Oklahoma black man leads presidential protest by waving Confederate Flag

[raykeller]

Oklahoma black man leads presidential protest by waving Confederate Flag
KFOR ^ | 07/16/2015 | BY LESLIE RANGEL

Posted on 7/16/2015, 11:41:51 AM by SeekAndFind

OKLAHOMA CITY - The President's Oklahoma visit sparked controversy all over
the state.

Supporters of the confederate flag have their own message to send to
President Obama.

In Durant, Okla. Wednesday morning, trucks lined up awaiting his arrival,
and now supporters are in Bricktown.

Supporters want to let the President know the Confederate flag, they say,
stands for heritage, not hate. The organizer of the event is someone you
might not expect to see standing behind this cause.

It is a red, white and blue that, for many, carries a message of hate. but
that's not the point these folks want to get across.

"We don't believe it's a symbol of racism," Andrew Duncomb, an organizer in
Oklahoma City who calls himself "the Black Rebel" says.

"Hell, I'm just out here supporting my flag, not racists, I don't want no
[sic] problems with anybody," a supporter said.

A message contrary to the thousands gathering weeks earlier in South
Carolina to remove the very same flag.

"They're blaming the racist problems on the flag and not on the real
problems of America. Through the race lies the people who carry and harbor
the hate inside," Duncomb says.


(Excerpt) Read more at kfor.com ...

[Delvin Benet]

On 7/16/2015 1:26 PM, raykeller wrote:
> Oklahoma black man leads presidential protest by waving Confederate Flag

Well, that's nice, you racist knuckle-dragger. But is that man
representative of anyone other than himself? Does this have any real
meaning?

The obvious answers are "no".

[Stormin Mormon]

Would the press respond the same, were it a white
man who protested? I think not.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5iWpx.369521$ij7.1...@fx02.iad...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003142/Boys-15-charged-killing-dog-walker-botched-robbery.html

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:32:45 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/16/2015 6:20 PM, Delvin Benet wrote:
>> On 7/16/2015 1:26 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>> Oklahoma black man leads presidential protest by waving Confederate Flag
>>
>> Well, that's nice, you racist knuckle-dragger. But is that man
>> representative of anyone other than himself? Does this have any real
>> meaning?
>>
>> The obvious answers are "no".
>
>Would the press respond the same, were it a white
>man who protested? I think not.

Just because he's black doesn't mean he can't be an asshole.

--
Ed Huntress

[Scout]

"Delvin Benet" <D...@nbc.nyt> wrote in message
news:mo9ak7$s0o$1...@dont-email.me...

The obvious answer, or the one your bias would dictate?

[Ed Huntress]

Well, Scout, turn on your TV, or read the news -- left wing or right
wing, and tell us how many black men you see waving Confederate flags,
OK?

This is a reality check for you, Scout.

--
Ed Huntress
>

[Delvin Benet]

Yes, the obvious answers. The man clearly is not representative, not
even in the south.

You should give up on this one. It's a losing proposition all the way.

[PaxPerPoten]

I have noted with amusement the new bumper sticker that shows the
confederate battle flag on the right side and the slogan " Fighting
Terrorism since 1861" on the left side.

And in reality they are correct as that war was started over states
rights. Emancipation wasn't thrown into the mix until about 1864.
Slavery should never have been. But we all lost when states rights lost.


--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[Delvin Benet]

On 7/16/2015 10:40 PM, PaxPerPoten wrote:
> On 7/16/2015 10:02 PM, Delvin Benet wrote:
>> On 7/16/2015 5:36 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Delvin Benet" <D...@nbc.nyt> wrote in message
>>> news:mo9ak7$s0o$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 7/16/2015 1:26 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>>>> Oklahoma black man leads presidential protest by waving Confederate
>>>>> Flag
>>>>
>>>> Well, that's nice, you racist knuckle-dragger. But is that man
>>>> representative of anyone other than himself? Does this have any real
>>>> meaning?
>>>>
>>>> The obvious answers are "no".
>>>
>>> The obvious answer,
>>
>> Yes, the obvious answers. The man clearly is not representative, not
>> even in the south.
>>
>> You should give up on this one. It's a losing proposition all the way.
>
>
> I have noted with amusement the new bumper sticker that shows the
> confederate battle flag on the right side and the slogan " Fighting
> Terrorism since 1861" on the left side.
>
> And in reality they are correct as that war was started over states
> rights.

Bullshit. South Carolina and all the others seceded because Lincoln,
known to be favorable to abolition, was elected. The precipitating
factor was slavery - period.

[PaxPerPoten]

Your ignorance is noted. The Civil war started over southern prices
being controlled by Norther Industrialists. All wars have a Primary
economic component. The shelling of For Sumpter was South Carolina
reclaiming state property, and to expel Federal troops from said
property. My Swiss ancestors fought(for money and Veterans rights
on prime Homesteads) for the Federal Government. Do keep in mind that
Lincoln usurped the constitution by executive ordering a draft. Hundreds
were killed in New York rioting against this illegal and immoral
executive order. You did understand why the North with vast
unmotivated superior forces took so long to defeat the Souths ragtag
barefoot army? While that Blacks were granted a deserved emancipation...
The rest of America lost its sovereignty. Along with Thousands of the
nations finest young people. Again the Wealthy crushed the
American worker. I do hope that you upgrade your 3rd grade education
It reflects very poorly on our school system.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 7/16/2015 6:53 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> Would the press respond the same, were it a white
>> man who protested? I think not.
>>
>> --
>> .
>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003142/Boys-15-charged-killing-dog-walker-botched-robbery.html
>
>
>

I guess we ought to ask how 13 and 14 year old boys
in Philadelphia managed to get hold of a pistol?

Maybe they should pass a law that says that 13 or
14 year olds are prohibited from carrying guns?

--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.

.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 7/16/2015 6:53 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> "Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> .
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003142/Boys-15-charged-killing-dog-walker-botched-robbery.html
>
>

I guess we ought to ask how 13 and 14 year old boys
in Philadelphia managed to get hold of a pistol?

Maybe they should pass a law that says that 13 or
14 year olds are prohibited from carrying guns?

Not sure how the pictures were taken of the two
boys, but they don't look friendly.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.

.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:51:34 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/16/2015 6:53 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> .
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003142/Boys-15-charged-killing-dog-walker-botched-robbery.html
>>
>>
>
>I guess we ought to ask how 13 and 14 year old boys
>in Philadelphia managed to get hold of a pistol?

Jeez, Chris, you should know that. Thanks to the NRA, anybody can get
one, anytime, anywhere.

We're awash in guns. Our regulations on purchasing are a joke, and the
NRA has successfully lobbied to strangle funding for serious
background checks or enforcement. Private sales are wide open in most
states -- no paperwork is even required in many states. Theft is
easier than almost anywhere; we have no security requirements at all,
in most places. So lots of guns wind up in illegal street sales. And
the sellers don't card the buyers for their age.

>
>Maybe they should pass a law that says that 13 or
>14 year olds are prohibited from carrying guns?

Sure. That will do it. Outlaw street sales to minors while you're at
it.

[Delvin Benet]

Bullshit.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/17/2015 7:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:51:34 -0400, Stormin Mormon
> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/16/2015 6:53 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> .
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003142/Boys-15-charged-killing-dog-walker-botched-robbery.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I guess we ought to ask how 13 and 14 year old boys
>> in Philadelphia managed to get hold of a pistol?
>
> Jeez, Chris, you should know that. Thanks to the NRA, anybody can get
> one, anytime, anywhere.

It never occurred to me even to try to obtain a gun when I was 13 and
14. Of course, I was brought up to obey the law and eschew violence.

[Ed Huntress]

I owned my first rifle at age 11; my fifth Sharpshooter bar by 14; and
had bagged at least a hundred ducks, rabbits, pheasants, and squirrels
by 13.

But I was brought up to obey the law, too. And the culture that
surrounded guns, the one in which I grew up, was about hunting and
target shooting.

Thanks to the evolution of gun culture, it's now about killing people.
We've moved from dreaming about a Purdey double shotgun with Skeet #1
and #2 chokes, to dreaming about a "tactical" semiautomatic rifle
that's too feeble for ethical hunting of deer, but just right for
shooting people at night.

Kids notice.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

Lock the fucking apes up.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/17/2015 9:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:08:40 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 7/17/2015 7:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:51:34 -0400, Stormin Mormon
>>> <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/16/2015 6:53 PM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>>>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003142/Boys-15-charged-killing-dog-walker-botched-robbery.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess we ought to ask how 13 and 14 year old boys
>>>> in Philadelphia managed to get hold of a pistol?
>>>
>>> Jeez, Chris, you should know that. Thanks to the NRA, anybody can get
>>> one, anytime, anywhere.
>>
>> It never occurred to me even to try to obtain a gun when I was 13 and
>> 14. Of course, I was brought up to obey the law and eschew violence.
>
> I owned my first rifle at age 11; my fifth Sharpshooter bar by 14; and
> had bagged at least a hundred ducks, rabbits, pheasants, and squirrels
> by 13.

