One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: Loki
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 2239 next>>
Jul 28, 2017 06:46:38   #
Today in 1868, the 14th Amendment became law. Contrary to what Liberals would have us believe, this amendment DOES NOT confer automatic citizenship on anyone born here. At least one parent has to be a citizen, or a legal resident. NOT a temporary visitor.
The Amendment consists of five parts; the first being the one in question. "All persons born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
This does not nor was it ever intended to mean anyone born here to anybody. The author of the first section, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, specifically stated that the Amendment was not meant to apply to foreigners. There have been two SCOTUS cases in particular that address this, the first is Elk v Wilkins 1884, in which John Elk was ruled to be NOT a citizen even though he was born here to parents who were born here because his parents were never citizens.
The second is US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, in which the SCOTUS ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen, since his parents were, NOT temporary visitors, but LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS of the United States.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/08/21/what-did-the-14th-amendment-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/112/94/case.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

Anyone who claims that the 14th grants blanket citizenship to anyone born here to anyone is either a liar with an agenda, or is badly misinformed, with or without an agenda.
 
Jul 28, 2017 06:23:44   #
PeterS wrote:
This is for those who place liberals on ignore--don't start a sentence out like this...C'Mon libs, cuz when you do there is no way of telling you that the link you provided doesn't work so that, and because you have us on ignore, there is no one to answer your thread...


I have never put anyone on ignore, so you are not talking to me.
Jul 27, 2017 21:56:56   #
Homestead wrote:
I'll make it simpler for you.

The price of a slave was falling.

The question you have to ask yourself is, why?

What were the economic reasons for this?

Then the price of a slave started to rise. Why?



As to the number of slaves in the North and South, the fact is that the North did get rid of slavery and there weren't any left in the North any more.

By the time of the Civil War, not one Republican owned a slave.

So where did they go?

If the North sold all of it's slaves to the South, then the slave population in the South should have doubled, if you maintain that there were as many slaves in the North as there were in the South and that the Northern slaves were then sold to the South.

I'm sorry, but, there is no indication that any plantation suddenly doubled it's slave population.

So either the North had far fewer slaves than the South or the majority of the Northern slaves were set free.

Otherwise, where did they go?

****************************************************

King Cotton: White Gold

The title, King Cotton, comes from the fact that cotton was the major export of the United States in the early 1800s just prior to the Civil War time frame. By the 1850s, the cotton grown, shipped, and sold by southerners was worth more than all the rest of America's exports put together.

As the primary crop, cotton overtook tobacco, which had been planted and depleted many of the minerals in the soil. When the Constitution was ratified and went into effect in 1789, tobacco was the most important crop grown in the South. Also, Thomas Jefferson and many other people, in the South as well as the North, thought that slavery would soon disappear in the United States. However, the invention of the cotton engine (shortened to "gin") revolutionized cotton production. Cotton became the most valuable crop grown at that time—the intrinsic value of cotton then is comparable to the intrinsic value of oil today. It became an economic as well as political instrument.

Cotton influenced financial and political decisions. Over time, cotton generated great wealth for some of the southern landowners. From their great staple crops—mainly cotton, tobacco, rice, and sugar cane—southerners received much of their cash income. Most, though not all, of these staple crops were grown on large plantations, although many small subsistence farms existed also. The need for southern farmers to find other fertile land on which to grow cotton, which had depleted the minerals from local landscapes, enticed them westward into the lands included in the Louisiana Purchase.

Slavery became reinvigorated as more labor was needed as cotton production increased. A large labor force was needed for growing and harvesting. That labor force consisted mostly of cheap labor, like black slaves brought from Africa and the West Indies as well as some poor indentured whites who were treated much differently than blacks. Then, large southern land- and slave-owners wanted to protect their major money source. Subsequently, pro- and anti-slavery beliefs split the nation and was a major cause of the Civil War.
http://www.americaslegacylinks.com/king_cotton.html
*******************************************
Here's an economic study on the price of slaves prior to the Civil War. (Civil War of 1861-1865)
But, it includes the time period in which Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. (1793 or 1794)


