North Carolina Republicans vote to override a budget veto in half-empty Assembly during 9/11 rememb

RealityNow · Sep 15, 2019

American violence has lots of elements of racism... exampled through insidious things over a long historical reach, including so such exampled things as the:

"Zoot Suit Riots"...
The Zoot Suit Riots were a series of violent clashes during which mobs of U.S. servicemen, off-duty police officers and civilians brawled with young Latinos and other minorities in Los Angeles.
In the days that followed, the racially charged atmosphere in Los Angeles exploded in a number of full-scale riots. Mobs of U.S. servicemen took to the streets and began attacking Latinos and stripping them of their suits, leaving them bloodied and half-naked on the sidewalk. Local police officers often watched from the sidelines, then arrested the victims of the beatings.

Thousands more servicemen, off-duty police officers and civilians joined the fray over the next several days, marching into cafes and movie theaters and beating anyone wearing zoot-suit clothing or hairstyles (duck-tail haircuts were a favorite target and were often cut off). Blacks and Filipinos—even those not clad in zoot suits—were also attacked. By June 7, the rioting had spread outside downtown Los Angeles to Watts, East Los Angeles and other neighborhoods. Taxi drivers offered free rides to servicemen to rioting areas, and thousands of military personnel and civilians from San Diego and other parts of Southern California converged on Los Angeles to join the mayhem.

Tulsa Race Riots
when mobs of white residents attacked black residents and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[1] It has been called "the single worst incident of racial violence in American history."[12] The attack, carried out on the ground and by air, destroyed more than 35 square blocks of the district — at that time the wealthiest black community in the United States, known as "Black Wall Street".

The 1921 Tulsa race riot was the result of economic competition, and white resentment of black successes in Greenwood, which was compared to Wall Street and filled with independent businesses. White mobs set fire to the black Greenwood district, destroying 1,256 homes and as many as 200 businesses. Fires leveled 35 blocks of residential and commercial neighborhood.

There are many of such attacks upon people of color over many decades upon decades....

Therefore, when you speak of violence in general as well as racial violence there's a long history of it in America.

To see a basically "white dominated Republican Party do what was done in North Carolina...is not a far distance from the historical conduct, when 'white majority gather under such a banner... and is urged on by continual divisiveness promotions from the likes of Trump... fanning the embers of history... seeking to make flames of dissension and conflicts.. and he's doing it from the White House and Republican Congress is following his lead.

Republican will take no lead on gun control, they like the introduction of a variety of weapons, so people get tangled up in the discussion about 'weapons variety" and not the bigger issue of "guns in principle". Hunting and Home Protection is one thing, but "high capacity, high caliber" is another. If guns are to be retained, then there's only the two classification that one would have justifiable reasoning for having them, which is(1). home protection and (2). hunting. Basically, hunting is not even what it use to be, because mankind has long ago created a system of "rancher growing livestock, pigs and other meat sourced" for food consumption.
Republican will never simplify the point of guns down to this simplicity. "they like the idea of "attack something"... as history has proven, repeatedly.

With all the matters in the world, this insidiousness in America at this day and time in the 21st Century is pure "ignorance amplified" to a high level decibel.. and it is time for America to make the change that is necessary to move as a nation beyond such ignorance of racial divisiveness.

lwf · Sep 16, 2019

Casca XV said:
The argument is that what WAPO reported was BS. That has been 100% proven.

That WAPO admitted they lied is not the argument.

I mentioned the WAPO retraction as, figuratively speaking, frosting on the cake.

Newsbusrters quotes the WAPO retraction.

I will not pay a lying POS rag like WAPO a subscription fee to post one of their articles.

You lost, again. just take the "L"

Here is Forbes reporting on it as well. Washington Post, CBS, And Other National Outlets Publish False Reports About Budget Vote In North Carolina. Here Is What Really Happened.

Here is a direct quote from the article you just sourced:

"Why did so many North Carolina House Democrats miss Wednesday morning’s vote? Responses are still coming in, but there was clearly a miscommunication as to whether votes would be held."