I was taken shooting as a boy, but I didn't own any guns myself, and
certainly never sought to obtain a handgun.

> But I was brought up to obey the law, too. And the culture that
> surrounded guns, the one in which I grew up, was about hunting and
> target shooting.
>
> Thanks to the evolution of gun culture, it's now about killing people.

I have two handguns locked in a gun safe. It never occurred to me to
take one out and murder a man walking his dog at night.

Some cultures are more predisposed to violent crime than others.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:35:08 -0700, Rudy Canoza

True, but the formerly mainstream hunting and target shooting gun
culture has evolved into one that is mostly about fantasies about
killing people. Take a look at the covers of _American Rifleman_ these
days. They look like the old covers of _Soldier of Fortune_.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:8bciqa917umtr6o51...@4ax.com...

Have you forgotten about Redskins and Nazis?

[Ed Huntress]

That was James Beard's argument. It was abandoned by serious
historians by 1950. Most people who hold to it today are ersatz
libertarians and sourthern apologists.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Is there something about a football team and dead Germans that's worth
remembering?

--
Ed Huntress

[benj]

Sure, the Libs now have everyone convinced the war was all about
slavery. Nonsense. Slavery was well on the way out already. Importation
of new slaves was banned, Abolitionists blocking slavery moving to new
territories and worst of all coming industrialization of agriculture
making slaves too expensive to own and use.

The war was created (No, it didn't just "happen") in an effort to
destroy the huge economic power of the South that had been built upon
slavery. It was all about economics. Sure slavery was in there, but it
really was about breaking the economic back of the south so it could be
controlled.

Real motives seem to have all been whitewashed over as all the Ken Burns
of the world wring their hands over all those racist whites whuppin'
slaves. This is what happens when unthinking people start believing Lib
fantasies.

--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[Ed Huntress]

You can try to make that argument, but you will fail, for the same
reason Beard's argument was abandoned. Someone bothered to look at the
facts and figures.

By the way, regarding the "coming industrialization of agriculture,"
it was all about cotton, specifically, about picking it, and the first
mechanized cotton picker was invented in 1944.

Your argument has been made a thousand times. And it has failed every
time.

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:l6diqa9sa5as87rvo...@4ax.com...

They say memory is the second thing to go.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 14:51:56 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"

I don't know. I used to know, but I forgot. <g>

Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about.

--
Ed Huntress

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:55:00 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
<murat...@gmail.com> wrote:

Where the hell did he pick up that little gem? NYT?

>>>I have two handguns locked in a gun safe. It never occurred to me
>>>to
>>>take one out and murder a man walking his dog at night.
>>>
>>>Some cultures are more predisposed to violent crime than others.
>>
>> True, but the formerly mainstream hunting and target shooting gun
>> culture has evolved into one that is mostly about fantasies about
>> killing people. Take a look at the covers of _American Rifleman_
>> these
>> days. They look like the old covers of _Soldier of Fortune_.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>Have you forgotten about Redskins and Nazis?

Ol' Weird Ed shouldn't own guns. He refuses to acknowledge that 99%
of gun owners don't do bad things with them. Only the criminals do.

Suicide is no more a "gun crime" than hit-and-run is just a "moving
vehicle accident".

--
The business of America is not business. Neither is it war. The business
of America is justice and securing the blessings of liberty.
-- George F. Will

[John B. Slocomb]

Strange you know. When I was a kid growing up in "up state" New
Hampshire I would guess that perhaps 1/3rd of the homes in town had a
firearm or two in the corner and farm families were probably 100%
equipped.

But strangely enough I can't remember any "gun crimes" so apparently
guns don't commit crimes

Another point that might be considered is that alcoholic beverages
were totally banned in the U.S. for a period, which of course meant
that no one could not get a glass of beer anywhere in the U.S.

But banning guns will eliminate gun crimes ?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 09:35:08 -0700, Rudy Canoza

True. What are the largest selling computer games in the U.S. at the
moment?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

But Ed, if one wants to "go hunting" one has to go out in the rain and
snow and it can be damned uncomfortable. Must better to sit home and
dream about how you are a big, bad, ass.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Jim Wilkins]

"John B. Slocomb" <johnbs...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:0o6jqa5hlkbi1sio8...@4ax.com...

>
> Strange you know. When I was a kid growing up in "up state" New
> Hampshire I would guess that perhaps 1/3rd of the homes in town had
> a
> firearm or two in the corner and farm families were probably 100%
> equipped.
>
> But strangely enough I can't remember any "gun crimes" so apparently
> guns don't commit crimes
>
> Another point that might be considered is that alcoholic beverages
> were totally banned in the U.S. for a period, which of course meant
> that no one could not get a glass of beer anywhere in the U.S.
>
> But banning guns will eliminate gun crimes ?
> --
> cheers,
>
> John B.

Where? I lived in Concord.

[rbowman]

On 07/17/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> That was James Beard's argument. It was abandoned by serious
> historians by 1950. Most people who hold to it today are ersatz
> libertarians and sourthern apologists.

Charles Beard; James is a cook. You might want to question why an
economic interpretation of history went out of fashion in the '50s.
Perhaps it was a little too progressive and close to Marx to fit in with
the Communist hysteria?

Besides, it doesn't fit in with the national mythology that the US
always does things because of high minded idealism, making the world
safe for democracy, correcting human rights abuses (by people the US
isn't courting at the time), and so forth. Perhaps I'm cynical but I'll
go with 'it's the economy, stupid' from the founding of the nation.

If you look at all the wars and actions of the US that are based on
transparent economic motives, I find it hard to justify a fit of high
minded idealism for one war.

[Rudy Canoza]

It's funny how people can swing wildly back and forth from high-minded
idealism to rank cynicism depending on their politics and the occasion.
When it suits them, high-mindedness can be the explanation for
historical events, but if cynicism is more suited, they'll go that route.

Generally, conservatives are more inclined to say that moral principle
has driven U.S. policy, in some of the examples you cited as well as in
waging the cold war, etc. It's usually leftists who adopt the more
cynical explanations, so it's surprising to see them insist that the
Civil War was fought exclusively, or at least mainly, over slavery. I
think, in part, it's because it allows them to demonize the south in a
simple-minded way.

The fact is, both slavery and economics were important determinants of
the war, and economics played a far bigger role than today's revisionist
leftists want to admit. Of course, it wasn't necessarily Beard's "class
warfare" left-wing nonsense, if at all. LOTS of forces in the north
wanted protectionist policies to encourage domestic industry, while
keeping cheaper and better European - chiefly British - imports at bay.
The agricultural south simply wanted the best manufactured goods at
the cheapest prices they could get.

[Ed Huntress]

Larry, you delusional dimwit, what do you think those "tactical" guns
are for? Shooting rabbits? Why does Gunner carry a couple of concealed
handguns? To shoot squirrels?

And what about those gee-jaws you mount on a Picatinny rail? Why are
"tactical" handguns made to handle a spotlight? Do you think they're
for JACKLIGHTING DEER, you dimwit?

Wake up from your 20-year sleep and pay attention, Rip Van Winkle:
THEY'RE FOR SHOOTING PEOPLE! Day or night.

>
>>>>I have two handguns locked in a gun safe. It never occurred to me
>>>>to
>>>>take one out and murder a man walking his dog at night.
>>>>
>>>>Some cultures are more predisposed to violent crime than others.
>>>
>>> True, but the formerly mainstream hunting and target shooting gun
>>> culture has evolved into one that is mostly about fantasies about
>>> killing people. Take a look at the covers of _American Rifleman_
>>> these
>>> days. They look like the old covers of _Soldier of Fortune_.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>>Have you forgotten about Redskins and Nazis?
>
>Ol' Weird Ed shouldn't own guns. He refuses to acknowledge that 99%
>of gun owners don't do bad things with them. Only the criminals do.

HEY, MORON! THAT'S THE IDEA! You delusional freaks buy guns to stroke
your fantasies about killing bad guys. RogerN said he built his AR-15
for shooting liberals.

IT'S ALL ABOUT SHOOTING PEOPLE! Or, more accurately, about your
fantasies about shooting people. You know about that one, right?
You're the guy who said that gun-toters should threaten to kill
elected officials if they fail to bend to your wishes. Remember that?

That's the gun culture that's driven gun sales, now dominated by
handguns and "tactical" rifles, and that's what you're all about. In
other words, you're a nut.

>
>Suicide is no more a "gun crime" than hit-and-run is just a "moving
>vehicle accident".

Pffhhht. Now you're changing the subject.

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 07/17/2015 11:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> By the way, regarding the "coming industrialization of agriculture,"
> it was all about cotton, specifically, about picking it, and the first
> mechanized cotton picker was invented in 1944.

Let's look at that a little closer. There had been attempts to mechanize
cotton production from the ante-bellum period onward. None were very
successful or pursued very vigorously. One may wonder why this was when
other agricultural devices were perfected.

