People tired of having to pay handouts, now trying to do something about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/.../atlanta_split
Is this racism or common sense? I say its common sense. Far too long the parasites and poverty pimps have sucked off the nipple of the socialistic ideals of "progressive" thought. Time to make something of yourself and not waiting for the "Man" to give you your handout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Is this racism or common sense? I say its common sense.

---

I'd say that I would have to know a lot more about the situation to comment intelligently. As would you, most likely. (Forgive me if you're already intimate with Atlanta politics.)

Counties and cities re-arranging their borders can happen for a whole lot of reasons. At least here in the U.S. we don't have to listen to whole provinces moaning about secession, as the poor Canucks do with Quebec. We put that notion down hard in the 1860s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Counties and cities re-arranging their borders can happen for a whole lot of reasons. At least here in the U.S. we don't have to listen to whole provinces moaning about secession, as the poor Canucks do with Quebec. We put that notion down hard in the 1860s.

---

Good point. People think the US today is a very "Divided Country", man if they could have seen those wonderful days of the Civil War where over 630,000 Americans died, they would see how much the US has progressed (and not in the limp-wristed liberal "progressive" meaning :laugh4: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article

Opponents say the measure is racially motivated and will pit white against black, rich against poor.

---

I'd say of thse two it's more likely to be the latter. People just would like to have their tax money spent for their own direct benefit than seeing it spent on others (I have a hard time believing that the main rationale is that they do not want blacks to receive the money).

Nothing unusual - you see this reasoning on pretty much any level:
In the EU some people in richer country would rather like to leave the EU because they pay money the poorer EU members.
In Germany, some of the richer states are unhappy because they have to pay for the poorer states.
Within a state some areas might be unhappy because they have to support the structurally weaker areas
... and so on...

To a certain level this thinking is natural and reasonable, OTOH the concept of the "strong" supporting the "weak" is certainly a main pillar of modern societies - the question, as always, is of course to which extent society can reasonably expect of the former to do so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I'd say of thse two it's more likely to be the latter. People just would like to have their tax money spent for their own direct benefit than seeing it spent on others (I have a hard time believing that the main rationale is that they do not want blacks to receive the money).
...

---

In the US, leftist redistributive politicians say that minorities (read blacks, as those fools don't realize we have other than black and Hispanic minorities) = poor. If you listen to left leaning editors, politicians, etc they always claim that women and minorities will be hardest hit. That's one of the ways that the Democratic Party has maintained its control over the black vote after they lost them as slaves, thru perceived class inequalities.

I wasn't aware that the Democratic Party ever owned any slaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I'd say of thse two it's more likely to be the latter. People just would like to have their tax money spent for their own direct benefit than seeing it spent on others (I have a hard time believing that the main rationale is that they do not want blacks to receive the money).

---

exactly... :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

. That's one of the ways that the Democratic Party has maintained its control over the black vote after they lost them as slaves,

---

??? ...thats a bit of a wild accusation... the Democrats had slaves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

In the US, leftist redistributive politicians say that minorities (read blacks, as those fools don't realize we have other than black and Hispanic minorities) = poor. If you listen to left leaning editors, politicians, etc they always claim that women and minorities will be hardest hit. That's one of the ways that the Democratic Party has maintained its control over the black vote after they lost them as slaves, thru perceived class inequalities.

---

The simplified "ethnic minority (or blacks/Hispanics) = poor" statement seems to be statistically correct, as would the assumption that black people are likely to be overproportionally hit by the "secession".
However, that does not make the secession "racially motivated" IMO as the motivation is unlikely to be "we want to show the blacks" but rather "we want to keep our money" (and the latter statement is not intended to be evaluative from my side - as it is of course to a certain extent justified and only a rare minority of highly philanthropic nature does not share this sentiment at least to a ceratin extent)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

I wasn't aware that the Democratic Party ever owned any slaves.

---

Replace party with politicians. Not like it matters much as the party has changed so much over say, the last 150 year, but it's fun to say. :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Replace party with politicians. Not like it matters much as the party has changed so much over say, the last 150 year, but it's fun to say. :grin:

---

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

:juggle2:

I'm sure that it was being limp-wristed that got their policies more of an audience than themselves. Though, if any response is made to anything inflammatory you've posted, you've already gotten what you wanted.

Congratulations, you've uncovered offensiveness!:balloon2:

Seems reasonable enough for people who pay local taxes to want their local money to go to their local desires. With the wealthy being the minority (in terms of population or voters) it makes for a difficult situation because they cannot stop the majority from taxing them or from doing whatever they want with their tax dollars. Uncommon side of democracy where the people have the power. :laugh4:

If the county was reinstated it would really force the state to pay attention to the crappy rundown areas left behind. Maybe the city/state would have to do the things they were meant to do and not cover the troubles with other people’s money.

Ye gods and little fishes, secession in the South! Rally round the flag my secular humanist Yankee brothers and sisters! Unleash Sherman's clone for we march on Atlanta tomorrow!

This is so ridiculous. I just love how the story is being spun in a certain way by our beloved media... as in spun with a racist slant. So an affluent 'white' community is looking to restructure itself so that it is divorced from non-affluent (in this case 'black') community. Is race the primary issue? Possibly but we cannot say for sure. Race is certainly the most obvious factor in this equation. However the district restructuring might be due to the reasons that Dave mentioned where a particular community is completely fed up watching its tax dollars get wasted on ineffectual social programs and poorly run government institutions (i.e. crap public schools) that possess a seemingly voracious appetite for dead presidents.

This kind of regional restructuring is neither new or limited to a by-product of the desires of afluent whites. A few years ago I remember a few news stories floating around about black legislators in the south (was it Texas?) looking to restructure their districts so as to divorce them from the areas containing middle to upper class white communities. I believe the primary motivation was for the purpose of voting, so that these predominantly black communities could eliminate the chances of, shock and horror, a conservative being elected and raining on their big government handout parade (rather short sighted of them since modern conservatives love big government too... hurray for bi-partisan group hugs! ~:grouphug: ). Naturally our beloved liberal media played down the race issue and the fact that proposal was being pushed by black legislators and spun it as being a hindrance to diversity and integration and how it might adversely affect the black communities who proposed the restructuring in the first place. To my recollection I do not recall a single whiff of the words 'racist' or 'secession'.

The USA is a 'divided' nation by choice, not by decree of some fascist shadow government in bed with giant corporations who collectively pull the strings like some evil puppeteer playing out his nefarious schemes. People naturally prefer to live amongst their own kind, whether this be according to race, creed, socio-economic standing or any other classification you can think of. It's the nature of the beast. My hometown of NYC is a bastion of liberalism and yet one can easily discern the ethnic or socio-economic persuasion of any given neighborhood by simply taking a long walk throughout any of the boroughs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

:juggle2:

---

Learn history. The Republican party (Abraham Lincoln) were mainly an abolistionist party. In fact most Southerners and slave owners were Democrats. Today the democrats are finding it hard to break this tradition considering their constant use of keeping blacks under their thumb by creatively keeping them on government assistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

the story is being spun in a certain way by our beloved media... as in spun with a racist slant. So an afluent 'white' community is looking to restructure itself so that it is divorced from non-afluent (in this case 'black') community. Is race the primary issue?

---

agreed, its a divisison between rich and poor, not necessarily race :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Learn history. The Republican party (Abraham Lincoln) were mainly an abolistionist party. In fact most Southerners and slave owners were Democrats.

