ADVERTISEMENT

Is there any mechanism whereby we can discuss the intersection of politics/current events and sports

So, you think this is what is going on with the protestors around the country? I was surprised that the union lost their membership during this time and never got it back for many years.
There are certainly some correlations with the specifics of some of the actions. I really just brought it up though as another example of a period where rioting and looting occurred. It is interesting that the Unions lost members after this but what they were fighting for ultimately worked out through the attention the battle brought to the coal industry and how it operated.
 
I would invite you Republicans and Democrats to take a look at our Libertarian Party. For Republicans we have smaller government, fair taxes, business deregulation, the end of social welfare programs and free trade. For you Democrats we have open borders (but no welfare), unlimited abortions (but you have to pay for it), legal drugs and free trade. For all of you we have free speech.
Wow. Don't agree with a lot of that, but overall better than the shitshow the two main parties have been presenting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClowneyPosse
There was a lot going on around that but it was three primary issues:

1) Working conditions as West Virginia was leading the nation in mine related deaths
2) Wages and living conditions. The coal camps ensured there was no livable wage or way out for the miners and the operators were actively trying to shut down any attempts to form a union by force
3) Corrupt and enabling politicians
A good study of the evolution of a democracy. They had legitimate issues and a completely different landscape. Income taxes,for example,didn’t exist until 1913. Big business was in the driver’s seat. Very few laws or oversight. These were things that had to be sorted out
 
A good study of the evolution of a democracy. They had legitimate issues and a completely different landscape. Income taxes,for example,didn’t exist until 1913. Big business was in the driver’s seat. Very few laws or oversight. These were things that had to be sorted out
We have a representative republic, not a democracy.
 
No, the nots are supposed to work to become the haves. Looting and rioting never solved anything.

But again I keep forgetting that I am having discussions with people who simply cannot interpret. By "haves" and "have nots", I am referring to equal rights and justice under the law. So again, please explain how US citizens are supposed to "work" towards getting equitable representation under the law? I am all ears.....
 
The Have-Nots get no support? I was under the impression that's what government assistance is. Welfare, EBT, Section 8 Housing Allowance, etc. Those who believe the government will save them from poverty are caught in a trap.

There are no shortcuts to prosperity. A free K-12 education is there for the taking, but it has to be taken. With the education comes a much greater chance at bettering your economic situation.

When conservatives protested peacefully at their state legislatures for the right to go back to work the MSM treated them as selfish or alt-right and a danger to society. But the MSM treat looters and rioters as peaceful protesters.

And another southern white conservative nestled deep into the warmth of privilege built over 240+ years, that totally whiffs on what I am talking about in the post he quoted.....
 
We have a representative republic, not a democracy.

Semantics. We have both. The proper description is not representative republic, but constitutional republic, but it is also called a representative democracy. It is all word soup meaning in essence the same thing....

The United States government is a form of Republic government where governmental matters are matters of the public - its body of citizens - as opposed to being private matters of a monarchy, or dictatorship, where the majority of the citizens have little to no say in how their nation is governed. In the U.S., our form of government is one which elected individuals represent the citizenship.

A Democracy is a form of government where the citizens being governed have the authority to choose their governing legislation. This is done through a democratic process of election, where a majority rule is employed in the voting process. Who the citizens are and how powers are shared among them are typically laid out in a "Constitution". Which we - it so happens to be the case - by coincidence happen to have one of those.

A Representative Democracy is also called an In-Direct Democracy. There is also the form of government of Direct Democracy or Pure Democracy - this involves a Democracy in which a nation's people decide it's policy initiatives directly - sort of each citizen basically being co-equal governors on a daily basis. So all policy and legislation passed by this government is not voted on by a legislative body of Representatives, but is literally voted on every time by its common citizens.

So technically, a Republic form of government could be a government ruled not by the entirety or majority of its people, but also not by one person or one head of state, but rather by a smaller group of people distinguished by nobility, wealth, political, religious, or military standing. This is called an Oligarchy. Examples of such a republic form of government are the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy.

So, a Democracy IS a Republic form of government. It defines just HOW that Republic Government (of the people) goes about establishing its government of itself, which is through a democratic process.

So to correct your above statement - the United States is a Republic form of government, where its government is a Representative Democracy.....
 
Nice way to say nothing. But there still are no shortcuts to prosperity. Education and work.

According to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Citizen's rights are unalienable, and therefore cannot be revoked or withheld pending the achievement of some condition or requirement. This also means that they are not required to be "earned" by education or work. You do not know what it is that you are talking about. Therefore what you say, is worse than nothing.....
 
According to the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Citizen's rights are unalienable, and therefore cannot be revoked or withheld pending the achievement of some condition or requirement. This also means that they are not required to be "earned" by education or work. You do not know what it is that you are talking about. Therefore what you say, is worse than nothing.....
Prosperity is not a right. I responded specifically to your comments excusing or explaining bad behavior on the basis of being a Have or Have Not. My father began his life as one of 7 children on a farm as a Have Not. He worked like a mule. He got off the farm at 18 and worked in a manufacturing plant and thus improved his economic status. Therefore I began life in a better position than many. This same opportunity is there for many people in the lower economic rung of society. But they must work to achieve it. The people they vote for aren't going to tell them this.
 
I got just as much right to accuse you of racial epithets as you have of accusing me of childish name calling. You don't like it, then try something different...

Except you actually take part on childish name calling. Can you point to me calling you a racial epithets?

I guess you just realized you weren't even replying to the right poster, and this is your way of blustering your way out without admitting it.
 
I’m pretty sure 95% of the people and Washington and especially those in and around the White House would disagree with that notion.
That is part and parcel of the problem here. No elected official is going to tell constituents they're doing life wrong. Coming from the lower rungs of society, your only path to prosperity is to go get it. I know a plumber and two HVAC company owners swimming in money that they worked hard and still work hard for. They didn't start out as owners of companies. They say they can't even find enough employees to pass drug screening.
 
Prosperity is not a right. I responded specifically to your comments excusing or explaining bad behavior on the basis of being a Have or Have Not. My father began his life as one of 7 children on a farm as a Have Not. He worked like a mule. He got off the farm at 18 and worked in a manufacturing plant and thus improved his economic status. Therefore I began life in a better position than many. This same opportunity is there for many people in the lower economic rung of society. But they must work to achieve it. The people they vote for aren't going to tell them this.

Amen, Brother. You are spot on !!
thumbs-up-sign_1f44d.png
 
Except you actually take part on childish name calling. Can you point to me calling you a racial epithets?

I guess you just realized you weren't even replying to the right poster, and this is your way of blustering your way out without admitting it.
I want to know what privilege have we had that wasn't open to everyone in the US? I personally came from a poor family that worked in textiles and I personally as a youngster worked in the fields. Through jobs, I worked my way through a decent job and improved my life by my own means. I'd like to know if Conway worked in the fields when he was young.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captain Weegie
That is part and parcel of the problem here. No elected official is going to tell constituents they're doing life wrong. Coming from the lower rungs of society, your only path to prosperity is to go get it. I know a plumber and two HVAC company owners swimming in money that they worked hard and still work hard for. They didn't start out as owners of companies. They say they can't even find enough employees to pass drug screening.
They can’t because very few of them have any experience with actually working and building themselves. The vast majority of them think they are somehow responsible for the work their family did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClowneyPosse
They can’t because very few of them have any experience with actually working and building themselves. The vast majority of them think they are somehow responsible for the work their family did.
And a good many of them are lawyers. For many of them, not all or even a majority, the profession can be a license to steal. And politics at the highest level is where the biggest theft happens.
 
I don’t think discussion is possible. For example,

I caught this today. former AG Jeff Sessions (and current Republican Alabama Senate candidate) referred to an incident that occurred under OBama. Sessions said Obama had a beer summit with “some criminal.” my reaction was- “huh”?

Sessions was referring to the incident where Harvard Professor Henry Gates returned to his own house from a trip to China. His door was jammed and he had his driver help him get into his house. (This exact thing use to happen to my grandmother because she repeatedly locked her door with her keys inside her house when she got older). A passerby called police and Gates was arrested while standing in what was obviously his own house.

Gates wasn’t a “criminal.” Sessions also said that Obama “wasn’t having a beer with police officers.” But in Fact, Obama had invited the arresting police officer to the White House to have a beer with him and Gates along with Joe Biden.

so Jeff Sessions just lied about what happened. His supporters will believe him and that’s how the truth gets twisted in politics.

The Sessions Campaign had no comment when asked to respond to the inaccuracies.

https://apple.news/AApVKopulR8yf2A6MLl3y1A
 
I don’t think discussion is possible. For example,

I caught this today. former AG Jeff Sessions (and current Republican Alabama Senate candidate) referred to an incident that occurred under OBama. Sessions said Obama had a beer summit with “some criminal.” my reaction was- “huh”?

Sessions was referring to the incident where Harvard Professor Henry Gates returned to his own house from a trip to China. His door was jammed and he had his driver help him get into his house. (This exact thing use to happen to my grandmother because she repeatedly locked her door with her keys inside her house when she got older). A passerby called police and Gates was arrested while standing in what was obviously his own house.

Gates wasn’t a “criminal.” Sessions also said that Obama “wasn’t having a beer with police officers.” But in Fact, Obama had invited the arresting police officer to the White House to have a beer with him and Gates along with Joe Biden.

so Jeff Sessions just lied about what happened. His supporters will believe him and that’s how the truth gets twisted in politics.

The Sessions Campaign had no comment when asked to respond to the inaccuracies.

https://apple.news/AApVKopulR8yf2A6MLl3y1A
Yeah and a day after Tucker Carlson says that he’s guilty of providing junk food news by not addressing real news and instead providing pandering base stories he follows up by stating hospitals releasing capacity numbers is a scare tactic because they aren’t discussing how many people are in for non Covid reasons. The main issue is they were specifically talking about Texas which has been releasing the Covid numbers. Of course regardless it really is irrelevant if a hospital is 90% full that only 31% is Covid related. There is still a finite number of beds so it’s an issue regardless of why they are in there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClowneyPosse
...This is what Karl Marx was talking about.

Yeah, good ol' Karl Marx!! The following is pretty much his entire theory in a NUT-shell...

According to Marx’s theory of historical materialism, societies pass through six stages — primitive communism, slave society, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and finally global, stateless communism.

By all means feel free to re-twerk your thoughts of good ol' Karl Marks!!


https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/karl-marx-in-five-c
 
Hey, Con men like trump couldn't exist without people to con. Funny as hell to hear all this talk about unproven corruption that will never amount to anything while at the same time buying hook, line, & sinker every lie that the guy who swindled his fellow citizens out of their cash with a fake university happens to tell that day. The same crime family who was ordered to shutdown a supposedly nonprofit foundation for using it like "their personal piggy bank". But yeah, everyone's corrupt except the guy who's already proven to be corrupt.
Trump been in office 4 years
. Sleepy joe been in office 47 years. Now you tell me who is corrupt
 
Trump been in office 4 years
. Sleepy joe been in office 47 years. Now you tell me who is corrupt
Both of them are corrupt. Trump set up a fake university to scam millions of people. His pushers coerced people out of their life savings. You should read the lawsuit and see these peoples story. Then there's the sham known as the Trump Foundation.
 
Both of them are corrupt. Trump set up a fake university to scam millions of people. His pushers coerced people out of their life savings. You should read the lawsuit and see these peoples story. Then there's the sham known as the Trump Foundation.
You ever gonna change your story? Bad man Trump is the devil and the Dems are perfect socialists. All we have to do is be like CHOP. It doesn't require a reflame by you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: importcock
You ever gonna change your story? Bad man Trump is the devil and the Dems are perfect socialists. All we have to do is be like CHOP. It doesn't require a reflame by you.
Clearly you missed the part of my post that says BOTH OF THEM ARE CORRUPT.

Your shtick is long overdue for an update.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rollerdude123
Semantics. We have both. The proper description is not representative republic, but constitutional republic, but it is also called a representative democracy. It is all word soup meaning in essence the same thing....

The United States government is a form of Republic government where governmental matters are matters of the public - its body of citizens - as opposed to being private matters of a monarchy, or dictatorship, where the majority of the citizens have little to no say in how their nation is governed. In the U.S., our form of government is one which elected individuals represent the citizenship.

A Democracy is a form of government where the citizens being governed have the authority to choose their governing legislation. This is done through a democratic process of election, where a majority rule is employed in the voting process. Who the citizens are and how powers are shared among them are typically laid out in a "Constitution". Which we - it so happens to be the case - by coincidence happen to have one of those.

A Representative Democracy is also called an In-Direct Democracy. There is also the form of government of Direct Democracy or Pure Democracy - this involves a Democracy in which a nation's people decide it's policy initiatives directly - sort of each citizen basically being co-equal governors on a daily basis. So all policy and legislation passed by this government is not voted on by a legislative body of Representatives, but is literally voted on every time by its common citizens.

So technically, a Republic form of government could be a government ruled not by the entirety or majority of its people, but also not by one person or one head of state, but rather by a smaller group of people distinguished by nobility, wealth, political, religious, or military standing. This is called an Oligarchy. Examples of such a republic form of government are the Roman Republic and the Athenian Democracy.

So, a Democracy IS a Republic form of government. It defines just HOW that Republic Government (of the people) goes about establishing its government of itself, which is through a democratic process.

So to correct your above statement - the United States is a Republic form of government, where its government is a Representative Democracy.....
My understanding is that a Republic is a nation by which laws apply to everyone. We're doing better at reaching that goal than we used to, but we still have a long way to go.
 
Plenty of people today inherit their wealth. Most of them are white.

But, do most whites inherit wealth?
And by that, I'm talking about enough wealth to be considered well off?

I haven't. Neither did my parents, or theirs, or anyone else in our family. Neither do most of the white folks I know.

I certainly agree there are differences in opportunity and there's no such thing as a level playing field, but I believe they're based on economic class rather than race. Those born with money have a head start in life.

That said, I also believe the opportunity is there for people to better themselves, regardless of race. It's there through athletics, through the military, through education, through talent.
 
But, do most whites inherit wealth?
And by that, I'm talking about enough wealth to be considered well off?

I haven't. Neither did my parents, or theirs, or anyone else in our family. Neither do most of the white folks I know.

I certainly agree there are differences in opportunity and there's no such thing as a level playing field, but I believe they're based on economic class rather than race. Those born with money have a head start in life.

That said, I also believe the opportunity is there for people to better themselves, regardless of race. It's there through athletics, through the military, through education, through talent.
Well stated. In no other country is there a better opportunity to make a better life than the US. Why else are people wanting to live here more than any other country?
 
But again I keep forgetting that I am having discussions with people who simply cannot interpret. By "haves" and "have nots", I am referring to equal rights and justice under the law. So again, please explain how US citizens are supposed to "work" towards getting equitable representation under the law? I am all ears.....
I think it will be a couple of hundred years before that happens. You have to remember we still got people alive who fought against Segregation.
 
My understanding is that a Republic is a nation by which laws apply to everyone. We're doing better at reaching that goal than we used to, but we still have a long way to go.

In truth there are many varying types of republic forms of government, and many varying types of democratic forms of government. The first typically has to do with who or what will decide the government of a nation, and the second has to do with how they decide the government of a nation.

By the definition of the terms, a republic is essentially the opposite of a monarchy:

"a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."

A "body of citizens", as opposed to a singular head of state like a king or queen (monarchy), a citizen dictatorship, or a military dictatorship. There is also Stratocracy form of government, which isn't necessarily a military strongman who has taken over rule as a dictator, but a military form of government where the military and state are one and the same.

But "a body of citizens" also doesn't automatically mean a body of ALL citizens. A Plutocracy (rule by the wealthy class of citizens) is a form of a republican government. An Aristocracy (rule by the noble class or by nobility) shares similarities with a monarchy, but where there is no single royal head of state, but a class of elite privileged individuals that claims a higher title by birth than the rest of society. There's also the Meritocracy form of republic government, a system of governance where groups are selected on the basis of people's ability, knowledge in a given area, and contributions to society

All these forms of republican government where privileged few groups of citizens are given rule over the majority, are forms of Oligarchy republican government, and typically tend to not be fair and equitable for all peoples within the governance. But these are ALL republic forms of government.

The United States' form of republic government, is known as In-Direct Democracy, or Representative Democracy. Democracy means "a government by the people - generally meaning the majority of the people - and government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections".

Typically democracies tend to come along with a user manual, so to speak - an official document that describes what and how much power the people shall have in their rule, and how that power shall be shared amongst the people. Typically those documents are called "Constitutions".

So the best way to describe the United States' form of government, is as a Republic form of government via Representative Democracy. And that pretty much hits the nail on the head....
 
I think it will be a couple of hundred years before that happens. You have to remember we still got people alive who fought against Segregation.
We now have college leftists resegregating themselves, demanding white-free zones. So in a hundred years what can we expect?
 
Last edited:
But again I keep forgetting that I am having discussions with people who simply cannot interpret. By "haves" and "have nots", I am referring to equal rights and justice under the law. So again, please explain how US citizens are supposed to "work" towards getting equitable representation under the law? I am all ears.....
What you can't comprehend is there will always be favoritism in any society given to the haves. This is human nature and there is nothing you can or will do to ever change it.

I guess you think world peace is going to happen real soon too. :)
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT