Everyone here keeps trying to rationalize the situation like this. They want it to be about slavery because that's what they were taught in school. Frankly, it's been that way since 1863, when Abraham Lincoln made the genius move to make the war about slavery. It probably won the war for the United States. Unfortunately, it's led to many an incorrect statement by US history teachers over the years.



How ever much you talk about the increasing influence of non-slave states, the fact still stands that an Amendment requires ratification by 3/4 of the states. Let me restate that: AN AMENDMENT REQUIRES RATIFICATION BY 75% OF THE STATES. Since the Confederacy was made up of 11 states, we know that atleast 11 states would vote against such a Constitutional Amendment. So, you'd have had to wait until atleast 1890 (when the 44th state entered the union) to have even a mathematical chance to eliminate slavery.




I think the mental problem that people are having here is that they are viewing the federal government and states the way that we do today. What you have to realize is that a "state" meant a much different thing in 1860. You can think of the US in 1860 like the EU in 2005. It was a loose confederate of independent states. Each state basically ruled itself, with its own armies, its own money, its own government. People rarely moved from one state to the other, and they strongly associated with their own states. That's why you didn't have "US" regiments during the war - each state sent their own. Trying to put New Yorkers next to Minnesotans would have been absurd, you might as well have tried sticking Frenchmen into the regiment.


So, let's stick with the EU analogy. Imagine if the EU starting passing stronger laws, telling countries how many hours their workers could work, raising tariffs, forcing single-payer nationalized health insurances - that would probably upset certain countries (like England and eastern Europe). They would decide, "Forget this, I don't want to be a part of the EU", so they just leave. The head of the EU could decide that they don't want to let those countries leave, so they send an army to try to force them back. That's essentially what the civil war was like.


There were issues like taxation, tariffs, slavery, regulations and countless others. All had the same overtone - the federal government was taking more and more control away from the states. So, the southern states decided that they didn't want to be ruled by a far-away president and just decided to start their own state again. I'm reminded of the incredibly interesting speech by Gen. Jimmy Kemper, Speaker of the House of Virginia, in the 1993 major motion picture Gettysburg (I might have a word or two wrong, I don't remember it exactly): "My home is Virginia. Virginia is run by Virginians. We don't want to be run by any King in London, and we don't want to be ruled by any President in Washington. Virginia, by God sir, will be ruled by Virginia".


That was the fundamental issue at stake.

[fentonfreshman]

Way to go, jerk. Rest assured if he and I were to ever get married it'd be more like living in a several million dollar estate somewhere in the suburbs of NYC-him with his PhD, me with my MD. I'd cut off my own limbs before living in that cesspool south of the Mason-Dixon.

Looks like you've got it all planned out.

[Oh yeah!]

Looks like you've got it all planned out.
i would say so

[Jwaksman]

i would say so




Um... I don't know what sort of rumors are going around about us (this feels like highschool), but me and Layla aren't married....



... But rest assured, if we do get married in 5/10 years, we'll be sure to invite all of the LL ;)

[Jwaksman]

Hey, so you want proof that we're going to have a nice multi-million dollar house? Here's (http://www.nydailynews.com/business/story/319281p-273057c.html) an interesting article written recently. It's me, even though they spelled my name wrong. What happened was that the author of this article is somehow acquainted with caroline bierbaum and asked her to find someone good for his story, and I ended up being the one he liked. For those who don't know, the NY Daily News is one of the 3 big NY City papers, along with the Times and the Post.


:D

[jrun]

Congratulations, Jwaksman.

“Make the money…don’t let the money make you.”

What are the returns on that mutual looking like?

[Dyenimator]

TrackDaddy and I will be sneaking in 4-0's at the reception.

[Jwaksman]

What are the returns on that mutual looking like?



Pretty normal for mutual funds - the typical 8-10% a year or so. I need them to rewrite the article, cause they now round to $13,000 :D . I always feel like mutaul funds and bonds are the best investments. Yeah, you can make more money in stocks, but my biggest problem with them isn't even the risk involved. It's just that it requires countless hours of studying and learning about all sorts of companies. The little extra bit of money just isn't worth the time and effort to me. A mutual fund, you can pick it in 60 seconds, send in the money, and watch it grow for years. It's very easy.