---

this i can believe :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Today the democrats are finding it hard to break this tradition considering their constant use of keeping blacks under their thumb by creatively keeping them on government assistance.

---

but this i can't :2thumbsup:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_County%2C_Georgia
If you look at the county map, you can see that the geographical oddity that is modern Fulton County. The northern section was tacked on in 1932. Having lived in DeKalb County (the one to the east of Fulton, oddly shaped like the state of GA) for 10 years, I can assure you that the people living in the northern section probably want nothing to do with Fulton's inner city problems. Geographically, it makes sense. Financially, it would probably cripple the city of Atlanta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Learn history. The Republican party (Abraham Lincoln) were mainly an abolitionist party. In fact most Southerners and slave owners were Democrats. Today the democrats are finding it hard to break this tradition considering their constant use of keeping blacks under their thumb by creatively keeping them on government assistance.

---

What parties were is of no current relevance. It is what they are that matters.

In UK politics to equate the Lib Dems with the Whigs isn't helpful, nor is quoting Tory policies from 100 years ago.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

:juggle2:

---

Pure BS! Anyone with the slightest familiarity with American history would know that the Democratic party was the party of the slave owners.

The Republican party was the party who freed the slaves. Hum. A hard example might be say Abraham Lincoln.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and sponsored by ooops, the Republican Party.

For those who might be so supremely ignorant as to think the Democrats have stood for civil rights prior to the 1960s I suggest any of a myriad of American history books.

The Johnson administration was highly racist but saw the opportunity to snatch the black vote from the Republican party with their war on poverty. You can read cynical pronouncements by Lyndon B. Johnson if you care to do any historical research.

The idea that either political party is clean of racism is in itself a fallacy. The idea that one party is good and the other is therefore evil is paramountly stupid.

This is a recent flip and could change tomorrow...........:oops:

Please take none of this personally. It's just a clarification of history.

I'm not certain non-Americans can understand the gravity of this particular situation. So much of social services happen at the county and municipal level in this country, this could truly set the majority of Atlanta back to the stone age.

Although it's referred to as 'White Flight', this is, as others have correctly pointed out, a socio-econmic issue, and it turns up across the US.

Here's the problem, in a nutshell. School districts raise money at the local level (usually through property taxes). Funding for school districts is completely self contained. So, if you have one town made of millionares, and other of tenemants, you get vastly differently funded schools.

In theory, this is fair. Local control, and all that. But here's the rub... successful people in the poorer school districts save their money to move out. This becomes a downward spiral. What few economic successes the poor school districts are able to produce move out, taking their cash with them.

People have tried dealing with this across the country with a wide assortment of initiatives, including state-wide educational budgets; redistricting; bussing; subsidies for under-performing schools... all have met with limited success.

I don't know what the right answer is. I do know telling poor children in the inner city that you're sorry, but their parents are lazy so they can't get a decent education isn't it. Nor is forcing kids to ride busses 3 hours a day in the name of 'diversity'. Maybe if we could actually fire poorly performing teachers and break the NEA's stranglehold on public education.... nah forget it, that's crazy talk. Everyone knows its unfair to expect teachers to produce results...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

---

Learn history. The Republican party (Abraham Lincoln) were mainly an abolistionist party. In fact most Southerners and slave owners were Democrats. Today the democrats are finding it hard to break this tradition considering their constant use of keeping blacks under their thumb by creatively keeping them on government assistance.

---

Learn geography and English. Here is the Dem/Rep breakdown by state from the 2004 election:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...oral_votes.png

Here is the definition of the word "progeny:"

prog·e·ny
Pronunciation[proj-uh-nee]
–noun, plural -ny or, for plants or animals, -nies. 1.a descendant or offspring, as a child, plant, or animal. 2.such descendants or offspring collectively. 3.something that originates or results from something else; outcome; issue.

Note that the south is now pretty much Republican, and the North is Democrat.

So unless you are suggesting that some wholesale migratory swap took place after the civil war, in which all the former slave owners moved north, and all the non slave owners moved south, my statement is correct. The descendents of the southern slave owners are now for the most part Rupublican voters, while the descendents of the northern abolitionists are now Democrat voters.

My mistake though, I shouldn't have put forth a comment that involved both the use of a dictionary and a map to understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Pure BS! Anyone with the slightest familiarity with American history would know that the Democratic party was the party of the slave owners.

---

Having read the above, do you now understand what I was saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The Republican party was the party who freed the slaves. Hum. A hard example might be say Abraham Lincoln.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and sponsored by ooops, the Republican Party.

For those who might be so supremely ignorant as to think the Democrats have stood for civil rights prior to the 1960s I suggest any of a myriad of American history books.

The Johnson administration was highly racist but saw the opportunity to snatch the black vote from the Republican party with their war on poverty. You can read cynical pronouncements by Lyndon B. Johnson if you care to do any historical research.

---

And I don't disagree with any of that. But the fact remains that a complete shift has happened in both parties. They both stand for very different things now than what they did 40 years ago, not to even mention 140 years ago. For the current Republican Party to try to get credit for their role and villify the Democratic Party for their role in the civil rights movement is laughable, given that the demographic that previously was vehemently anti-civil rights now comprises the base of Republican power.

And BTW, if you still believe that my knowledge of American history is lacking, you can only blame the American education system.

I went to high school in Connecticut.

:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

The idea that either political party is clean of racism is in itself a fallacy. The idea that one party is good and the other is therefore evil is paramountly stupid.

This is a recent flip and could change tomorrow...........:oops:

---

Agreed, and agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

This kind of regional restructuring is neither new or limited to a by-product of the desires of afluent whites. A few years ago I remember a few news stories floating around about black legislators in the south (was it Texas?) looking to restructure their districts so as to divorce them from the areas containing middle to upper class white communities

---

I believe that is one of the democratic spins they used to try and stop the redistricting. After the Republicans put a redistricting map up for vote the democrats through a holy fit. The redistricting was going to cut up the districts so the democrats wouldnt have as many seats. Now after crying fowl and that falling on deaf ears they decided to drop the idea of resolving this democraticaly and fled the state. After they were brought back from New Mexico and the Governor pardoned them one of the ways they tryed to twist this was to call it racist. They claimed the redistricting was an attempt to split up the white from the black. Funny though when the Democrats were in power they did the exact same thing. Common tactic thats used at the state level by both parties, probably why it fell on deaf ears. Though I don't think the vast majority of those flee the state to prevent a vote.

As for the actual topic, thats rediculous to call it racist. Granted even though it isnt racist doesnt make it anymore disgusting. The rich already live in reasonably peaceful neighborhoods, of course most of their tax dollar's arent going to be speant there. Their going to be speant were the pot holes are, were the pimps are shooting their girls, where the drug dealers are, where the meth dealers threaten to blow up the neighborhood. The wonderful thing about democracy is that the majority makes the decisions, not the minority. I doubt they want succession, considering the city I'd hope they'd have a lasting impression of what happened last time.

This is really two questions: 1) Should rich people have to pay for schools in poor neighborhoods? and 2) In the interest of diversity, should we force the children of rich people to attend schools in poor neighborhoods?