Democrats say that they were under the impression that no vote would be held. Republicans, somehow, were not under that impression and, serendipitously, all happened to show up and vote.

You said that only one democrat was missing. Care to explain?

hanger4 · Sep 16, 2019

Obscurity said:
Total nonsense. Gou guys always do **** like this.

The Raleigh News and Observer is a left of center newspaper, did they lie to defend Rebubs ??

TU Curmudgeon · Sep 16, 2019

RealityNow said:
come on.... We know "conflict has been among mankind since the beginning on time.

Those who are continuously harping on how "IT'S ALL WHITEY'S FAULT!!!" do not appear to know that.

RealityNow said:
Did not Cain slew Able...

Aside from one unverified report from one anonymous source, we have no evidence on that point.

RealityNow said:
...and were not the people in the East of Eden told not to harm a hair on his head.

A difficult question to answer since the only people recorded on what purports to be the census records at the time were "Adam". "Eve", "Cain", and "Abel" (with no mention of any "Able" at all).

RealityNow said:
We are discussing America - and the references as I'm sure you understood, was to the European's that arrived upon the lands of what is today America.

Then you should have been somewhat clearer and ensured that you were talking ONLY about the United States of America because some people are of the silly impression that the United States of America is NOT the only country in the world.

RealityNow said:
Now, if we want to talk the expanse of world history... that's a very big subject.

Indeed it is, not only that, but some people are aware of the fact that "the history of the United States of America" and "the history of the world" do NOT mean the same thing.

RealityNow said:
As to the nature of Europeans and conflicts, as well as to African Nations and conflicts. those things a documented, as if the conflicts in Africa between warring factions. It is historically know that "white man did not just march into Africa and capture people as if its was a paved highway for them to do so.

Thank you for the indirect admission that it was NOT "the Whites" who brought all of the social ills (including slavery and bigotry) to Africa. Would you like to make the same admission with respect to:

North America;
Central America;
South America;
Oceania;
Asia; and
Australia?

RealityNow said:
Thus so, we were talking about impact of both European's arrival in America, as well as Slavery in America. We just as well speak of why so many sought to flee European countries and we can also talk about America's long rich history or trashing poor whites... it all culminates into the same elements of violence you had continued to reference as needing the "willingness" to change.

One of the major factors that caused people to "leave Europe" was the fact that they were tired of NOT being "top dog" in the societies that they lived in and wanted to establish a new home where they could be "top dog". If you think that the colonies which eventually became the United States of America were free of intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination against those who had been "top dogs" in "the old country" you are sadly mistaken.

RealityNow said:
I have been talking about the Confederacy's agenda and its manner of madness into American Society.

The agenda(s) of the leadership of the Confederacy varied as much as the agenda(s) of the leadership of the Union and neither really had much to do with what either was saying in order to convince the people who had next to no economic stake in the outcome of the dispute that they had a "patriotic duty" to march off to war and risk being killed (or maimed) for the benefit of the people who were exempted from having to run that risk (or who were rich enough to be able to buy their way out of that risk).

Was "slavery" a factor? Of course it was. The economy of the southern states was dependent upon it and it enabled those southern states to "compete unfairly" with the commercial enterprises of the northern states.

Was "states' rights" a factor? Of course it was. The leadership of the southern states believed that they had a right to leave a country that no longer fulfilled the needs and desires of the people (especially the wealthy people) of their states and the leadership of the northern states believed that they didn't have the right that fulfilled the needs and desires of the people (especially the wealthy people) of their states.

Did the government of the northern states "free the slaves"? Eventually.

Did the government of the northern states "free the slaves as soon as it could"? Not a chance.

Did the government of the northern states consider "freeing the slaves owned by the wealthy citizens of the northern states"? You have to be kidding.

RealityNow · Sep 16, 2019

TU Curmudgeon said:
Those who are continuously harping on how "IT'S ALL WHITEY'S FAULT!!!" do not appear to know that.

Aside from one unverified report from one anonymous source, we have no evidence on that point.

