Go republicans! Let's restrict womens bodies again!

[Danzilla31]

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all WHITE men are created equal. THEY are endowed by THEIR creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happineSS.

Any interpretation of the constitution, and Declaration of Independence, outside of the historical context in which these documents were drafted, is the highest form of ignorance and deception.

I don't think anyone would disagree with you. Whites were in power. So yeah a beautiful sounding document was produced which whites made sure only benefited them. The race that was in power. But were not living in the past. You still haven't helped me understand how reversing Roe vs Wade was based on racism

Overturning Roe vs Wade mobilizes democratic voters women's and minorities to vote against the party trying to gain power. It actually in the long run works against racism by doing this. It just feels like anytime anyone asks for facts or a discussion with you its always what happened hundreds of years ago. Or its just Whitemansplaining. Okay got it.

I think the fact the majority of the other judges that voted to overturn Roe vs Wade were Catholic combined with conservatism had more to do with it. This looks more like a power struggle between the religious right and the majority of Americans who want religion kept out of it. That's just my take tho.

I think reversing Roe vs Wade is stupid. It will only hurt Conservatives in the long run. Not in the next few years with people struggling to find housing, food, gas, liveable wages, and dealing with inflation. But after this crises from the effects of the pandemic were in stabilizes and people have time to focus on other issues then survival? Yeah this will haunt conservatives in the long run.

That's just my take tho only time will tell if your take is right or my take is wrong on what's going down with Roe vs Wade

Just my take tho

 

[Old Onkyo]

I don't think anyone would disagree with you. Whites were in power. So yeah a beautiful sounding document was produced which whites made sure only benefited them. The race that was in power. But were not living in the past. You still haven't helped me understand how reversing Roe vs Wade was based on racism

Overturning Roe vs Wade mobilizes democratic voters women's and minorities to vote against the party trying to gain power. It actually in the long run works against racism by doing this. It just feels like anytime anyone asks for facts or a discussion with you its always what happened hundreds of years ago. Or its just Whitemansplaining. Okay got it.

I think the fact the majority of the other judges that voted to overturn Roe vs Wade were Catholic combined with conservatism had more to do with it. This looks more like a power struggle between the religious right and the majority of Americans who want religion kept out of it. That's just my take tho.

I think reversing Roe vs Wade is stupid. It will only hurt Conservatives in the long run. Not in the next few years with people struggling to find housing, food, gas, liveable wages, and dealing with inflation. But after this crises from the effects of the pandemic were in stabilizes and people have time to focus on other issues then survival? Yeah this will haunt conservatives in the long run.

That's just my take tho only time will tell if your take is right or my take is wrong on what's going down with Roe vs Wade

Just my take tho

my job is not to help you understand, I am not interested in being proven right. I respect your knowledge when it comes to AV equipment, but it is amazing how many white/ conservative/republican bent people are suddenly experts on race/ racism/ and are so gracious in helping black folk understand the error of our thinking….

so what do you think….BMR or Adrenal towers?

 

[Danzilla31]

my job is not to help you understand, I am not interested in being proven right. I respect your knowledge when it comes to AV equipment, but it is amazing how many white/ conservative/republican bent people are suddenly experts on race/ racism/ and are so gracious in helping black folk understand the error of our thinking….

so what do you think….BMR or Adrenal towers?

Ummmmmm if we want to combat racism in all its forms then isn't it everybody's job to help each other understand where the other person is coming from? Now I'm really confused

How is wanting to understand why the Roe vs Wade decision is based on racism telling you how to feel about your racial issues? And when I have ever told you in any post how you should feel? The irony is your telling me right now how I should think or feel. Your doing the very thing your accusing me of doing. But that's just the crazy world we live in right now.

So why do you constantly bait it by bringing up race in a lot of your posts? If you don't want dialogue from people that you feel have different viewpoints because according to you if they don't have the same skin color or political idealogies then they can't understand you then why post comments inviting conversation at all?

I mean you don't have to worry about me talking with you about this anymore. Because it seems like to me you don't want to dialogue. It just appears to me that you want to bring up the past and instigate with race baiting comments. Then fall back on the white conservative is telling a black man how to feel shtick.

You posted Roe vs Wade is a decision based on racism. You once asked me to prove a point with education and the liberal agenda by posting links. You said it was my argument my responsibility to prove my point. Which I did. I posted my links supporting my thoughts.

So I'm asking for the same thing. And not because I'm trying to prove you right or wrong. Because I genuinely want to learn from another human beings perspective. You posted it. So I'm asking you to prove it. You asserted Roe vs Wade is based on racism. I'm asking you respectfully to back up your statement with links and proof. I'm not doing this to be an ahole but simply because I want to learn.

If you don't want to do it you don't have to I'm not going to force you into a conversation you don't appear to want to have. Ive even asked you to PM me about this never heard anything back. Obviously you dont to dialogue about it. I respect that. If you or anyone else on this thread could just provide me with some links and I'll go do my own research I'm fine with that.

And yeah we can go back to talking about BMR vs Arendals. Arendals all day. BMR has beautiful neutrality and accuracy. But they are very low efficiency and require a lot of power for my listening levels and can't give me the output with clarity the Arendals would provide

 

[Old Onkyo]

I usually say what I say. I don’t say anything for argument sake, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Every now and then I interject into someone’s post out of frustration or imo to advance a thought that may not be considered. (All of this against my better judgement, and to some degree my health)

I don’t argue with you because: I don’t like to argue, although I made a career arguing, and
you have always been kind to me and generously shared insight here and in our private conversations.

 

[Danzilla31]

I usually say what I say. I don’t say anything for argument sake, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Every now and then I interject into someone’s post out of frustration or imo to advance a thought that may not be considered. (All of this against my better judgement, and to some degree my health)

I don’t argue with you because: I don’t like to argue, although I made a career arguing, and
you have always been kind to me and generously shared insight here and in our private conversations.

Working psychiatric nursing I can understand a career built on arguing. Mine consist a lot of convincing the 280 pound psychotic off his meds to not knock my block off after the cops bring him in on an ED.

So I understand not wanting to argue. Which I think is where we may not be understanding each other here. I genuinely meant what I said about trying to understand your point of view. I mean as you pointed out in a previous post I'm a man what do I know about what women feel about Roe vs Wade? I definitely should STFU lol.

I've had a lot of really cool discussions with women at work, at home, and who are my friends asking them how they feel as a woman about this decision on Roe vs Wade. And I learned a lot some of there feedback genuinely suprised me and I learned

So when a human being who has lived a different life then me says this is racist I'm really wanting to STFU and listen to why they feel that way. It's the psych nurse in me but on the steam vent I totally understand why you'd be expecting an argument so if I came across as argumentative or gave you that impression please allow me to apologize.

Yeah I'll totally drop it hopefully there is no hard feelings.

You need to answer your question though

Do you like BMR or Arendal towers more? I'm not letting up till I get an answer! And I want links and facts and proof damnit on why you feel that way!

 

[Dude#1279435]

Explainer: Can abortion pills overcome U.S. state bans?

Following the U.S. Supreme Court's June 24 ruling eliminating the nationwide right to abortion that it had recognized nearly 50 years ago in its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, demand for abortion pills, which can be prescribed through online telemedicine visits, will likely rise. However...

www.reuters.com

 

[Dude#1279435]

I will say though conservatives get themselves in a bind regarding state rights on confederate symbols. I'd describe it as 'people have a right to stupid', but conservatives don't describe it that way. Then they wonder why they're called racist.

Another is preserving some of these symbols as a reactionary to upholding tradition and the boogeyman 'the left are trying to erase our history!' When all it is wanting to take down these tacky status LOL. Plus the difference between pre and post-civil war era.

I think they're rather dumb on the matter.

 

[highfigh]

I don’t see any issue with people having to pay for use of the electrical grid.

If they're returning power to the grid by generating their own power, they're not using the grid unless their solar generation stops working.

Some people reported that their average bill was less than $10 and now, it's around $30. Most utilities have lowered the payment for excess power from customers who generate with Solar and now, they're using the Florida Public Service Commission to force people to pay more. Well, they already paid more, for being able to generate their own power. If they continue to do this, people will leave because most urban cities don't allow going completely off-grid and if they aren't on the grid, they shouldn't have to pay anything to maintain it. The utilities don't operate at a loss. Duke Energy, mentioned in the link, has made billions in net income for the last three years, but I didn't look further.

Florida solar customers, others shocked over new charge on electric bills

Some Duke Energy customers said they got a big shock when they opened their most recent electric bill – a new charge that requires them to spend a specific amount of money with the utility company per month.

www.clickorlando.com

Duke Energy Net Income 2010-2024 | DUK

Duke Energy annual/quarterly net income history and growth rate from 2010 to 2024. Net income can be defined as company's net profit or loss after all revenues, income items, and expenses have been accounted for. <ul style='margin-top:10px;'> <li>Duke Energy net income for the...

www.macrotrends.net

 

[highfigh]

If the founders struggled, they didn't struggle very hard.

And, they didn't establish the first republic in a thousand years, as a republic is - in essence - a nonmonarchical form of government. There were/are many republics established between the Greek and American versions. And, when the USA was founded, only land-owning white men were granted suffrage, which differed little from the UK in that respect.

Why would it differ from the UK, when the Colonies were chartered by the Crown, they used British Law, they paid the Crown for materials/supplies/taxes and the Governors were employed by the Crown? Just about everything in the colonies was modeled after the British system until they reached the point of rebellion from being taxed for things that didn't involved them (like the wars GB was fighting on other continents). Slavery didn't start here, it was brought here and it existed before British colonists came here.

 

[Trell]

If they're returning power to the grid by generating their own power, they're not using the grid unless their solar generation stops working.

Some people reported that their average bill was less than $10 and now, it's around $30. Most utilities have lowered the payment for excess power from customers who generate with Solar and now, they're using the Florida Public Service Commission to force people to pay more. Well, they already paid more, for being able to generate their own power. If they continue to do this, people will leave because most urban cities don't allow going completely off-grid and if they aren't on the grid, they shouldn't have to pay anything to maintain it. The utilities don't operate at a loss. Duke Energy, mentioned in the link, has made billions in net income for the last three years, but I didn't look further.

Florida solar customers, others shocked over new charge on electric bills

Some Duke Energy customers said they got a big shock when they opened their most recent electric bill – a new charge that requires them to spend a specific amount of money with the utility company per month.

www.clickorlando.com

Duke Energy Net Income 2010-2024 | DUK

Duke Energy annual/quarterly net income history and growth rate from 2010 to 2024. Net income can be defined as company's net profit or loss after all revenues, income items, and expenses have been accounted for. <ul style='margin-top:10px;'> <li>Duke Energy net income for the...

www.macrotrends.net

The electrical grid costs money to build and maintain, so the owners of course wants compensation for that one way or another. The old pricing model was based upon that there where just about only consumers and not producers of electricity connected to the grid, and with many former ordinary consumer now becoming producers that model breaks down.

 

[highfigh]

The electrical grid costs money to build and maintain, so the owners of course wants compensation for that one way or another. The old pricing model was based upon that there where just about only consumers and not producers of electricity connected to the grid, and with many former ordinary consumer now becoming producers that model breaks down.

And that cost is part of 'cost of doing business'. If someone provides excess power and gets only a few cents/KWh, they shouldn't be penalized twice.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Why would it differ from the UK, when the Colonies were chartered by the Crown, they used British Law, they paid the Crown for materials/supplies/taxes and the Governors were employed by the Crown? Just about everything in the colonies was modeled after the British system until they reached the point of rebellion from being taxed for things that didn't involved them (like the wars GB was fighting on other continents). Slavery didn't start here, it was brought here and it existed before British colonists came here.

I think you missed my point.

@SithZedi suggested that we might grant some leeway to the founders for not having banned slavery in the original version of the constitution, because they were essentially re-inventing the republican wheel after a millennium of absence, which is not accurate.

This is an unfortunate and erroneous view of history. If you read the Federalist papers you will know the founders deeply struggled with slavery. They could not help the world as it was in 1783. They were incorporating the first republic in 1,000 years so defacto almost all "white" people were subject to either a monarch or tribal leader in 1783. They were not slaves but their liberty and freedom was severely restricted.

And, "They were not slaves but their liberty and freedom was severely restricted" implies that white people lived some mediaeval serf-like existence, which is far from the truth, especially in Great Britain. The democratization of GB was - of course - far more gradual than in the US, but commoners had far more rights than one might think. Habeus Corpus was enacted in 1679 and a Bill of Rights in 1689.

If the founding fathers had truly wished to establish a clear separation in the degree of democracy when compared with GB, they would have banned slavery from the start.

The colonists certainly had legitimate beefs with the crown, but some of the reasons for the revolt were BS.

Being taxed for wars that didn't involve them? Well, the Seven Years (French and Indian) War certainly involved them. It determined the fate of the American and Canadian colonies*. If the French had won, it could have led to a continent dominated by the French, never mind the British Crown.

The Canadian colonies were subject to the same taxes, but didn't feel it necessary to throw a fit over.

The British government tried to maintain peace with the Indigenous peoples by restricting further expansion of the colonies, while many colonists didn't care a whit about them and didn't like being told that they couldn't take any more Indigenous land.

*They weren't known as such at the time. They were simply 17 individual colonies in North America - 13 that became part of the US and 4 that are now part of Canada.

My central point is - if the founding fathers had truly wanted to end slavery, they could have.

 

[rnatalli]

How long before the ruling class finds something wrong with the rest of the folks in the country.

It does if you go by the Constitution. The second amendment directly addresses the right to bear arms Abortion is not mentioned at all. Therefore abortion becomes a issue to be decided at the state level. Roe was not well decided in 73. Even Ruth B. Ginsburg said as much. If the gradual approach had taken it's course, there was a good chance that in most states, abortion would have moved to be where Hillary Clinton stated she wanted it to be in 2008. "Safe, legal, and rare".

I understand what you're saying, but also fairly certain the founders didn't intend for a mentally unstable 18-year old to go to a local shop to buy an assault rifle. I fail to see how this contributes to a well-regulated militia or the security of the state.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Two women on CNN/Msnbc think they're going after Griswald and contraception and the pill in November. Hopefully that prediction is wrong.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Elizabeth Warren: We gotta pack the courts!

Guess i could see that one coming.

(R) Arizona candidate- and the second I take my hand off the bible I will get our borders secure. Hahaha.

 

[Swerd]

My central point is - if the founding fathers had truly wanted to end slavery, they could have.

The War for Independence from Great Britain was largely advocated by the northern colonies. They had to work hard in 1776 to persuade the southern colonies to join in the Declaration of Independence.

The southern colonies were largely agricultural (tobacco and cotton), where the landowners were descendants of British aristocracy. These wealthy land owners controlled the colonial governments. The main purchaser of their raw goods was Great Britain. These land owners also relied heavily on very cheap labor from indentured servants from the British Isles, or free labor from African slaves.

Although the northern colonies did rely on local agriculture for food, they never depended on it for income as did the southern colonies. They also developed small industry (fabric weaving mills) and other manufacturing, as well as shipping, commerce, and banking. These economic interests put the northern colonies in direct opposition to the colonial polices of Great Britain.

The 1776 Declaration of Independence was the first of many compromises among those colonies.

The next compromise was getting the original colonies to all ratify the new Constitution. It required major compromises about slavery, and about how the power in the new federal government would be distributed. As the population existed in ~1790, the power among the northern and southern colonies was roughly equal.

Over time, the population of the northern states outgrew that of the southern states. The economies also grew in proportion to the population growth. The industries in the north also grew rapidly, whereas the south reinvested heavily in slave labor and cotton. As the US grew, increasing numbers of people moved westward, creating new territories which became new states. Although some of these new states allowed slavery, most new states did not. This caused several major political conflicts, as the southern states sought to keep from loosing their power. It eventually resulted in Civil War.

My point is that those who created the US Constitution in 1789/90 were never unified in their vision of how the new nation would be governed. It was always a compromise – a very difficult compromise.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The War for Independence from Great Britain was largely advocated by the northern colonies. They had to work hard in 1776 to persuade the southern colonies to join in the Declaration of Independence.

The southern colonies were largely agricultural (tobacco and cotton), where the landowners were descendants of British aristocracy. These wealthy land owners controlled the colonial governments. The main purchaser of their raw goods was Great Britain. These land owners also relied heavily on very cheap labor from indentured servants from the British Isles, or free labor from African slaves.

Although the northern colonies did rely on local agriculture for food, they never depended on it for income as did the southern colonies. They also developed small industry (fabric weaving mills) and other manufacturing, as well as shipping, commerce, and banking. These economic interests put the northern colonies in direct opposition to the colonial polices of Great Britain.

The 1776 Declaration of Independence was the first of many compromises among those colonies.

The next compromise was getting the original colonies to all ratify the new Constitution. It required major compromises about slavery, and about how the power in the new federal government would be distributed. As the population existed in ~1790, the power among the northern and southern colonies was roughly equal.

Over time, the population of the northern states outgrew that of the southern states. The economies also grew in proportion to the population growth. The industries in the north also grew rapidly, whereas the south reinvested heavily in slave labor and cotton. As the US grew, increasing numbers of people moved westward, creating new territories which became new states. Although some of these new states allowed slavery, most new states did not. This caused several major political conflicts, as the southern states sought to keep their power from being lost. It eventually resulted in Civil War.

My point is that those who created the US Constitution in 1789/90 were never unified in their vision of how the new nation would be governed. It was always a compromise – a very difficult compromise.

I guess not wanting to pay taxes to the crown had a higher priority than ending slavery.

 

[Swerd]

I guess not wanting to pay taxes to the crown had a higher priority than ending slavery.

It shouldn't be surprising that the northern and southern colonies had differing views about taxes. The North didn't like paying taxes when they had no political input in the taxes. The North was OK with taxes levied by a locally controlled government. They wanted public education and a standing Army & Navy. Their mantra was "No Taxation without Representation".

The South eventually agreed with the North on that in 1776. But they differed from the North in how much taxes they were willing to pay. The wealthy land owners were largely unwilling to pay for public education, standing military forces, and public investment in new infrastructure, such as railroads. By the time of the Civil War in 1860, major differences existed between North and South.

I don't know as much about Canadian history, but what little I know suggests there were and are much fewer differences among the provinces than there was among the colonies that became the USA. Imagine what Canada would be like today if there were more than one province like Quebec.

 

[GO-NAD!]

It shouldn't be surprising that the northern and southern colonies had differing views about taxes. The North didn't like paying taxes when they had no political input in the taxes. The North was OK with taxes levied by a locally controlled government. They wanted public education and a standing Army & Navy. Their mantra was "No Taxation without Representation".

The South eventually agreed with the North on that in 1776. But they differed from the North in how much taxes they were willing to pay. The wealthy land owners were unwilling to pay for public education, standing military forces, and essentially any public investment in developing infrastructure, such as railroads. By the time of the Civil War in 1860, major differences existed between North and South.

I don't know as much about Canadian history, but what little I know suggests there were and are much fewer differences among the provinces than there was among the colonies that became the USA. Imagine what Canada would be like today if there were more than one province like Quebec.

The "North", being the 4 colonies that are now part of Canada, was apparently OK with the taxes, since they weren't interested in the revolution.

On the surface the Canadian colonies might have appeared more similar than different. However, they were sufficiently different that repeated American invasions during the revolution and the War of 1812 wasn't enough to motivate them to unify.

It was not until the Civil War and the massive increase in the size of the US Army, as well as the rapid American westward expansion, that the (now) six northern provinces considered unification. Even then, only four of them agreed to a confederation, in 1867.

The primary reason Quebec agreed to join was that the French population felt they had a better chance of preserving their language and culture, than if they were absorbed by the US.

Immediately following confederation, politicians in Nova Scotia started agitating to leave the brand new country. It took several years for separatism to dissipate.

At the end of the 19th century, Newfoundland negotiated a free trade agreement with the US. Canada immediately complained to the mother country to put the kibosh on the deal, as it put them at a disadvantage in trade with the US. Being the larger of the two, Canada got her way. Newfoundlanders' were so miffed, it took another half-century to convince them to join Canada, and even then, by a very slim majority vote a the referendum.

So, they were probably no more alike than the American colonies.

 

[Swerd]

So, they [the Canadian Provinces] were probably no more alike than the American colonies.

With the major exception that none of the Canadian Provinces had a slavery-driven economy as in the US southern colonies/states.

Thanks for all the illustrations of the Canadian point of view toward the USA. I was aware only of the Canadian fear of being absorbed/engulfed/conquered by the USA after the US Civil War. Canada clearly felt threatened even though the USA, both northern & southern states, were exhausted by the costly and bloody war. There was no drive to expand to the north – at least none that is recognized by historians today.