When the Great White Father freed the slaves, that was all he did.
Actually Lincoln may have tried to repatriate them to Africa, the West
Indies, or anyplace other than the US, but we'll never know. The '40
acres and a mule' project was a brief flash in the pan. So much for
reparations. By the end of Johnson's term almost all the arable land had
found its way back to the plantation owners. Like the Brits and their
Inclosure Acts, the plan wasn't to put the means of production (the 40
acres and the mule) into the hands of the former slaves.

So now there was a large supply of rather hungry former slaves. Massa
might have been harsh but at least he fed his investment. Enter a brand
new plan -- sharecropping. What a plan! The landowners and merchants
still got the bulk of the profits plus the sharecropper had an incentive
to produce more than a slave. Of course the former slaves and poor
whites were just as poor as they always were except the new wage slaves
had to manage their own reproduction.

With an almost infinite supply of cheap labor the plantation owners had
as much interest in automation as did the firms in the 1970's that took
the decision to chase cheap labor throughout the world rather than
automate. Things were going great until the 1930's and '40s when the
cheap labor figured out they could make a better living in Detroit,
Chicago, LA, or almost anyplace else than the old cotton fields back
home. With the labor supply drying up, it was time to take perfecting a
mechanical cotton picker seriously. Necessity is the mother of invention
and all that shit.

Those abolitionists were some humanitarians, 'You're free, boy. Good
luck and god bless.'

[Ed Huntress]

It would be interesting to know how the culture of crime and the
evolving culture of guns in the US fed off of each other to become the
culture of death. I doubt if we'll ever know the answer to that, but a
few things are clear.

First, the gun culture I grew up with had nothing to do with killing
people, whether in offense or defense. Since 60% of the American
people in 1960 thought civilians shouldn't be allowed to own handguns
(the figure is now 28%), it's very clear that the attitude toward guns
then, and the culture surrounding them and most people in the country,
had nothing to do with killing people.

Second, the proliferation of guns has fed into the culture of crime in
the US, such that our criminals shoot many times more people than
criminals in other economically advanced countries. So there is a
clear correlation between proliferation of guns and gun crime.

Third, the reaction has been to switch the focus, and the sales of
guns, from long guns to handguns, and the most popular long guns right
now are fairly useless military-style rifles that shoot pipsqueek,
military-derived cartridges. They're focused on killing people as much
as a .40 cal. pistol is.

So the whole interest, culture, focus, and categories of gun sales has
devolved from hunting and target shooting to people-killing fantasies,
defensive paranoia, and fear. It's pretty ugly..

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

Shut it, NSF eddy. These apes were carrying common handguns, not
<chortle> "tactical" guns. More to the point - they are adherents of a
culture that considers violence a quotidian affair, and an acceptable
way of interacting with society. You know this. You pretend you don't,
bending over backwards to kiss left-wing ass, but you *do* know it.

You fuckwit.

[Rudy Canoza]

Most guns are owned by whites, and most whites don't murder. What would
be more interesting to know is how violence became so deeply ingrained
in black culture.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:56:47 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
wrote:

>On 07/17/2015 11:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> By the way, regarding the "coming industrialization of agriculture,"
>> it was all about cotton, specifically, about picking it, and the first
>> mechanized cotton picker was invented in 1944.
>
>Let's look at that a little closer. There had been attempts to mechanize
>cotton production from the ante-bellum period onward. None were very
>successful or pursued very vigorously. One may wonder why this was when
>other agricultural devices were perfected.

Because it was a hard thing to do. Cotton 'production" was mechanized
in the same time frame as other agriculture -- cleaning it of seeds
(the gin) and planting it (they had mechanized planters). Except for
picking it. That's what slave labor was all about, and it would have
continued until it could be replaced. It wasn't until 1944 that it
could be replaced.

>
>When the Great White Father freed the slaves, that was all he did.
>Actually Lincoln may have tried to repatriate them to Africa, the West
>Indies, or anyplace other than the US, but we'll never know. The '40
>acres and a mule' project was a brief flash in the pan. So much for
>reparations. By the end of Johnson's term almost all the arable land had
>found its way back to the plantation owners. Like the Brits and their
>Inclosure Acts, the plan wasn't to put the means of production (the 40
>acres and the mule) into the hands of the former slaves.

You're confusing the economics of slavery with some supposed
philosophical or religious objections to it. They had very little to
do with any of it. It was all about the economics of plantation
cotton-growing, and the biggest point of contention was the North's
attempt to prevent the western expansion of slavery. That would have
soon bled the South dry.

The North wanted western expansion to be based on homesteading and
family farms. The South wanted plantations. Witness the votes on the
Homestead Act: the North voted for it, the South voted against it.

>
>So now there was a large supply of rather hungry former slaves. Massa
>might have been harsh but at least he fed his investment. Enter a brand
>new plan -- sharecropping. What a plan! The landowners and merchants
>still got the bulk of the profits plus the sharecropper had an incentive
>to produce more than a slave. Of course the former slaves and poor
>whites were just as poor as they always were except the new wage slaves
>had to manage their own reproduction.

This, of course, had nothing to do with the causes of the Civil War.

>
>With an almost infinite supply of cheap labor the plantation owners had
>as much interest in automation as did the firms in the 1970's that took
>the decision to chase cheap labor throughout the world rather than
>automate. Things were going great until the 1930's and '40s when the
>cheap labor figured out they could make a better living in Detroit,
>Chicago, LA, or almost anyplace else than the old cotton fields back
>home. With the labor supply drying up, it was time to take perfecting a
>mechanical cotton picker seriously. Necessity is the mother of invention
>and all that shit.

The mother of invention was a complete failure until 1944. The
incentive was there. The engineering was not.

>
>Those abolitionists were some humanitarians, 'You're free, boy. Good
>luck and god bless.'

Irrelevant to the causes of the Civil War.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:22:50 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
wrote:

>On 07/17/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> That was James Beard's argument. It was abandoned by serious
>> historians by 1950. Most people who hold to it today are ersatz
>> libertarians and sourthern apologists.
>
>Charles Beard; James is a cook.

Yeah, I realized that just after I hit "send." <g>

> You might want to question why an
>economic interpretation of history went out of fashion in the '50s.
>Perhaps it was a little too progressive and close to Marx to fit in with
>the Communist hysteria?

It didn't go out of fashion. It was just made more accurate by new
research.

It happened at about the same time that new, better research turned
around the historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment -- the 1970s
through the 1990s.

Do you want a reference or two, or are you happy with your
understanding and you're going to stick with it?

>
>Besides, it doesn't fit in with the national mythology that the US
>always does things because of high minded idealism, making the world
>safe for democracy, correcting human rights abuses (by people the US
>isn't courting at the time), and so forth. Perhaps I'm cynical but I'll
>go with 'it's the economy, stupid' from the founding of the nation.

It was the economy -- the economy of slave-labor agriculture.

The current estimate is that 26% of the income of free whites in the
eleven Confederate states in 1860 was derived from slave labor:

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/

By the 1830s, cotton accounted for 50% of all exports from the United
States (same reference).

It was a very big economic deal.

>
>If you look at all the wars and actions of the US that are based on
>transparent economic motives, I find it hard to justify a fit of high
>minded idealism for one war.

There is no credible argument of that sort for the war.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/17/2015 9:13 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:56:47 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/17/2015 11:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> By the way, regarding the "coming industrialization of agriculture,"
>>> it was all about cotton, specifically, about picking it, and the first
>>> mechanized cotton picker was invented in 1944.
>>
>> Let's look at that a little closer. There had been attempts to mechanize
>> cotton production from the ante-bellum period onward. None were very
>> successful or pursued very vigorously. One may wonder why this was when
>> other agricultural devices were perfected.
>
> Because it was a hard thing to do. Cotton 'production" was mechanized
> in the same time frame as other agriculture -- cleaning it of seeds
> (the gin) and planting it (they had mechanized planters). Except for
> picking it. That's what slave labor was all about, and it would have
> continued until it could be replaced. It wasn't until 1944 that it
> could be replaced.

Did cotton agriculture in the south stop after 1865? I don't know, but
I doubt it. So, how was cotton harvested /postbellum/?

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/17/2015 9:22 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:22:50 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 07/17/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> That was James Beard's argument. It was abandoned by serious
>>> historians by 1950. Most people who hold to it today are ersatz
>>> libertarians and sourthern apologists.
>>
>> Charles Beard; James is a cook.
>
> Yeah, I realized that just after I hit "send." <g>
>
>> You might want to question why an
>> economic interpretation of history went out of fashion in the '50s.
>> Perhaps it was a little too progressive and close to Marx to fit in with
>> the Communist hysteria?
>
> It didn't go out of fashion. It was just made more accurate by new
> research.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as "research" in history and
historical analysis. There are only new stories, and if the stories are
pleasing enough, they become the orthodoxy. There is no getting around
the indisputable fact that history as an academic field is
intellectually bankrupt, due to the contamination of political
orthodoxy, specifically political correctness.

