Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Yep, unconstitutional.
    
      bb

    
    Stupid idea. Next topic?

    Our forefathers didn't seem to think it was a bad idea.  What gives?
    
    

    Bad because there might be many years of no wars and no one getting the
    vote.:) And of course, there are people who could not possibly serve in
    our armed forced because..... 
    
    But, to maybe volinteer some personal time to a worth cause as an
    althernative might be cast as a chit to those who would feel that need
    of military service to our great nation.
    
    

    What did our foremothers think of it, though?
    
    There's rather a large debate going on right now about the size and
    role of the federal government, and your suggestion amounts to
    requiring government service as the price of the franchise -- which
    is against, shall we say, the temper of the times?

    .0
    
    Actually, the real reason for granting the franchise only to veterans
    is not that "the right to vote will be far more endearing and
    meaningful."
    
    There's a critical piece missing from the equation, and that is that
    the veterans in question must have been volunteers.  No conscripts need
    apply.  Why?  Because volunteer veterans (of whatever service, military
    or otherwise) have demonstrated their willingness to place the good of
    the whole ahead of their own personal pleasure, at least for the
    duration of their service.  They are *probably* more likely to vote for
    things that benefit everyone than those who have refused to make such a
    commitment of themselves.
    
    Your "distinguished and respected colleague" ia very likely a reader of
    science fiction.  This exact premise of granting the francise in
    exchange for volunteer government service was promulgated in Robert A.
    Heinlein's 1959 novel _Starship Troopers_

>                  Because volunteer veterans (of whatever service, military
>    or otherwise) have demonstrated their willingness to place the good of
>    the whole ahead of their own personal pleasure, at least for the
>    duration of their service.

A lot of people enlist because their value in the civilian employment
marketplace is low.  They hope to raise that value by getting military
experience.  This is hardly altruistic.

    .7
    
    > A lot of people enlist because their value in the civilian employment
    > marketplace is low.
    
    When Heinlein wrote his book, 36 years ago, this was much less
    prevalent than it is now.  Of course, these days, some of these people
    join up and then piss and moan when they get shipped to a combat zone:
    "I didn't sign up to get shot at, I signed up to learn electronics." 
    Tough noogies.

>    Our forefathers didn't seem to think it was a bad idea.  What gives?

No. Our forefathers didn't think that at all. As you stated in .0, they
EXTENDED the vote PAST _only_ landowners to veterans _as well_. What your
colleague appears to be proposing is RESTRICTING it to VETERANS _only_.
A not too subtle difference, I believe.

    No, actually he is restricting it to people who have given of their
    time and effort to make the country a better place.  He mentioned the
    Peace Corp. and Habitat for Humanity as examples.
    
    I for one firmly adhere to the concept of no taxation without
    representation.  If my right to vote is to be taken away from me, then
    they will not get a dime out of me.  The IRS would get a torched house
    and a poisoned well...and I would most likely spend the rest of my life
    in prison.  
    
    No vote...No taxes...end of story!
    
    -Jack

    .10
    
    So, Jack, your choice is not to serve your country.  Fine.  "Ask not
    what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your
    country."  I assume you asked, and the answer was "sit back and take
    everything I can get."
    

    You Lie!  Why do you lie!!  Aside from the fact that Kennedy was a
    boob, I agree with the premise he made.  
    
    However, I stand firm on this.  People fight in wars because they
    believe in the freedom and rights of the US citizen.  Taking away the
    right to vote...even for the skanky non conservative demagogue is in
    essence prostituting the Constitution.
    
    My tax payments are a very hefty contribution to the betterment of
    society.  They take away my right to vote, then I will hurt them where
    it hurts most.  I will become a general nusiance, they will abscond
    worthless property by the time I get through with it, I will become
    totally dependent on the state, I will be sure my wife and children get
    a welfare check because our government is a true friend of the
    downtrodden.  
    
    I'm sure a multitude would follow along so as somebody stated, it
    wouldn't go over too well.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    Imagine if this had been your constitutional history.  When
    all those black heroes came home from war torn Europe
    to Alabama, they would have been embraced by a grateful
    populace and welcomed to the polling booth.  Right?
    
    

    No they weren't...but were they taxed in the same manner as others
    were?  
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack M:  I think you can relax...nobody's gonna take away your right 
    to vote.
    
    By the way...I assume that immigrants to the U.S. cannot vote until
    they become citizens.  Do you think they should be exempt from taxation?
     

    re: Note 439.14 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
    >  No they weren't...but were they taxed in the same manner as others
    >  were?
         
    They probably weren't taxed.  Unless they were millionares.  
    The IRS didn't put the wood to the commoners until they started 
    pissing away money faster than they could print it.
    