I say yes to the first and no to the second. Guess that means that I'm heartless, right-wing pond scum. :clown:

Providing that doesn't mean that the whole 140 years of previous history is to be disregarded. In Florida/Alabama/Mississippi/Georgia, you will find an interesting trend.
For example
Governors of Florida

Governors of Georgia

Governors of Alabama

Governors of Mississippi


Now if you'll kindly take notice that from the 1820's-1990's many of the states had a predominance of, surprise! Democratic Governors!

Well now, is that a surprise? Why No!
Can you explain that to me?
Sure. The white farmers and general white population, before and AFTER the American Civil War has voted on a Democratic swing. The African-American freed slaves began voting on a Republican track, but since there were poll taxes, reading tests, and other requirements, the illiterate and poor freed slaves couldn't vote.
Now, when JFK began to emphasize Civil Rights, African-Americans were attracted to the Democratic side.

The RECENT trend to Republican voting is due to 2 points.
1)Bush is from the South.
2)Republicans represent the conservative end of the spectrum, and deals with values that everyone from Virginia to Texas can agree with.

Now with Democrats going on about abortion and crazy things that people here don't enjoy, we go to the other side to prevent such an event from happening.
So I am offended that you are saying that the recent Republican voting trend means that every single one of those Republicans owned slaves before they were emancipated, especially since Mexican immigration, immigrants from 1890's onward never owned slaves.

P.S. Jeffersonian Republican are Democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

This is really two questions: 1) Should rich people have to pay for schools in poor neighborhoods? and 2) In the interest of diversity, should we force the children of rich people to attend schools in poor neighborhoods?

I say yes to the first and no to the second. Guess that means that I'm heartless, right-wing pond scum. :clown:

---

What, I thought merely supporting 1) made you a moustachioed, pipe-smoking pinko-Boslhevik...? Who hates freedom, of course.
:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

What, I thought merely supporting 1) made you a moustachioed, pipe-smoking pinko-Boslhevik...? Who hates freedom, of course.
:balloon2:

---

Too true. To those to the right of me, I'm sure that's how they view my stance on this issue. Having people from both sides disparage me lets me know that my views must be at least somewhat reasonable. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

1)Bush is from the South.

---

The overwelming majority of presidents have been from the south. Even Bill Clinton was a southerner. That has really no relavance to relation to slave owners. Slave owners are 3-4 generations removed from most people living today, not to mention the entire culture has changed.

Though the democrats until recently have been stuanch supporters of the KKK. Alot of the members that are in the democratic party today lived through those times when they supported them.

I don't see how the debate about democratic racism has any relavence on the case of the rich trying to emancipate themselves from the poor. The citiy of Atlanta will hopefully prevent anything like this from happening though. In all cities there are a rich minority and there tax dollars will always be speant were the majority live. It's democracy get used to it.

People need to remember that there's really 2 axes in American politics: populism verus entrepreneuriaism and secularism verus moralism. Axis one is more of a economic issue, axis 2, social behavior. The south tends to be very moralist AND populist. The Republican party is entreprenerial (and recently, moralist). The Democratic party is populist (and recently, secularist). Hence the flip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

:juggle2:

---

When the Republican party (the party of Abe Lincoln) was first formed, back in the 1850's (from the Whigs & Know Nothing parties), they were the anti-slavery party. The Democrats, championed by Stephen Douglas, were the party of "states rights" in regards to slavery. The Southern states were the bastion of Democrats till just after the civil rights movement, then they flip flopped. Confusing, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

:juggle2:

---

When the Republican party (the party of Abe Lincoln) was first formed, back in the 1850's (from the Whigs & Know Nothing parties), they were the anti-slavery party. The Democrats, championed by Stephen Douglas, were the party of "states rights" in regards to slavery. The Southern states were the bastion of Democrats till just after the civil rights movement, then they flip flopped. Confusing, no?

---

Not at all. At least not to me.

The southerners were previously Democrats, but their descendents are now Republicans, and vice versa for the northerners and their descendents. It was the irony of this situation that I was pointing out in my original post.

Are we going to keep going round and round this crazy merry-go-round?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom_Hagen

People need to remember that there's really 2 axes in American politics: populism verus entrepreneuriaism and secularism verus moralism. Axis one is more of a economic issue, axis 2, social behavior. The south tends to be very moralist AND populist. The Republican party is entreprenerial (and recently, moralist). The Democratic party is populist (and recently, secularist). Hence the flip.

---

That's pretty funny actually. It usually makes people choice what's more important to them, values or economic issues.

Economic Issues always trump with me.

Quote:

---

The southerners were previously Democrats, but their descendents are now Republicans, and vice versa for the northerners and their descendents. It was the irony of this situation that I was pointing out in my original post.

---

And when they were democrats, they supported slavery (and Jim Crow laws after the civil war). The Republicans residing their now do not.

So please stop tying to paint this as though the Republican party ever supported slavery.

CR

Argh the original post was extremely silly.

When you wrote the post, it made it seem as if immediately after the American Civil War the slave owners sons decided "Hey, let's join the Republicans!"

Besides, the red state-blue state thing is way overplayed. Its on the local level, rural vs. urban. If you looked at a county-by-county level, you'll notice that the counties with large cities at their creamy centers are more Democrat than the surrounding countryside.

So, your post refers to the recent sons and daughters of the MASSIVE IMMIGRATION that has occured between the 1860's and now. It's now not really possible to point out a 'pure slavery family', whose ancestors all owned or were directly descended from slave owners.

So the irony is that you used a map that doesn't reflect the urban v. rural shifts in voting tracks.

Notes for future:Think about what you post, better maps, and when you talk about Dixie, it better be for a good reason and backed up by a hundred Wiki articles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

The simplified "ethnic minority (or blacks/Hispanics) = poor" statement seems to be statistically correct, as would the assumption that black people are likely to be overproportionally hit by the "secession".
However, that does not make the secession "racially motivated" IMO as the motivation is unlikely to be "we want to show the blacks" but rather "we want to keep our money" (and the latter statement is not intended to be evaluative from my side - as it is of course to a certain extent justified and only a rare minority of highly philanthropic nature does not share this sentiment at least to a ceratin extent)

---

I agree with Ser on this one. I don't think it would matter if it was "poor white trash in da trailerpark". "boyz in da hood" or boyz in da barrio" et al. However, playing the racial card gets more attention. I feel an appearance by Reverend Al is imminent.

What about the Asian minority? Why aren't they outraged by this? It's because despite being a minority they aren't affected by this.

So it is race related, or it is a bunch of people angry to see people using their democratic privilage to seperate themselves from a problem.

Or it could be something else entirely....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

The southerners were previously Democrats, but their descendents are now Republicans, and vice versa for the northerners and their descendents. It was the irony of this situation that I was pointing out in my original post.

---

And when they were democrats, they supported slavery (and Jim Crow laws after the civil war). The Republicans residing their now do not.

---

You're trying to make the tail wag the dog here.

The Democrats of old weren't supporting slavery because they were Democrats, they were supporting slavery because they were southerners.

TH already summed up the shifts along the varying political axes that the Dems and Reps have gone through.

The Democrats were previously pro slavery and anti civil rights because their power base was in the south, and that was what their constituency demanded. Now, their power base is in the north, so for the most part the Dems hold themselves out as the party of liberal social policy and civil rights, because that is what their current constituency demands.

Just as the Republicans were previously anti slavery and pro civil rights, because their power base was in the north and that is what their constituency demanded. Now, their power base is in the South and rural America, so they hold themselves out as the party of guns and Jesus, because that is what their current constituency demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And when they were democrats, they supported slavery (and Jim Crow laws after the civil war). The Republicans residing their now do not.