Slave Prices and The Economy of the Lower South, 1722-1809

Peter C. Mancall

University of Kansas

Joshua L. Rosenbloom

University of Kansas and NBER

Thomas Weiss

University of Kansas and NBER

Introduction

Slavery shaped the economic growth of the lower South in the eighteenth century. The region's primary export staples--rice and indigo--were both produced primarily on large plantations relying on slave labor (1). The importance of slavery was clearly reflected in the region's population statistics. With the introduction of rice at the beginning of the century, the slave population of South Carolina grew nearly five-fold between 1700 and 1720, at which time blacks outnumbered whites in the colony by a margin of more than two to one. Although the share of whites crept upwards after 1720, it was not until the rapid expansion of settlement in the backcountry after the Revolution that South Carolina's free population outnumbered its slave population. Once the prohibition of slavery was lifted in Georgia in 1749, the slave population of that colony also shot upward rapidly, reaching 45 percent by 1770 (2). Only in North Carolina, where lack of accessible ports inhibited the growth of export oriented agriculture was slavery's role more limited; and even here, over one third of the population were slaves by the Revolution.

Inspection of Figure 1 suggests that the history of slave prices in South Carolina can be divided into two periods. During the first period--running from the 1720s through the 1740s--prices fell gradually. During the second period--starting in the 1750s and continuing through the first decade of the nineteenth century--prices were generally rising. From 1740-49 to 1800-09 prices more than tripled, rising from $125 to $381.

Slave Prices and Wealth in the Lower South

Previous research using probate inventories for the lower South has noted a striking rise in wealth over much of the colonial period. According to Peter Coclanis (1989, p. 90), the scholar who has looked most closely at this subject: "The performance of the low country's economy·was truly remarkable·For nowhere else in British North America or perhaps in the world for that matter did so sizable a population live so well." Because slaves made up a substantial share of probate wealth, the rising level of slave prices was an important factor contributing to the increasing prosperity of the region. According to Bentley's (1977) calculations slaves' contribution to inventoried wealth increased from 45 percent in the 1720s to about 51 percent in the late 1750s and early 1760s. Our calculations based on the sample of inventories drawn by Joyce Chaplin indicate that the proportion of wealth held in slaves was even higher: around 70 percent for the entire period from 1740 to 1809. To examine the role that rising slave prices played in increasing wealth, we have constructed a counterfactual series of average wealth figures that hold slave prices constant.

Between the 1720s and 1742 adjusting for increases in slave prices has little impact on Bentley's wealth estimates. During this period average slave holdings among those individuals owning slaves rose substantially--increasing from 7.7 in the 1720s, to 13.3 in the 1730s, and 19.2 in the 1740s12. Thereafter, however, average slave holdings actually fell slightly (to 16.5) in the 1750s, and it appears that about half of the increase in wealth was attributable to rising prices of slaves rather than the accumulation of additional assets. Our calculations based on Chaplin's data indicate that almost all of the increase in wealth that occurred after 1740 was due to the rising value of slaves. For those inventories listing slaves, the average number of slaves per probated individual was roughly constant from the 1740s through the 1790s, before falling in the first decade of the nineteenth century12. Given the stability in slave numbers, holding slave prices constant produces a substantially different pattern of wealth accumulation. In the counterfactual case probate wealth per inventoried individual fell nearly 20 percent from the 1740s through the 1760s, recovered briefly in the 1770s, and then fell steadily over the next three decades. While these calculations do not controvert previous research that has emphasized the considerable prosperity of South Carolina, they place such findings in a rather different light. Rather than reflecting the accumulation of real assets, the region's rising wealth was the consequence primarily of asset price increases driven by world demand for the region's primary staple commodities.

Conclusion

Based on data from probate inventories from the lower South it is possible to construct estimates of slave prices between 1722 and 1809. Although these prices fell gradually until the 1740s, they then began to rise, more than doubling by the first decade of the nineteenth century. Although the long-run supply of slaves was probably close to perfectly elastic, lags in adjustment meant that the short-run supply of slaves was relatively inelastic. In these circumstances the sharply rising world demand for rice was largely responsible for the increase in slave prices after the middle of the eighteenth century.

These findings have several important implications for our understanding of the economy of the lower South. As we have shown, they suggest that previous estimates of productivity growth in rice production are implausibly high. Further research into the behavior of land and capital prices is necessary to establish this conclusively, however. The rise in slave prices also appears to have been responsible for much of the increase in the region's prosperity in this period. This finding suggests that rather than accumulating more physical assets, slaveholders were becoming wealthy through capital gains realized because strong demand for the region's primary product drove up the value of labor. As long as the short-run supply of slaves remained relatively inelastic, the owners of this scarce resource were able to capture significant scarcity rents.
http://www.cliometrics.org/conferences/ASSA/Jan_00/rosenbloom.shtml
I'll make it simpler for you. br br The price o... (show quote)

Very nice. I have some personal things going on right now. I'll get back to you in a day or two.
Jul 27, 2017 15:25:43   #
Mr Bombastic wrote:
One time, I actually lived in a place that had an outhouse. I don't recommend using one in sub-freezing temperatures. You use a bucket, then empty it later. It's not too pleasant in the Summer either.


