On 3/1/10 7:59 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.



The confederacy was an abomination, not a country.

Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress
was in 1775.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Nope.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do
you think he though slavery was ok?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Hoges in WA wrote:

Hm, no wonder you're sympathetic. Lets try again with another group. Say
a North Korean ship accidentally killed some friends of yours. Would you
then think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? If they did
it on purpose would you *then* think all Asians are inferior and deserve
to be killed?

Stephen

No, you're missing the distinction between racism and bigotry.
I am selective in my prejudices, not racially biased.

[...]
I have a different Jewish experience to Larry's, and I have many Jewish
associates and friends but as I said, I understand why he is of the
opinion he is.

So, your experiences with people who have real cultural differences is
helping you understand someone who is racist. That makes no sense.

You just denied you would do what a vile racist has done and then used an
explanation of what you would do to say you understand the racist.

Stephen


I understand why he's angry.

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...
Hm, no wonder you're sympathetic. Lets try again with another group. Say
a North Korean ship accidentally killed some friends of yours. Would you
then think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed? If they did
it on purpose would you *then* think all Asians are inferior and deserve
to be killed?

Stephen

No, you're missing the distinction between racism and bigotry.
I am selective in my prejudices, not racially biased.

I think that's a reasonable argument, but I have a question (or perhaps a
comment). Don't you think we need to struggle against our prejudices? I
think that allows us to make the claim we're fully human.

That would be an ideal. On an intellectual level, I get an Arab magazine
bi-monthly and have received it since 1977.

I have learned a lot about Arab culture, history, literature and achievement
(Ibn Battuta was a bit of a cruiser!).

I can distinguish between an educated Arab and a Palestinian thug from a
criminal family. However, until I know where they come from, I treat them
with suspicion and relax once I know.

If I'm wandering along a street in my home town and a group of Australian
Aborigines is coming towards me, male or female, my defences are up at once.
If at all possible, I'll cross the street - I can't afford time off work to
attend court cases.

That's pre-judging or, prejudicial. It's discriminatory, based on hard-won
experience. It's also something I will not stop doing and something I won't
stop complaining about until they begin to behave.

If, on the other hand, I was to encounter a group of aborigines in Cairns,
on the other side of the coutnry, I would be more likely to be interested
rather than suspicious, as most of them have a job and a future to protect.

I think everyone discriminates, even lefties who say they don't - I just
admit I do.

My attitude is roundly criticised by many of our acquaintances (my wife's
really) but mention "American" to an Oz lefty and you get rolled eyes,
sneers etc.

They don't see their discrimination as being as bad as mine because they
think they're entitled to "that" prejudice and I'm not entitled to mine.

Just makes my sniping worse.
Hoges in WA

snipped

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do
you think he though slavery was ok?


I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern
population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought
it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an
unpalatable condition.

Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a
prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both
slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member
of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint
that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states
where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished
that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He
was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas
accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and
position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in
order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the
revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union
and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York
Tribune 22 Aug 1862.

Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very
much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it
as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably
never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not.




Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Harry" wrote in message
...
On 3/1/10 7:59 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words
themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend
numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one
of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of
you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never
fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.



The confederacy was an abomination, not a country.

Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress
was in 1775.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Nope.

Women weren't granted the right to vote until 1920. Does this then mean that
the United States was not a legitimate democracy until that date? Or were
women "represented" by the vote of some man who was appointed their
"guardian"? And if the latter, would not the same apply to those bound by
slavery also?

Throughout history, "Democracy" has rarely meant that ALL the people had a
vote. This is not intended as an indictment of democracy, nor to support the
idea that some people should be disenfranchised, but simply to point out a
very basic fact.

Based upon the very principles stated in the Declaration of Independence,
the Confederate States of America was a separate and sovereign nation (or
Confederation of Sovereign States) immediately upon declaring their status
as a separate nation. Whether or not one approves of their form of
government is irrelevent to the discussion. It is instructive to note,
however, that states left the Union and joined the Confederacy by VOTING to
do so. Pretty democratic if you ask me.

And no, I am NOT defending slavery, segregation, racism, separatism or
anything of the kind.

KLC Lewis

--
KLC Lewis

WISCONSIN
Where It's So Cool Outside, Nobody Stays Indoors Napping
www.KLCLewisStudios.com

"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...
Hm, no wonder you're sympathetic. Lets try again with another group.
Say a North Korean ship accidentally killed some friends of yours.
Would you then think all Asians are inferior and deserve to be killed?
If they did it on purpose would you *then* think all Asians are
inferior and deserve to be killed?

Stephen

No, you're missing the distinction between racism and bigotry.
I am selective in my prejudices, not racially biased.

I think that's a reasonable argument, but I have a question (or perhaps a
comment). Don't you think we need to struggle against our prejudices? I
think that allows us to make the claim we're fully human.

That would be an ideal. On an intellectual level, I get an Arab magazine
bi-monthly and have received it since 1977.

I think the struggle is the important part. No one can be 100% successful
(unless you're a saint).

We all have deep-seated prejudices, but we can and should strive to overcome
them.


I have learned a lot about Arab culture, history, literature and
achievement (Ibn Battuta was a bit of a cruiser!).

I can distinguish between an educated Arab and a Palestinian thug from a
criminal family. However, until I know where they come from, I treat them
with suspicion and relax once I know.

