Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $21,714
Woo hoo!! And the first 24% is in!! Thank you all very much for your continuing support!!

Posts by x

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

    04/21/2018 1:37:19 PM PDT · 356 of 434
    x to FLT-bird; BroJoeK
    I don’t believe industrialization was their goal at all, just the opposite, they wanted to remain as they were, mostly agrarian. I base this on the famous 1861 quote from Texas Senator Louis Wigfall to the Times of London correspondent ...

    I quoted that as well, maybe on this very thread. You should realize, though, that you have a major disagreement with Diogenes, who really does believe that the Confederacy would rapidly industrialize, if only they could free themselves of their commercial ties with New York City. That doesn't make much sense to me, but you guys might want to hash it out among yourselves.

    Your claim that somehow Northern Democrats were just shills for the South because they happened to be in the same party as Southerners is ridiculous. Northern business interests wanted sky high protectionist tariffs to gain market share while being able to jack up prices to fatten their wallets. Both they and the working class wanted federal government handouts for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects which would be paid by those tariffs they knew Southerners would be paying as owners of the imported manufactured goods. Many of these same corporate interests got the government to use the very same generals to commit ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Plains Indians...because those Indians were in the way of their choo choos.....

    Northern businessmen never spoke with one voice. Pennsylvania iron and steel men really wanted tariffs to protect themselves from foreign competition.

    New York businessmen were often involved in shipping, and those who were had no great love for tariffs. They also had no love for war with the cotton growers who gave them so much business.

    New England mill owners were conflicted. Protective tariffs may have sounded like a good idea to some of them, but they got their cotton from the South and didn't want to antagonize Southern interests.

    Political views cut across these categories, though. Some capitalists and industrialists were ardent abolitionists. Others had no use at all for abolition, and only wanted to keep the country together on almost any terms.

    I really doubt any of these groups was the main driver of western expansion. Some capitalists, industrialists, and railroad men benefited from settling the frontier, but the main impulse for expansion was always the land hunger of agricultural interests -- very much including Southern planters.

  • What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

    04/21/2018 1:17:07 PM PDT · 350 of 434
    x to SoCal Pubbie; BroJoeK; DiogenesLamp
    Can somebody please explain how this works? Tariffs were on imports, not exports!!!

    Diogenes believes that every dollar that cotton planters got from exports and spent on US goods was still somehow their money and still somehow in their wallets and pockets.

    I tell him over and over again that the plantation owners used the money they earned from exports to buy goods and services from other Americans who could then use that money to buy foreign goods if they wished.

    Indeed, the money received for exports would have been pounds or francs or some other currency and would have stayed in banks in London, Paris, New York or New Orleans which would have given dollars to the planters and given the foreign currency to other people who wanted to exchange their dollars for foreign currency in order to buy imports with the foreign money.

    I have explained this to Diogenes many times, but he doesn't get it or won't acknowledge it. His idea is that cotton planters snagged the money and they have a moral right to continual possession, even if they spend it, because it was their cotton that first brought the pounds, francs, marks, kroner, or pesetas to the US. Therefore, whoever buys imported goods, it's really the slave-owning planter who bought them.

    I believe that's called having your cake and eating it too. Diogenes won't admit that the US had other exports than could just as well bring foreign currency into the country.

    There are economic details involved here that I don't entirely understand. Neither does Diogenes. The difference is that I'm aware of my incomplete understanding and freely admit it. Diogenes isn't aware of his own incomplete understanding and won't admit it.

  • Seth Rich and Donald Young: Are similarities enough to help solve BOTH cold cases?

    04/21/2018 12:34:54 PM PDT · 9 of 14
    x to Freedom_Is_Not_Free
    I had never heard of Donald Young or heard that 3 gay men from Obama’s church were murdered within about a month of each other just before his presidential run.

    One of those men, Nate Spencer, died from complications of AIDS, pneumonia and septicemia.

    He had been ill for some time before his death.

    That his death is being portrayed as a mysterious murder is one reason to be skeptical of these stories.

  • ‘They Were Never Going to Let Me Be President’

    04/20/2018 2:47:29 PM PDT · 132 of 138
    x to Oldeconomybuyer
    The big story here is that she wanted to run against Trump because she thought he would be easier to beat.

    If she'd gotten Marco or Ted or Jeb the nomination, she probably would have won.

