Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

[Kepler]

Just admit you were wrong.

That high school rhetoric approach doesn't make you seem smart. It just makes you seem like you either didn't or can't read. Freep tactics don't work here.

It's been explained to you. If you don't get it that's your issue. We've moved on.

[Kepler]

And I understand that is why some pretty good minds felt there was no choice but to kick the can down the road. But they risked a worse failure by standing by the principles set forth in the Declaration, and those same principles should have controlled their decision in 1787.

They wanted union above all else because they were scared the European powers would cut them up. "If we do not hang together..." They didn't bank on the Napoleonic Wars destroying Europe for long enough that we were able to get up on our feet.

The worm they put into the US by compromising with the slavers almost destroyed the nation four score and seven years later. It was a high price to pay. Cutting the deadwood off right at the start and truly living up to our founding ideals would have made the US a far stronger, and ethically coherent nation.

In the event we admitted traitors into our midst from the very start. That was a mistake we still haven't recovered from.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

That high school rhetoric approach doesn't make you seem smart. It just makes you seem like you either didn't or can't read. Freep tactics don't work here.

It's been explained to you. If you don't get it that's your issue. We've moved on.

I asked you a question. You did not answer, which makes you seem like you are trying to avoid the question because you know you are wrong. Unless you truly believe it would have been "a much better world" for the millions of slaves. Based on your other posts, I would be a bit surprised if that were the case. Which is why I thought we could just short circuit this whole debate by you admitting you were wrong. You decided to double down on not answering the question and make Trumpian personal attacks, which I'm not going to engage.

[Handyman]

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1289595777027698692

After waiting for a stop in the firing, Jennings stood up and put his arms above his head so the law enforcementcould see his camera and realize that he was a journalist. He started to walk away, he said, following the dispersal order.
"But as soon as I turned around just a little bit, they shot me in the face," Jennings said. He said he believes he was shot with a pepper ball. The Department of Homeland Security did not return CNN's request for comment regarding Jennings' injury.
"I was surprised. I was there to do my job," he added. "I've done my job like this in a lot of different places and a lot of different protests by different countries, a lot of different places in the United States. And normally when you make it clear that you have a job to do, to document the protest and you're doing that, there's a degree of safety, and that was just not present on (Sunday) night."

[Kepler]

I asked you a question. You did not answer, which makes you seem like you are trying to avoid the question because you know you are wrong. Unless you truly believe it would have been "a much better world" for the millions of slaves. Based on your other posts, I would be a bit surprised if that were the case. Which is why I thought we could just short circuit this whole debate by you admitting you were wrong. You decided to double down on not answering the question and make Trumpian personal attacks, which I'm not going to engage.

That doesn't work either. You are playing games like Fish used to you. How'd that work out for him?

But we'll do it your way just this once:

1. It is unclear that there would have been slavery in the South longer had we told the South to take a hike during the Constitutional Convention and gone our own way. In the event there was slavery for 70 more years. That's a pretty high bar for human misery. To quote your rhetorical tricks, surely you aren't minimizing all that suffering? My god, man, you're not saying you don't care about those years and all those millions? What is wrong with you; are you a sociopath?! ANSWER THE QUESTION OR YOU ARE ADMITTING YOU WERE WRONG!!!

See? That childish game is really easy.

2. Indeed I posited 2 possible paths where slavery ends in the South even sooner if we excrete them:

2a. Without the North the South may have had to develop an integrated industrial-commercial economy earlier, and slavery dies naturally, just as it did in the North and in Britain. It wasn't as if that was magic, or that the North was ethically superior. Slavery just didn't make business sense in a modern economy. By keeping the South we sheltered and subsidized their slave holders allowing them to hold on longer.

2b. As a loose confederation of nation states, without the central government ensured by the Constitution, the South may have fragmented into a chaos of failed states which the US then would mop up, eradicating slavery in each state as it did.