I used to have some stocks. I got in on Iomega and Yahoo stock right before the took off in the late-1990's. At one point Yahoo was selling at over $500 a share, which was absurd because of its tiny revenue. I think it's P/E ratio was around 200,000, haha. But I think it will be a long time before we see a phenomenon like that again...

[TrackDaddy]

TrackDaddy and I will be sneaking in 4-0's at the reception.LOL@Dye :D

Nice article, Jwaks.

I'm sure your parents are proud of you. There's nothing quite like a son who will listen.

The Citigroup survey of college students says alot about the number of kids who actually do when it comes to expectations.

Layla...in some ways, you may be a lucky woman.

But money aside...you're in my prayers. ;)

[Sebrle]

I always feel like mutaul funds and bonds are the best investments.

I'd actually go with real estate, it's like a giant stock certificate you can live in and almost literally takes an act of god to decrease in value, I know a guy who at age 18 went to college and bought a house with a no down payment/interest only loans (he would also transfer chunks of the mortgage to his no/low interest student loans), it was a bit too run down for a present day house wife, but perfect for college students, so he lived there and rented out all of the rooms while gradually fixing it up over the next 4 years. At 22 he graduated sold the house, paid off his college debt and still had over 150k in the bank from the gains in property value and rental revenue.

[jrun]

I used to have some stocks. I got in on Iomega and Yahoo stock right before the took off in the late-1990's. At one point Yahoo was selling at over $500 a share, which was absurd because of its tiny revenue. I think it's P/E ratio was around 200,000, haha. But I think it will be a long time before we see a phenomenon like that again...

Interesting. I, too bought Iomega stock during that time period. Partly because of the Y2k deal and thinking that memory would be at a premium. Guess I wasn't entirely wrong...I bought in at about 5 1/4 and it eventually rose to around 7 7/8 in a fairly short window. I was foolish and held on too long and only sold out around, I believe, 6 even.

[Jwaksman]

I'd actually go with real estate, it's like a giant stock certificate you can live in and almost literally takes an act of god to decrease in value, I know a guy who at age 18 went to college and bought a house with a no down payment/interest only loans (he would also transfer chunks of the mortgage to his no/low interest student loans), it was a bit too run down for a present day house wife, but perfect for college students, so he lived there and rented out all of the rooms while gradually fixing it up over the next 4 years. At 22 he graduated sold the house, paid off his college debt and still had over 150k in the bank from the gains in property value and rental revenue.



That's generally true, but I don't know if real estate is the best way to make money for the next few years. Houses are way overpriced, so their growth cannot continue - especially as interest rates rise. Of course, this "housing bubble" nonsense is wrong, house prices won't go down like stocks do because people won't just sell their home on a whim because prices went down. But I wouldn't expect prices to keep rising so quickly. Stocks and mutual funds are closer to their post-bubble readjustment, with P/E ratios (the best measure of whether a stock is overpriced) no longer too much higher than they should be.


That doesn't change the fact that it's a million times better to buy a home than to rent it. Like it says in the article, I plan to buy when I'm in grad school, and forever. Rent money just goes down the tube, when you leave a place you have nothing. Even if real estate doesn't go up 10% a year, you can still sell it for what you bought it. You're basically living for free. And that doesn't even take into account the huge tax benefits of having a mortgage, and the home equity issues for future credit and loans.

[Dyenimator]

Only $1.50 a week? You got ROBBED!

[Jwaksman]

Only $1.50 a week? You got ROBBED!


"Robbed" would imply that I had an entitlement to something that was taken away. I didn't have a right to any money at all, frankly. Also, after the article came out my dad correct me - when I started at age 7 I actually had a 50 cent allowance, and it gradually grew to $1.50 before I eventually stopped getting allowance.

[Dyenimator]

I was kidding about the robbed part.