Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#33036 Jan 21, 2013
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be stupid. Educate yourself by reading Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discrimination of any kind is not allowed in either the public or private sector. Quit saying what you wish to be true. The law is very clear. Your firm is clearly in violation if what you say is true.
Innocent till proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of peers, and not public opinion.

Same for you.
Same for me.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#33037 Jan 21, 2013
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, get your history straight. Either you or the author of this link is wrong:
http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/slavery/a/T...
Jamestown is in VA not Charleston, S.C. Also, Africans sold Africans as slaves, so you may want to start there. Actually you may want to read this article for more history on slave trading/selling.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.htm...
The first recorded shipment of slaves was in Charleston in 1619,(just as the link says) and Rolf's letter has no historical basis, but only speculation.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#33038 Jan 21, 2013
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
She had more honor on the tip of her little finger that you will ever have in your entire sad life.
While your opinion may or may not be true, you didn't answer the questions.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#33039 Jan 21, 2013
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
The slave traders had guns. The Africans did not. You think this may have been an influence in the securing of slaves? Also, I think that some of the chiefs were influenced to sell their people. Greed is a factor among all races, but that does not make them right. You know, if the traders hadn't gone to Africa in the first place for that purpose, no one would have been sold into slavery. Do you think the buying and selling of slaves was a Christian endeavor?
Egyptians and Hebrews...Now what?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#33041 Jan 21, 2013
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Thought you said your mother had a job at a mill?
Not her fault she a bunch of childrens she couldn't afford in an area that didn't appreciate africans or get a decent wage because she was white and female, right?
It was her choice. If you want to get into my mother's honor and value as a human being, I would suggest that you stay clear of that. Her life and her choices are none of your business. Get it?

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#33042 Jan 21, 2013
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen girlfriend, I was born in 1948. If you read history you know that the Black Codes still prevailed in the south. Part of those codes were that no black could be served in a white restaurant. I was black...I was not allowed in. Also, all schools were segregated. White schools...Black schools. I went all 12 years to the black school which was inferior facilities and also in curriculum. Have you ever heard of the Greensboro 4? In 1960, they had their heads beat in and arrested for sitting down at a Woolworth's lunch counter asking to be served. You don't know about Black Codes? You are certainly not devoid of that history, or are you? Also, the slave trade began in America in 1619 when the first slaves were brought to Charleston harbor. One year later, the Pilgrims arrived in Massachusetts for religious freedom, which is a real paradox. Yes, the Native Americans were cheated and treated horribly by the settlers. The Trail of Tears, the forced movement of all the tribes to Oklahoma was a horribly tragic event in American History. So, now you side with the abusers and racists? Just how much Native American blood do you have?
Listen boyfriend, my Grandfather was full blooded. So I guess your "history" of black discrimination starts in the mid-nineteenth century. Cherry picker. Where did the slave traders get the slaves? We all know the what the sixties were all about. Point is???? It's HISTORY, the freedom fighters yesterday are the corporate CEO's today.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#33043 Jan 21, 2013
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Innocent till proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of peers, and not public opinion.
Same for you.
Same for me.
So, I guess breaking the law is part of your code of honor?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#33044 Jan 21, 2013
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
The first recorded shipment of slaves was in Charleston in 1619,(just as the link says) and Rolf's letter has no historical basis, but only speculation.
Did we read the same article. Did the article not say the ship docked in Fort Comfort, Jamestown, VA? I've read more than one article that states slavery began in Jamestown VA and some say slavery started there as early as 1607. Do you err on the side of Rolf's letter having no historical basis, but only speculation because you don't agree with it? All you're doing is speculating yourself about his letter, so what makes your speculation right and Rolf's letter wrong?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#33045 Jan 21, 2013
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>Listen boyfriend, my Grandfather was full blooded. So I guess your "history" of black discrimination starts in the mid-nineteenth century. Cherry picker. Where did the slave traders get the slaves? We all know the what the sixties were all about. Point is???? It's HISTORY, the freedom fighters yesterday are the corporate CEO's today.
Mid 17th Century to be exact (1619). Yours in the 16th Century with Manhatten Island. I am not a corportate CEO. I am proud of you and your grandfather's heritage. What is your point about freedom fighters being CEO's?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#33046 Jan 21, 2013
Bacon, Was slave trading a Christian endeavor? Can it be justified by any moral value? I will respond to your question when I get an answer from you.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#33047 Jan 21, 2013
I have never faulted the rich for being rich. I just want them to pay the same percentage income tax that I have to pay.
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Not nearly as much as I see you faulting rich for being rich.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#33048 Jan 21, 2013
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
It was her choice. If you want to get into my mother's honor and value as a human being, I would suggest that you stay clear of that. Her life and her choices are none of your business. Get it?
Just so I am clear. It was your mothers decision to not move her family and subsequently subject her kids to those mean ole white people?

