| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Oh please! Where have I said I want to make all rich people poor? You are not listening to what I am saying you are merely responding to arguements you feel comfortable with...not mine. Quote: Once again, this is not what I am saying at all. Quote: Your doing it again. Try rereading my post without making prior value judgements. Quote: X= money taken in wages etc by upper level management Y= Wages put aside to pay lower level staff. Z= Total money available to pay wages i.e X + Y Obviously the higher X is the lower Y will be. Quote: So what happens if everyone gets a degree in aeronautics? Who is going to flip your burgers for you then? To say that everyone can reach the same level of achievment is yet another flaw in this utopian fantasy..even if people could, burgers still need to be flipped and rubbish needs to be disposed of etc. You would just have over qualified people doing it. Quote: Are you labouring under the illusion that free markets actually exist? Quote: There was actually a specific vote on the issue of slavery? I was unaware of this. Perhaps you could point me to a source for your claim? Quote: Extra Extra read all about it The economic system is not a universal law. It can be changed, it can be made fairer. Quote: Read this slowly....What I am saying is that one vote every four years does not constitute democracy to my mind. We have the ability now to let people vote on a multitude of issues. Not just in some ridiculous popularity contest once every four years. Is that so hard for you to understand? You see the problem is you are looking at money as some kind of score that keeps track of your achievements in life and bolsters your ego. I see money as a potential means of facilitating a better society for the majority. If you took all the wealth in the US and divided it equally everyone would be a millionaire. That is how pointless money is. What is to stop people still achieving and working hard in their lives? Why is money the only satisfactory reward? Im not suggesting we simply divide all wealth equally but surely we should be trying to move towards equality rather than simply allowing small minorities to control the vast majority of wealth. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
You seem to miss a very obvious choice. Instead of me working for McDonalds, I have chosen to work for McDonald Douglas, due to my degrees in aeronautics.
really? you work for McDonald Douglas?
| |||||||
|
illusion ![]() Registered: 04/18/02 Posts: 3,040 Loc: there |
| ||||||
|
Incorrect. You are confusing Capitalism with Anarchy. Intellectual property laws are not only permitted by a free market, they are required by a free market.
um. this is patently false. a true free market would not respect the concept of intellectual property. I think you already know why this is. it's been hinted at earlier. besides, you completely contradict yourself later when you say: Nope. How does the fact that there are no free markets (except of course the ubiquitous black markets endemic to all societies) support your claim that people's economic freedom must be restricted? so now, the only free markets in the world are the ubiquitous black markets endemic to all societies? so I guess all these black markets have intellectual property laws right? since "Intellectual property laws are not only permitted by a free market, they are required by a free market"?
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
GazzBut writes:
No Pinky. I answer your questions and you ignore the answers. That is how our discussions go. Incorrect. Your responses are not answers to the questions I ask. You cannot simplify these situations down to individuals because that is not how the world works. Incorrect. That is exactly how the real world works. One JK Rowling or Bill Gates is not directly affecting me. Then you must logically agree that J K Rowling and Bill Gates should be allowed to acquire as many belongings as they possibly can provided they do so through voluntary transactions. And if those two are allowed this freedom, then who else may logically be denied the same freedom? However, groups of overpaid individuals certainly do have a bearing on me. Of course. I do not argue that the actions of people do not change situations. However, the specific action of people (or even groups of people) acquiring stuff through peaceful, non-coercive, voluntary exchanges does not impinge upon your (or anyone else's or any other group's) RIGHTS and FREEDOMS. For instance, it is bonus time at the company I work for at the moment (Yipee!) If the MDs of my company werent taking obscene paypackets I may well see a considerable improvement in the bonus I get. And you may not. The board of directors may instead to reinvest in expanding the company, or paying down debt ahead of time, or issuing a larger dividend to the shareholders, or hiring more staff. If it is your estimation that the MDs are overpaid, you are free at any time to offer to take their place at a lower salary. The owners of the company, being greedy capitalists, would jump at such a chance to put more money in their pockets, no? As for your bonus, did the employment contract you voluntarily signed when you accepted employment with them specify the size of your bonus? If so, and if the bonus you receive is less than what was specified, I suggest you sue your employer for breach of contract. Your example in no way shows a restriction or infringement of your freedom or your rights. If Bill Gates and Co werent so overpaid it wouldnt cost my company so much to buy all the neccesary licences they need which again could result in a small raise in the bonus I get. Bill would still be rich beyond my wildest dreams as would the directors of the multinational I work for. However, I might have a little bit more money in my pocket and might not need to get a credit card to go skiing next month. Your company is not required to buy even a single license from Bill Gates. They are free at any time to use a free operating system such as Linux or to switch over to Macs or to hire someone to write