straightUp Loc: California

Obviously, you didn't get past page one. Yes, the bill covers the biggest threat to Florida, little kids that want people to refer to them as "they/their" or whatever. As if teachers who refuse to comply somehow need the protection of the law.

But the bill also restricts discussion of reproductive health until 8th grade. In case you didn't know, menstruation *IS* part of the reproductive system and girls can start menstruation as early as 10, so the law effectively prohibits them from discussing the menstruation they are experiencing until they are 13.


"THE" Democrats? See, I catch these rhetorical snags even if you don't. No, THE Democrats were not ALL KKK lynchers. *SOME* of them were. But the part that just flies over your head is that the Democrats were also predominately conservative at the time.


That's what I said.


In other words, these right-wing CONSERVATIVES didn't like the direction their Democratic Party was taking with the federal laws that told them to get along (desegregate) with black people.


In 1964 there was still a lot of conservatives in the Democratic Party.


Who were mostly liberal.


where there were more conservatives.


Robert Byrd is well known for being a changed man. He has publicly denounced his earlier standings and has become an icon of hope that racists CAN convert and unlike the racist Dixiecrats, he stuck with the Democratic party when it took that big step to the left.

Al Gore Sr. (Not the one you're probably thinking) was actually one of the few southern liberals in the Party, but a year later he voted FOR the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It turns out that when the Civil Rights Act was on the floor, he was up for reelection and a vote for the bill would have been political suicide in such a deeply conservative district. I'm not defending him here, he put his own career in front of his principals, but the fact is, he was an exception to the rule in the South.

What amazes me about people like you is that you actually think the South suddenly went from lynching black people to being model citizens who switched to the Republican Party. I suppose you think Tinker Bell just flew over the South spreading pixie dust. LOL.

Get a clue Sparky... Politics can change a party overnight. Cultures take generations to change.

son of witless

" I understand your point, which is why I said by the 20th century, people stopped being surprised by it. Your standard for judging a time period isn't so much based on how much actually changed but on how someone would react to it. So while I *might* agree with you that a person transported from 1800 to 1900 might be a little more freaked out about the changes than a person transported from 1900 to 2000 I would argue that it's because the person from 1900 is just more adjusted to change in general. "

You and I have to be aware of our own bias. We are viewing the centuries looking back from the 21st century and having lived through the second half of the 20th century. I think looking at both centuries from their starting points is more important than the end points. I believe 1800 agricultural America was more different from 1900 industrial America, than 1900 industrial America was from 2,000 post industrial America.

" Wasn't Fulton using steam engines shipped from Britain? At least that's what I've read. But your right, America was known for it's steamboat industry, which I think makes sense given that America has those great big rivers that served as commercial highways. "

Actually I was wrong. Robert Fulton did not invent the steam powered boat. I seem to have been mislead. What he did was launch the first commercially successful steam boat. Another American John Fitch, invented the steamboat in 1787. And even another American, James Rumsey.had a steam jet propelled boat that worked. He fought with Fitch for the patent of the steam boat. Both Fitch and Rumsey were ahead of their time and died before perfecting a commercial success.

In 1803 Fulton's first steamboat sailed in France and was based on Fitch's designs. It used a French built Steam engine, which broke the hull, but it proved the concept.

You were right about the British steam engine. Fulton's first commercially successful steam boat was launched in America in 1807, and used a British steam engine. Fulton succeeded commercially where Fitch and Rumsey failed partly because he had a rich guy Robert R. Livingston backing him. Which gets back to our argument who is more important, the engineer or the rich guy backing him. Fulton merely improved what Fitch invented. If Fitch would have obtained more financial backing, he would be the famous guy.

" it's American capitalism that pulls in the engineers and scientists from all over the world to develop the most advanced technology... as you said, it's not all about innovation... deployment is a big part of it. "

America in the 1800s had plenty of inventors, but because of it's money it also drew in the best brains from overseas. An example is Thomas Edison hiring Tesla from overseas. Edison perfected the first practical light bulb and had his electric company. He hired Tesla and mistreated him. Tesla then worked for Westinghouse and competed against Edison. That competition produced great things.

" When I read about events like the The Ludlow Massacre in 1914 where the military was called in to break a strike and attacked a mining camp, killing 2 women and 11 children, it's hard to dismiss it just because Vanderbilt was this cool guy. "

I do not know that Vanderbuilt dealt with labor unions or on a large scale. The steamboat industry was too fragmented and then disappeared before the big labor union movement. His railroad business would have been more likely to have been under union attack, but I think that came after his time. The real villain from a union perspective would have been Andrew Carnegie and his steel business. I can't remember much about Carnegie but I think he had at least one really ugly chapter with the union.

Justice101

I'm clued into you Spanky and I notice how effectively you spin your tales. Do you practice your petty insults at the mirror?

straightUp Loc: California

That's what I meant when I said someone later in history would probably be less impressed with changes than someone earlier. We really don't know how anyone would react, we're just speculating.


Well, that can be very subjective. Personally, I don't agree. I also think a lot of people today are not as AWARE of how much things have changed over the last century. There's a sort of retro-culture where people get romantic about the past, which is fine until they start to ignore the present and start making poor decisions. I see this in politics all the time.

I'll just use automation as an example. To a lot of people, unaware of the advances and where it's going, automation via robotics and artificial intelligence is still fodder for science fiction movies, but as a software engineer who has worked on several automation projects for major corporations like AT&T, I can tell you it's very real and very concerning. Yet, no one on the right-side of politics will recognize that.


Yes, money can make the difference. I'm not sure that's necessarily such a good thing. Who's to say Fitch wouldn't have developed something even better if not for the fact that his competition had the money to drive him out of the business? Capitalism in this respect is self-defeating because as much as we benefit from competition in the market, the ultimate goal of the competitor is to end the competition.


That's when American industry learned that we don't have to invest much in our education system. Why spend tax dollars to educate American students if only a percentage of them graduate to college? Industries that need educated brains can get a far better return by investing directly in the global market space of proven talent from countries that DO invest in education.

As a result, America currently has the worst education system in the developed world.

That's why so much of the brainpower behind American aerospace from the 50's to the 80's was European and it's why the brainpower behind America's leading edge on software today is mostly Asian. It's not just that America has enough money to draw in the best brains from overseas, it's that all the best brains WERE overseas!

As wonderful as all this is for capitalism, it's screwed for all the American kids that have the natural talent but isn't getting the sponsorship that their counterparts in Europe and Asia getting.

This realization has led several politicians to advocate for more emphasis on STEM education. At least on the left... The right seems to be more concerned about pronouns and drag queens. ;)


Interesting that you bring those two up because they present another draw back to capitalism.

Tesla engineered a more efficient method of transmission but Edison who partnered up with JP Morgan had the cash to run a campaign that convinced cities to go with his method instead. So Edison won the capitalist game and as a result American got the less efficient system.


I wasn't actually talking about Vanderbilt... I was using the Ludlow Massacre as but one example of how workers were being abused by industrialists all over the world... to the point where their children were being killed. That's the general condition the communists were responding to. This focus on Vanderbilt, is interesting but if focusing on the positive aspects with exceptional men like Vanderbilt is the only response to the conditions the communists and other labor movements were upset about, then it's really just a distraction, isn't it?

son of witless

Some more on John Fitch. Competition did not drive him out of business, although his fight with James Rumsey did not do either of them any good. You can have the greatest new invention all you want, but if you can't make it profitable, all you have is a shiny new toy. Fitch very likely was technically better than Fulton, because he actually invented the steamboat, but Fulton was better at watching the costs. If you keep going over budget, your investors eventually bail on you. Fulton and his sugar daddy Livingston succeeded where John Fitch and his investors failed, but Fulton would die before he could become super wealthy.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Fitch

" Although his vessels were reliable, Fitch ignored building and operating costs and so failed to demonstrate the economic value of steam propulsion. As a result, steam power was sparingly used after his death, and Robert Fulton, who did not launch a boat until after Fitch died, received more credit for originating this type of transportation. "

But the story is just beginning. Just because Fulton and Livingston had the first profitable steam powered boat on earth, and Fulton was even granted a patent, which I don't know how because John Fitch had the original patent, does not mean you are on easy street. In those days people were always infringing on patents and and many inventors went bankrupt defending those rights in court.

The real money was in getting monopoly rights to run steamboats withing coastal waters. Livingston secured those rights from NY State. Livingston sued Aaron Ogden former Governor of New Jersey, who had started his own steamboat service from Elizabeth, NJ to NYC. Ogden agreed to pay Livingston for a ten year monopoly. That should have been the end of things, but history swings on the strangest whims.

Enter Thomas Gibbons. An over weight rice planter from the South. Gibbons would get into a fight with anyone over anything. As he was very rich, he was a dangerous enemy. He was also a brilliant lawyer. Ogden made the mistake of involving himself in a dispute between Gibbons and his wife. Gibbons vowed to bankrupt Aaron Ogden, no matter if it cost him his entire fortune.

Since Aaron Ogden had his money invested in the steamboat service he ran under the 10 year monopoly he licensed from Livingston, Gibbons who knew nothing about steamboats went out and bought one, just to ruin Ogden. He hired Vanderbuilt who also knew nothing about steamboats to captain his boat. For years they waged a two prong war on Ogden and then on the Livingston heirs, because Livingston had died.

Vanderbuilt ran the steamboat and under cut Ogden on freight and passenger fares, while Gibbons hired the very best legal minds in America to fight the case through the courts and finally to the Supreme court. The case rested on whether individual states could grant monopolies on inland water ways between states. In a landmark case that broke the monopolies, Gibbons won. He got his revenge and saw Ogden ruined.

With the monopoly broken, afterward everybody and his brother got into the steamboat business. The cut throat competition drove down transportation costs. Gibbons died shortly after winning his revenge. The Livingston heirs had to make their money somewhere else. Vanderbuilt was the big winner, because in a cut throat world, he had the sharpest knife.

" That's when American industry learned that we don't have to invest much in our education system. Why spend tax dollars to educate American students if only a percentage of them graduate to college? Industries that need educated brains can get a far better return by investing directly in the global market space of proven talent from countries that DO invest in education. "

Unfortunately because I ran my big mouth, I am way too long, but suffice it to say I totally disagree with your assessment that America does not spend enough on education. I hope to elaborate on my next response.

Ricktloml

The topic is itself propaganda. It apologizes for these evil/murderous ideologies/pretends that the left-wing/"utopian grail" is reachable if only the "right people"/experts are in charge...even though they/this very same system has failed miserably every time it's been tried...to the tune of false imprisonment/torture/murder. And false imprisonment/torture/murder, (by the millions) is an integral part of these left-wing goals. All that is glossed over. It's the intent that's important...not the actual results. It is the UGLY TRUTH that the Democrat/Communist Party's policies/goals/agenda adhere to a combination of left-wing/socialist/communist/fascist/Marxist ideologies...and each/every one of these ideologies is evil to the core

straightUp Loc: California

By the same token, your statement is propaganda.


First of all, who's apologizing? I haven't said one single thing to promote communism. I've repeatedly stated that I am not a supporter of communism and I even mentioned several times that I think America found a better alternative.

The problem is you didn't actually read the argument. You got triggered just by seeing the title. Am I right? This is why I initiated this thread to start with, because I KNOW communism would be a bad choice for America but most Americans don't know this because they don't even know what communism is.

Instead, they allow themselves to be brainwashed by politicians onto being so scared of communism they can't even mention the word, much less study it to understand what it actually is.

No, the ideology itself is not "evil" or murderous anymore than a gun is. It's just not a good fit for America, but YOU don't know that and you probably never will because your masters have made you so scared of it that you can't even think about it.

The point of this topic was to expose how some Americans lack the education to understand the things they are being brainwashed into fearing and hating.


"left-wing/socialist/communist/fascist/Marxist ideologies?" So in other words, EVERYTHING associated with "evil", even though fascism is inherently right-wing. (You forgot racists, btw) You don't think an educated person can see how simple-minded that is? The all caps "UGLY TRUTH" says a lot too... It says that you're being emotional about it. Well, of course you are... If your intellect was anywhere near as strong as your emotions, you wouldn't be so easily brainwashed.