  • Melania Trump and Akie Abe visit historic Florida mansion during U.S. trip

    04/20/2018 2:43:30 PM PDT · 5 of 33
    x to simpson96
    While U.S. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe golfed at the president’s nearby country club, their wives visited Whitehall — the 75-room, 100,000-square-foot (9,290-square-meter) waterside retreat that oil and railroad tycoon Henry Flagler built as a wedding present for his third wife, Mary Lily Kenan Flagler.

    Died under mysterious circumstances -- to found a dynasty.

    Fatal Fortunes: The Flagler-Kenan-Bingham Triangle

  • Melania 'Brilliantly Copying' Michelle Obama & Becoming Most Popular White House Person (MSM barf!)

    04/20/2018 2:40:21 PM PDT · 8 of 42
    x to ethom
  • Smallville star Allison Mack arrested for 'her role in sex slave cult Nxivm just weeks after [tr]

    04/20/2018 2:37:15 PM PDT · 20 of 28
    x to rktman
    So, should we guess no more "#metoo" from her? Did she ever use the #metoo?

    She did, but not in a straightforward way. She turned it around: Publicly, We Say #MeToo. Privately, We Have Misgivings. That should have raised a few eyebrows.

    Anyway, her twitter feed is fascinating.

    Or rather it's fascinating that somebody involved in recruiting sex slaves wrote it. It's all inspirational and uplifting and politically correct stuff.

    It's like finding out that the people who make cat videos and "Hang in there" or "Keep Calm and Carry On" posters or post stuff about their grandchildren are Nazi war criminals.

  • New Book: Hillary Clinton Staff Worked to ‘Maximize’ Candidate Donald Trump in GOP Primary

    04/20/2018 2:27:51 PM PDT · 41 of 56
    x to forgotten man
    Can anybody name one thing that Hillary Clinton has been successful at?

    She did marry the guy who made it all the way to the White House.

    In 1975, Bill Clinton's chances of making it all the way to the White House might have been worse than Donald Trump's.

    I can't think of anything she did on her own that worked out very well, though.

  • What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

    04/20/2018 2:22:44 PM PDT · 298 of 434
    x to DiogenesLamp; rockrr
    If you think you're not all about the money, then it stands to reason that everything isn't all about the money, and your whole argument is a sham.

    I don't notice any "virtue signaling" in my posts. I can't actually see an angle to how someone could be "virtue signalling" by defending the rights of slave owning states to leave the union. You will have to explain your angle on this to me.

    If you don't see it, no body can explain it to you. Read enough DiLorenzo and and eventually you might realize the smarminess of people who turn the supposed rights of slaveowners into a moral cause.

    Mostly I get opprobrium instead of admiration, so there isn't much "reward" to be had for this sort of virtue signalling, which defeats the entire purpose of virtue signaling (to be thought better of by everyone else) as I understand the term. :)

    Virtue signalling isn't about making people think better of oneself. It's about making a public display that makes one think better of one's self.

    That display is directed at a particular audience. If one isn't a part of that audience, one doesn't think better of the person doing the signalling.

    Most of the people who respond to your posts don't think better of you, but what you post clearly makes you think better of yourself.

  • What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

    04/20/2018 2:07:54 PM PDT · 297 of 434
    x to DiogenesLamp; DoodleDawg
    I think the South was violating the rights of man by forcing people to work against their will, and I think the North violated the rights of man by subjugating an unwilling populace.

    We "subjugated unwilling populaces" when we defeated Germany and Japan. That didn't make it wrong.

    The South's motives were plainly greed, but the North's motives have been deliberately disguised as some false moral crusade.

    The secessionists motives have been deliberately disguised as some false libertarian crusade. And that goes on until today.

    There certainly was a moral element in the US's going to war. That can't be minimized or ignored -- however much crackpot Marxism you apply.

    The North's crusade spilled a very great amount of blood. The South's practice created human misery, and no doubt spilled some blood, but not on the same scale as did the North.

    Who started the war, anyway? Who fired first? Who is to say that the war was all the fault of the US? And who is to say that it was worse than slavery?

    Secessionists went to war -- they said, among other reasons -- because they didn't want to become slaves of Northerners. They were wrong about what was in the cards, but doesn't that prove that slavery was worse than war?

    Slavery was eventually going to die of natural causes, but the remnants of the North's war on the South, and the precedents it established, have lingered much longer than slavery ever would have.

    Slavery could have gone on for another 50 or 75 years. Segregation went on for another century. Northern economic domination lasted about 110 or 120 years.

    That economic domination wasn't all the doing of the Yankees, but it looks like in terms of duration, though perhaps not of severity or injustice, the two were about equal.