A difficult question to answer since the only people recorded on what purports to be the census records at the time were "Adam". "Eve", "Cain", and "Abel" (with no mention of any "Able" at all).

Then you should have been somewhat clearer and ensured that you were talking ONLY about the United States of America because some people are of the silly impression that the United States of America is NOT the only country in the world.

Indeed it is, not only that, but some people are aware of the fact that "the history of the United States of America" and "the history of the world" do NOT mean the same thing.

Thank you for the indirect admission that it was NOT "the Whites" who brought all of the social ills (including slavery and bigotry) to Africa. Would you like to make the same admission with respect to:

North America;

Central America;

South America;

Oceania;

Asia; and

Australia?

One of the major factors that caused people to "leave Europe" was the fact that they were tired of NOT being "top dog" in the societies that they lived in and wanted to establish a new home where they could be "top dog". If you think that the colonies which eventually became the United States of America were free of intolerance, bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination against those who had been "top dogs" in "the old country" you are sadly mistaken.

The agenda(s) of the leadership of the Confederacy varied as much as the agenda(s) of the leadership of the Union and neither really had much to do with what either was saying in order to convince the people who had next to no economic stake in the outcome of the dispute that they had a "patriotic duty" to march off to war and risk being killed (or maimed) for the benefit of the people who were exempted from having to run that risk (or who were rich enough to be able to buy their way out of that risk).

Was "slavery" a factor? Of course it was. The economy of the southern states was dependent upon it and it enabled those southern states to "compete unfairly" with the commercial enterprises of the northern states.

Was "states' rights" a factor? Of course it was. The leadership of the southern states believed that they had a right to leave a country that no longer fulfilled the needs and desires of the people (especially the wealthy people) of their states and the leadership of the northern states believed that they didn't have the right that fulfilled the needs and desires of the people (especially the wealthy people) of their states.

Did the government of the northern states "free the slaves"? Eventually.

Did the government of the northern states "free the slaves as soon as it could"? Not a chance.

Did the government of the northern states consider "freeing the slaves owned by the wealthy citizens of the northern states"? You have to be kidding.

See Next Post

RealityNow · Sep 16, 2019

You appear to like the element of ambiguity, and it has its place... but I won't spread it across the board to the extent that you do. It might likely be why you don't present any "ideas"... but I give it to you, your are certainly a hack without aim for resolution to pursue solution. Thus so, the interactions makes for engaging debate.

As to Adam and Eve... well, Freedom of Religion is a Right EVERYONE in America has, may not be so for people in other places about the world, but I happen to take and have faith in THE PRINCIPLES of God Premise, which the Bible has a very good lay out of principles which I accept.
and I know there are many details in parables not covered in fine-line detail. Therefore, as to Adam and Eve, I see it as a parable in some ways, because I have inquiry of where the people in the "East of Eden" came to exist. I will accept Adam and Eve, before I accept "Evolutionary Theory".

I think I've spoken much about how "many working, and working poor whites have been hoodwinked for centuries by the wealthy, just as many black not only have been gravely deprived for centuries in America.

Yes, the people had many agenda's in their exodus from Europe, based on Monarchical Systems, their station is life "was not going to change". Many heard the tales of people boasting about "Coming to America, where the streets are paved with Gold and every man can be a King. (Geez!!!) We've seen for centuries people trying to create and claim A Faux Pretense of Self Proclaimed Royalty, based on having money. I think the pursuit of ideal of such sort to be rather foolish!!!
Because, the historical premise of "Royalty" was not just about having money, but using it to sustain and to strengthen in resource and ability to protect their kingdom, and their kingdom was as much about protecting their land and people, their societial culture and their systems of regulatory governance within society, and programming to improve the lives within their system of society, while ensuring they controlled the "House(s) of Royalty". Under that premise "having money in America held by individual citizens, does not have the same "principle civic moral agenda" as what established Royalty, and it not with the nature of civic character as that which established Royalty. I'm not an advocate of Monarchy, but I do grasp "the place" it had in the earlier time of developing societies.

As to North and South... NEITHER IS 100% INNOCENT... because they each allowed "Slavery to Persist for over 300+ yrs before they did come to war to stop it. The North at least within all the mix that made up the North, did find means to collectively take a stand to fight to dissolve Slavery, and end the aims of Succession by the Southern States that had determined aim to prolong and spread slavery. Neither moved with any lightening pace and they maintained still means and system to "ration out" freedoms, as if they would regulate to what extent "freedom would actually mean for black people, based on what whites in power chose to "ration out". they were neither north nor south generous in their rationing, each step within the process had to be fought for, as its steps in progress of what is freedom is still being fought for this very day.

I think an intersting read is "Northern Emancipation"

From its inception, slavery had been detrimental to the working class. On the one hand, the slave system excluded whites from jobs preempted by slaves; on the other, it often degraded them socially to the level of the slaves with whom they had to work and compete in earning a livelihood. Many whites preferred chauvinistic idleness to employment which had come to be identified with slavery. ... Whites of the working class hated slavery as an institution, but they also feared the free Negro as an economic competitor. They supported emancipation not to raise the Negro to a better life but to destroy a system which gave him a fixed place in the economy."[3]

"Emancipation in some ways strengthened the tyranny of race by imposing on blacks new forms of subordination that better served the economic interests of the whites," writes McManus. "The historical reality of race relations in the Americas is that whites have never altered their institutions primarily for the benefit of blacks."

RealityNow · Sep 17, 2019

American history has many pieces.... some overlapping, some at great distances one from the other and some one atop the other and etc... any variations of arrangement except "equality, of individual as person" has been within history, not just for blacks... but for working, working poor and dire poor whites; these same variety of pieces as it relates to people in general, includes various ethnic people from various country of origins, also carried the same variables - some overlapping, some at great distances one from the other and some one atop the other and etc.

That's the madness within the delusion of concepts that "every man can be king"... its an absurd premise. As well as the psychological insanity of treating wealth as if its a form and symbolism of Royalty....

Sadly... this kind of social and civil divisiveness mentality seem to be a "mirroring process" in many countries....

RealityNow · Sep 17, 2019

What might it take for people to look at lifespan and come to a realization that it is a revolving cycle of "ideological systems of human ignorance" which ignores the very premise of "Do unto others' as one would have others do unto oneself".

We've seen as the world has seen... no matter the wealth one gains, they will not live forever. history has seen over generations of society, kings fall, and titans of industry become generally unspoken of as the generations change, and over time many forgotten except in historical documentations.

The "vanity of mankind" is and has made a long history of madness; and continues to repeat the cycle(s) of doing so.

"There is Much Brutality and Savagery in the World"- also, there is "Much Good", not always by the best of means. And every living being.... meets the ultimate same fate. (fate of the individual is a done deal, not open to revision)

bomberfox · Sep 17, 2019

3leftsdoo said:
Luckily, the Democrats NEVER do scummy things.

Just ask Jeffrey Epstein!!!!

:donkeyfla

Whataboutery exposes your hypocrisy.

MTAtech · Sep 17, 2019

The fundamental takeaway from this is that Republicans Don’t Believe in Democracy.

bongsaway · Sep 17, 2019

Republicans, north carolina, hmm, sounds like business as usual.

TU Curmudgeon · Sep 17, 2019

RealityNow said:
You appear to like the element of ambiguity, and it has its place... but I won't spread it across the board to the extent that you do.

I can see how some people think that saying "You know, there are two (or more) different ways of looking at that point, and the one(s) you didn't mention are ..." IS "being ambiguous.

RealityNow said:
It might likely be why you don't present any "ideas"...

Since I don't purport to be some sort of all-knowing creature, sometimes all I can do is point out what I see as the actual problem in the hopes that someone else will be able to suggest a solution.

RealityNow said:
As to Adam and Eve... well, Freedom of Religion is a Right EVERYONE in America has,

At least that's what they tell you. You do know that, at various times in the history of what is not the United States of America that "freedom of religion" simply didn't exist with respect to some religions - don't you? You do know that, in the US today, "Religion A" might not be able to obtain approval to construct a "Religion A House of Worship" on "Site X" while "Religion B" would have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever to construct a "Religion B House of Worship" on the same site - don't you?