So please stop tying to paint this as though the Republican party ever supported slavery.

CR

---

:dizzy2:

I never said anything of the kind, and you well know it.

And you further well know that the Republican and Democrat parties of today are completely ideologically different and supported by completely different demographics than they were in the 1800s.

Yet this never stops today's Republicans from Mississippi or Alabama from pointing at today's Democrats from New York and Massachusets and saying "Ya'll were the ones who supported slavery, we were always against it."

It's absolutely ridiculous.

And I'm pretty sure you understand that as well.

Slavery was actually supported in the Constitution (Hence the South's claim of states rights to slavery), ie each slave was counted as 3/5 of a free person, for population count which determined the number of congressional house members per state, and electoral votes for presidential elections. A sop to the southern states at the Constitution's drafting because winning freedom from Britain needed the combined effort of all 13 original colonies and was considered more important at the time. The friction started after more territories applied for statehood and the North wanted to prevent slavery from expanding into these new states. The North (in particular, Lincoln) was content to allow slavery in the original slave states, realizing that it would eventually wither on the vine. There was a compromise enacted to allow these border states to vote on slavery, and with all the ballot stuffing by cross border Southerners, and the subsequent violence by opposing sides the tensions mounted to the boiling point. The Republican's improbable Presidential election victory by Lincoln was the spark that set off the South's secession.


One must realize that our contemporary view of equality was not commonly shared by even the most vocal abolitionist of that time period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Yet this never stops today's Republicans from Mississippi or Alabama from pointing at today's Democrats from New York and Massachusets and saying

---

Wrong, the last president from the democrats was from Tenessee.

Are you seriously trying to call the south the land of bigotted, gun toting, bible lovers? That's a very broad generalization there Mr. Goofball. The fact that the vast majority of presidents, current and in the past have been from the south tends to speak against this. Or are you claiming that the Yanks of the east cost are to ignorant to know the south is full of just gun totting KKK members?

The south has changed, it's why the Republicans are the majority. There wasnt a sudden shift that happened one year. The republicans nor the democrats didn't suddenly shift to the north and to the south. Most of the democrats ideals still are there. Look at SS checks, and look at the democratic movements in the 40's.

Honestly what does this debate have to do with anything related to the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Honestly what does this debate have to do with anything related to the topic.

---

It comes up from a post of Goofball's. People won't stop pestering the post so it stays.

You know what? I'm quite very much sick of these flip-floppers who on one hand keep saying how Republicans suck (we can't trust them anymore! what betrayal! corrupted bunch! etc.) then come back on the other hand to say "but they don't really suck, you know, compare to the evil Democrats/Liberals/Socialists who's responsible for everything that is wrong with America."

Make up your mind, please. Such an attitude tempts me very much. [addressed to no one in particular]

In any case, this thread is about Atlanta and/or conflicts involving municipal budgets. From what I've heard, it's a pretty chronically troubled city anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

In any case, this thread is about Atlanta and/or conflicts involving municipal budgets. From what I've heard, it's a pretty chronically troubled city anyway.

---

It's got great nudie bars, so it's got that going for it. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Shelton Reed

Atlanta is what a quarter of a million Confederate soldiers died to prevent.

---

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9679C8B63

Returning to the Original Topic:

Secession of rich areas from poor areas is an extremely poor idea. The purpose of local government is so that everyone can come together and create a common community in which all elements, have and have not, laborer and proprietor, can reasonably coexist. For the well-off to use the laborers who live in the city, and work in the tall buildings in the center of the city, and attend sporting events and museums inside the city, while not paying one cent or shedding one drop of sweat in the maintenance of the city, is patently unfair and a recipe for disaster.

Just look at St. Louis, my home town. The current political organization of St. Louis is an extreme example of this phenomenon-- the city has a population of 350k in a Metro Area of 2.5 million. The city is mostly poor and the County is mostly better off. As a final insult, the County Seat of St. Louis County is not St. Louis-- it is in one of the amorphous, colorless municipal entities that orbit around its perimeter.

The City of St. Louis is an impotent entity, with limited powers even to direct its own budget which are overseen heavily by the State of Missouri. St. Louis County Schools are, on average, among the best in the country. St. Louis City Schools have made national news more than once on virtue of being the very worst.

The St. Louis area also happens to be rather segregated, though this is probably coincidental.

So, if you wish for the complete decay and destruction of our great American Society, please do cheer these selfish Georgian arseholes. The terrorists are cheering, too.

Sorry, Arroyo, but suggesting that people who work, play or shop in a neighborhood should also live there is ludicrous. In fact, the fact that they work, play and shop there is in-and-of itself supporting the community.

My teachers always talked about white flight from the mid century as if it were some organized, evil conspiracy to stick it to the black man. I could never figure it out, I mean if your neighborhood starts to suck, then take your family and move out. No one should have to sacrafice their happiness, and possibly their safety, for some convoluted idea of diversity or any other idea for that matter. Geographic mobility is one of the great things about this country

As for the split in the county, you have 29% of the residents paying 42% of the property taxes. That doesn't seem too unreasonably disporportionate, which would actually be one more reason to let the county split. People are crying wolf. Yes, the inner city will lose money, but the county will be spending less overall because the county gets smaller. I think the main reason so many people are up in arms against it is because of the precedent it will set.

Honestly, I hope it works.

I'm sorry, Major, but the issue here is not diversity or integration either economic or racial. The one thing truly at stake here is civic responsibility. It is natural for there to be differences in wealth and culture within a society, and those different elements cannot be forced to live side by side-- but one cannot rightfully secede from the other, any more than a state could rightfully secede from the Union.

The rich do not have money because individually they are geniuses or individually they are the hardest, smartest workers around. The rich have money because they have earned it from society. It is their right to enjoy their wealth, but they must, by right, use some of it to propel the common good.

Kings of old spent their gold for the nation's defense.

The emporers of Rome built roads and great theatres.

How can the rich of today escape this timeless and most natural duty?

Government is evil but necessary. If it is flawed you must work to fix it, not subvert it. When the rich take their ball and go home, they stop the game for everyone. They violate the social compact. This is inexcusable.

Furthermore, you ignore the fact that this concept has already been tried. St. Louis is a perfect example of a Metro Area built entirely on the model which you have advocated. The result is tragic, absurd. A city with a soul but not a heart.

You have always seemed a reasonable person to me, Major. If you really knew, you would not be supporting these most destructive and traitorous ideas.

This "social compact". Is it an implicit one, or an explicit one?

Surely one could argue that if the rich should give money to the wellbeing, the poor should ensure that the place remains pleasant to live in. People aren't going to move out of a cheerful, crime-free area. A crime ridden one awash with troubles is surely something different, with the contract already in tatters.

All people have duties as well as rights, no?

Kings of old owned the country. They spent their money protecting their belongings.

Roman Emperors built roads to connect their domains and theaters to entertain the masses.

And what else did the people in the examples you chose do? Well, in general both were autocrats with unlimited powers able to do as they wished. They could start wars, take possessions or people at their whim.

So, I find the comparisons flawed at all but the most superficial level.