Your mother was white, right? Having interracial relations and having interracial babies in an era and place where it was frowned upon and subject to ridicule by all?

Not saying she can't have black children or fall head over heals in love with a black man, but perhaps some wisdom should of prevailed.

But of course, ignore common sense with a defiant face and you get what you get. Like not being able to eat with white folk. Like not being able to go to movies like others.

Guess your mom's entitlements, free education and jobs you got at the expense of trying to force everyone to be friends and get to know one another was owed to you.

Screw choice. Some one else will figure it out.

Yeah right.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#33049 Jan 21, 2013
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I guess breaking the law is part of your code of honor?
code of honor?? You support pro choice out of one side your mouth yet support more gun legislation out of the other.

Life of eterenal contradiction is the code of honor of all democrats.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#33050 Jan 21, 2013
Do you deny that president Bush had already signed NAFTA along with Carlos Salinas (Mexico) and Mulroney (Canada) before Clinton was elected? Do you deny that NAFTA had been approved by both houses of congress before Clinton signed it?
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.[3][4] Clinton, while signing the NAFTA bill, stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."[5]http://en.w ikipedia.org/wiki/North_Americ an_Free_Trade_Agreement
FYI I have posted this before.

“Arch Nemisis of Democrats”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#33051 Jan 21, 2013
TSF wrote:
I have never faulted the rich for being rich. I just want them to pay the same percentage income tax that I have to pay.
<quoted text>
They pay a less percentage rate because they have more to tax. But they still pay in more than you or I do.
TSF

Kenly, NC

#33052 Jan 21, 2013
The distributive law has absolutely nothing to do with wealth re-distriubution, either directly or indirectly. If you believe that teaching math and wealth redistribution are connected, you are as ignorant and paranoid as pro.
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, your example is a little flawed. The property you are demonstrating is called Commutative Law. It allows you to swap numbers around and get the same answer, i.e. your example.
Distributive law is when you multiply a variable across a polynomial.
3x(x+1+2y)= 3x^2 + 3x + 6xy
While distributive law does not directly teach "redistribution of wealth" it does however teach basic principles of redistibution.
The economic policy of taxing the wealthy "just a little more" is closely aligned with the communist ideology of redistribution of wealth. Nationalization is the redistibution of physical property.
Since we are talking about redistribution, again, here is some more info for review.
"Today, income redistribution occurs in some form in most democratic countries. In a progressive income tax system, a high income earner will pay a higher tax rate than a low income earner. The difference between the Gini index for an income distribution before taxation and the Gini index after taxation is an indicator for the effects of such taxation. Two common types of governmental redistribution of wealth are subsidies and vouchers (such as food stamps). These "transfer payment" programs are funded through general taxation, but disproportionately benefit the poor, who pay fewer or no taxes. While the persons receiving redistributions from such programs may prefer to be directly given cash, these programs may be more palatable to society, as it gives society some measure of control over how the funds are spent."
"Currently in the United States, any means-tested entitlement program can be considered a redistributive effort. This is because the US Government practices a progressive income tax that disproportionately yields public revenues from various earnings brackets. As the wealthy pay more into the system and the poor receive more marginal utility through programs such as TANF, Medicaid, FHA insured loans, and the earned income tax credit (all of which are means-tested), it could be argued that the United States has democratically opted for the redistribution of wealth. Each of these programs provide services or financial aid to the poor."
"The Gini coefficient (also known as the Gini index or Gini ratio) is a measure of statistical dispersion. The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among values of a frequency distribution (for example levels of income). A Gini coefficient of zero expresses perfect equality, where all values are the same (for example, where everyone has an exactly equal income). A Gini coefficient of one (100 on the percentile scale) expresses maximal inequality among values (for example where only one person has all the income). There are some issues in interpreting a Gini coefficient. The same value may result from many different distribution curves. The demographic structure should be taken into account. Countries with an aging population, or with a baby boom, experience an increasing pre-tax Gini coefficient even if real income distribution for working adults remain constant."

