100th Anniversary Of The Tulsa Race Massacre.

a reply to: andy06shake

Clear as day.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes that explains everything.........not.

But hey'ho have a nice night again, weans to feed as well as Tomato plants in tow now.

Its all go today. LoL

a reply to: Dfairlite

Slavery is slavery. Do you have no problem with the Chinese sending Christians to labor camps since their religion is technically against the law? Many slaves that were shipped to America from Africa were prisoners of tribal wars. Since these people were technically prisoners, does that now mean there was no problem with the practice of slavery in the US?

At the end of the day all you're doing is attempting to justify the fact that the US still practices slavery to this day through a system primarily championed by the Right.

The US is one of only a handful of countries that still practices punitive, penal labor. The others are countries like China and North Korea. If you have issues with the practice in those countries how can you defend its use in our own country?

a reply to: andy06shake

I guess you're right, so that begs the question: why are democrats creating such systemic oppression in the localities they've controlled for decades?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I don't have a problem with convicted criminals being forced to give back to society in a positive way through labor. My problem with China and North Korea is that they criminalize everything, they are absolutely brutal (to the point of death) to their prisoners, but not the actual punishment of being forced to work. You got something better to do? Don't be a criminal. But when the law becomes a tool to get free labor then it's a problem. Fortunately for us, less than 6% of inmates do forced labor outside of helping keep up the systems that feed, clothe, and house them.

That said, if there is a better way to reduce recidivism rates, I'm open to reforming things to gear them more towards that.

But the point, in context of what we are discussing here, is that slavery of buying and selling innocent people, or propping up a system that allows otherwise innocent people to be exploited by any unscrupulous person who is willing to do so, is morally reprehensible. Yet the dems have supported both. Some Republicans too, like old Mitt Romney.

It should be obvious to everyone that there's a big difference between being punished for a crime which you are convicted of and being forced into an underclass of which there is no real escape, for no real reason at all.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It should be obvious to everyone that there's a big difference between being punished for a crime which you are convicted of and being forced into an underclass of which there is no real escape, for no real reason at all.

You may want to do some research into the War on Drugs.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
Your lack of ability to make a coherent point does not make me a slavery apologist.

You arguing that conservative southerners were actually acting progressively in the Civil War Ear is absurdist at best.

a reply to: Dfairlite

I don't know about right mate, for the direction, or as to being correct in the entirety.

The whole entire right vs left ideology and mentality is part and parcel of the problem to some extent.

The world changes mate, so do your demographics as in my own nation, more people simply wish to feel that they are free or to be more precise equal.

Truth is its all illusory, but hey'how its one we require else its breast up in both our respective nations.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: andy06shake

I guess you're right, so that begs the question: why are democrats creating such systemic oppression in the localities they've controlled for decades?

That's just Qanon rightwing propaganda in hopes of baiting minorities to the GOP.

Over the years, the minorities have seen the Republican agenda. They don't trust the Republicans.
And with out the minorities and women, the GOP is SOL.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm simply applying your terms to the people of that era. My position is and was always that those terms don't apply to that era. At least not those terms as they stand today.

a reply to: olaru12

Uh no. The dems bribed the minorities to join them but they're now waking up. Trump increased his vote share among all minority groups. Women are not a minority, btw.

Also, how is it propaganda to point out that dem run cities are absolutely awful to minorities when compared to republican run cities of similar size?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

Slavery is slavery. Do you have no problem with the Chinese sending Christians to labor camps since their religion is technically against the law?

Might as well add Chinese being shipped here in containers that endure 20 years or more of indentured service, or sex trade until they are no longer profitable.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Oh I have, but even at it's worst the purpose of it was never to increase labor in prisons. At it's worst it was meant to criminalize hippies (let's be honest, that always should have been a crime... I kid of course) who were a bunch of anti-american communists.

But much like prohibition, the war on drugs is absurd. It needs to end yesterday.

a reply to: Dfairlite

My problem with China and North Korea is that they criminalize everything,

I think you(American justice) have more in common with them, than you would like to admit.

a reply to: vonclod

We are trending heavily in that direction. We already have their two tiered justice system and the dems are clawing at free speech, religion, assembly, and gun rights.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: vonclod

We are trending heavily in that direction. We already have their two tiered justice system and the dems are clawing at free speech, religion, assembly, and gun rights.

Since Nixon, you have been trending there, well before in some ways, ramping up now..maybe a bit. I can recall some threads over the years, illegal to collect rainwater, feed the homeless..etc A zillion other dumb laws you guy bend a knee to.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
I'm simply applying your terms to the people of that era. My position is and was always that those terms don't apply to that era. At least not those terms as they stand today.

That's because you're confusing a Progressive with progressive. One is a party member, which the Republicans eventually founded owing to their party not being progressive enough, the other is an ideology.

The Civil War Ear Democrats were conservative, that is not up for dispute.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: vonclod

We are trending heavily in that direction. We already have their two tiered justice system and the dems are clawing at free speech, religion, assembly, and gun rights.

Since Nixon, you have been trending there, well before in some ways, ramping up now..maybe a bit. I can recall some threads over the years, illegal to collect rainwater, feed the homeless..etc A zillion other dumb laws you guy bend a knee to.

I used to watch LA Law.

The US justice system is just good for the LOLS.

UK lawyer here. Apologies.

Obviously, I haven't told my Mum I'm a Solicitor. She thinks I play the piano in a brothel...

a reply to: vonclod

Yep. We've put up with way too much by saying "it's just..."

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

And they were democrats. Also not up for dispute.

And no, I'm not confusing the two. Neither existed at the time.