~:smoking:

dear god you should all take a step back and look at yourselves in this thread it is really scary how polerised some of you are...

the debate going on about slavery is a complete nonissue you relise? it happened more than a century ago and neither party have any links to the parites of the time beyond their names

back on topic - is it racist? no - is it a good idea? no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

Is this racism or common sense? I say its common sense. Far too long the parasites and poverty pimps have sucked off the nipple of the socialistic ideals of "progressive" thought.

---

In Psychology there is something called the 'theory of attribution'. It says that people attribute different outcomes to different causes. If people are successful, they attribute their success primarily to themselves: they are convinced that they struggled, prevailed and triumphed essentially without outside help. If they fail, however, they attribute their failure to outside forces and blame the odds, their family or neighbors, the boss, lawmakers or society in general.

This, my friend, is why the poor are always 'undeserving' in the eyes of the rich -- and vice versa!

I don't know crap about Milton and Fulton or whatever and I don't wanna know. I know a fair bit about life, though. And a bit about you, because we go back at least two years now, years in which you haven't exactly been the most quiet and discrete member on the forum.

I would expect that someone like you, who started his professional career by sleeping in his car for want of a proper home, would understand that poverty is not a mere creation of 'parasites and poverty pimps'. From someone who is a professed Christian, too, I would certainly expect different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I would expect that someone like you, who started his professional career by sleeping in his car for want of a proper home, would understand that poverty is not a mere creation of 'parasites and poverty pimps'. From someone who is a professed Christian, too, I would certainly expect different.

---

Aren't you confusing him with Divinus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

It comes up from a post of Goofball's. People won't stop pestering the post so it stays.

You know what? I'm quite very much sick of these flip-floppers who on one hand keep saying how Republicans suck (we can't trust them anymore! what betrayal! corrupted bunch! etc.) then come back on the other hand to say "but they don't really suck, you know, compare to the evil Democrats/Liberals/Socialists who's responsible for everything that is wrong with America."

Make up your mind, please. Such an attitude tempts me very much. [addressed to no one in particular]

In any case, this thread is about Atlanta and/or conflicts involving municipal budgets. From what I've heard, it's a pretty chronically troubled city anyway.

---

Well, as somebody who has expressed a similar position (though your depiction of my views rings somewhat distorted), I do in fact take issue with your statement.

Think of it this way. The Republicans have stated principles that I happen to agree with. Democrats have stated principles that I do not agree with as much. Recently, Democrats have done a better job of more faithfully acting in accordance with their stated principles than the Republicans, who have moved to a corrupt position of utter hypocricy (in my mind).

So as somebody who's done a a fair amount of thinking and analyzing and who believes that individual liberty and individual responsibility are GOOD things, let me ask you, as you appear to have all the answers.... where should I stand? With the Democrats, who are only somewhat corrupt, but their stated principles and goals I find erroneous (such as the belief that government can make better decisions about my life than I myself can), or Republicans, who pay lip service to my ideals, then act in utter disregard of their own statements?

Or is it your point that true conservatives (emphasis on the small c) should just shut up? I would caution you that their words may come back to haunt you, when you find your Democrats aren't living up to their ideals either. Before you erroneously leap to the conclusion that I'm saying that Democrats are better at holding to their stated ideals, allow me to disabuse you of that notion, I am not. I would argue it's not a Democrat or Republican characteristic, but a characteristic of the opposition party that they tend to be more prinicipled (staying to their stated goals). Becoming the ruling party corrupts all parties.

Back on topic, in order for a meritocracy to function properly, quality education must be available for all. While I agree with local control, a more equitable means of funding school districts must be found. I know this sounds anathema coming from a relatively fiscal conservative such as myself, but I cannot reconcile locally funded school districts with the idea of a level playing field. A quality education is too critical to one's success in life to allow it be brushed aside with things like the Horatio Alger myth. Yes, there are people who defy the odds, but that's exactly what they're doing.

I will say, however, before anybody starts taking my money and sending it into inner-city schools (which I would actually be open to) they really need to fix other messes in the education system that are unaddressed, such as the monoply enjoyed by the NEA that for 30 years has driven us to third world levels of education. I would say restoring a ratio of 5 teachers to 1 administrator would be a healthy start, instead of the bloated 1:1 system we currently have. And perhaps standardized testing is not the answer, but I never see those who oppose it offer a solution for actually evaluating quality in education. They always make the argument about 'teaching to the test', but at least they're teaching. With no goals and no evaluation, the teachers don't even do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

This "social compact". Is it an implicit one, or an explicit one?

Surely one could argue that if the rich should give money to the wellbeing, the poor should ensure that the place remains pleasant to live in. People aren't going to move out of a cheerful, crime-free area. A crime ridden one awash with troubles is surely something different, with the contract already in tatters.

All people have duties as well as rights, no?

---

I have no problem with the rich moving away to wherever they want, living in tidy little gated communities, whatever. That's their right. But if they live in the city, they should pay for the city. The dozens of formless "cities" that surround some US Cities are complete fictions. If you work in Metropolis, play in Metropolis, and even say that you are from Metropolis, I would say that you belong to that city. Therefore you should pay for it.

Now can we rightly incorporate all loosely attached, distant suburbs into a united local government? Of course not. But when we let a group of small-minded party-poopers break off and hoard their shiny little pennies just because they want to, we shoot everyone in the collective foot.

The social compact, like most things which are truly valuable, is implicit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

I have no problem with the rich moving away to wherever they want, living in tidy little gated communities, whatever. That's their right. But if they live in the city, they should pay for the city. The dozens of formless "cities" that surround some US Cities are complete fictions. If you work in Metropolis, play in Metropolis, and even say that you are from Metropolis, I would say that you belong to that city. Therefore you should pay for it.

Now can we rightly incorporate all loosely attached, distant suburbs into a united local government? Of course not. But when we let a group of small-minded party-poopers break off and hoard their shiny little pennies just because they want to, we shoot everyone in the collective foot.

The social compact, like most things which are truly valuable, is implicit.

---

Well it's not as if these districts are divorcing themselves completely from their basic civic responsibilities. After all, no matter how a given community realigns itself with respect to districts all residents are still expected to pay their Federal and State taxes. The root of the problem in this particular example is how the local and property taxes are being spent (or rather misspent). It is infuriating to watch a neighboring district make the most out of its treasury while your own is wallowing in debt, inefficiency, etc. and you can do nothing about it.

Centralization is certainly not the answer, it always leads to inefficiency and bloated bureacracy.

Quote:

---

The rich do not have money because individually they are geniuses or individually they are the hardest, smartest workers around. The rich have money because they have earned it from society. It is their right to enjoy their wealth, but they must, by right, use some of it to propel the common good.

---

Society gives wealth? And how is that? People earn wealth from individual people due to work - society as you define it is a fiction.

Quote:

---

Kings of old spent their gold for the nation's defense.

The emporers of Rome built roads and great theatres.

How can the rich of today escape this timeless and most natural duty?

---

Would you, as already pointed out, have the rich be autocrats as well?

Quote:

---

Government is evil but necessary. If it is flawed you must work to fix it, not subvert it. When the rich take their ball and go home, they stop the game for everyone. They violate the social compact. This is inexcusable.

---

So you would force them to continue living in a means that is distasteful to them, because of some socialistic ideals? What nonsensical social compact do you speak of? Everyone has the right to stop working and decide they want nothing to do with a certain place.

Let the county split, and let Atlanta suffer.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Society gives wealth? And how is that? People earn wealth from individual people due to work - society as you define it is a fiction.