[Ed Huntress]

Current historians say that it was mostly economics -- the economics
of slave labor in agriculture.

>Of course, it wasn't necessarily Beard's "class
>warfare" left-wing nonsense, if at all. LOTS of forces in the north
>wanted protectionist policies to encourage domestic industry, while
>keeping cheaper and better European - chiefly British - imports at bay.

England was dumping manufactured goods in the US because of the
blockades in Europe. But, contrary to historians of 50 years ago,
today's Civil War scholars say that 1) the tariff issues were not a
big point of regional contention by 1850, and the objections to
tariffs by consumers in the North were roughly the same as those
objections by consumers in the South; and 2) both notherners and
southerners were buying the same mix of domestically produced and
imported goods.

> The agricultural south simply wanted the best manufactured goods at
>the cheapest prices they could get.

The agricultural south wanted England to buy more cotton, which they
couldn't do as a result of the Napoleonic Wars, combined with their
decreased exports to the US that resulted from the pre-1832 tariffs.
After the tariffs were reduced, the South remained in a sour mood and
continued to bitch.

The bottom-line summary of the causes of the Civil War, in the
near-consensus of modern historieans, is that almost all of the
conflict stemmed directly or indirectly from the economics of slavery,
in combination with "nationalism" in both the North and the South. For
example, there was no clear economic advantage to the North in
homesteading the West versus allowing slave-based plantations. It was
a question of which culture and lifestyle would be expanded as the
country grew.

--
Ed Huntress

[BeamMeUpScotty]

All that is why cotton production shifted to Egypt where no one cares if
slaves pick cotton.

--
That's Karma

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:00:37 -0700, Rudy Canoza

Go look at this, you half-assed ignoramus:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/

That's what it's devolved into.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

It recovered to pre-war levels by 1878.

>So, how was cotton harvested /postbellum/?

By hand -- sharecropping, tenant farming, and the crop-lien system.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

Which is wrong and simple-minded.

>> Of course, it wasn't necessarily Beard's "class
>> warfare" left-wing nonsense, if at all. LOTS of forces in the north
>> wanted protectionist policies to encourage domestic industry, while
>> keeping cheaper and better European - chiefly British - imports at bay.
>
> England was dumping manufactured goods in the US because of the
> blockades in Europe.

There ya go.

>> The agricultural south simply wanted the best manufactured goods at
>> the cheapest prices they could get.
>
> The agricultural south wanted England to buy more cotton

England had other sources of cotton.

It was about the south wanting low tariffs, and the north blocking that.

[rbowman]

On 07/17/2015 10:22 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> It didn't go out of fashion. It was just made more accurate by new
> research.
>
> It happened at about the same time that new, better research turned
> around the historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment -- the 1970s
> through the 1990s.
>
> Do you want a reference or two, or are you happy with your
> understanding and you're going to stick with it?

I'm happy with my understanding. 'New research' just means another
generation of historians rewrote the book with their opinions. Sorry,
I've been around the block too many times to not understand the process.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/17/2015 9:38 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> Shut it, NSF eddy. These apes were carrying common handguns, not
>> <chortle> "tactical" guns. More to the point - they are adherents of a
>> culture that considers violence a quotidian affair, and an acceptable
>> way of interacting with society. You know this. You pretend you don't,
>> bending over backwards to kiss left-wing ass, but you *do* know it.
>>
>> You fuckwit.
>

> Go look at this, you

No point, shitbag. Those two teenaged apes in Philadelphia were not in
*any* way influenced by that. They're just fucking scum apes - the kind
of people your fucking scum pup tries to get onto food stamps because of
misplaced left-wing pity.

[rbowman]

On 07/17/2015 10:23 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> Did cotton agriculture in the south stop after 1865? I don't know, but
> I doubt it. So, how was cotton harvested /postbellum/?

Sharecroppers, who were just as poor and backward as the former slaves.
But they were free. The plantation owners kept the land. Slaves, serfs,
no big difference but the liberals get all dewy-eyed about the great
morality of the north.

[Rudy Canoza]

My point, exactly. So, it *didn't* particularly depend on slave labor.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 7/18/2015 12:23 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:

All that is why cotton production shifted to Egypt where no one cares if

slaves pick cotton. Today that's changing...


[""""""Several unions, like the Textile and Weaving Union in Egypt,
assert that there is a global conspiracy to ruin the Egyptian textile
industry in order to benefit the imported clothes industry. Yet
successive Egyptian governments’ policies have abandoned support for
cotton farmers, while many countries, such as India and Turkey, provide
up to 30% subsidies to this industry.

The Egyptian government currently aims to limit the cultivation of
Egypt's extra-long staple cotton, which Egypt used to boast globally as
the best type of cotton. To justify its decision, the Egyptian Ministry
of Industry claims that the demand for this type of cotton has dropped
and accounts for only 3-5% of the global market’s needs.

Mohammad Barghash, head of the Egyptian Farmers Union, talked about the
dimensions of this global conspiracy. He told Al-Monitor that five
countries are behind the conspiracy against Egyptian cotton: Pakistan,
Bangladesh, the United States, China and India. Spearheaded by the
United States, according to Barghash, these countries are filling the
Egyptian markets with low-quality and cheap cotton to expel Egypt from
the cotton industry.

“Sadly, the Egyptian textile holding company is cooperating with these
countries and importing one quintal of cotton for 600 Egyptian pounds
[$78.63], at a time when these countries pay 4.5 Egyptian pounds [$0.59]
for one kilogram of yarn and sell it in Egypt for 2.5 Egyptian pounds
[$0.33],” Barghash said.

He said that Egypt is well aware of this reality and that the United
States subsidizes each cotton acre with $700 and stands watching.
Meanwhile, Egyptian farmers have a million quintals of cotton that they
cannot sell because of dumping.

Barghash said that the state’s agricultural policies will lead to dire
consequences for all Egyptian crops, including cotton.

Barghash said: “Is it possible that Egypt appointed 10 ministers of
agriculture between 2011 and 2015 — an average of five months in office
for each minister? Is it possible that 51 million Egyptian farmers were
threatened to be thrown out of the field of agriculture because of the
Ministry of Agriculture's failed policies, which spell disaster in the
Egyptian food security sector in the coming period? Egyptian gins that
separate cotton from its seeds are being sold. As a result, 60% of lands
accommodating these gins have been transformed into spaces for real estate."

According to Mahmoud el-Qalyoubi, former head of the Chamber of Textile
Industries, the decline in the quality of Egyptian cotton due to
erroneous agricultural techniques constitutes one of the main reasons
for the collapse of the textile industry. The matter has nothing to do
with conspiracies. Qalyoubi noted that the Ministry of Agriculture's
faulty policies led to the rise in the cost of harvesting cotton crops,
as they are hand picked. The cost of harvesting cotton crops by hand
alone totals 30% of the overall expenses of the crops — a high cost when
compared to American cotton crops that are harvested mechanically. The
process costs only 10% of crop expenses in the United States. The return
on Egyptian crops dropped to 5 quintals, while it witnessed an increase
to 16 quintals globally.

Qalyoubi added that harvesting cotton crops mechanically requires the
introduction of genetic engineering into cultivation and the use of
developed irrigation methods. The crops should all be at an equal height
from the ground so as not to waste any cotton when harvesting.

He explained that the fragmentation of agricultural land that began in
President Nasser’s days led to a decrease in production because the use
of modern agricultural systems and irrigation requires large spaces."""""""]
--
That's Karma

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/17/2015 10:34 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On 07/17/2015 10:23 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> Did cotton agriculture in the south stop after 1865? I don't know, but
>> I doubt it. So, how was cotton harvested /postbellum/?
>
> Sharecroppers, who were just as poor and backward as the former slaves.

But *not* slaves. NSF eddie has already said that cotton production
recovered a mere 13 years after the end of the war, and that accounts
for the devastation of the war itself. Clearly the south didn't truly
depend on slavery.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/17/2015 10:36 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 7/18/2015 12:23 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 7/17/2015 9:13 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:56:47 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/17/2015 11:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> By the way, regarding the "coming industrialization of agriculture,"
>>>>> it was all about cotton, specifically, about picking it, and the first
>>>>> mechanized cotton picker was invented in 1944.
>>>>
>>>> Let's look at that a little closer. There had been attempts to mechanize
>>>> cotton production from the ante-bellum period onward. None were very
>>>> successful or pursued very vigorously. One may wonder why this was when
>>>> other agricultural devices were perfected.
>>>
>>> Because it was a hard thing to do. Cotton 'production" was mechanized
>>> in the same time frame as other agriculture -- cleaning it of seeds
>>> (the gin) and planting it (they had mechanized planters). Except for
>>> picking it. That's what slave labor was all about, and it would have
>>> continued until it could be replaced. It wasn't until 1944 that it
>>> could be replaced.
>>
>> Did cotton agriculture in the south stop after 1865? I don't know, but
>> I doubt it. So, how was cotton harvested /postbellum/?
>>
> All that is why cotton production shifted to Egypt where n

Cotton production did not notably shift to Egypt after the American
civil war, you liar.

[Gunner Asch]

On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:53:21 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
<murat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Stormin Mormon" <cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:5iWpx.369521$ij7.1...@fx02.iad...
>> On 7/16/2015 6:20 PM, Delvin Benet wrote:
>>> On 7/16/2015 1:26 PM, raykeller wrote:
>>>> Oklahoma black man leads presidential protest by waving
>>>> Confederate Flag
>>>
>>> Well, that's nice, you racist knuckle-dragger. But is that man
>>> representative of anyone other than himself? Does this have any
>>> real
>>> meaning?
>>>
>>> The obvious answers are "no".
>>
>> Would the press respond the same, were it a white
>> man who protested? I think not.

>>
>> --
>> .
>> Christopher A. Young
>> learn more about Jesus
>> . www.lds.org

>> .
>
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3003142/Boys-15-charged-killing-dog-walker-botched-robbery.html
>
Oddly enough..the race of the perps didnt surprise me in the least.

Gunner

[John B. Slocomb]

Lebanon. Left when I went to school in Florida and discovered that
there are places where you don't have to shovel snow. Never went back
except to visit.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:15:40 -0400, Ed Huntress

While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the
relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read
that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's
- the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even
with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are
more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a
more popular idea.

>Third, the reaction has been to switch the focus, and the sales of
>guns, from long guns to handguns, and the most popular long guns right
>now are fairly useless military-style rifles that shoot pipsqueek,
>military-derived cartridges. They're focused on killing people as much
>as a .40 cal. pistol is.

(grin) But I used to shoot paper targets with a .45 cal. pistol :-)

>So the whole interest, culture, focus, and categories of gun sales has
>devolved from hunting and target shooting to people-killing fantasies,
>defensive paranoia, and fear. It's pretty ugly..
--

cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

But I wonder whether it is a "Black" crime or a "Po' Folks" crime. the
big time bandits in the 1930's for example were all white and from
poor origins. The original Mafia were poor immigrants, the Southern
bootleggers were poor folks...

--
cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:33:20 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>On 7/17/2015 9:38 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> Shut it, NSF eddy. These apes were carrying common handguns, not
>>> <chortle> "tactical" guns. More to the point - they are adherents of a
>>> culture that considers violence a quotidian affair, and an acceptable
>>> way of interacting with society. You know this. You pretend you don't,
>>> bending over backwards to kiss left-wing ass, but you *do* know it.
>>>
>>> You fuckwit.
>>
>> Go look at this, you
>
>No point, shitbag. Those two teenaged apes in Philadelphia were not in
>*any* way influenced by that.

You're 'way behind, Ball. That has nothing to do with the discussion.

The question was why such young teenagers had guns. The reasons are
that they can, and that they want to.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:34:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza

Man, you're really dim this week, Ball. And where did the 4 million,
suddenly destitute farm workers come from?

Under the New Slavery of the post-war South, the landlords didn't even
have to feed them.

--
Ed Huntress

[Ed Huntress]

Without 4 million slaves suddenly out of work and destitute, there
would have been no share-cropping of cotton. There would have been
little or no cotton production at all.

How many white cotton-pickers do you think there were?

--
Ed Huntress

[Jim Wilkins]

"Ed Huntress" <hunt...@optonline.net> wrote in message

news:sgkkqa5jeabfl96dn...@4ax.com...

The poor white farmers, like my father when he was young, grew food
for themselves and to barter locally instead of cash crops, since they
couldn't compete at the depressed wage levels slavery created. My
Southern Appalachian grandfather was named after Ulysses Grant, who
liberated them from the slave-equivalent conditions the plantation
system imposed on them.

You don't read our side of the story in the history books.

-jsw

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 19:10:55 +0700, John B. Slocomb

Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK.
Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is
40 times higher.

They're just going to hell in a handbasket...

>
>>Third, the reaction has been to switch the focus, and the sales of
>>guns, from long guns to handguns, and the most popular long guns right
>>now are fairly useless military-style rifles that shoot pipsqueek,
>>military-derived cartridges. They're focused on killing people as much
>>as a .40 cal. pistol is.
>
>(grin) But I used to shoot paper targets with a .45 cal. pistol :-)

So do I. Now, the fantasy "tactical" guns, and "defense" type guns,
dominate sales. They didn't then.

>
>>So the whole interest, culture, focus, and categories of gun sales has
>>devolved from hunting and target shooting to people-killing fantasies,
>>defensive paranoia, and fear. It's pretty ugly..

--

Ed Huntress

[Tom Gardner]

On 7/17/2015 10:08 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe they should pass a law that says that 13 or
>> 14 year olds are prohibited from carrying guns?
>
> Sure. That will do it. Outlaw street sales to minors while you're at
> it.
>
>>

The best solution is ALWAYS to punish the law abiding gun owners.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 12:17:26 -0400, Tom Gardner <Ma...@tacks.com>
wrote:

So what punishment did they give to you, Tom?

--
Ed Huntress

[rbowman]

On 07/18/2015 07:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> Without 4 million slaves suddenly out of work and destitute, there
> would have been no share-cropping of cotton. There would have been
> little or no cotton production at all.
>
> How many white cotton-pickers do you think there were?

http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/themes/sharecropping/

It's PBS so you might want to take it with a grain of salt but

"Approximately two-thirds of all sharecroppers were white, and one third
were black."


http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/228/farmers-without-land-the-plight-of-white-tenant-farmers-and-sharecroppers

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-newsouth/4698

Between the devastation wreaked during the war itself and the following
'reconstruction' the economy of the south was devastated. Former slaves
and freemen, both black and white, were driven from the land. Separated
from the means of production, they had no choice but to enter into
economic slavery. The price of cotton fell and the northern mill owners
were delighted.

Even assuming for the moment the Union undertook the war with the purest
of intentions they certainly made a mess of it. Even Iraq has fared
better after it was reconstructed.

[rbowman]

On 07/18/2015 07:18 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> Under the New Slavery of the post-war South, the landlords didn't even
> have to feed them.

At least we can agree on that. The 40 acres plan came to nothing. The
north was not about to redistribute the land and create a society of
free, landed farmers. The northern model of economic slavery worked much
better.

[rbowman]

On 07/17/2015 11:36 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> [""""""Several unions, like the Textile and Weaving Union in Egypt,
> assert that there is a global conspiracy to ruin the Egyptian textile
> industry in order to benefit the imported clothes industry. Yet
> successive Egyptian governments’ policies have abandoned support for
> cotton farmers, while many countries, such as India and Turkey, provide
> up to 30% subsidies to this industry.

Speaking of cotton subsidies...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/12/why-the-deal-to-pay-brazil-300-million-just-to-keep-u-s-cotton-subsidies-is-bad-for-the-wto-poor-countries-and-u-s-taxpayers/

http://snipurl.com/2a36xpj

http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=cotton

The real irony is the US government subsidizes cotton production in
areas like Arizona where water, an increasingly scarce commodity, has to
be diverted to agricultural production. Last time I was in Mississippi
farmers were converting to catfish ponds because there was no money in
cotton.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:32:57 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
wrote:

The various Homestead Acts showed a much more varied voting record.
The white South, though, was universally against it.

--
Ed Huntress
>

[Gunner Asch]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:55:00 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
<murat...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> True, but the formerly mainstream hunting and target shooting gun
>> culture has evolved into one that is mostly about fantasies about
>> killing people. Take a look at the covers of _American Rifleman_
>> these
>> days. They look like the old covers of _Soldier of Fortune_.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>Have you forgotten about Redskins and Nazis?


The magazines are not "about killing people"...but about firearms of
interest at the moment. Given the vast numbers of firearms suitable
for combat..generally against an onrushing totalitarian
government..thats what the interest is currently.

As for "fantasies"...snicker..hunting mags used to be about fantasies
of taking the All American Five...so whats the difference? At least
todays magazines are suitable for self defense purposes. As are the
firearms.

The crime rate continues to fall like a rock down the well..but on the
other hand..the feral government keeps getting bigger. Figure the need
in the near future.....

[Ed Huntress]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:42:33 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:55:00 -0400, "Jim Wilkins"
><murat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> True, but the formerly mainstream hunting and target shooting gun
>>> culture has evolved into one that is mostly about fantasies about
>>> killing people. Take a look at the covers of _American Rifleman_
>>> these
>>> days. They look like the old covers of _Soldier of Fortune_.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ed Huntress
>>
>>Have you forgotten about Redskins and Nazis?
>
>
>The magazines are not "about killing people"...but about firearms of
>interest at the moment.

Firearms focused on killing people.

>Given the vast numbers of firearms suitable
>for combat..generally against an onrushing totalitarian
>government..thats what the interest is currently.

Nutjobs who fantasize about killing elected representatives. Like
Larry, for instance.

>
>As for "fantasies"...snicker..hunting mags used to be about fantasies
>of taking the All American Five...so whats the difference?

The All American Five are animals. The difference is that today's
gun-toting fantasies are about killing *people*.

>At least
>todays magazines are suitable for self defense purposes. As are the
>firearms.

Right. They're all about killing people.

>
>The crime rate continues to fall like a rock down the well..but on the
>other hand..the feral government keeps getting bigger. Figure the need
>in the near future.....

There's the fantasy I'm talking about. You're one of the low-rent
knuckle-draggers who fantasize about shooting people.

That's the change in gun culture that we were discussing. It's gone to
hell.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

Of course, he's entirely delusional. There are no plans for any "cull";
there is no "list" of people to be culled; there is no impending "second
American revolution." It would be one thing for gummy-bitch to
fantasize about participating in something that might actually happen,
but gummy-bitch's fantasies are based in wholly delusional thinking.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:42:33 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What you seem to be advocating, or predicting, is what is called a
"revolution" which, if I remember my school days, was tried earlier in
the country's history... with very poor results.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress

The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number
of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in
England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the
present?

And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm
likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a
minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-)

But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the
U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country.
Right?

>
>>
>>>Third, the reaction has been to switch the focus, and the sales of
>>>guns, from long guns to handguns, and the most popular long guns right
>>>now are fairly useless military-style rifles that shoot pipsqueek,
>>>military-derived cartridges. They're focused on killing people as much
>>>as a .40 cal. pistol is.
>>
>>(grin) But I used to shoot paper targets with a .45 cal. pistol :-)
>
>So do I. Now, the fantasy "tactical" guns, and "defense" type guns,
>dominate sales. They didn't then.

Well, they had pocket pistols :-)

But I remember the first time I saw the specifications for one of the
modern pistols. My immediate thought was, "gee, it can't be very
accurate". A plastic pistol with a 4 inch barrel?

>
>>
>>>So the whole interest, culture, focus, and categories of gun sales has
>>>devolved from hunting and target shooting to people-killing fantasies,
>>>defensive paranoia, and fear. It's pretty ugly..
--

cheers,

John B.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
<johnbs...@geemail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 11:21:07 -0400, Ed Huntress
><hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:

<snip>

>>>>
>>>While statistically you may be correct, I'm not that sure about the
>>>relationship between gun availability and crime. For example, I read
>>>that while criminals in England rarely used firearms in, say the '50's
>>>- the Great Train Robbers were armed with clubs - while today, even
>>>with more stringent firearm laws in the country, armed criminals are
>>>more common. to the extent that arming the police seems to becoming a
>>>more popular idea.
>>
>>Yeah, they're having a hell of a wave of murders with guns in the UK.
>>Their rate is all the way up to 0.26/100,000. The rate for the US is
>>40 times higher.
>>
>>They're just going to hell in a handbasket...
>>
>The point, or course, was that even with stringent gun laws the number
>of armed criminals in the British Isles is increasing. What was it in
>England, Scotland and Wales, say 20 - 30 years ago compared to the
>present?

It's meaningless. When the numbers are so vanishingly small, even a
slight perturbation in the numbers causes a disproportionate change in
the percentages.

>
>And, of course, in Northern Ireland where possession of a firearm
>likely ensured a very unpleasant visit to the police station, at a
>minimum, gun crimes were sky high for a while :-)
>
>But as I previously mentioned, they banned alcoholic beverages in the
>U.S. and that automatically stopped drinking in the entire country.
>Right?

There's no connection.

[Scout]

"rbowman" <bow...@erewhon.com> wrote in message
news:d0tq1f...@mid.individual.net...

> On 07/17/2015 11:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> By the way, regarding the "coming industrialization of agriculture,"
>> it was all about cotton, specifically, about picking it, and the first
>> mechanized cotton picker was invented in 1944.
>
> Let's look at that a little closer. There had been attempts to mechanize
> cotton production from the ante-bellum period onward. None were very
> successful or pursued very vigorously. One may wonder why this was when
> other agricultural devices were perfected.

Simple, harvesting cotton is a much more complex task. There are
agricultural products we still pick by hand because we still don't have
agricultural devices that can reliably harvest them.

Heck it wasn’t until the 1960's we could pick tomatoes via machine.

Blueberries date to the mid-1990s.

Strawberries are just becoming possible, but at one strawberry every 8
seconds...it's hardly the most viable harvesting method at this time and
hand picking is still the norm by far.

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:mogfg1$h26$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "rbowman" <bow...@erewhon.com> wrote in message
> news:d0tq1f...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 07/17/2015 11:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> By the way, regarding the "coming industrialization of agriculture,"
>>> it was all about cotton, specifically, about picking it, and the
>>> first mechanized cotton picker was invented in 1944.
>>
>> Let's look at that a little closer. There had been attempts to
>> mechanize cotton production from the ante-bellum period onward. None
>> were very successful or pursued very vigorously. One may wonder why
>> this was when other agricultural devices were perfected.
>
> Simple, harvesting cotton is a much more complex task.

There are beaucoup cottonpicking machines in this area. Some farms have
humans following them to pick up scraps. In the day, my wife's family
picked cotton....and soybeans.

There are
> agricultural products we still pick by hand because we still don't
> have agricultural devices that can reliably harvest them.
>
> Heck it wasn’t until the 1960's we could pick tomatoes via machine.
>
> Blueberries date to the mid-1990s.
>
> Strawberries are just becoming possible, but at one strawberry every 8
> seconds...it's hardly the most viable harvesting method at this time
> and hand picking is still the norm by far.

Yep. We have several U-Pick-Ems out here.


--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

In these days and times, there is really only one race on this planet.
It is called "human". It just comes in many colors and sizes.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:09:57 +0700, John B. Slocomb
<johnbs...@geemail.com> wrote:

Odd..poor results? 1776 ended poorly?

Now if you are talking about the War of Northern Agression in
1861-1865...true indeed.

However...the ingrediants have changed dramatically since then..and my
worst estimate is that it will end poorly for todays "neo-liberals"

The nation is no longer divided by the Mason Dixon line..and rich
industrialists and immigrants right off the boat drafted to go fight
the Southerners.

(VBG)

One simply has to remember that the US has the worlds largest group of
armed citizens in the world. And in fact..the armed citizens outnumber
the militaries of the top 10 nations on the planet.

And in fact..the miltiary today here in the US..will suddenly grow
much..much smaller as its members simply..take their toys and go home
to fight with Dad and brother Bill and Cousin Ryan against the
much..much..much smaller Government miltitary...which will continue to
dribble away both its troops and resources as they leave for home.

When one understands that the US military votes 80% Republican or
conservative at the very least...the movers and shakers at the top
will be a bit ...nonplused when their troops turn on them.

Gonna really..really suck to be a Leftwing friendly military officer
if such an event occurs. Really...suck.

(VBG)

This of course is why the Obamassiah and Co have been removing all
those freedom loving general officers over the past 5 yrs.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/

Unfortunately...the POTUS doesnt understand..that they simply should
have shot those officers..because left alive..they will..will be the
core leadership of the Militia as it reforms.

Dont forget..that George Washington..was originally a British officer.
Gunner

[Martin Eastbourne]

Not going to happen that way, gummy-bitch. No "cull"; no "list"; no
"second revolution."

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA4DC57BD2...@216.166.97.131...

> "Scout" <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
> news:mogfg1$h26$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> "rbowman" <bow...@erewhon.com> wrote in message
>> news:d0tq1f...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 07/17/2015 11:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> By the way, regarding the "coming industrialization of agriculture,"
>>>> it was all about cotton, specifically, about picking it, and the
>>>> first mechanized cotton picker was invented in 1944.
>>>
>>> Let's look at that a little closer. There had been attempts to
>>> mechanize cotton production from the ante-bellum period onward. None
>>> were very successful or pursued very vigorously. One may wonder why
>>> this was when other agricultural devices were perfected.
>>
>> Simple, harvesting cotton is a much more complex task.
>
> There are beaucoup cottonpicking machines in this area.

There are now.....but not until they figured out how to make a machine to do
it.

:-)

>Some farms have
> humans following them to pick up scraps. In the day, my wife's family
> picked cotton....and soybeans.
>
> There are
>> agricultural products we still pick by hand because we still don't
>> have agricultural devices that can reliably harvest them.
>>
>> Heck it wasn't until the 1960's we could pick tomatoes via machine.
>>
>> Blueberries date to the mid-1990s.
>>
>> Strawberries are just becoming possible, but at one strawberry every 8
>> seconds...it's hardly the most viable harvesting method at this time
>> and hand picking is still the norm by far.
>
> Yep. We have several U-Pick-Ems out here.

Well, I'm talking more of the large industrial farms....