    
    Correct, non-citizens can't vote at any level.  It's a strong incentive
    to apply for citizenship - not just to vote - to be able to run for
    local elections.
    

    Dick:
    
    Thought you'd like to know that my distinguished colleague did get his
    ideas from the the science fiction novel!
    
    Re: Immigrants getting to vote and exempting from taxes...they can't
    vote and they should pay taxes.  Citizenship is the serious step toward
    assimilation into a country.
    
    -Jack

>    Jack M:  I think you can relax...nobody's gonna take away your right 
>    to vote.

Jack?  Relax?  Ha!

    .13
    
    > all those black heroes
    
    Have you studied enough history to know that segregation might well not
    be a problem today if the Confederate States of America had won the
    Second American Revolution?  Anti-black racism is the penalty we are
    all paying for Lincoln's refusal to let slavery die a natural death.

    .18
    
    > Re: Immigrants getting to vote and exempting from taxes...they can't
    > vote and they should pay taxes.
    
    Perhaps you forget what FDR once said:
    
        All of our people - except full-blooded Indians - are immigrants,
        or descendants of immigrants, including even those who came here
        on the Mayflower.
    
    Immigrants these days, who are indeed taxed, have to EARN the right to
    vote by going through the naturalization process.  What have you done
    to earn that right?

    Nothing Dick...I got a free ticket man!  My forebearers paid the harsh
    price of acceptance into America and I am solely an heir who is reaping
    the benefits of it.
    
    By the way, we talked about this before but refresh my memory. 
    American Indians were immigrants too.  They came over from Asia.  
    
 ZZ   Anti-black racism is the penalty we are
 ZZ   all paying for Lincoln's refusal to let slavery die a natural
 ZZ   death.
    
    Same could be said for racism itself and I've been making this argument
    for quite some time now.  Through our political gerrymandering, we have
    created this ugly fantasy called multiculturalism....which is a fallacy
    in itself.  What it boils down to is a bunch of tribal factions...be it
    white, black, male, female, whatever...pissing and moaning over who is
    being unfairly treated and who isn't getting a piece of the pie and on
    and on and on....
    
    No Dick, your congresscritter over the last thirty years is a big part
    of the cause of anti black and white racism.  Interference with the
    natural evolution of trust and goodwill in the community, building up a
    wall of suspicion and hate.  They thought they were helping and in the
    process, screwed up what may have been a lot different and better for
    all races.
    
    -Jack

    > Perhaps you forget what FDR once said:
    
    Perhaps FDR forgot that prior to 1776 or thereabouts, "Immigrants"
    were all royal subjects.  After we told the king to get lost and
    set up our own government, the slate is clean and citizenship
    was different.  We were sovereign.  Freemen.  (Ya, I know slaves were
    considered property).  Citizenship didn't change until 1868?  With
    the 14th amendment, which attempts to toss a net around everyone and
    call us "US Citizens".  
    
    Naturalized citizens today ARE US Citizens, getting their citizenship
    from the 14th amendment.  People who are "already here" have a
    different status.  Who are those "natural born citizens" mentioned
    in the body of the Constitution?  My child is a natural born citizen,
    even though his government issued birth certificate and identity
    number say otherwise. 
    
    Go check out topic 91.
    
    MadMike

    I'm a vet, and I think the idea stinks. One citizen, one vote. 
    Plain and simple. 
    
    Yes, even liberals...

    .22
    
    You are of course right in saying that Amerinds are also immigrants. 
    But FDR's point was still well taken.  After all, they've been here for
    several thousand years longer than European whites, and look at the
    stick we continue to give them the short end of.

    It came from a science fiction novel...what do you expect!!?

    .26
    
    > It came from a science fiction novel...what do you expect!!?
    
    Why am I not surprised at this cavalier, and ill-informed, dismissal?
    FWIW, some of the most penetrating social commentary penned in the last
    250 years has come from science fiction.

    13.  Dick,
    
    Well, I've read enough to know that the notion of military service as a
    qualification for voting rights goes back to the ancient Greek city
    states, predating Heinlein considerably. That the Pilgrims in 1430
    implemented the property qualification based on English law. That Rhode
    Island maintained a property requirement considerably longer than the
    other states, almost as long as pot-walloping was a requirement in
    England.
    
    The way I read it, voting rights were extended in 1870, but for all
    intents and purposes black voters in the south remained largely
    disenfranchised until the *forced* implementation of the  civil rights
    acts of 1957 (?) and 1960.  Through the use of such skullduggery as
    literacy tests and the poll tax, complete with loopholes for poor white
    voters.  I have a small understanding of the nineteenth and fifteenth
    amendments.
    