RealityNow said:
...may not be so for people in other places about the world, ...

There isn't any "maybe" about it. Of course, that might be because those other countries are NOT the United States of America and that means that the legal rights of Americans that are enshrined in the American constitution are not the same as the legal rights of people who do NOT live in the United States of America.

RealityNow said:
...but I happen to take and have faith in THE PRINCIPLES of God Premise, which the Bible has a very good lay out of principles which I accept.

Statements like that always make me want to ask "Which parts of 'The Bible' are you referring to?" and "Did you know that (other than 'Christ' [as a named individual] was the Son of God) there is very little that is in 'The Bible' that wasn't included in earlier 'Holy Books', and that the 'Christ Story' is almost identical to the stories of other individuals that well predated 'the birth of Christ'?".

RealityNow said:
... and I know there are many details in parables not covered in fine-line detail. Therefore, as to Adam and Eve, I see it as a parable in some ways, because I have inquiry of where the people in the "East of Eden" came to exist.

If you cannot accept the known fact that "The Bible" is the 100% precisely accurate, divinely inspired, absolutely definitive, "Word of God", then you cannot be a "Real, True, Christian" (according to may "Real, True, Christians").

RealityNow said:
I will accept Adam and Eve, before I accept "Evolutionary Theory".

That, of course, is your right. You do know that "The Bible" says that the Earth is the center of the Universe, don't you? Do you accept that in preference to the "Copernican Theory"?

RealityNow said:
I think I've spoken much about how "many working, and working poor whites have been hoodwinked for centuries by the wealthy, just as many black not only have been gravely deprived for centuries in America.

Indeed you have. However I haven't seen you actually admit that, in other countries "many working, and working poor --[fill in the blank]__ have been hoodwinked for centuries by the wealthy".

RealityNow said:
Yes, the people had many agenda's in their exodus from Europe, based on Monarchical Systems, their station is life "was not going to change". Many heard the tales of people boasting about "Coming to America, where the streets are paved with Gold and every man can be a King. (Geez!!!)

Indeed, it does sound a lot like the "Biblical Paradise", doesn't it?

RealityNow said:
We've seen for centuries people trying to create and claim A Faux Pretense of Self Proclaimed Royalty, based on having money.

Yep, and those people have been "White", "Black", "Brown", "Yellow", "Red", and every possible admixture as well.

TU Curmudgeon · Sep 17, 2019

RealityNow said:
I think the pursuit of ideal of such sort to be rather foolish!!!
Because, the historical premise of "Royalty" was not just about having money, but using it to sustain and to strengthen in resource and ability to protect their kingdom, and their kingdom was as much about protecting their land and people, their societial culture and their systems of regulatory governance within society, and programming to improve the lives within their system of society, while ensuring they controlled the "House(s) of Royalty".

You mean sort of like what "the Republican Party" and "the Democratic Party" do today?

RealityNow said:
Under that premise "having money in America held by individual citizens, does not have the same "principle civic moral agenda" as what established Royalty, and it not with the nature of civic character as that which established Royalty. I'm not an advocate of Monarchy, but I do grasp "the place" it had in the earlier time of developing societies.

If your position is that "The Rich" (regardless of what other label you hang on them) SHOULD be "socially responsible" and use (at least a part of) their wealth in order to better the lot of those whose labour enabled them to amass that wealth, you do realize that you are coming close to what some people consider "socialism" - don't you?

RealityNow said:
As to North and South... NEITHER IS 100% INNOCENT... because they each allowed "Slavery to Persist for over 300+ yrs before they did come to war to stop it.

You do realize that the United States of America was rather laggardly in actually ending slavery, don't you?

RealityNow said:
The North at least within all the mix that made up the North, did find means to collectively take a stand to fight to dissolve Slavery, and end the aims of Succession by the Southern States that had determined aim to prolong and spread slavery.