[RD Sandman]

"Scout" <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:mognvr$ibo$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA4DC57BD2...@216.166.97.131...
>> "Scout" <me4...@vcenturylink.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>> news:mogfg1$h26$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "rbowman" <bow...@erewhon.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d0tq1f...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 07/17/2015 11:37 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> By the way, regarding the "coming industrialization of
>>>>> agriculture," it was all about cotton, specifically, about picking
>>>>> it, and the first mechanized cotton picker was invented in 1944.
>>>>
>>>> Let's look at that a little closer. There had been attempts to
>>>> mechanize cotton production from the ante-bellum period onward.
>>>> None were very successful or pursued very vigorously. One may
>>>> wonder why this was when other agricultural devices were perfected.
>>>
>>> Simple, harvesting cotton is a much more complex task.
>>
>> There are beaucoup cottonpicking machines in this area.
>
> There are now.....but not until they figured out how to make a machine
> to do it.
>
>:-)

Yes, I know. My wife was a long time cotton picker as was the rest of
her family.

>>Some farms have
>> humans following them to pick up scraps. In the day, my wife's
>> family picked cotton....and soybeans.
>>
>> There are
>>> agricultural products we still pick by hand because we still don't
>>> have agricultural devices that can reliably harvest them.
>>>
>>> Heck it wasn't until the 1960's we could pick tomatoes via machine.
>>>
>>> Blueberries date to the mid-1990s.
>>>
>>> Strawberries are just becoming possible, but at one strawberry every
>>> 8 seconds...it's hardly the most viable harvesting method at this
>>> time and hand picking is still the norm by far.
>>
>> Yep. We have several U-Pick-Ems out here.
>
> Well, I'm talking more of the large industrial farms....

We have several of those over by Yuma and going into the valleys of
California.

[Gunner Asch]

(VBG)

Gunner

[Martin Eastbourne]

Yes, we're all grinning ear to ear at your buffoonery and mental
illness, gummy-bitch, you nutless squat-to-piss fruit rabbit.

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:08:26 -0700, Martin Eastbourne

(VBG)

[Martin Eastbourne]

>>> (very big shit eating grin)

>>
>> Yes, we're all grinning ear to ear at your buffoonery and mental
>> illness, gummy-bitch, you nutless squat-to-piss fruit rabbit.
>

> (very big shit eating grin)

It's a given, gummy-bitch, you nutless squat-to-piss fruit rabbit.

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 22:29:06 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>On 7/17/2015 9:34 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 18:40:58 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/17/2015 6:22 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On 07/17/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> That was James Beard's argument. It was abandoned by serious
>>>>> historians by 1950. Most people who hold to it today are ersatz
>>>>> libertarians and sourthern apologists.
>>>>
>>>> Charles Beard; James is a cook. You might want to question why an
>>>> economic interpretation of history went out of fashion in the '50s.
>>>> Perhaps it was a little too progressive and close to Marx to fit in with
>>>> the Communist hysteria?
>>>>
>>>> Besides, it doesn't fit in with the national mythology that the US
>>>> always does things because of high minded idealism, making the world
>>>> safe for democracy, correcting human rights abuses (by people the US
>>>> isn't courting at the time), and so forth. Perhaps I'm cynical but I'll
>>>> go with 'it's the economy, stupid' from the founding of the nation.
>>>>
>>>> If you look at all the wars and actions of the US that are based on
>>>> transparent economic motives, I find it hard to justify a fit of high
>>>> minded idealism for one war.
>>>
>>> It's funny how people can swing wildly back and forth from high-minded
>>> idealism to rank cynicism depending on their politics and the occasion.
>>> When it suits them, high-mindedness can be the explanation for
>>> historical events, but if cynicism is more suited, they'll go that route.
>>>
>>> Generally, conservatives are more inclined to say that moral principle
>>> has driven U.S. policy, in some of the examples you cited as well as in
>>> waging the cold war, etc. It's usually leftists who adopt the more
>>> cynical explanations, so it's surprising to see them insist that the
>>> Civil War was fought exclusively, or at least mainly, over slavery. I
>>> think, in part, it's because it allows them to demonize the south in a
>>> simple-minded way.
>>>
>>> The fact is, both slavery and economics were important determinants of
>>> the war, and economics played a far bigger role than today's revisionist
>>> leftists want to admit.
>>
>> Current historians say that it was mostly economics -- the economics
>> of slave labor in agriculture.
>
>Which is wrong and simple-minded.

No, it's accurate and complete. There is NO other "cause" that holds
up to historical research, that isn't directly or indirectly based on
the economics of slave labor.

So-called southern "nationalism," or "state's rights," was about
nothing but the "right" to continue slavery-based plantattion
agriculture.

>
>>> Of course, it wasn't necessarily Beard's "class
>>> warfare" left-wing nonsense, if at all. LOTS of forces in the north
>>> wanted protectionist policies to encourage domestic industry, while
>>> keeping cheaper and better European - chiefly British - imports at bay.
>>
>> England was dumping manufactured goods in the US because of the
>> blockades in Europe.
>
>There ya go.

But track that down -- and this was the research that undid Beard's
argument and the conventional wisdom up to 1950 or so.

The tariffs applied to North and South alike. There was no evidence of
regional preferences for goods. The regional "preference" was based on
the threat that England wouldn't be able to buy as much cotton if, in
addition to the blockades in Europe, US tariffs severely cut their
market share in North America. The South was feathering its own nest
by buying goods from England.

Cotton was, by the 1850s, roughly 60% of US exports and a much higher
percentage than that of the revenue of the South. Cotton was King --
and raising cotton depended nearly 100% on slave labor to pick it.

Look at the declarations of the states that joined the Confederacy.
Every one (or almost every one -- I haven't read them for years)
listed the "right" to keep slaves as a key reason for seceding.

It was their lifeblood. It wasn't a moral issue; the North wasn't
trying to end slavery where it already existed. The North DID make an
effort to prevent the westward spread of slavery, and that was a
proximate cause of secession. Although the various Homestead acts are
confusing to follow (President Jackson flip-flopped on it, and there
were conflicting issues in Congress), the North was, overall, trying
to create a family-farm-based agriculture in the West, and to resist
the expansion of slavery-based plantation agriculture.

The conflicts all boiled down to the South wanting to maintain their
system of slavery-based plantation agriculture, and the North
resisting it, directly (as in the case of slavery in the new western
territories) or indirectly (refusing to finance England's purchase of
cotton by allowing their dumping of manufactured goods).

People who think of it in moral terms miss the reality. It was
economic. And the economic issue was the South's ability to expand
slavery westward, and to maintain the "dumping" trade with England
that would keep the money flowing into their coffers.

Most of the abolition issue was a distraction that allowed the South
to claim that the North was trying to destroy their "culture." The
North may have wanted to, but it really wasn't doing anything to end
slavery.

>
>>> The agricultural south simply wanted the best manufactured goods at
>>> the cheapest prices they could get.
>>
>> The agricultural south wanted England to buy more cotton
>
>England had other sources of cotton.

Not at the same prices, the same quantities, or the same quality. US
cotton was the cleanest cotton in the world. It still is, by the way.

A lot of noise has been made about "long-staple" cotton versus the
inland short-staple cotton coming from the US, but the English mills
were set up for shot-staple cotton, and the advantage of long-staple
was mostly seen in the making of canvas (mostly sailcloth).

>
>It was about the south wanting low tariffs, and the north blocking that.

To the degree that was an issue, it was entirely based on the South's
desire to keep its slavery-based agriculture going strong by helping
England's ability to buy cotton.

--
Ed Huntress

[Gunner Asch]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 14:56:52 -0700, Martin Eastbourne

Almost dinner time..and time for a nym change on your part.

Whoever will you be when we return?

Laugh laugh laugh....

(plink)

Gunner

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:05:10 -0400, Ed Huntress

I see...

Banning alcohol was thought to decrease the evils of that "Demon Rum"
and banning firearms is expected to decrease the evils of those
terribly dangerous guns.

The first didn't work and in fact is often claimed to be a major
reason that the "Mafia" grew from a little neighborhood protection
racket to a major factor in crime, but the second will be just so
effective, just like banning narcotic drugs has eliminated "dope
fiends" and outlawing cocaine had eliminated the use there of.

Prostitution and gambling has been banned for years and years, so
obviously there are no hookers walking the streets and "the numbers"
were a figment of someone's imagination.

Wake up and smell the flowers Ed. Banning something doesn't stop the
use of that thing. It just increases the cost.

Or did you think that all the evil doers running about and shooting
each other are using legally purchased guns and that all, each and
every one of them, has a State issued concealed carry permit?

>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Third, the reaction has been to switch the focus, and the sales of
>>>>>guns, from long guns to handguns, and the most popular long guns right
>>>>>now are fairly useless military-style rifles that shoot pipsqueek,
>>>>>military-derived cartridges. They're focused on killing people as much
>>>>>as a .40 cal. pistol is.
>>>>
>>>>(grin) But I used to shoot paper targets with a .45 cal. pistol :-)
>>>
>>>So do I. Now, the fantasy "tactical" guns, and "defense" type guns,
>>>dominate sales. They didn't then.
>>
>>Well, they had pocket pistols :-)
>>
>>But I remember the first time I saw the specifications for one of the
>>modern pistols. My immediate thought was, "gee, it can't be very
>>accurate". A plastic pistol with a 4 inch barrel?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So the whole interest, culture, focus, and categories of gun sales has
>>>>>devolved from hunting and target shooting to people-killing fantasies,
>>>>>defensive paranoia, and fear. It's pretty ugly..