a new operating system. When it comes to that, your company is not even required to use computers at all. They are free to do their accounting and word processing using desk calculators and Selectric typewriters. Again, your example in no way shows a restriction or infringement of your freedom or your rights. No one is preventing you from offering your services to a company which doesn't buy Microsoft products. You have every right to make such an offer. If you are simply saying what actions does their wealth stop me taking then the answer is none. I can do what I like...I cant believe that is all you are getting at though as that is a very oversimplistic way of looking at things. Obviously I am pretty much free to do anything but with more money I would be able to do alot more. Well, DUH! Thank you for finally actually answering a question. Now it's time for a followup -- If the wealth they possess doesn't prevent you from taking any actions, by what rationale do you justify your position that people may not be allowed to accumulate as much wealth as they are able? I have also explained why I believe this sort of wealth should be distrbuted more evenly. I have no objection to people redistributing their wealth -- voluntarily. For example, the arch-fiend Bill Gates has given away over half his wealth. That's a bit more than $23 billion dollars. Besides, these people do not simply get into these positions by their own merit, there is a lot of luck and timing involved. And lucky people deserve to have force initiated against them? By what rationale do you justify this position? Who knows what other people were developing Operating systems that could have gone onto be much better than windows? It hardly takes a great deal of imagination to imagine a better o/s than windows after all. Irrelevant to the topic under discussion. If a large number of people are too dim to realize there are better operating systems available and voluntarily choose to purchase Windows instead, how does this violate anyone else's rights or freedoms? As for Rowling she has been lucky enough to capture the public imagination through some smart PR work and has made a fortune from her prose which is decidedly average. Irrelevant to the topic under discussion. If a large number of people are too dim to realize there are better books available and voluntarily choose to purchase hers instead, how does this violate anyone else's rights or freedoms? Your shortsightedness is laughable. You support the removal of the minimun wage which allows companies to hold a financial gun to peoples heads. You can kid yourself it is a voluntary agreement but it is fairly obvious coercion is involved when a choice between no pay and being paid a pittance is all that is on offer. Incorrect. Not only is it not "fairly obvious", it is not obvious at all. No coercion is involved whatsoever. Quote: Please explain to me exactly how a free market prevents the powerful for plundering the less powerful. Ive got to hear this! Sigh. Are you truly incapable of grasping how forbidding the initiation of force in interactions between humans prevents people -- any people, regardless of the level of power they have -- from having their belongings plundered? Once again, where have I ever failed to acknowledge an individuals rights? By insisting that people not be allowed to earn and keep whatever they are capable of. I also said "It is the similar actions of groups of individuals which impinges upon the freedoms of others. No one individual is to blame, it is the system which allows them to achieve unneccasary wealth which is to blame. " You are unable to grasp that if no individual in a group is infringing on the rights and freedoms of others, then it is impossible for the rights and freedoms of others to be infringed upon. ]Your whole philosophy seems to put the individual above any form of group structure which is clearly asinine. You haven't grasped that a group is nothing more than several individuals, regardless what "structure" that group may choose to organize itself. You ask for an example? I grow weary of you apparent inability to read the written word Mark and wonder if I am wasting my time continually restating what I have said to pander to your debating technique of trying to bash people into the ground with a whole range of inconsistent yet elegantly constructed rhetoric. And I am now firmly convinced I am wasting my time asking you to support your assertions. Clearly you lack the capability to do so. It is fairly obvious that I am putting forth the idea that groups of people hoarding extreme levels of wealth has a negative effect on the levels of wealth attainable by the average member of society. It is simple maths. But that's just it -- you are not putting forth an idea at all. You are making an assertion, and are unable to support it in any way whatsoever. I realize asking this again is futile, but I'll do it again anyway -- By what specific process does the acquisition of wealth by one individual or group of individuals prevent other individuals or groups of individuals from acting freely? How does it violate their rights? I shouldn't have to ask this again -- you have already admitted that "If you are simply saying what actions does their wealth stop me taking then the answer is none. I can do what I like..." It is simple maths. Maths only have validity in the real world if they are based on correct assumptions. You seem convinced that the acquisition of wealth is a zero-sum process -- that in order for some to gain stuff they must take stuff from others; that the amount of wealth is static. This is an incorrect assumption. Fantasy land again. I was talking about the real world. As was I. You yourself admit that no one's rights and freedoms are violated by the process I described. Quote: Once again this is pure fantasy. We get to choose every four years which minority group gets to make our decsions for us. The majority does not have a say in any of the decisions other than public opinion occasionally swaying a government. And public opinion is at best measuered in a vague and subjective fashion. You didn't ask for my comments on the structure of the political system in place in the US and the UK today. You asked me to define Democracy. I did. How the hell is slavery a good example of this? When were the majority of people consulted over whether slavery should be allowed or not? See enimatpyrt's comments on this. Yes but reward does not match effort in some neat little x=effort y=reward graph does it? In every single case? Nope. So what? Anyway I feel peoples ideas of morality and equal rights have generally evolved to a point where I would be far happier putting my trust in the majority to do the right thing than putting my trust in governments run by the likes of Bush and Blair. So you are far happier that the majority approves of drug prohibition? Okay then. A tiny, tiny minority compared to the 99.999% of people who have lived their entire lives within some form of group structure. I didn't say it was the norm. I said it was possible. So what you are actually saying is if everyone had the same drive and ability as Bill Gates we would all be living in big mansions? Dream on. I said no such thing. I said that Gates's exercising of his drive and ability in no way affects your possession (or lack) of the same, nor does it infringe upon your freedoms or your rights. Hardly force. I am simply saying that people should be required to put more back into the system which allows them to become so wealthy. If they dont want to...fine. And if they choose not to they will not be forced to? If that is what you are saying then we are in agreement. They can go an join all the hermits. And if they choose not to they will not be forced to? If that is what you are saying then we are in agreement. pinky
| |||||||
|
Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 17 days |
| ||||||
|
infidelGOD writes:
a true free market would not respect the concept of intellectual property. Excuse me for not defining my terms. By "free market" I refer to the exchange of one's property for another's property through voluntarily entered-into contracts. My unstated corollary is that these transactions occur in the context of a civilized political environment -- one where there is a government organ available charged with the protection of property rights. In other words, a Capitalist socio-economic model. so now, the only free markets in the world are the ubiquitous black markets endemic to all societies? so I guess all these black markets have intellectual property laws right? since "Intellectual property laws are not only permitted by a free market, they are required by a free market"? Good point. Since black markets have no mechanism protecting the participants from force or fraud, they are in reality not "free markets" but "anarchic markets". pinky
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
Quote: I liked some of what the article had to say but I have to put my foot down at your point. Freedom, true freedom, is freedom. That's really all there is to it. I also find it a waste of time arguing the point. Others may think differently. That is their "choice". Cheers, MM
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote: I think that a daily vote would be best! hows that? every day we'll elect a new president, who will have ofice for one day, just enough time fo rhim to not to be able to make any difference at all. how often are your local elections help there flapjack?More than 1x every four years? I thought so. Quote: "Money isn't everything, so give me more of it". That makes great sense. If you don't want to live in a society where "money" is what makes ya, go buy a farm and make your own food. You'd have all of your needs met from your own labor, or you wouldn't. Why is it that "equality" always is attained by hurting the people at the top, rather than encouraging everyone to get there via their own means? Nowhere in nature are things "equal", you get what you work for. Penalize the rich so that the poor can be rich? I think not. If money is so pointless, wouldn't making the poor people rich be giving credence and value to the money system? Maybe if people weren't so materialistic we wouldn't have the problem. Do you think that a person working at McDonalds from the day they dropped out of high school until the day they got food stamps for making so little money, and kept working there the day that they got reduced housing costs and send their children to a school that they tax dollars pay 1/10000000th of the cost of deserves to have "as much stuff" as a person who went to college, grad school and makes a difference in the world? The best thing about American Society is that, if you don't like it, we won't force you to stay, and we won't force you to participate. If you can do better somewhere else, or you can do better in a non-monetary system (such as growing your own food), go for it! You think it's fair that the rich get such massive taxes levied upon them? Do you think it's fair the gigantic tax (Short Term Capital Gain Tax) that people have to pay on any bonus that they get, or stock sales? I don't belive a nation has any obligation to force the highest wage earners to help the lowest wage earners, but if you do belive so, I don't think I could see how you would think that the amount of "freebies" given to the poor people would exceed food and a place to live? Nowhere in America's founding documents is anyone "entitled" to live the "good life", they are given the ability and the freedom to do so. -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Once again very slowly..... WE SHOULD GET TO VOTE ON ISSUES RATHER THAN PERSONALITIES. WE WONT BE VOTING A NEW PRESIDENT EVERY DAY, WE WILL BE DECIDING POLICY. Quote: Nice way to start your latest tirade. Sadly that is not what I said. Once again you are ignoring what I have said and are merely rephrasing it into terms which you feel comfortable with arguing against. Quote: I refer you to these questions which you have failed to answer: Quote: Quote: -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
And once again, slowly for you..... as I believe pinky asked... when the majority decides to reinstitute slavery?
Or torture? Or if the majority votes to make possesion of pot a mandatory life sentence? Or to ban music they don't like.... or books? What if they decide to euthanise those over 65 to save money on health care? -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: So what you are saying is that the decision of the majority cannot be trusted? However Pinky defines democracy as: that system of government by which decisions affecting all members of that society are made by majority vote. Those are his words, not mine. So what exactly are you saying? -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
|
Why did you fail to answer these questions?
when the majority decides to reinstitute slavery? Or torture? Or if the majority votes to make possesion of pot a mandatory life sentence? Or to ban music they don't like.... or books? What if they decide to euthanise those over 65 to save money on health care? -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: As I said earlier in this thread..this is the "what if the majority decides to drown puppies arguement?" It is fallacious, firstly because I really dont think the majority would decide to carry out any of the scenarios you suggest. Secondly, so what if they do? I thought you supported democracy as defined by Pinky. I.e "that system of government by which decisions affecting all members of that society are made by majority vote." My whole point is that we do not have a system of true democracy. We do not get to decide whether we should reinstitute slavery or make possesion of pot a mandatory life sentence. All we get is to choose representatives once every four years to MAKE THESE DECISIONS FOR US. Let me make this clearer for you, Answer this one question honestly: Do you agree with every decision the Bush government has made? I you answer yes then god have mercy on your soul. If you say no then surely you can see what I am getting at? -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote:I answer every question honestly. Some just either fail to grasp the answer or merely don't like it. I don't agree with everything any administration has done. Quote: And we should not. Given a choice between direct democracy and a constitutionally limited republic, I'll take the latter thank you. People are stupid for the most part. Most have no clue whats really going on. I have no wish to have a bunch of fools making decisions that will affect me. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: So you are putting your trust into the minority of people who find their way into political power and at the same time are suggesting that the majority of Americans are stupid? Firstly I would say, do you really think that every person who manouvers themselves into a position of politcal power does so to solely serve the American people? I think we all know the answer to that question! Secondly, I would highlight Noam Chomsky's observation that the average American, whilst not politically astute is deinitely not stupid. For instance, most would be able to tell you, in intricate detail, facts related to their favoured sport going back over decades. Just because the political arena does not provide the same level of interest, does not mean that peoples lack of knowledge of political matters is an indicator of stupidity. If we were to vote on issues rather than personalities you might find many peoples interest in politics suddenly rose. In turn, your average person might become much more politically astute. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Since you can say nothing positive about American freedoms, freedoms our country has had in her first 200 years, that your nation took generations to develop, let me ask you how YOU think it should be. I'd like you to describe a system where votes are taken more than every four years. This system must include the things that you railed Americas democratic system for NOT having. Each and every single issue must be decided by a vote. How will that be conducted? Wouldn't that leave thousands of possible items to be voted upon at the local, state and federal level by people? Wouldn't it be much better if each person picked the representative that most closely matched the specific qualifications they felt most sincere about? Quote: Do you think that it is possible for any one singular person to ever answer "yes" to that question if you remove the Bush and put in an "X" variable, in which "X" is any particular politician? I might like the majority of things that Bush, or Clinton, or Hitler, or whomever did, but to say that you like EVERY single decision borders on extremism. Find me a politican that you can say you've agreed to every single thing about... -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
Refraction Registered: 10/15/02 Posts: 4,773 Loc: London UK Last seen: 25 days, 14 hours |
| ||||||
Quote: Were you playing the national anthem as you wrote this? It really sounds like it! Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to where I talked about "American Freedoms". Im from the UK or your info and I think my points apply to all democracies, not just the good ole US OF A. Quote: Its really quite simple. For starters we would vote on major issues but I can envisage a time, where, using modern technology we vote on more and more issues. Quote: Using a mixture of standard methods and those made available by the net etc. Quote: Of course. I am not arrogant enough to pretend I know exactly how such a system would be applied. I am simply saying we should set our minds to finding a way in which the true wishes of the majority can be enacted. Why do you think that this is a bad thing? All I am suggesting is we move to a purer form of democracy. This is not a left/right idea. It is moving away from the whole left/right concept to a degree. Quote: This is my whole point. No politician can accurately represent the view of all the people who vote for them, which is why, to achieve pure democracy we must vote on issues rather than personalities. -------------------- Always Smi2le
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
|
In starship troopers ou have to have had military service in order to vote.. something to think about
-------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
|
Two inch dick..but it spins!? ![]() Registered: 11/29/01 Posts: 34,247 Loc: Lost In Space |
| ||||||
Quote: I wouldn't want that. Years ago you had to pay a poll tax to vote in some places. That sucked also. -------------------- You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
| |||||||
|
addict Registered: 11/05/03 Posts: 498 Last seen: 20 years, 28 days |
| ||||||
Quote: Did you type that really slow, because I'm such a slow reader? WHen you vote on a "personality", you are doing just that. If the single most important issue to me is, lets say, the death penalty, I'll vote for a candatite that believes the same about the death penalty that I do. If I elect said person and he happens to contradict another belief that I have, I have the ability to write him and state my position, to vote for another person, or to contact another member of the legislature and encourage them to support the ideals that I do. Quote: Do you or do you not think that the money from the rich should be given to the poor, without an increase in work done by the poor, and with no decrease in the amount of work being done by the rich? If so, you are showing your distate for the rich (by saying that the poor should work the same amount for more money and the rich should work the same amount forthe less money). By showing your distate for the rich, yet wanting everyone to be "more rich" (Except the already rich, which should be "more poor"), you are doing exactly what I stated. Punishing the rich to raise the poor up and make it "Equality". It's the same way with this "all races are equal" crap, they keep every kid as dumb as the slowest minority in the class, and, prety damn soon, all kids will be equally stupid. Why isn't equality (A condition that I do not beleive exists in nature) ever about the lesser group (in whatever condition) actually working harder? Why is it always about the highest performing group being told that they are naughty for performing so well, and that they must either stop performing so well, or spread their riches around? Quote: You are entirely correct. Not everyone CAN achieve the same level of whatever value you are trying to quantify here. Thus, wouldn't the person with college degrees be, once again, crippled in that their money would be given to the burger flipper to achieve your un-natural goal of "equality"? You are the person that is trying to reach this "utopian fantasy", not me. I think that the kid flipping burgers should be happy to be paid what he is getting, and if not, guess what, he can get another fucking job! If anyone is being "forced" to keep a job, it would be the person with a very specific degree! More variety of jobs are open to the entry-level, uneducated, manual laborer than to someone with specific degrees. Quote: I would be happy to do so. However, I don't see a reason for this. I'll post a link showing how the representatives of the time voted on slavery and the numerous votes that were taken about the issue, and you'd say "well, the blacks weren't polled, if they were, it would have been a fair election". I want your assurance that, when I post the links that I have, in fact, already found, you'll say "I apologize. Their was a vote for slavery done in accordance with the laws of the time. I might possibly disagree with the way that the laws worked at that time, but my statement that no vote took place regarding such matters was incorrect. Post that and i'll give you the links... or you can simply search google and historychannel.com for it as I did. -------------------- The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Pure Capitalism ( |
10,763 | 76 | 12/25/01 11:30 PM by Phred | ||
![]() |
monopolies... ( |
2,642 | 61 | 08/11/03 02:45 PM by Cornholio | ||
![]() |
Communist Anarchism | 987 | 6 | 05/05/04 03:55 AM by BleaK | ||
![]() |
God is an Anarchist. ( |
4,823 | 33 | 07/21/05 01:12 PM by rogue_pixie | ||
![]() |
The Reluctant Anarchist | 2,014 | 17 | 06/12/04 09:27 PM by RandalFlagg | ||
![]() |
America. the threat to its self... ( |
3,955 | 29 | 02/21/02 08:50 AM by Phred | ||
![]() |
You May Already Be An Anarchist. ( |
5,001 | 45 | 10/16/02 01:16 AM by zeronio | ||
![]() |
An Anarchistic Socialistic Democratic Society ( |
6,961 | 63 | 07/27/07 03:57 PM by Teotzlcoatl |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 10,832 topic views. 1 members, 6 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||




