• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Walmart says it will kill plans to build 3 new stores if DC wage bill passes

Wiggen said:
Yeah, but just think - the Right wing dream! Slavery back and you could buy stuff really cheaply!
Click to expand...

More senseless, and non-sequitur, hyperbole.
 
Wiggen said:
Link? Preferably from somewhere other than World Nut Daily or any of the other right wing sources.
Click to expand...

You're really that ignorant of what happened? You're really trying to claim ACORN was a patsy?
 
mac said:
Actually, the Republican party was founded as an abolitionist movement. Central to it's original plank was the abolition of slavery. Before the civil war...
Click to expand...

Oh!!! Those Republicans. (Lincoln Republicans, the last of which, in the White House was TR, the idol of FDR, who emulated the exact path TR took to the White House, and converted Lincoln Republicans and Blacks into Democrats, then Southern Dem KKK-types, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Bill, flocked to the GOP)
 
mac said:
Actually, the Republican party was founded as an abolitionist movement. Central to it's original plank was the abolition of slavery. Before the civil war...
Click to expand...

That Republican party has long since disappeared as you well know. A. Lincoln did not run as a Republican in 1864. Apparently some Americans still hate him with the desecration of his statue/memorial and the further cheering of this on social media.
 
mac said:
Actually, the Republican party was founded as an abolitionist movement. Central to it's original plank was the abolition of slavery. Before the civil war...
Click to expand...

Slavery in the colonies helped produce a boom in the 18th century economy that provided the launching pad for the industrial revolution in Europe. From the start, colonial slavery and capitalism were linked. While it is not correct to say that slavery created capitalism, it is correct to say that slavery provided one of the chief sources for the initial accumulations of wealth that helped to propel capitalism forward in Europe and North America.



Throughout the 1700s, what was called the “triangular trade” developed between the colonies, European mother countries (in this case England), and the West African coast. Ships carrying slave-produced sugar, indigo, tobacco, or rice departed the colonies to England, where they were exchanged for manufactured goods. Ships carrying manufactured goods, fabrics, guns, and other finished products traveled from England to Africa where their cargoes were traded for slaves. Then the ships carrying slaves sailed to the colonies, where they were sold for a cargo of colonial produce to be taken back to England—and to start the circuit all over again. By 1750, hardly any trading town in the colonies or in England stood outside the triangular trade. The profits that were squeezed out of the triangular trade formed that capital that led to the boom that made Britain the first major capitalist power.

The clearest example of the connection between plantation slavery and the rise of industrial capitalism was the connection between the cotton South, Britain and, to a lesser extent, the Northern industrial states. Here we can see the direct link between slavery in the U.S. and the development of the most advanced capitalist production methods in the world. Cotton textiles accounted for 75 percent of British industrial employment in 1840, and, at its height, three-fourths of that cotton came from the slave plantations of the Deep South. And Northern ships and ports transported the cotton.

To meet the boom in the 1840s and 1850s, the planters became even more vicious. On the one hand, they tried to expand slavery into the West and Central America. The fight over the extension of slavery into the territories eventually precipitated the Civil War in 1861. On the other hand, they drove slaves harder—selling more cotton to buy more slaves just to keep up. On the eve of the Civil War, the South was petitioning to lift the ban on the importation of slaves that had existed officially since 1808.

Marx clearly understood the connection between plantation slavery in the cotton South and the development of capitalism in England. He wrote in Capital:

While the cotton industry introduced child-slavery into England, in the United States it gave the impulse for the transformation of the more or less patriarchal slavery into a system of commercial exploitation. In fact, the veiled slavery of the wage-laborers in Europe needed the unqualified slavery of the New World as its pedestal.ÖCapital comes dripping from head to toe, from every pore, with blood and dirt.

International Socialist Review
 
mac said:
Well, Lenny, blacks are voting at higher rates (not higher than whites yet) and the black vote going to the GOP is also increasing. It may take awhile, but eventually the blinders will be removed...as more and more young brothers and sisters come to the realization that the hand holding the check is also holding a leash.
Click to expand...

you have me cringing again ... at a higher rate means relative to their numbers, but I recall that you had a problem with this kind of thing before ... here, hopefully this will help ...


WASHINGTON — The turnout rate of black voters surpassed the rate for whites for the first time on record in 2012, as more black voters went to the polls than in 2008 and fewer whites did, according to a Census Bureau report released Wednesday. The survey also found that Hispanics and Asians continue to turn out at much lower rates than other groups, and that women turn out at higher rates than men. The increase in black turnout was driven in significant part by more votes from black women.

According to the Census report, 66.2 percent of eligible blacks voted in the 2012 election, compared with 64.1 percent of eligible non-Hispanic whites. An estimated two million fewer white Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, just as about 1.8 million more blacks went to the polls, more than 90 percent of them voting to re-elect President Obama, exit polls showed.

and guess what?

In 2012, 73.7 percent of voters were white, according to the census, down from 82.5 percent in 1996.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/u...s-surpassed-that-for-whites-in-2012.html?_r=0

And where do you get the idea that the trend is moving toward the GOP? Clinton got 88% of the black vote, Gore over 90%, Kerry 89% and Obama 93% ... explain the trend to me ...
 
Sisyphus said:
Oh!!! Those Republicans. (Lincoln Republicans, the last of which, in the White House was TR, the idol of FDR, who emulated the exact path TR took to the White House, and converted Lincoln Republicans and Blacks into Democrats, then Southern Dem KKK-types, after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Bill, flocked to the GOP)
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll find many present day registered and active Republicans that do not idolize Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party still very much is the Party of Lincoln.
 
windowdressing said:
you have me cringing again ... at a higher rate means relative to their numbers, but I recall that you had a problem with this kind of thing before ... here, hopefully this will help ...


WASHINGTON — The turnout rate of black voters surpassed the rate for whites for the first time on record in 2012, as more black voters went to the polls than in 2008 and fewer whites did, according to a Census Bureau report released Wednesday. The survey also found that Hispanics and Asians continue to turn out at much lower rates than other groups, and that women turn out at higher rates than men. The increase in black turnout was driven in significant part by more votes from black women.

According to the Census report, 66.2 percent of eligible blacks voted in the 2012 election, compared with 64.1 percent of eligible non-Hispanic whites. An estimated two million fewer white Americans voted in 2012 than in 2008, just as about 1.8 million more blacks went to the polls, more than 90 percent of them voting to re-elect President Obama, exit polls showed.

and guess what?

In 2012, 73.7 percent of voters were white, according to the census, down from 82.5 percent in 1996.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/u...s-surpassed-that-for-whites-in-2012.html?_r=0

And where do you get the idea that the trend is moving toward the GOP? Clinton got 88% of the black vote, Gore over 90%, Kerry 89% and Obama 93% ... explain the trend to me ...
Click to expand...

Ok, that's awesome. I hadn't seen that the rate was higher, but I'm happy it is. Still, the black vote for Republicans is climbing as well, along with an increased number of black conservatives getting into the races.

I'm happy to be proved wrong on this point.
 
mac said:
Ok, that's awesome. I hadn't seen that the rate was higher, but I'm happy it is. Still, the black vote for Republicans is climbing as well, along with an increased number of black conservatives getting into the races.

I'm happy to be proved wrong on this point.
Click to expand...

no, no, no ... the way it works is that you back something up with data, a link or something ... you may be right ... show us ... but no, you don't get to say, "I'll say whatever I please, I'll even make up ****, and it's up to you to show me data to the contrary?" What's wrong with you?
 
windowdressing said:
no, no, no ... the way it works is that you back something up with data, a link or something ... you may be right ... show us ... but no, you don't get to say, "I'll say whatever I please, I'll even make up ****, and it's up to you to show me data to the contrary?" What's wrong with you?
Click to expand...

I conceded your point, what's your problem, Lenny?
 
Today's GOP is not even the party of Reagan, let alone that of Lincoln. Try Paul v. DeMint v. Rove
 
NIMBY said:
Today's GOP is not even the party of Reagan, let alone that of Lincoln. Try Paul v. DeMint v. Rove
Click to expand...

Just like Lincoln, the GOP says you can, and should, stand on your own two feet, and that you should not be blocked by govt from doing so.
 
mac said:
I don't think you'll find many present day registered and active Republicans that do not idolize Abraham Lincoln. The Republican Party still very much is the Party of Lincoln.
Click to expand...

Nor any sheet wearing Southern pinheads, whose ancestors were Dems voting for a Democrat.
 
mac said:
I conceded your point, what's your problem, Lenny?
Click to expand...

sorry Guber ... I thought you were referring to your other ridiculous statement that the GOP is making steady headway into the minority vote and that I had to prove you wrong ... my bad ... I need a break before you start making sense to me ... then it will be too late ...
 
NIMBY said:
Today's GOP is not even the party of Reagan, let alone that of Lincoln. Try Paul v. DeMint v. Rove
Click to expand...

let's not leave out Teddy Cruz ... he's a Yale graduate! (Yale is O.K. when it's a conservayive.)
 
mac said:
Just like Lincoln, the GOP says you can, and should, stand on your own two feet, and that you should not be blocked by govt from doing so.
Click to expand...

seems he betrayed you by signing the Emancipation Proclamation and ending slavery in the south ... "Get your own damn freedom!" is what he should've said, no? (BTW, don't tell anyone, but Abe thought blacks were inferior to whites. But that's our little secret.)
 
windowdressing said:
sorry Guber ... I thought you were referring to your other ridiculous statement that the GOP is making steady headway into the minority vote and that I had to prove you wrong ... my bad ... I need a break before you start making sense to me ... then it will be too late ...
Click to expand...

night night, little one.
 
windowdressing said:
seems he betrayed you by signing the Emancipation Proclamation and ending slavery in the south ... "Get your own damn freedom!" is what he should've said, no? (BTW, don't tell anyone, but Abe thought blacks were inferior to whites. But that's our little secret.)
Click to expand...

Read my statement again. This time for comprehension, if you're able.
 
mac said:
Just like Lincoln, the GOP says you can, and should, stand on your own two feet, and that you should not be blocked by govt from doing so.
Click to expand...

The far right "radical Repubs" in Lincoln's cabinet hated him more than the Confederates. They were seething at him for going "too soft" on the South with repatriation. The Progressive Whig in Lincoln came out in 1864 when he ran on the Nationalist party ticket.
 
NIMBY said:
The far right "radical Repubs" in Lincoln's cabinet hated him more than the Confederates. They were seething at him for going "too soft" on the South with repatriation. The Progressive Whig in Lincoln came out in 1864 when he ran on the Nationalist party ticket.
Click to expand...

Hated him? Well, no not really that bad. The Radical Republicans were more pissed off that Lincoln wanted deport all those votes back to Africa.

Lincoln was a long way from being a Left Wing Liberal.
 
the city is better without walmart
 
windowdressing said:
as I said, you're too much work ... it's like teaching an upper division course to someone who hasn't taken intro ... take intro, then we'll see about getting you into my course ... until then, go color or something -- just as long as it's not near me ..
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration. It takes so darned much energy to consistently be on the wrong side of every issue. It is no wonder you are always out of juice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom