reply to post by thehoneycomb
Revisionist history, alot of it. Blacks were undocumented much like illegals today. Doesn't mean they were all slaves, but define the word.
Hell my family dates back before the revolutionary war and fought in it, later on my fathers side, they had a couple 'slaves' (they lived in the
south) , but as far as I know they didn't whip them torture or beat them, they worked on a plantation and were fed and clothed and cared for and
Well not all blacks were slaves, some of them at the time were land owners and owned their own slaves. However this does not mean that the African
people were not treated as second class citizens, they were. Voting restrictions, segregation, etc. There is a lot of revisionism in the history of
that time, but the fact still remains that they were oppressed.
I can define the word slave for you, "An individual who is not free to choose, and is bought and sold as property." That is not a dictionary
definition but I think it pretty much sums it up. No matter how well a slave might have been treated, they were still property that had no rights. If
a slave ran away and was caught, they would be punished, their is no rational argument or apologetics which can be used to down play the severity of
The rothschilds funded the communist manifesto and the bolshevik lennin and trotsky. They are marxists/socialists/communists, not capitalists.
Rockefeller is not of any different ideology and their family history is not that much different.
And the Bush family did business with the Nazi's, whats your point? Sins of the father?
If J.D. Rockefeller was such a communist then why did he believe in free enterprise and become a poster boy for the capitalistic venture?
The same can be said of the Rothschild's, albeit their family is much more diverse in its ideology then the Rockefeller's.
My point being, just because your great grand daddy, or your uncle believe in something does not mean the whole family does, just look at the
Now to get back a little more on topic, I read the list of socialist positions in the OP and all have is...meh.
I agree with a good few of them, a national Rail system, Public ownership of airline industry ( or at least have one public airline service as an
alternative), Greater access to all media (not really sure what this one means, free entertainment? We already have that its called the internet),
Limits on election donations, free access to attorneys (we already have that), Abolishment of the death penalty, Public Funding for Newspapers and
Magazines, Public ownership of all natural resources (not to realistic but a goal to be reached yes) , Financial penalties to be imposed on private
companies for toxic spills and waste (already have that too).
I will always understand the conservative mind set when it comes to the elimination of personal freedom, I love liberty as much as the next guy. But
what I will never understand is the conservative minds opposition to both progress and change, which are both inevitable and not
edit on 10-10-2012 by Openeye because: (no reason given)