If I'm wandering along a street in my home town and a group of Australian
Aborigines is coming towards me, male or female, my defences are up at
once. If at all possible, I'll cross the street - I can't afford time off
work to attend court cases.

That's pre-judging or, prejudicial. It's discriminatory, based on
hard-won experience. It's also something I will not stop doing and
something I won't stop complaining about until they begin to behave.

It's also called self-preservation, and I don't see something wrong with it.
The circumstance has a lot to do with it. If you were attending some
professional conference that had a lot of Aborigines in attendance, would
you feel the same way while listening to a lecture? Crime is crime, and it's
reasonable to take precautions, but I would have the same reaction if I were
about to encounter a bunch of skin heads.


If, on the other hand, I was to encounter a group of aborigines in Cairns,
on the other side of the coutnry, I would be more likely to be interested
rather than suspicious, as most of them have a job and a future to
protect.

Right... I didn't read this until after I typed previously. :-)

I think everyone discriminates, even lefties who say they don't - I just
admit I do.

I think anyone who is being intellectually honest would say they either do
or struggle mightily not to.

My attitude is roundly criticised by many of our acquaintances (my wife's
really) but mention "American" to an Oz lefty and you get rolled eyes,
sneers etc.

They don't see their discrimination as being as bad as mine because they
think they're entitled to "that" prejudice and I'm not entitled to mine.

Just makes my sniping worse.

Yes. Entitlement... that's a harbinger of unfettered prejudice.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 21:30:06 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:47:37 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words
themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend
numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one
of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of
you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never
fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.


The Republican's stated position on Slavery in 1860 was simply that it
wouldn't be allowed to expand into new territories. Lincoln did not
campaign on freeing the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed
slaves in states revolting against the U.S.A. The initial proclamation
only stated that slaves would be freed in "in any state of the
Confederate States of America that did not return to Union control by
January 1, 1863". The second proclamation, of 1863, freed them. Slaves
were not freed in states not in rebellion.



Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you believe Lincoln consider the Confederacy a legitimate democracy? Do
you think he though slavery was ok?


I suspect that Lincoln, as well as most of the thinking northern
population (as opposed to those who read Uncle Tom's Cabin and thought
it to the whole truth) probably considered slavery simply as an
unpalatable condition.

Lincoln was a rather controversial individual. His wife was from a
prominent, slave owning, Kentucky family, as a lawyer he defended both
slave owners as well as, at least in one case a Black. He was a member
of the Republican which opposed slave owning but held the viewpoint
that the Constitution prevented the banning of slavery in those states
where it already existed. He proposed that if slavery was abolished
that slave owners be compensated for the value of the freed slaves. He
was considered a moderate by other Republicans, Stephen Douglas
accused him of not being consistent and altered his message and
position on slavery and on the political rights of freed blacks in
order to appeal to the audience he was addressing. Regarding the
revolution he specifically that the fight was to preserve the Union
and NOT to free the slaves and that "If I could save the Union
without freeing any slave I would do it" - letter to the New York
Tribune 22 Aug 1862.

Did Lincoln perceived the CSA as a legitimate democracy? I doubt very
much that his thinking ever went that far. He certainly considered it
as a group in rebellion against the legitimate government and probably
never gave any thought to whether it was "democratic" or not.




Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Thus, he didn't think it was legitimate, and he was troubled by slavery. I
appreciate the history lesson, but I've read quite a bit about Lincoln (Team
of Rivals most recently).

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Harry" wrote in message
...
On 3/1/10 7:59 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500,
wrote:

On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in
easolutions:

Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but
the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words
themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.



Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is
in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.

Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend
numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one
of
many. One of the best, but one of many.

Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of
you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to
the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on
the
planet.

Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never
fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.

Stephen

Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense
that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.

I don't think Lincoln did.



The confederacy was an abomination, not a country.

Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress
was in 1775.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Nope.

Women weren't granted the right to vote until 1920. Does this then mean
that
the United States was not a legitimate democracy until that date? Or were
women "represented" by the vote of some man who was appointed their
"guardian"? And if the latter, would not the same apply to those bound by
slavery also?

Excellent point! For it's time, it would have been considered legitimate. At
least around the turn of the century. The Greeks started the silly business,
there were some in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Middle Ages, and it
went on from there.

Throughout history, "Democracy" has rarely meant that ALL the people had a
vote. This is not intended as an indictment of democracy, nor to support
the
idea that some people should be disenfranchised, but simply to point out a
very basic fact.

Very true.

Based upon the very principles stated in the Declaration of Independence,
the Confederate States of America was a separate and sovereign nation (or
Confederation of Sovereign States) immediately upon declaring their status
as a separate nation. Whether or not one approves of their form of
government is irrelevent to the discussion. It is instructive to note,
however, that states left the Union and joined the Confederacy by VOTING
to
do so. Pretty democratic if you ask me.

Well, that's a tricky point... does voting in and of itself define a
democracy? Take a limiting case... How about three people getting together
and voting on murdering someone? Does that make their group a democracy?

The first sentence here is a working definition I suppose, but it also seems
limited somehow... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

And no, I am NOT defending slavery, segregation, racism, separatism or
anything of the kind.

KLC Lewis

I don't know anyone in Wisconson who defends slavery, segregation (perhaps
related to cheese), racism, separatism (see cheese reference)....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Hoges in WA" wrote in message
...

snipped

OT: Are you still getting out this way?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com