Except that the American Civil War was NOT "all about slavery". Slavery was (seen as) needed in order for the economies of the Southern states to prosper. Ending slavery by dictat, enabled the Northern states to scupper the economies of the Southern states and that means a migration of wealth from the Southern states to the Northern states.

RealityNow said:
Neither moved with any lightening pace and they maintained still means and system to "ration out" freedoms, as if they would regulate to what extent "freedom would actually mean for black people, based on what whites in power chose to "ration out".

You do know that the people in power are almost always the ones who decide who gets what share of the power, don't you?

RealityNow said:
... they were neither north nor south generous in their rationing, each step within the process had to be fought for, as its steps in progress of what is freedom is still being fought for this very day.

"Freedom" ALWAYS has to be fought for. When a people stop fighting for freedom then the amount of freedom that that people has begins to decline because those who control a disproportionate share of societal power are always looking to increase the share of societal power that they control.

cabse5 · Sep 17, 2019

Deuce said:
Show us an equivalent example.

You can't. Everyone knows you can't.

I dunno. Maybe the Mueller investigation????

RealityNow · Sep 17, 2019

TU Curmudgeon said:
I can see how some people think that saying "You know, there are two (or more) different ways of looking at that point, and the one(s) you didn't mention are ..." IS "being ambiguous.

Since I don't purport to be some sort of all-knowing creature, sometimes all I can do is point out what I see as the actual problem in the hopes that someone else will be able to suggest a solution.

At least that's what they tell you. You do know that, at various times in the history of what is not the United States of America that "freedom of religion" simply didn't exist with respect to some religions - don't you? You do know that, in the US today, "Religion A" might not be able to obtain approval to construct a "Religion A House of Worship" on "Site X" while "Religion B" would have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever to construct a "Religion B House of Worship" on the same site - don't you?

There isn't any "maybe" about it. Of course, that might be because those other countries are NOT the United States of America and that means that the legal rights of Americans that are enshrined in the American constitution are not the same as the legal rights of people who do NOT live in the United States of America.

Statements like that always make me want to ask "Which parts of 'The Bible' are you referring to?" and "Did you know that (other than 'Christ' [as a named individual] was the Son of God) there is very little that is in 'The Bible' that wasn't included in earlier 'Holy Books', and that the 'Christ Story' is almost identical to the stories of other individuals that well predated 'the birth of Christ'?".

If you cannot accept the known fact that "The Bible" is the 100% precisely accurate, divinely inspired, absolutely definitive, "Word of God", then you cannot be a "Real, True, Christian" (according to may "Real, True, Christians").

That, of course, is your right. You do know that "The Bible" says that the Earth is the center of the Universe, don't you? Do you accept that in preference to the "Copernican Theory"?

Indeed you have. However I haven't seen you actually admit that, in other countries "many working, and working poor --[fill in the blank]__ have been hoodwinked for centuries by the wealthy".

Indeed, it does sound a lot like the "Biblical Paradise", doesn't it?

Yep, and those people have been "White", "Black", "Brown", "Yellow", "Red", and every possible admixture as well.

see next post

RealityNow · Sep 17, 2019

As to "your comment": all I can do is point out what I see as the actual problem in the hopes that someone else will be able to suggest a solution.
Anyone and everyone can do that... it's also has been a long held thought.. that one should not be so quick to critique, if they have no alternate potential solution.

Religion is of many things and become even more if one address each individual, even within a single denominational congregation ... and among the various philosophical ideologies of Religions, one stream has tried to usurp and have authority over another since man fashioned organized religion, as was done during the era(s)
of acts to fashion any kind of religion.
For me personally, its simple... I either believe in God or I don't... and I choose to believe in God. We can flip the thread on its head and turn it into a Theological exploration, but they have a forum section for that "Beliefs and Skepticism".

Yet, I do understand how we got to the subject matter... therefore, to direct back to the talk of "Violence in America" from Political Savagery to the history of Civic Based Savagery, i.e. Slavery, Indentured Servitude, Involuntary and Apprentice Servitude and such things, driven by the "money chaser's in their aims to hoard wealth"; yes, they used the tool of religious gamesmanship - such as "shared rituals and beliefs, social control to enforce religious-based morals and norms to help maintain conformity and control in society"

To that I say: Each man should come to know of God on his own understanding and build his own relationship with God through learning, understanding and adhering to principles that promote the God, as the essence of the Bible's Principles Teaching, whether he participate in a denominational congregational events or whether he does not.
"The 10 Commandments, excused no one by gender, skin color, wealth or poor, nor country of origin, whether by any of man's variable of individual distinctions.

RealityNow · Sep 17, 2019

TU Curmudgeon said:
You mean sort of like what "the Republican Party" and "the Democratic Party" do today?

If your position is that "The Rich" (regardless of what other label you hang on them) SHOULD be "socially responsible" and use (at least a part of) their wealth in order to better the lot of those whose labour enabled them to amass that wealth, you do realize that you are coming close to what some people consider "socialism" - don't you?

That is not what I said... I sad they want to create an Faux Emulation as if they are Royalty, but do not have nor do they adopt the integrity and character of what what constituted the premise of Royalty.

But, since you brought up "socialism"... EVERY system of social society is a form of socialism.... I don't care for the "buzzing of its usage as a trigger, for dissension and the self centered concepts that are fed by the common usage of the term.

You do realize that the United States of America was rather laggardly in actually ending slavery, don't you?

I see you did not read the link I proved on "Northern Emancipation". you also ignored this:

Neither moved with any lightening pace and they maintained still means and system to "ration out" freedoms, as if they would regulate to what extent "freedom would actually mean for black people, based on what whites in power chose to "ration out". they were neither north nor south generous in their rationing, each step within the process had to be fought for, as its steps in progress of what is freedom is still being fought for this very day.

Click to expand...

Except that the American Civil War was NOT "all about slavery". Slavery was (seen as) needed in order for the economies of the Southern states to prosper. Ending slavery by dictat, enabled the Northern states to scupper the economies of the Southern states and that means a migration of wealth from the Southern states to the Northern states.

Again you missed the point of why I presented the link about Northern Emancipation.

You do know that the people in power are almost always the ones who decide who gets what share of the power, don't you? Yes... but that power does not have to be based on who has the wealth, if the working, poor of all ethnicity of people come to learn the power of unity for principle sake of society and bringing equilibrium as a change within society.

"Freedom" ALWAYS has to be fought for. When a people stop fighting for freedom then the amount of freedom that that people has begins to decline because those who control a disproportionate share of societal power are always looking to increase the share of societal power that they control.
--------------
I say: Yes, it may take generations to get to a society where people understand a few simple things...

Commentary referencing such necessity for man to advance in learning the value of change and respect of other human beings.

You are not reading for perspective and context you are "in a nit pick spin cycle" :sword:... it seems you prefer :catapult: ( see above )

It's your style... so by all means let's continue...

TU Curmudgeon · Sep 17, 2019

RealityNow said:
As to "your comment": all I can do is point out what I see as the actual problem in the hopes that someone else will be able to suggest a solution.
Anyone and everyone can do that... it's also has been a long held thought.. that one should not be so quick to critique, if they have no alternate potential solution.

Yep, and no one but a mechanic should point out to someone attempting to drive a car with a wheel that is going to fall off that a car is not working unless they know how to fix it.

RealityNow said:
Religion is of many things and become even more if one address each individual, even within a single denominational congregation ... and among the various philosophical ideologies of Religions, one stream has tried to usurp and have authority over another since man fashioned organized religion, as was done during the era(s)
of acts to fashion any kind of religion.

Unfortunately I simply can't understand what you are saying unless it is "In any system which has hierarchic levels of authority, the people in the higher levels will always attempt to increase the authority that they already have and some of the people in the lower levels will attempt to get into the higher levels.".

RealityNow said:
For me personally, its simple... I either believe in God or I don't... and I choose to believe in God. We can flip the thread on its head and turn it into a Theological exploration, but they have a forum section for that "Beliefs and Skepticism".