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#33053 Jan 21, 2013
Arnold-Ziffel wrote:
Bacon, Was slave trading a Christian endeavor? Can it be justified by any moral value? I will respond to your question when I get an answer from you.
In the article I posted it said it was. What does that have to do with me and my Christianity? I don't own slaves, never have and don't feel responsible for those that did. They'll answer to God for their deeds and I'll answer for mine. I can't speak to if there was justification back then about any moral value, but we all justify things we do right of wrong or else we wouldn't do them. Arnold, I don't know why you always want people to speak on behalf of people or situations we didn't know or live thru. Can you get out of the past for the love of Pete? Do you want me to start holding you responsible for the New Black Panthers that threatened George Zimmerman with death threats just because they're black and you are? Do you want me to hold you responsible for all the black on black homicides which is the highest murder rate in the country because you're black? Stop asking questions that none of us have nothing to do with. Do you make their behavior personal because you're black and they are? I can tell you, the only person I can control is myself and I don't have the capability to control other people's behavior, nor do I feel responsible for it. If christians had slaves back in the day of however far you want to go back to it was wrong, but I don't feel bad because they had "christian" attached to them. I don't own their behavior, I own mine.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#33054 Jan 21, 2013
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Innocent till proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of peers, and not public opinion.
Same for you.
Same for me.
I love the blindfolded "Lady Justice"!
TSF

Kenly, NC

#33055 Jan 21, 2013
Excuse me,but WTF does that have to do with teaching children that numbers add up to the same sum regardless of the order in which they are added? What does it have to do with teaching children how to find mean and median of a given set of numbers..
Let me answer for you. Nothing, other that some stupid assed connection in your ignorant mind about the word distribution. Oh and by the way, teaching students about electric power distribution also has NOTHING to do with re-distribution of wealth, or communism, or socialism or liberalism , etc..
Silvercoastcorks wrote:
<quoted text>
"Criticism
Conservative, libertarian and neoliberal arguments against property redistribution consider the term a euphemism for theft or forced labor, and argue that redistribution of legitimately obtained property cannot ever be just. Public choice theory states that redistribution tends to benefit those with political clout to set spending priorities more than those in need, who lack real influence on government.
In the United States, some of the founding fathers and several subsequent leaders expressed opposition to redistribution of wealth.
Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown.[These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."
James Madison, author of the Constitution, wrote, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
United States President Grover Cleveland vetoed an expenditure of federal aid explaining,
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted ... The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune..... Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#33056 Jan 21, 2013
TSF wrote:
Do you deny that president Bush had already signed NAFTA along with Carlos Salinas (Mexico) and Mulroney (Canada) before Clinton was elected? Do you deny that NAFTA had been approved by both houses of congress before Clinton signed it?
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N orth_American_Free_Trade_Agree menthowever, Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with the new US president. In the US, Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Your point is?????????

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Charlotte Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jimbo from Intervention (Feb '11) 47 min Loser Above 63
Best Plastic Surgeon In Charlotte? 8 hr Al Sharpton 2
Did Rick Hendrick Ever Really Have Leukemia? (May '09) 23 hr pekosbob 74
Causal Encounter Mon Noleftturns 2
Buffalo Classic American Loser City (Mar '10) Jul 25 CumberlandChevy 15
Poll Confederate Flag Symbolizes: Jul 24 Ecossais 10
Mount holly pop warner on the rise in 2013 (Oct '13) Jul 23 Dan 66
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Charlotte Mortgages