I found the solution to that. You go to the hardware store, somewhere that sells appliances, and you get some of the styrofoam packing from the stoves, refrigerators, etc, and find a piece. Then you cut it to fit the seat of the outhouse. I just kept mine inside and whenever I had to go play king, I took my styrofoam throne with me, no more butt sticking to the frozen damn seat.
Jul 27, 2017 11:27:27   #
badbobby wrote:
well stated Doc
I agree wholeheartedly



Until such time as we get term limits, (unlikely) the only other recourse is elections. I never vote for an incumbent more than once. Someone said that you risked throwing out the baby with the bathwater; I pointed out there is a lot more bathwater than there is baby.
Jul 27, 2017 11:16:18   #
lindajoy wrote:
Dontcha' ya dare... Good grief, Dave why waste such a commodity???

Coloring books and crayons should take care of things...


Make sure they are sharp; if he has trouble coloring inside the lines we may have a meltdown.
 
Jul 27, 2017 07:58:34   #
2wheeljunkie wrote:
You want to talk small town S.D., my mother came from Eden, S.D. the most people that ever lived there was in 1920, pop 209. Now it has about 90 people living there. My dad was born and raised in Milbank, S.D. Real people come from So Dak.


I guess you got me. Mine had nearly 400 people.
Jul 26, 2017 21:51:50   #
tdsrnest wrote:
Oh I have a bigger fan club than you think at least 3 PM's a day encouraging me not to let up on you people.

Just look at the number of people who read these post but only you idiots post. But these people encourage me to keep up the battle or otherwise I would have nothing to do with you racist.

Battle? Is that what you call the drivel you post? Go play in traffic.
Jul 26, 2017 18:57:15   #
Weewillynobeerspilly wrote:
The sideshow ended November 8th, 2016


Actually, Jan 20, 2017.`1
Jul 26, 2017 18:54:52   #
NUKE wrote:
The statements I have offered on any topic are projections of researched data sourced from scientific journals. They are not solely my opinion.
Decades ago Farmers testified before Congress verifying that the nutrient content of the soils consist only by replenishing those ingredients that make produce "Look Good" for consumption and have nothing to do with enhancing quality nutrition within the produce. Produce may look "perfect" and have zero nutrient value. Field tests by Texas A&M demonstrated a minimal content level of nutrition while still growing. Those same plants tested at the market had zero nutrient value, coupled with high pesticide and herbicide residuals. Apples have the highest number of detected residual poisons at 68. Enough to have apple juice manufacturers withdraw Apple juice made for children off the shelves. The global issue is that not only are the soils depleted, the remaining soils have no nutritive content and are heavily saturated with poisons that are absorbed into the produce. This is happening everywhere even in the USA. We are being starved and poisoned in Masse simultaneously.

The maximum global population projections originate from Population Ecology Scientific Literature and are based on decades of population growth data and adjusted for negative parameters. The precipitous drop from those levels may occur as populations in Masse are malnourished and starving because of food supply quality and quantity scarcity. Additionally excessive food poison residuals will reach saturation and accelerate contamination and lethal consumption.

The "Global Warming" Fake News Alarm was created to generate revenue for its creators and will continue to succeed financially until the followers become educated on the real science and ignore the over marketed band wagon hype.
The statements I have offered on any topic are pro... (show quote)


Most generally, posters provide links to the sources they say they are referencing. I can say that Scientific American has verified the existence of three-headed Martians, then leave it up to the readers to do their own legwork.
I am not disputing so much as pointing out that links lend credence.
Jul 26, 2017 16:52:52   #
lpnmajor wrote:
To start, let me remind you that I was one of the first to decry the ridiculous aspects of the ACA ( fondly known as Obamacare ). That massive, overly complex piece of legislation, was a mish mash of items that went way too far and items that didn't go nearly far enough, making it a train wreck leaving the station. That being said, it was a start, a starting point rather, which could have led to some real, beneficial and desperately needed changes in the nightmarish US healthcare system.....but that didn't happen, did it.

First we had the Democrats absolute refusal to acknowledge the obvious issues with the ACA, which led to their refusal to help the people adversely affected by them. They should have been shamed out of office for that. Then we had the Republicans who, although they recognized and gleefully pointed out those issues, likewise refused to do anything about them, allowing the same people to continue to suffer for political gains ( i.e. gaining control of Congress ). THEY should have been shamed out of office as well.

Now, the stars are finally in alignment for the GOP, Congress, WH, etc., and they flounder around like sardines caught in a net. Haven't they been studying the ACA all these years, identifying the obvious things that needed to be deleted, improved or kept intact? Apparently not, as their best instinct is to completely repeal every single line item of the ACA - and start over. That's the dumbest concept since the flying/floating car. Had they been crafting their own signature healthcare bill all these years, spending as much time fine tuning it as they did pointing out the ACA's flaws - we wouldn't be having this conversation. In stead of proceeding in an orderly fashion and FINALLY beginning the work they were hired to do, they're still playing "gotcha!" with one another, juggling this special interest and that one, playing "spin the media" and trying to craft massive legislation on the fly. What kind of dumbass does that? The kind we've hired.

We expect our elected leaders to be sober minded, contemplative and competent individuals, who carefully examine all aspects of the legislation they're considering, debate the issues as long as necessary, until they can present a finished product to the people who hired them. We haven't see ANY evidence of those individuals, although, John McCaine's speech on the Senate floor yesterday reminded us that they used to be around. To date, every lawmaker eager to appear on TV, has had a completely different version of the latest healthcare incarnation in mind, when explaining it's wonderful attributes, since none of their explanations matched any other. That made it painfully obvious that they didn't have a clue - they were guessing.

3/4 of the work on healthcare has already been done, it only needs the other 1/4 fixed, so starting all over is a dumbass move. Waiting until the last minute to BEGIN thinking about what to do, is another dumbass move. Trying to throw something together to get over the finish line, is another dumbass move. Not allowing anyone from the opposing party to have a hand in the pie AND that other party trying to gum up the works - are two more dumbass moves. In short, the dumbasses in the Congress have united in their effort to screw the American people again - and many of them will ask you to send them back next year.

Maybe it's past time to elect some sober minded, contemplative and competent people to the Congress, and send the dumbasses somewhere they can't hurt any more people.
To start, let me remind you that I was one of the ... (show quote)


Bear in mind that in spite of all of the Congressional abuses, they still haven't figured out how to re-elect themselves. I believe someone else is responsible for that. I am happy to report that the only incumbents I voted for last year were my State Senator and my County Sheriff. I wrote in my US Representative's primary opponent, my US Senator's primary opponent, and since my State Rep was running unopposed, I wrote in myself. I can't possibly do any worse.
 
Jul 26, 2017 16:42:19   #
Mr Shako wrote:
"There stands Jackson like a stonewall; rally 'round the Virginians!"


"Stonewall" beats the crap out of "Tom Fool" which was his sobriquet before Manassas.
Jul 26, 2017 16:39:23   #
Dummy Boy wrote:
Why do I need retorts that are any better...they are working quite well...since you keep responding. Ya toad.


Much better, grasshopper. Keep it up and you could probably handle a precocious eggplant in a debate. I keep responding because you amuse me. When you cease amusing me, I will cease responding.
If I am a toad, you must be one of the warts I caused. I must confess, I had hoped for better quality warts.
Jul 26, 2017 15:17:58   #
Dummy Boy wrote:
...says the Trump Toadie...


Really got those old creative juices flowing, don't you? Now THAT'S what I call a snappy comeback.
(For a very reasonable fee, I can supply you with some retorts so that you don't look like a completely inept moron.)
No personal checks, please.
Jul 26, 2017 12:33:35   #
Mattie Silks wrote:
I been thinking, turd. And I've come up with a new diagnosis for the DSM manual: "Arrogance of Victim Hood". Some people are proud of being "victims", the feeling that they are superior persons because someone else---the inferiors---or some other culture, "took advantage" of them; completely uncomprehending that their very own culture was responsible for the "enslavement" or "oppression".


This begs the question.....If they are so superior, why were the Helots and great unwashed able to take advantage of them? Could be they aren't superior after all.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 2239 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.