  • Andrew Cuomo Is Confused

    04/20/2018 1:52:35 PM PDT · 13 of 19
    x to Kaslin
    Andrew thought marriage would make him a Kennedy.

    That didn't work out for him.

    Neither did the marriage.

  • What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

    04/20/2018 1:19:29 PM PDT · 293 of 434
    x to DiogenesLamp; BroJoeK
    No, it's about the money. It's always about the money.

    Diogenes regards himself as an exception, so no, it must be that it's not all about the money.

  • What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

    04/20/2018 1:17:22 PM PDT · 292 of 434
    x to DiogenesLamp; SoCal Pubbie; BroJoeK; rockrr
    In other words “buying votes.” Why? To get into power. Why do they want power? To Enrich themselves. See where this is going?

    Where this is going is to say that everybody in politics is only in it for the money. That's dubious to begin with, but how one gets back from such cynicism to any kind of morality is hard to say. I suspect your answer is that you are moral about everything - the world's moral yardstick, the one exception to all the world's materialism and opportunism. Like here:

    I think you might very well be surprised. I don't like to talk about anything in my own personal life because information can provide your enemies with an advantage, but I grew up being taught that all this "stuff" is transitory, and in the larger scheme of things, meaningless.

    I don't value "rich" things. I can afford "nice" stuff, I just don't care about it. If I had their wealth, I would probably try to wreck the existing media system, because I see it as the most dangerous force facing us.

    Yeah. Everybody else is mercenary and materialistic, and you are the only exception. Yet another contradiction in your posts and world view. If it's all about money or power or position with other people, it's likely that the same is true with you.

    Harbor cities don't get rich by growing corn. They get rich by facilitating trade. Other industries follow, but it is the trade activity that gains them their initial capital.

    First, is that wrong? Is taking advantage of a good harbor immoral? Is New Orleans benefiting from being on the continent's biggest river system an unfair advantage? And really, what would early America's tobacco and cotton production have been with climate and the advantages of the Chesapeake Bay and the Mississippi River?

    Second, contrary to what people now think, New York was long a major industrial center -- right up until the time the country as a whole started deindustrialization. Plenty of people in 19th and early 20th century Brooklyn worked in factories, workshops, machine shops, and shipyards. And New York City financed factories upstate and in the neighboring states.

    So by the mid-19th century it wasn't all about trade and finance or all about cotton. A large population meant that New York was incredibly productive economically. New York's experience with shipping and commerce attracted industries and dealing with factories, workshops, and retailers improved the financial acumen of the city's bankers and merchants.

    So far as i'm concerned, it is a pointless effort to dramatize the entire focus so that someone can once more beat the drum of virtue signaling; So that someone can once more regurgitate the propagandized position that has been taught to all of us as we were growing up;

    So that they can once more focus the spotlight on something they regard as emotionally satisfying, but which does not actually fit the facts, though people are intent on ignoring that bit of inconvenience.

    "Virtue signalling" is this year's buzz word, I guess. You can throw it about so liberally, that you don't notice the "virtue signalling," the pompous and phony moralizing, in your own posts and in every rant about the evil Republicans and big city people. What is a lot of the neo-confederate stuff but virtue signalling writ large?

  • What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

    04/19/2018 5:34:44 PM PDT · 283 of 434
    x to DiogenesLamp; SoCal Pubbie
    Did we come to a conclusion about whether or not "trade" was the life-blood of New York?

    I think we decided that was a trick question.

    Did we ever come to a conclusion about the other question, the one Pubbie has been trying to get you to answer?

  • April 19 in Military History: the Shot Heard Round the World and the first flight of the Intruder

    04/19/2018 5:32:55 PM PDT · 23 of 62
    x to DiogenesLamp
    They are not intent on deficit spending. They are intent on spending. They set up programs to win votes. If they could collect more taxes to pay for them they would, but they can't, so they don't.

    It's been that way for some time. Didn't you know? The nominal beneficiaries change, but the program hasn't changed since Roosevelt. Once upon a time it was Southern Whites the Democrats appealed to. Now it isn't.

  • April 19 in Military History: the Shot Heard Round the World and the first flight of the Intruder

    04/19/2018 4:48:12 PM PDT · 21 of 62
    x to DiogenesLamp
    . I saw another clue in 1995 where every talking head on the media came out against balancing the Federal budget. I couldn't understand why any rational person would be against balancing the Federal budget by cutting spending.

    Were you really that naive? They were Democrats. Democrats don't want to cut spending. Did you not know that?