I have no issues with anyone who chooses to BELIEVE in anything. I have some problems when those people attempt to FORCE me to believe in what they believe ESPECIALLY when they confuse BELIEF with FACT.

The question that those people never seem able to answer is "How do you figure that you have the authority to tell me how your all-powerful and omniscient God tells me how I should view them, isn't that usurping the power of God?".

RealityNow said:
Yet, I do understand how we got to the subject matter... therefore, to direct back to the talk of "Violence in America" from Political Savagery to the history of Civic Based Savagery, i.e. Slavery, Indentured Servitude, Involuntary and Apprentice Servitude and such things, driven by the "money chaser's in their aims to hoard wealth"; yes, they used the tool of religious gamesmanship - such as "shared rituals and beliefs, social control to enforce religious-based morals and norms to help maintain conformity and control in society"

I believe that the technical term is "thread drift".

RealityNow said:
To that I say: Each man should come to know of God on his own understanding and build his own relationship with God through learning, understanding and adhering to principles that promote the God, as the essence of the Bible's Principles Teaching, whether he participate in a denominational congregational events or whether he does not.

And if that person does not come to that understanding through "The Bible", what then?

RealityNow said:
"The 10 Commandments, excused no one by gender, skin color, wealth or poor, nor country of origin, whether by any of man's variable of individual distinctions.

"The 10 Commandments" consist (if you look at them dispassionately) of an amalgam of time tested rules appropriate for the technological capacity of the day and a couple tossed in to ensure that "the priest class" stayed in control as much as possible. Many of the time tested rules have always been applicable to prevent the disintegration of societies REGARDLESS of whether the society has ever been exposed to "The Bible" and will continue to be applicable for that purpose for even the most dimly foreseeable future.

RealityNow · Sep 17, 2019

TU Curmudgeon said:
Yep, and no one but a mechanic should point out to someone attempting to drive a car with a wheel that is going to fall off that a car is not working unless they know how to fix it.
Like I said... you like that style ...

Unfortunately I simply can't understand what you are saying unless it is "In any system which has hierarchic levels of authority, the people in the higher levels will always attempt to increase the authority that they already have and some of the people in the lower levels will attempt to get into the higher levels.". some may not even attempt, but simply desire to...

I have no issues with anyone who chooses to BELIEVE in anything. I have some problems when those people attempt to FORCE me to believe in what they believe ESPECIALLY when they confuse BELIEF with FACT. ( by right to yourself, you should if and as that's your choice)

The question that those people never seem able to answer is "How do you figure that you have the authority to tell me how your all-powerful and omniscient God tells me how I should view them, isn't that usurping the power of God?". ( I did not tell you anything, I told you what "I choose to accept", what you choose is your own business. People have many concept of "God"
and many different words as names... and more conceptual theorems about what is God, and some have no concern to believe anything related to the Concept of God.)

I believe that the technical term is "thread drift". (I'm generally Ok with "thread drift", it deals with the interwoven threads that makeup the cloth of life. )

And if that person does not come to that understanding through "The Bible", what then? ( that too is a matter each individual has to deal with, be it within themselves, and sometimes within the environment they find themselves. Who's to know... other than those who come to such a point.

"The 10 Commandments" consist (if you look at them dispassionately) of an amalgam of time tested rules appropriate for the technological capacity of the day and a couple tossed in to ensure that "the priest class" stayed in control as much as possible. Many of the time tested rules have always been applicable to prevent the disintegration of societies REGARDLESS of whether the society has ever been exposed to "The Bible" and will continue to be applicable for that purpose for even the most dimly foreseeable future.

We agree....

North Carolina Republicans vote to override a budget veto in half-empty Assembly during 9/11 rememb

RealityNow

lwf

hanger4

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)

RealityNow

RealityNow

RealityNow

RealityNow

bomberfox

MTAtech

bongsaway

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)

cabse5

RealityNow

RealityNow

RealityNow

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)

RealityNow