Juan_Bottom wrote:
Arguably indeed.
I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.
Moderator: Community Team
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Arguably indeed.
thegreekdog wrote:Arguably, Lincoln single handedly did more to make sure wealth would be accumulated in the hands of the few than any other president.
SLAVES!
thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure what slaves have to do with anything, but okay.
Juan_Bottom wrote:You don't need God for morality. Firstly, several studies (I can cite the major if need be) have proven that basic morality is inherit to a person. The same way that a bird knows to fly south for the winter, the human being knows not to murder.
Second, 97%+ of American prisoners are self-identified Christians.
Third, and Philosophically, the Bible/Koran/everything teaches you to be good to avoid being hurt and going to the hurt place. So what's the difference if you behave to avoid a teacher's wraith or a God's wraith?thegreekdog wrote:Arguably, Lincoln single handedly did more to make sure wealth would be accumulated in the hands of the few than any other president.SLAVES!thegreekdog wrote:I'm not sure what slaves have to do with anything, but okay.
Juan_Bottom wrote:No, you just said that Lincoln arguable did more to help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few. I'm saying it's quite easy to argue against your conclusions because he freed the slaves, who were, slaves. Yes, a nearly insignificant portion of them did accumulate wealth and some did buy freedom. But they did so with the blessing of their owner.
Your argument would have us ignore the freedom of the slaves who were a significant percentage of the American population. I would go after other presidents way before I'd target Lincoln for that. Martin Van Buren and George W. Bush for example.
thegreekdog wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:No, you just said that Lincoln arguable did more to help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few. I'm saying it's quite easy to argue against your conclusions because he freed the slaves, who were, slaves. Yes, a nearly insignificant portion of them did accumulate wealth and some did buy freedom. But they did so with the blessing of their owner.
Your argument would have us ignore the freedom of the slaves who were a significant percentage of the American population. I would go after other presidents way before I'd target Lincoln for that. Martin Van Buren and George W. Bush for example.
I don't disagree (mostly because there are too many variables to determine whether one president did more to get us to where we're at now than anyone else). My point is that before Lincoln, we had a weak, decentralized federal government. After Lincoln, we had a strong, central government. President Lincoln ensured that we would have a strong central government thereby taking any number of powers away from the people. The two I'm most concerned with is the right to privacy and the ability of rich people and organizations to control elections of a small(er) group of elected officials and unelected officials. I can explain in further detail if anyone cares enough.
thegreekdog wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:
Arguably indeed.
I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.
Juan_Bottom wrote:
Juan_Bottom wrote:Van Buren is the guy who's credited for creating Big Government. I question why McKinley doesn't get the title, but whatever.
I believe we need a strong central government. But it takes the people to hold the government accountable. Lincoln and Jefferson both said that it's up to the people to violently overthrow bad government and avenge base villainy.
Today the people don't even hold themselves accountable. That's where we fell apart. But over time, all $$$-hijacked governments fall.
Juan_Bottom wrote:How could the Emancipation directly free the slaves that were in foreign and hostile territory?
Phatscotty wrote:Slavery is their answer for everything
Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:The problem is that people in this country lack self-control and almost feel entitled to have certain things.
That is the goal of what the public education system strives for, that is what they produce and what we are trained to be, whether people want to admit it or not.
Phatscotty wrote:Emotions are allowed to run wild and even encouraged, and we neglect passing on anything close to actual discipline (getting suspended from school can be easily justified by the suspended as a good thing these days).
Phatscotty wrote:Teachers do not have the power to punish children anymore
Phatscotty wrote:and it's more likely that students physically attack their teachers
Phatscotty wrote:And then we pulled the trifecta, tearing God out of every inch of every school, while failing to reinstall any workable system of morals in it's place.
Phatscotty wrote:I think the sense of entitlement can also be attributed to being born into debt like we are.
Juan_Bottom wrote:You don't need God for morality. Firstly, several studies (I can cite the major if need be) have proven that basic morality is inherit to a person.
Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:
Arguably indeed.
I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.
Slavery is their answer for everything
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:
Arguably indeed.
I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.
Slavery is their answer for everything
Who is "they" in this context, Phatscotty?
Timminz wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:
Arguably indeed.
I'm not sure what a picture of slaves has to do with anything, but okay.
Slavery is their answer for everything
Who is "they" in this context, Phatscotty?
He was responding to an American, so he probably meant Americans.
BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:No, you just said that Lincoln arguable did more to help wealth accumulate in the hands of the few. I'm saying it's quite easy to argue against your conclusions because he freed the slaves, who were, slaves. Yes, a nearly insignificant portion of them did accumulate wealth and some did buy freedom. But they did so with the blessing of their owner.
Your argument would have us ignore the freedom of the slaves who were a significant percentage of the American population. I would go after other presidents way before I'd target Lincoln for that. Martin Van Buren and George W. Bush for example.
I don't disagree (mostly because there are too many variables to determine whether one president did more to get us to where we're at now than anyone else). My point is that before Lincoln, we had a weak, decentralized federal government. After Lincoln, we had a strong, central government. President Lincoln ensured that we would have a strong central government thereby taking any number of powers away from the people. The two I'm most concerned with is the right to privacy and the ability of rich people and organizations to control elections of a small(er) group of elected officials and unelected officials. I can explain in further detail if anyone cares enough.
Type, my good man. Let thy thoughts flow.
thegreekdog wrote: Fast forward to today where the federal government is a monolith that can do pretty much whatever it wants without any repurcussions, much less outright rebellion that Juan talks about.
Lootifer wrote:Ironically Australia has just announced a new 20k grant to new home buyers...
I mean its not nearly as bad as subprime mortgages and other bubbles... BUT COME ON! WHAT DID WE LEARN ABOUT HOUSING?!?!!?!
huamulan wrote:Once you realize that humans are predisposed to short-term thinking then all of this will be less of a puzzle to you.
It's basic psychology that most people will take 1 sweet now rather than 3 tomorrow.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users