  • April 19 in Military History: the Shot Heard Round the World and the first flight of the Intruder

    04/19/2018 4:45:36 PM PDT · 20 of 62
    x to DiogenesLamp
    The "elite" society of this nation is in that Washington/New York/Boston corridor. They are our aristocracy.

    If you were around 50 or 100 years ago, you'd realize how absurd it is to make that statement today. The country has changed utterly from the days of the Vanderbilts, Astors, and Whitneys and their cotillions.

    We don't have an "aristocracy" any more. We have elites, but you can find them in cities all across the country. Rich people tend to go back East for education, but I doubt any sane person would say that New York is anywhere near as powerful or as influential as it was 50 or 100 years ago.

    I'm not saying that the country is egalitarian, but it's no longer like 60 families run the whole thing anymore or like every decision has to go through JP Morgan nowadays.

  • What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

    04/19/2018 4:31:40 PM PDT · 281 of 434
    x to DiogenesLamp
    But I have learned that Nazi style "crony capitalism" is also a threat to liberty.

    So now it's about Nazis? A sure sign you're losing it.

    For better or for worse, we have big businesses in America, but those aren't all concentrated in one city or one part of the country.

    Nor were they really in 1860. One city was bigger than the others, but it wasn't government edicts that made it large or profitable.

    Government action -- splitting up the country -- wouldn't suddenly achieve your goal of "social justice."

    When influence becomes so large that it can set government policy, it has become a threat to the rest of the nation.

    Slavery wasn't an interest so large that it could set government policy?

    Land hunger wasn't an interest so large that it set government policy in Jackson's day?

    It's not just "special interests" in faraway New York that can be dangerous.

    P.S. Your ideas really aren't that interesting. People just respond to you because you're always posting some nonsense or other.

  • April 19 in Military History: the Shot Heard Round the World and the first flight of the Intruder

    04/19/2018 4:18:19 PM PDT · 14 of 62
    x to DiogenesLamp; rockrr; DoodleDawg
    The more I look at what's going on in the Country, the more I realize that the Washington "establishment" basically reflects the positions of the Washington/New York/Boston corridor.

    Blah, blah, blah. That has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

    The nation is more or less governed by what those people believe are in their best interest, and one of the main reasons this occurs is because they own the Media/Industrial complex, and use it to disseminate propaganda that they think is beneficial to their acquisition of wealth and power.

    This is a capitalist country. Old money and established corporations have their say. But money is more spread around the country than it was in 1950, 1900, or 1850. The things you object to Washington have more of a base in the country as a whole -- certainly in the urban/suburban parts of the country -- than you think.

    It's quite insulting to think that the Waltons or Buffets or Huntsmans or Gateses of the country are just tails to some New York Establishment. Whatever they are and for good or ill, they have real power in the country.

    Of course they aren't going to make some radical break with the ways of wealthy people elsewhere in the country. They aren't going to take to wearing buckskin clothing, riding mules, spinning their own thread and churning their own butter. But what you think of as New York or the Northeast Corridor is just the way privileged people in all parts of the country think and behave. If you had their money, you'd be like them, wherever you live.

  • What Should a First-Time Visitor to America Read?

    04/19/2018 4:07:11 PM PDT · 276 of 434
    x to DiogenesLamp; rockrr; BroJoeK
    New York has an excellent natural harbor. New Yorkers had the foresight to build a canal route to the interior, and later an extensive rail network. It had a large population in the city and surrounding area. And people there took an interest in trade, technology and manufacturing and acquired an expertise at those things.

    That's a great set of natural and acquired advantages. As a socialist, you naturally resent the city's success and view it all as illegitimate. You'd rather shake things up and you assume that somebody else would come up on top once you've displaced those who were successful, but it wouldn't work. New York businessmen were good at what they did, good enough for wealthy people in other parts of the country to entrust them with their money.

    No other avenue of redress was available to them. Offering them protection for slavery would do nothing about the money drain from the South to the North. It's why they didn't care about the Corwin Amendment. It wouldn't address their real complaint.

    I assume you are talking about cotton planters here, though you don't make that clear. There was no "money drain." Plantation owners used money to buy things they wanted or needed that were produced elsewhere. They also clearly found it convenient to keep sums with bankers in New Orleans or Charleston or New York or London and to work with brokers and factors in those cities.

    The whole cotton business was illegitimate or immoral by today's standards but there was nothing illegitimate in planters wanting to do business with those who lived outside the cotton-growing regions. They weren't obligated to do for themselves what others had more experience doing. And yet you find the fact that some areas specialize in agriculture and others in commerce an affront to your socialist sensibilities.