---

Let's see them do that without the framework of society around them.

Doesn't work all that well in the sample cases I know of, unless drug kings and petty warlords count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spino

Centralization is certainly not the answer, it always leads to inefficiency and bloated bureacracy.

---

Like when it sidelined feudalism and laid the foundations of modern nation-states perhaps ? Or when it is used to eliminate redunant, parallel and overlapping structures in favour of more rationalized ones ? How would you like two-three different police organizations in your neck of the woods, sir ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Let's see them do that without the framework of society around them.

Doesn't work all that well in the sample cases I know of, unless drug kings and petty warlords count.

---

How right you are. And even drug kings and warlords eat sandwiches, drive on highways and go to the movies. Drug kings in particular need the framework of the law and all sorts of other public institutions in order to find enough paying clients to thrive on.

I'm pretty sure the poppy-shipping Afghani warlords for example would disagree. The lucrativeness of drug trade rests chiefly on the insane mark-up that stacks along the way due to all the middlemen and proscriptive legislation in the countries where the end-users are.

The druglords themselves seem to rather prefer dysfunctional societies.

In the case of drug lords, if we didn't have a justice system and rule of law based on liberal ideals, government death squads would just kill them all.

That seems to be rather manifestly failing to happen.

You seem to be missing the point. In the absence of proper society and governement, the warlords - gang bosses, drug kings, robber barons, whatever - and similar nigh invariably unpleasant strongmen become it by default. Which doesn't really do much good for anyone, themselves included when you really think about it.

This is pretty much the gist of the barb I originally tossed at Rabbit, who once again seemed to forget how exactly societies and their inhabitants relate to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

In the case of drug lords, if we didn't have a justice system and rule of law based on liberal ideals, government death squads would just kill them all.

---

Without a justice system and rule of law, government death squads would become drug kings and warlords in no time. Of course some of them already are, but at least they don't rule the country.

Funny how some people pretend to forget what society is, what it means to them and what it does for them as soon as they have to fulfill their obligations to it. But as soon as they need the fire brigade because their home is on fire, you don't hear them complain at all. They expect a fireman to risk his life for theirs because that's what firemen are paid for. Yeah right.

It is as if they lived in a vacuum. Well, I suppose they do live in a vacuum of sorts: a moral vacuum.

Everyone would like a handout, no ? ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Everyone would like a handout, no ? ~;p

---

You mean a copout. :mellow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Without a justice system and rule of law, government death squads would become drug kings and warlords in no time.

---

Not necessarily. If you had a strong central government which was opposed to drugs, like Afganistan under the Taliban to name one, drug gangs would be severely hampered.

And if you suspend normal due process, like Honduras did recently with MS-13 gang members, it is fairly easy to identify and eliminate organized gang structures, as long as you have popular support.

And as a note to Watchman-- drug lords in Afganistan DO depend on wealthy societies in the West for their livelihood, because without those paying customers, there would still be no market and no mark-up for their drugs.

If I remember correctly, when Mao took over in China, he took all of the drug addicts and dealers, lined them up on shot them. This of course happened systematically throughout the country by his decree. Since that time, Drug trade has been a very non-issue in China.

Now, of course I'm not advocating that we do the same. Not at all as a matter of fact. But I'm just saying, it does have its deleterious effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

You're trying to make the tail wag the dog here.

The Democrats of old weren't supporting slavery because they were Democrats, they were supporting slavery because they were southerners.
TH already summed up the shifts along the varying political axes that the Dems and Reps have gone through.

The Democrats were previously pro slavery and anti civil rights because their power base was in the south, and that was what their constituency demanded. Now, their power base is in the north, so for the most part the Dems hold themselves out as the party of liberal social policy and civil rights, because that is what their current constituency demands.

Just as the Republicans were previously anti slavery and pro civil rights, because their power base was in the north and that is what their constituency demanded. Now, their power base is in the South and rural America, so they hold themselves out as the party of guns and Jesus, because that is what their current constituency demands.

---

That is only a surface analysis. It promotes a prejudiced point of view. Single facts seldom reveal the truth.

Slavery as I am sure you know was a subsidiary issue in the Civil War, one to which the newly formed Republican quickly grasped upon for popular support.

The primary issue was economic and the north's efforts to force the south into not exporting cotton to Europe but to sell it dirt cheap to northern industrialists.

The Democrats of the time were as a general rule the party of the small farmer and working class. These people were not slave holders. Slaves were expensive and fewer than 10% of southerners owned slaves. Only around 3% of the population owned more than one slave.

The primary reason that slavery was not practiced in the north was that slaves were too expensive to be employed in factory and mining work. Cheap immigrant labour was much more cost effective and you didn't have to buy a new one when one died from the poor conditions.

Formerly most of the big planters had been Whigs but the Republican stance on slavery drove them to the Democrats as there was very little other choice. Meanwhile the slavery issue was enough of a hot button to gain a substantial crossover vote in the north.

There were around 4,000,000 slaves in the U.S. at the time, 800,000 in the free northern states and the remainder in the southern slave states. The ones in Free states at the outbreak of the war were basically confiscated by the Government and pressed into Government Service….still as slaves.

There were huge draft riots in the south which made the ones in New York seem tame by comparison. Men didn't want to go and fight a rich man's war.

The attitude toward blacks in the meantime was much more hostile in the north than in the south and remained so into the 1960s.

The real problems in the south began during Reconstruction, but that is a completely different issue.

Suffice it to say that both Political Parties were quite cynical in their stance toward Black Americans at the very best…something which continues to this day.

We all run the risk of being wrong when painting with a broad brush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

That is only a surface analysis. It promotes a prejudiced point of view. Single facts seldom reveal the truth.

Slavery as I am sure you know was a subsidiary issue in the Civil War, one to which the newly formed Republican quickly grasped upon for popular support.

The primary issue was economic and the north's efforts to force the south into not exporting cotton to Europe but to sell it dirt cheap to northern industrialists.

The Democrats of the time were as a general rule the party of the small farmer and working class. These people were not slave holders. Slaves were expensive and fewer than 10% of southerners owned slaves. Only around 3% of the population owned more than one slave.

The primary reason that slavery was not practiced in the north was that slaves were too expensive to be employed in factory and mining work. Cheap immigrant labour was much more cost effective and you didn't have to buy a new one when one died from the poor conditions.

Formerly most of the big planters had been Whigs but the Republican stance on slavery drove them to the Democrats as there was very little other choice. Meanwhile the slavery issue was enough of a hot button to gain a substantial crossover vote in the north.

There were around 4,000,000 slaves in the U.S. at the time, 800,000 in the free northern states and the remainder in the southern slave states. The ones in Free states at the outbreak of the war were basically confiscated by the Government and pressed into Government Service….still as slaves.

There were huge draft riots in the south which made the ones in New York seem tame by comparison. Men didn't want to go and fight a rich man's war.

The attitude toward blacks in the meantime was much more hostile in the north than in the south and remained so into the 1960s.

The real problems in the south began during Reconstruction, but that is a completely different issue.

Suffice it to say that both Political Parties were quite cynical in their stance toward Black Americans at the very best…something which continues to this day.

We all run the risk of being wrong when painting with a broad brush.

---

You talked a lot of sense in that post. For the most part well said and well thought out. Except for this bit:

"The attitude toward blacks in the meantime was much more hostile in the north than in the south and remained so into the 1960s."

I'm not saying that the north were a bunch of colorblind do-gooders who were encouraging their penny-loafer wearing daughters to marry a black man, but they were certainly not as overtly hostile to blacks as the south was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Not necessarily. If you had a strong central government which was opposed to drugs, like Afganistan under the Taliban to name one, drug gangs would be severely hampered.

---

Did you miss the point about warlords in general ? The Taliban just happened to be of the religious wonk variety with issues about narcotics, who for a while were able to gain hegemony over much of the place. They certainly weren't even close to a "strong central governement"; they ascendancy was ultimately largely the result of the assorted local bosses' opportunism and their ability to in general terms bribe the bastards, and when the wind changed the minor warlords quite cheerfully jumped ship again and are now happily back to poppy farming.

Quote:

---

And if you suspend normal due process, like Honduras did recently with MS-13 gang members, it is fairly easy to identify and eliminate organized gang structures, as long as you have popular support.

---

...until they adapt. Outright police states (meaning well-run ones here à la DDR) are about the only societies largely unviable for crime, but then that tends to be mainly because the authorities essentially have a monopoly and the means to enforce it.

Quote:

---

And as a note to Watchman-- drug lords in Afganistan DO depend on wealthy societies in the West for their livelihood, because without those paying customers, there would still be no market and no mark-up for their drugs.

---

I said that already, didn't I ? But worry you not, if it comes down to the classic postapocalyptic Mad Max scenario you'll have a vast supply of petty strognmen and warlords extracting food and such from the peasant farmers. That, after all, is the rock bottom from which modern states so very slowly climbed out of over millenia. Unsympathetic historians often point out Medieval feudal barons and their warrior retinues weren't really much more than heavily armed local mafias.

I don't think you're quite catching onto the point here, DA. Whether the warlords base their poor substitute for an economy on exporting drugs, diamonds and/or other such valuables or have to content themselves with taxing enough food and valuables off the local farmers and merchants to feed themselves and their bully-boys is very much a cosmetic detail. The point is that such a "warlord economy" is the situation societies default to when their structures fall apart - what fills the void left in the absence of a real society.

Police states suck about as bad, just in a different way. You could say such systems are societies gone wrong - the social equivalent of cellular reproduction going haywire and resulting in a cancer, to give a crude medical analogy.

I'd say if the wealthy suburbs are allowed to opt out of contributing to collective social programs, the poor suburbs should be allowed to opt out of corporate welfare, defence spending and agricultural subsidies.

Well if you want to deconstruct it completely, Watchman, then modern beauracratic governments are nothing more than super-warlords, claiming a much stricter monopoly on violence and dressing it up with alot more paperwork. The original point was that no individual within a society is independent of the whole. The very idea of wealth itself would be meaningless without other people, and lots of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I'd say if the wealthy suburbs are allowed to opt out of contributing to collective social programs, the poor suburbs should be allowed to opt out of corporate welfare, defence spending and agricultural subsidies.

---

It's a deal! :thumbsup:

Now... seeing as how the biggest single area of expenditure is welfare in this country I'd be more than happy.

The poor would then have food that was moire expensive due to the lack of subsidies, and possibly even a reduction in related jobs.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

Well if you want to deconstruct it completely, Watchman, then modern beauracratic governments are nothing more than super-warlords, claiming a much stricter monopoly on violence and dressing it up with alot more paperwork.

---

Modern "Westphalian" states evolved out of the earler feudal messes mainly for the purpose of better scrounging up resources for extended warfare. Thankfully, they grew past being limited to those considerations a fair while ago. Machtstaat into Rechtstaat, as it were.
Plus they're waaaaay preferable to the alternatives.

Quote:

---

The original point was that no individual within a society is independent of the whole. The very idea of wealth itself would be meaningless without other people, and lots of them.

---

What constitutes "wealth", however, is a social construct - an artefact. Money for example is purely symbolic; it only has any value because the society and its inhabitants define it as such.

Chicken and egg.

People are pack animals. They live in groups and need to organize their relations somehow. Isolated, most of them start going nuts and in any case become quite limited in what they can realistically aspire to achieve.

Thanks for the first

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

You talked a lot of sense in that post. For the most part well said and well thought out. Except for this bit:

"The attitude toward blacks in the meantime was much more hostile in the north than in the south and remained so into the 1960s."

---

and
Explanation:


I am surly not trying to portray the condition of Black Americans form 1865 to 1970 in the south as anything idyllic. Some truly tragic and if I can apply the word "evil" things did occur. But these things usually tended to happen in areas where Blacks were uncommon (not excusing bad behaviour on this account). The attitude in the south with high concentrations of Blacks was that they were somewhat wayward children that needed watching and were for the most part excluded from polite society. (no excuse here either, the popular view of the time was that those of black decent lacked the mental capacity to be full members of society, this was not a strictly southern view)

Blacks found them selves unwanted and often driven out of areas in the north following the Civil War. Those who remained found themselves isolated in ghettos, but at least there was some safety in numbers. Lynchings beyond the previously slave holding border states were less talked about and less common simply because Blacks were less common and kept that way. It was however dangerous to be Black and found just passing through theses areas. Lynchings there were more likely to be Irish Catholic Immigrants, the very same as whom had been drafted coming off the boat to serve in the Union Army.

The Ku Klux Klan was founded, in the south, during the Reconstruction as a self protection measure against The Carpet Baggers, scalawags, and their often Black minions. By the1870s it was out of existence. It was however refounded in 1915. It spread pretty much nation wide to become a potent political power, with about 15% of the eligible male population nation wide being members. A high concentration of membership was to be found in the upper Midwestern States of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, & Michigan. It was difficult to get elected to office in these states without paying some sort of tribute to the Klan. Its power began to wane in the 1930s but remained an undercurrent at least into the 1950s.

Dr. King's march in Skokie Ill. met with violent protest and court action at least as bad as in Selma Ala. to the point that he attempted no further northern marches. I am however finding it difficult to document the fact via the web. The Nazi march there seems to be all I can readily find. (there seems to be willingness, or desire to forget what makes us uncomfortable)

If you look at the race riots in the cities in the 1960s you will also find that these are mostly in areas other than the south.

In painting the south as the home of racism we are overlooking inconvenient facts of it being much more wide spread. It brings us comfort to think that our ancestors may have been more enlightened than those of others, whether or not that was actually the case.

Let us all hope that we are more enlightened today, even though we may be ashamed of our profound ignorance in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The poor would then have food that was moire expensive due to the lack of subsidies, and possibly even a reduction in related jobs.

---

Actually, if the subsidies would vanish then agriculture can't survive and we can drop those protectionistic measures, making food about half as cheap as it is now.

Not a bad idea, perhaps. (dropping our agricultural policy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Actually, if the subsidies would vanish then agriculture can't survive and we can drop those protectionistic measures, making food about half as cheap as it is now.

Not a bad idea, perhaps. (dropping our agricultural policy)

---

People still gotta eat!?!? Wouldn’t the farmers just jack the prices and our grocery bill would be double? In the short term we wouldn’t have much of a choice, no? Left unchecked the US farmers would probably produce like crazy and ruin the rest of the world’s ability to produce a profitable crop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Thanks for the first




and
Explanation:


I am surly not trying to portray the condition of Black Americans form 1865 to 1970 in the south as anything idyllic. Some truly tragic and if I can apply the word "evil" things did occur. But these things usually tended to happen in areas where Blacks were uncommon (not excusing bad behaviour on this account). The attitude in the south with high concentrations of Blacks was that they were somewhat wayward children that needed watching and were for the most part excluded from polite society. (no excuse here either, the popular view of the time was that those of black decent lacked the mental capacity to be full members of society, this was not a strictly southern view)

---

I agree with this completely. Its been my observation having lived in different areas of the country that minorities are more prone to abuse where their are small numbers.

Quote:

---

The Ku Klux Klan was founded, in the south, during the Reconstruction as a self protection measure against The Carpet Baggers, scalawags, and their often Black minions. By the1870s it was out of existence. It was however refounded in 1915. It spread pretty much nation wide to become a potent political power, with about 15% of the eligible male population nation wide being members. A high concentration of membership was to be found in the upper Midwestern States of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, & Michigan. It was difficult to get elected to office in these states without paying some sort of tribute to the Klan. Its power began to wane in the 1930s but remained an undercurrent at least into the 1950s.

---

It was current until at least 1996. My younger brother recruited for the Army in that area, and one of the things he had to be careful of is not to enlist any advowed members of the KKK. Primarily he covered Iowa and Southern Illinois. Many do not realize where a large percentage of the "White Power" organizations come from. There are some in the south that is for sure, but many come from the northern area of the country - even some from the very states that fought for the Union back in 1860.

Quote:

---

Dr. King's march in Skokie Ill. met with violent protest and court action at least as bad as in Selma Ala. to the point that he attempted no further northern marches. I am however finding it difficult to document the fact via the web. The Nazi march there seems to be all I can readily find. (there seems to be willingness, or desire to forget what makes us uncomfortable)

If you look at the race riots in the cities in the 1960s you will also find that these are mostly in areas other than the south.

In painting the south as the home of racism we are overlooking inconvenient facts of it being much more wide spread. It brings us comfort to think that our ancestors may have been more enlightened than those of others, whether or not that was actually the case.

Let us all hope that we are more enlightened today, even though we may be ashamed of our profound ignorance in the future.

---

Agreed completely.


The closet I found is this

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eyesont...2_chicago.html

from one of the links found in that site.

Quote:

---

After Martin Luther King, Jr., working with the Chicago Freedom Movement, negotiated with the city of Chicago on public housing issues, some local blacks felt that he had been duped by empty promises. Members of the Congress of Racial Equality decided to march to Cicero, Illinois on September 4, 1966.

Racial segregation and violence were deeply rooted in Cicero. In 1951 there was a major racial crisis when the Clarks, a black family, rented an apartment and in response 6,000 white people violently attacked the family of a black bus driver. Then Illinois governor, Adlai Stevenson called in the National Guard. In the end Harvey Clark and his family were never able to live in Cicero.

In 1966 Cicero still had no black residents, but many blacks were employed in the city. When protesters marched through town, white residents threw bottles and bricks at the activists. But the marchers were not pledged to nonviolence; they picked up the bricks and bottles and threw them right back. The divide between races seemed to be getting wider, and more blacks felt drawn to the nationalist preaching of Malcolm X.

---

I hate cities. Good on these evil snobbish white oppressors.

And DC's gone RED! :help:

No, really, I agree that the NEA must be broken. Preferably in a humiliating way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

People still gotta eat!?!? Wouldn’t the farmers just jack the prices and our grocery bill would be double? In the short term we wouldn’t have much of a choice, no? Left unchecked the US farmers would probably produce like crazy and ruin the rest of the world’s ability to produce a profitable crop.

---

Without subsidies the US farmers would barely survive in the current climate. I believe in Europe we pay more than double the world price of food due to the subsidies and protectionism. If no subsidies or protectionistic measures where used we'd get the cheapest food, surely this is basic economics ?

I'm not saying it's the best solution, there are other factors to consider, but I do know that i'm paying near twice as much for my food as 7 years ago, and the index has gone up that much. Now I'm not poor (unproductive and lazy: yes) and can afford it, but I've people at the store counting their pennies and putting (normal, inexpensive) food back if they hadn't enough. If we'd find another way to help out our farmers we could probably do a great deal about poverty in the same effort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

And DC's gone RED! :help:.

---

I haven't 'gone RED'. I've always been 'RED'. :devil:

All kidding aside, education is the great equalizer in terms of opportunity. If we want a true meritocracy, we have to make quality educations available to all who prove themselves capable of benefitting from them, regardless of ability to pay. Otherwise, you wind up with an aristocracy... your education is in line with the amount of money your family has. Now, I don't believe in requiring people that can afford to send their kids to better schools not to, just to fulfill some egalitarian pipe-dream. If your kid is dumb, but you're rich, you should be able to pay for them to go to a better school. But by the same token, society benefits from sending the most capable raw talent to the good schools. So we should be finding creative funding opportunities for seeing that this happens as well.

What's more, a big part of the reason our political system has devolved into a cesspool of graft, corruption, soundbites and chicanery is because we have an ignorant population. When more people know who Nicole Richie is then John Roberts, we've got big problems.

Quote:

---

Without subsidies the US farmers would barely survive in the current climate. I believe in Europe we pay more than double the world price of food due to the subsidies and protectionism. If no subsidies or protectionistic measures where used we'd get the cheapest food, surely this is basic economics ?

---

Prices would go down without protectionism, of which Europe and US have a lot on agriculture, but I don't think US farmers couldn't compete (at least, in some cases)- they are sometimes paid to destroy crops to keep the price up.

Don C - the problem with college is the OUTRAGEOUS costs associated with it. Tuition and prices are climbing fast, and college officials aren't slowing it down - they'll just ask for more handouts from the gov't.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Prices would go down without protectionism, of which Europe and US have a lot on agriculture, but I don't think US farmers couldn't compete (at least, in some cases)- they are sometimes paid to destroy crops to keep the price up.

---

I'm not sure about the US, your agricultural sector is structured differently from ours, prices would go down though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Don C - the problem with college is the OUTRAGEOUS costs associated with it. Tuition and prices are climbing fast, and college officials aren't slowing it down - they'll just ask for more handouts from the gov't.

---

In a way, though, Don is very right. The rich kids with their daddies' big handouts who go to Ivy League schools despite their dumb butts allow the poorer geniuses to go to said schools essentially for free. Thanks to a bunch of "subsidies" and "gifts" from the rich daddies which translated into scholarships. How else could some of our politicians, who by no means are virtues of intelligence, got into them?

It's rather realpolitik, meaning public schools and less renowned/not elitist East Coast Small Liberal Arts (stereotype) colleges suffer, but it's what we have. It also fosters the kind of dynastic money-based aristocracy that pisses my communistas spirit off badly, but hey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Prices would go down without protectionism, of which Europe and US have a lot on agriculture, but I don't think US farmers couldn't compete (at least, in some cases)- they are sometimes paid to destroy crops to keep the price up.

---

I’m not sure but aren’t the US farmers restricted by who they can sell their goods to? If the restrictions were removed along with the subsidies wouldn’t US farmers produce like crazy and destroy the 3rd world’s agricultural industry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I’m not sure but aren’t the US farmers restricted by who they can sell their goods to? If the restrictions were removed along with the subsidies wouldn’t US farmers produce like crazy and destroy the 3rd world’s agricultural industry?

---

No. They wouldn't be able to sell it all for enough to bother doing it. (Presumably.)