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B. Slocomb]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:32:47 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com>

Where did that come from? George was a Surveyor, wasn't he?

But you fantasy about government employees all running of to join the
rebels, which is physically possible, but doesn't seem to be what has
happened historically in any country.

In Germany the Police was comprised by the same people under the King,
under the elected government, under the Nazis and under the Americans
and British, and on the other side of the fence, under the Russians.

In the American Colonies something like 30% actively supported the
revolution.

In N. Ireland the PIRA had something like a thousand active
"terrorist" out of a population of how many.

After all, the bloke drawing a salary doesn't often run off and shoot
the bloke who is paying him that salary, does he? But you reckon that
here it is a week before payday and an army bloke is going to desert
and run home to Mom and Dad to shoot bad guys? Where does he get the
bus ticket?

But imagine an actual scenario. A bunch of the guys are sitting around
and decide that the "spontaneous cull" will start tomorrow and one of
the guys says, "Heh! We got to get someone to drive up to Sacramento
and shoot the governor; Gunner, how about you going?" And what does
Gunner say? Does he say something like, "O.K., I'll be on the way at
daybreak tomorrow"? Nope, he says, "Hey guys, I can't go, I've got to
be down to the plant at seven o'clock. I've got the first paying job
I've had in 6 months and I'm not going to screw it up. Besides, who is
going to pay for the gas?"

So much for any spontaneous cull.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Larry Jocques]

> cry cry cry...piss piss piss...moan moan moan
>
> (plink)

gummy-bitch admits he lost - again.

Laugh laugh laugh.

[pyotr filipivich]

Gunner Asch <gunne...@gmail.com> on Sun, 19 Jul 2015 10:32:47 -0700
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

>
>Unfortunately...the POTUS doesnt understand..that they simply should
>have shot those officers..because left alive..they will..will be the
>core leadership of the Militia as it reforms.
>
>Dont forget..that George Washington..was originally a British officer.

Who sided against them as much because the British government had
given him short shrift after the war (the French and Indian War to us,
the Seven Years war to the Brits), as out of any patriotic sentiment.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

[Larry Jocques]

On 7/19/2015 10:32 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Your stilted, pretentious posting style gives much amusement. LOL!

[Ed Huntress]

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:26:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
<LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:

>On 7/17/2015 9:22 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:22:50 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>

>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/17/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>> That was James Beard's argument. It was abandoned by serious
>>>> historians by 1950. Most people who hold to it today are ersatz
>>>> libertarians and sourthern apologists.
>>>
>>> Charles Beard; James is a cook.
>>

>> Yeah, I realized that just after I hit "send." <g>

>>
>>> You might want to question why an
>>> economic interpretation of history went out of fashion in the '50s.
>>> Perhaps it was a little too progressive and close to Marx to fit in with
>>> the Communist hysteria?
>>

>> It didn't go out of fashion. It was just made more accurate by new
>> research.
>
>Bullshit. There is no such thing as "research" in history and
>historical analysis.

Yeah, there is. That's exactly how the issue of the individual right
and the 2nd Amendment came to light, after a handful of
hard-researching historians dug out and compiled the history of the
case, starting in the 1970s, which completely reversed the prevailing
view (even by hard-core originalists, like Robert Bork, and hard-core
liberals, like Laurence Tribe). The weight of evidence reversed
because of new research. Period.

Similar research upended Beard's view and that of the southern
apologists.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

On 7/19/2015 9:36 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 21:26:27 -0700, Rudy Canoza
> <LaLaLa...@philhendrie.con> wrote:
>
>> On 7/17/2015 9:22 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 19:22:50 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/17/2015 11:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>>> That was James Beard's argument. It was abandoned by serious
>>>>> historians by 1950. Most people who hold to it today are ersatz
>>>>> libertarians and sourthern apologists.
>>>>
>>>> Charles Beard; James is a cook.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I realized that just after I hit "send." <g>
>>>
>>>> You might want to question why an
>>>> economic interpretation of history went out of fashion in the '50s.
>>>> Perhaps it was a little too progressive and close to Marx to fit in with
>>>> the Communist hysteria?
>>>
>>> It didn't go out of fashion. It was just made more accurate by new
>>> research.
>>
>> Bullshit. There is no such thing as "research" in history and
>> historical analysis.
>
> Yeah, there is.

No, there isn't.

[Ed Huntress]

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:49:33 -0700, Rudy Canoza

>> Yeah, there is. That's exactly how the issue of the individual right
>>and the 2nd Amendment came to light, after a handful of
>>hard-researching historians dug out and compiled the history of the
>>case, starting in the 1970s, which completely reversed the prevailing
>>view (even by hard-core originalists, like Robert Bork, and hard-core
>>liberals, like Laurence Tribe). The weight of evidence reversed

>.because of new research. Period.

>>
>>Similar research upended Beard's view and that of the southern
>>apologists.

>

>No, there isn't.

If there is no such thing as "'research'" in history and historical
analysis," then what's your claim about the reasons that Tribe finally
acknowledged the individual right in the 2nd, in his textook? Where
did the source info come from in the hundred or so amicus briefs from
which Scalia derived his argument in the Heller case?

Most of the information that shifted the weight of argument was from
historical research that occurred over the last 30 or so years -- new
research.

--
Ed Huntress

[Rudy Canoza]

That would be tendentious legal "research", not history. Anyway, you
need to supply a citation; otherwise, I'm not buying it. Tribe's
acolytes unanimously disagreed in Heller.

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb

Sad to watch Ed becoming more and more senile...

[Gunner Asch]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 08:40:08 +0700, John B. Slocomb

He was..among other things

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/british-soldier-george-washington-experiences-combat-for-first-time

I thought you knew history better than that? I was dumbfounded for a
few moments after I read that you didnt.

>
>But you fantasy about government employees all running of to join the
>rebels, which is physically possible, but doesn't seem to be what has
>happened historically in any country.

All? No..but a good many of them most certainly will..starting with
the troops themselves. Office folks...perhaps not so many. Which is
why Liberals tend to work in Government jobs.

>
>In Germany the Police was comprised by the same people under the King,
>under the elected government, under the Nazis and under the Americans
>and British, and on the other side of the fence, under the Russians.

Yes yes.

>
>In the American Colonies something like 30% actively supported the
>revolution.

And over 50% supported the British crown..at least for a year or
two..the remaining 20% had no opinion one way or another.

However...those 50+ 20 % didnt bother to pick up a gun and go kill any
of those wild eyed revolutionaries. Hence..those 30% ultimately kicked
the shit out of the Brits. Granted it took foreign aid by the French
to help them through a few winters...but ..shrug

>
>In N. Ireland the PIRA had something like a thousand active
>"terrorist" out of a population of how many.

30% of 350,000,000 people is how many again?

>
>After all, the bloke drawing a salary doesn't often run off and shoot
>the bloke who is paying him that salary, does he? But you reckon that
>here it is a week before payday and an army bloke is going to desert
>and run home to Mom and Dad to shoot bad guys? Where does he get the
>bus ticket?

Bus ticket? The boys will simply climb into a Humvee or other
vehicle..including tanks and whatnot..and drive off.. Same with
helicopters and so forth.

>
>But imagine an actual scenario. A bunch of the guys are sitting around
>and decide that the "spontaneous cull" will start tomorrow and one of
>the guys says, "Heh! We got to get someone to drive up to Sacramento
>and shoot the governor; Gunner, how about you going?" And what does
>Gunner say? Does he say something like, "O.K., I'll be on the way at
>daybreak tomorrow"? Nope, he says, "Hey guys, I can't go, I've got to
>be down to the plant at seven o'clock. I've got the first paying job
>I've had in 6 months and I'm not going to screw it up. Besides, who is
>going to pay for the gas?"
>
>So much for any spontaneous cull.

On the other hand..we have millions of retired military/cops/hunters
who are on SS and have nothing better to do except wack a Lefty.

And you would be surprised how many live within an hour or so drive of
their least favorite Lefty. They could do it after work and be home
for a late dinner.

What was that 30% of 350,000,000 again? Somewhat over 100,000,000
million people..isnt it? And all the cops and military in the US
total how many? 2.5 million if all the troops were brought home?

Think hard before speaking. Would 30% pick up a gun and play Wack A
Lefty? Probably not...but 10%ers wouild...and how many is 10% of 350
million people? Hummm?

Would it even take 10%? How about a simple 1%...thats 3.5 million
people..right?

Gunner


Gunner

[Gunner Asch]

Ayup. But no matter the reason..he decided to kick Brit ass.

And the rest..is history.

Gunner