In conclusion, you'll never be a historian, an economist, or a debater, but the world needs conservatives to ditch dig too.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

That doesn't work either. You are playing games like Fish used to you. How'd that work out for him?

Again, the personal attacks. Sigh...

But we'll do it your way just this once:

1. It is unclear that there would have been slavery in the South longer had we told the South to take a hike during the Constitutional Convention and gone our own way. In the event there was slavery for 70 more years. That's a pretty high bar for human misery. To quote your rhetorical tricks, surely you aren't minimizing all that suffering? My god, man, you're not saying you don't care about those years and all those millions? What is wrong with you are you a socipath?! See, that game is really easy.

To start, you are using the wrong terminology. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, it was not the "South" (or at least, not as we use the term now). It was slave state vs free state. Assuming you mean "South" to mean the slave states, then you are not including slave states such as New York and New Jersey, which did not abolish slavery until about a decade after the Constitutional Convention, and had slave owners/slavery proponents at the Constitutional Convention. So, if there had been a firm ground taken on slavery at the Constitutional Convention (which again, if you had read my posts, I agree that such a position should have been taken--so I won't address your straw man arguments), and the states had formed separate countries, you would have had 2 (or, as Handy stated, and with which I agreed with, likely more than 2) countries: the slave states (New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia (as well as modern day West Virginia and Kentucky), North Carolina (as well as modern day Tennessee), South Carolina, and Georgia (as well as most of modern day Alabama and Mississippi)) and the free states.

I think we are all in agreement that slavery was not going to end in 1787. I also believe that we are in agreement that slavery should have been addressed at the Constitutional Convention. However, the issue is that by avoiding the slavery question, did the Constitution create a strong enough government that could effectively end slavery (as it did, via the Civil War)? It is an argument that is commonly discussed amongst historians. Some of the common questions revolving around the hypothetical event of the Constitution not existing that are often discussed are: would slavery had ended sooner or later; would the AoC fallen apart, and, if as almost universally agreed upon, what would the makeup of the country/countries had been; and would we have been "better off" by the Constitution (and/or the current iteration of the United States) not existing? My point in my post was to further this discussion, which it did.

As I stated previously, I agree that slavery should have been addressed at the Constitutional Convention. However, I do believe that there is a significant (if not likely) chance that slavery would have lasted longer given that the slave state economy was so heavily dependent and tied to slavery. Further, given that slavery existed in other countries following the Civil War (and indeed, still exists in various forms today), and the United States continued to trade with such countries, there is a strong argument that the free state country would not have put pressure on the slave state country to end slavery prior to the 1860s (and perhaps not even prior to the Twentieth Century). My issue with your post was that I did not believe you were really considering this issue, but were focusing too much on the modern political implications.

2. Indeed I posited 2 possible paths where slavery ends in the South even sooner if we excrete them:

2a. Without the North the South may have had to develop an integrated industrial-commercial economy earlier, and slavery dies naturally, just as it did in the North and in Britain. It wasn't as if that was magic, or that the North was ethically superior. Slavery just didn't make business sense in a modern economy. By keeping the South we sheltered and subsidizes their slave holders allowing them to hold on longer.

Possible path: maybe. Probable path: unlikely.

The slave states like New York and New Jersey probably follow this path; however, the economies of New York and New Jersey were not based upon slave labor, such as the rest of the slave states. The rise of cotton in the remaining slave states by the end of the Eighteenth Century, coupled with the world's growing desire for cotton, would likely have meant the rest of the slave states would not have had to develop/rely upon an industrial/commercial economy for much longer than the free states (which were never terribly reliant upon slavery for their economies). Of course, had countries refused to do business with the rest of the slave states until they eliminated slavery, this possibly could alter this take; however, as discussed above, I believe such pressure would not have mounted for a long time (likely into the Twentieth Century). In any event, to assume slavery would have ended upon the development of an industrial/commercial economy is also unlikely. Given that slavery was engrained into the slave state business model, it would be natural to assume that slaves would have been "repurposed" for the other hard manual labor positions within the industrial/commercial economy.

2b. As a loose confederation of nation states, without the central government ensured by the Constitution, the South may have fragmented into a chaos of failed states which the US then would mop up, eradicating slavery in each state as it does.

Again, hypothetically possible, and perhaps more probable than your 2a. scenario. Although, it likely would have taken some sort of military pressure to effectively fragment the slave states. Again, the slave state economies were largely self-sufficient (which was the source of some of the big disagreements between Jefferson's and Hamilton's economic ideals and willingness to take on debt). They largely would have only needed central government for protection. I would concede that had the free state country (or another country) invaded one or more of the slave states, it could have caused such a government to fragment. I just don't believe such an invasion (presumably for the purpose of eradicating slavery) would have occurred prior to the 1860s.

In conclusion, you'll never be a historian, an economist, or a debater, but the world needs ditch diggers too.

Sigh...more personal attacks. You do realize that these types of arguments are the lowest of the low in terms of debate, correct? In any event, if you knew me, you would know your statement is about as 180 degrees from the truth as possible.

Now, if we can just agree that we both hope the Islanders are able to win the Cup in glorious fashion, while the Rangers fail historically, then I think we might be able to make some ground on other issues.

[Handyman]

Look I love studying history but can we take this to the Racism thread or something...

(and yes I contributed so I am scolding myself as well)

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Look I love studying history but can we take this to the Racism thread or something...

(and yes I contributed so I am scolding myself as well)

Good call. Sorry for the interruption, and back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[Handyman]

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/sta...89062937427971

"The Department of Homeland Security official who oversaw the intelligence division at the department is being reassigned after it was revealed his office had gathered intelligence reports on two US journalists..."

Translation...next time dont get caught.

[WeAreNDHockey]

A photojournalist who was shot in the eye says it's not just violent rioters being targeted in Portland.

It's a choice for me to go to a protest. it's a choice for me to go to the one part of Portland that is erupting and in this kind of state-sponsored violence," Jennings said. "When I'm at a protest ... I could go blind, be shot in the head without a helmet on and potentially die. But that's what people of color are worried about and are facing every day when they go to the bank or go to the store.

Nothing new here, just more anecdotal evidence that the police are the enemy in this war.

[Handyman]

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...33258450485248

"Man fires at cops with AK-47 after refusing to wear a mask, police say"

Dont worry...he is White so he only got shot a few times and should live.

[Handyman]

https://twitter.com/Joshuajered/stat...93255174975489

Aurora PD again...this time apparently it was "Driving an SUV That Isnt Stolen While Black".

Ya know one time I got pulled over because the cops typed in my license plate wrong (which is the excuse they are using here) and I didnt get handcuffed and forced to lay prone on the ground with weapons drawn. They just admitted they screwed up and moved on. These cops go a different way...traumatizing a 5 year old girl. And they did it knowing they were being taped.

Edit: From the comments:

[Proud2baLaker]

https://twitter.com/Joshuajered/stat...93255174975489

Aurora PD again...this time apparently it was "Driving an SUV That Isnt Stolen While Black".

Ya know one time I got pulled over because the cops typed in my license plate wrong (which is the excuse they are using here) and I didnt get handcuffed and forced to lay prone on the ground with weapons drawn. They just admitted they screwed up and moved on. These cops go a different way...traumatizing a 5 year old girl. And they did it knowing they were being taped.

Edit: From the comments:

The stolen vehicle they were looking for was a motorcycle with plates from a different state.... JFC.

[aparch]

My stomach turned reading this article and watching the clip. Leaked bodycam video shows George Floyd brutally beaten by rookie cop before fatal arrest.

[Handyman]

Yeah well the Trumpers and the Cop Humpers are out in full force saying it exonerates the cops. I am not sure how but I am sure someone around here will open up their mouth and diarrhea out a reason.