    I've also heard the argument that the great war of northern aggression
    was partly responsible for the lingering death of disenfranchisement.
    On the other hand, I have a harder time believing that in the event of
    a Southern win or a stalemate that a move to universal suffrage would
    have been underway in 1957.  (You can take that as a dispassionate
    analysis of the data, as I have no emotional baggage due to being
    associated with either side.)
    
    I guess I would posit a counter argument in terms of 50s anticommunism.
    You'd have to walk a country mile in the South at any time before the
    civil rights movement to find a Southerner who did NOT believe that it
    was OK for the US to try and free non-US citizens from their enslaving
    communist masters.  On the other hand, extending the opportunity for
    black Americans to exercise their Constitutional right to vote was not
    right.
    
    Not bad for another 2-room Welsh village schoolhouse eh?  (Plus, when
    I go for my citizenship, I want to know what I'm signing on for.)
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin

>                                 (You can take that as a dispassionate
>    analysis of the data, as I have no emotional baggage due to being
>    associated with either side.)

Are you from northern Wales or southern Wales?

    
    So slavery would have died a natural death, huh ?  It's not Friday,
    blunder, so you can't make up a fact.  There was no discernible
    move towards emancipation in 1860 in the south - the trend was in
    the other direction, and the confederate constitution enshrined the
    right to hold slaves explicitly.  See EA Pollock, The Lost Cause, which
    remains the best expression of actual Confederate views, written 1866
    by a conquered rebel Richmond newspaperman.
    
      bb

    .28
    
    The question I was posing in .20, Colin, dealt specifically with the
    atmosphere that resulted from the forced liberation of the South's
    slaves.
    
    Consider:  The Emancipation Proclamation, the document by which Lincoln
    freed the slaves, applied only to "States in rebellion," which makes it
    clear that his intent was to use slavery solely as an instrument in the
    war against the Confederacy.  In fact, he is on record as having said
    that if he could resubjugate the South without freeing a single slave,
    he would do that.  This leads eventually to the conclusion that he was
    neither more nor less than the usual slimy politician, using whatever
    he could find to further a political end - in his case, the recovery of
    the South into the United States.
    
    The fact of humanity is that we can usually learn to assimilate ideas
    that come upon us gradually but that we have a much harder time buying
    ideas that are forced down our throats.  The nature of commerce and
    industry in the latter half of the last century was such that slavery
    was on its way out anyway; witness John Deere's invention of the steel
    plow, Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, and Cyrus McCormick's
    invention of the mechanical reaper.  It was only a matter of time, and
    Robert E. Lee was in the vanguard of those who were determined to do
    away with slavery gently, not suddenly like the administration of a
    particularly bad-tasting nostrum.
    
    All this taken into account, it is quite possible, even likely, that in
    the latter half of our present century we would have taught ourselves
    to get along peaceably, equitably, even amicably with members of the
    race our forebears held in bondage.  And all those black war heroes who
    came back after WWII might well ahve been treated exactly as all the
    white war heroes.

    
    South.  Northeners go to Australia and get shot by visiting
    US sportsmen, thinking that they are a feral introduced species.
    
    Which is pretty accurate.

    .31
    
    > There was no discernible
    > move towards emancipation in 1860 in the south
    
    Quite true.  But then again, there was no discernible trend toward the
    collapse of the Alfred P. Murrah building until the millisecond of the
    bomb's detonation.
    
    Undercurrents take time to work.  Simply put, by 1880, with the
    introduction of electricity and the steam traction engine, it would
    have been more costly to feed, clothe, house, and guard slaves than to
    crank up the throttle or turn a switch and let a machine do their work
    for them.  By 1900, if slavery wasn't dead, it would have been
    moribund, and without all the hatred fostered by Reconstruction.
    
    > confederate constitution enshrined the
    > right to hold slaves explicitly.
    
    And the United States Constitution enshrined slavery as well,
    specifically enumerating the difference between free persons and those
    not, for the purpose of counting bodies to establish representation.

>                                 Anti-black racism is the penalty we are
>    all paying for Lincoln's refusal to let slavery die a natural death.

Dick, do you seriously think that after slavery had died a natural death,
former slaves would be welcomed into white southern society with open arms?

    .34
    
    Gerald, do you seriously think that after the Inquisition had died a
    natural death, Jews would be welcomed into Spanish society with open
    arms?

    Dick,
    
    You have plumbed the depths of my knowledge on the matter. I agree that
    Lincoln (another son of Wales by the way), wrote and spoke as you say.
 
    However, Lincoln was under incomprehensible pressures to keep the war
    effort together, considering the pro- and anti-slavery factions in the
    north.  He suspended Habeas Corpus so he was not above doing whatever
    else it took to win.  He also wrote that slavery was a "moral, social
    and political wrong".
    
    I prefer to believe that he was demonstrating the political skill of
    being, as Haig later characterized it "a duplicitous bastard".  And
    it's one of the few instances in history where the end really did
    justify the means.
    
    Regards,
    
    Colin
    
               

    Dick, do you seriously think that the race problems we have today are
    the legacy of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation?
    
    DougO

    .36
    
    Did the end justify Lincoln's means?  The first American Revolution was
    fought specifically because the American Founding Fathers considered
    that they had the right to remove themselves from the power of a
    government they considered tyranncial.  They enshrined that right in
    the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  Yet less than 100 years
    later, Lincoln went to extraordinary lengths, causing the deaths of
    some 600,000 Americans, by refusing to acknowledge that very right.

    .37
    
    Doug, do you seriously think that the problems between Israel and the
    Palestinians today are the legacy of the United Nations' having forced
    the creation of the Israeli state?

Dick, why do you always answer a question with a question?

    Gerald, do you think it might be an attempt to teach the original
    questioner how to fish?

       <<< Note 439.30 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    war against the Confederacy.  In fact, he is on record as having said
>    that if he could resubjugate the South without freeing a single slave,
>    he would do that.  This leads eventually to the conclusion that he was
>    neither more nor less than the usual slimy politician, using whatever
>    he could find to further a political end - in his case, the recovery of
>    the South into the United States.

I have a problem with this on a number of levels, but limit myself to two:
First, you seem to be denigrating his primary purpose - to preserve the
union. A worthwhile political end, I should think. Imagine world history
were we to be now two countries instead of one. Second, I wonder why guile,
ingenuity, spin are called entrepreneurialism and brilliant marketing in
businesspersons and "slimy" in politicians? Politicians in a free,
democratic system must somehow motivate and direct people over which they
have no direct hold, which leads them to having these skills well 
developed. You would have found Henry VIII no doubt refreshingly lacking in
them. 

 
>    ideas that are forced down our throats.  The nature of commerce and
>    industry in the latter half of the last century was such that slavery
>    was on its way out anyway; witness John Deere's invention of the steel
>    plow, Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, and Cyrus McCormick's
>    invention of the mechanical reaper.  It was only a matter of time, and
>    Robert E. Lee was in the vanguard of those who were determined to do
>    away with slavery gently, not suddenly like the administration of a
>    particularly bad-tasting nostrum.

Ah, but we still have significant agricultural sectors in which automation 
is virtually nonexistent - especially in the South. We have a large migrant 
workforce that has sprung up to replace slave labor.    

I agree, slavery would have died out anyway, but not because of industrial 
progress. The consciousness of the rest of the world would have evolved to 
the point were the Confederacy would have been shamed into abandoning it. 
Not all of them, of course, just enough of them to seize the political reins 
and take "right" of slaveholding away from the others. Which is why, IMHO,
your peaceable kingdom scenario is so much dreaming. 

    .42
    
    > First, you seem to be denigrating his primary purpose - to preserve the
    > union. A worthwhile political end, I should think.
    
    If preserving union is worthwhile, why it was so worthy to destroy the
    political union that bound the American colonies to Britain?  Is there
    no value in self-determination?
    
    > Imagine world history
    > were we to be now two countries instead of one.
    
    You imagine it.  Of course things would have been different.  So what? 
    It's not relevant to this discussion.
    
    > Second, I wonder why guile,
    > ingenuity, spin are called entrepreneurialism and brilliant marketing in
    > businesspersons and "slimy" in politicians?
    
    I don't call hypocrites brilliant, either in business or in politics. 
    And I consider it hypocritical to use the freedom of slaves ONLY IN THE
    REBELLIOUS STATES as a tool the way Lincoln did.  His views on slavery
    are known, surely.  "As I would not be a slave, neither would I be a
    master."  All he need have done to vitiate accusations of hypocrisy was
    to free all the salves, everywhere, both North and South.  He didn't. 
    Hence, he was a hypocrite.

    >>>Gonna be problems here.  The majority of politicians have law or
    business backgrounds with very few new ones, and even some old that
    have no military service.  Would you then limit political participation
    to only those who have served?   How about Old Hillbilly?  If my memory
    serves me correctly, he does not have a service background.  The good
    news is that Dan Quayle does (sort of!)-[please forgive my spelling]
    
    
    Rod

 ZZ   I agree, slavery would have died out anyway, but not because of industrial 
 ZZ   progress. The consciousness of the rest of the world would have evolved
 ZZ   to the point were the Confederacy would have been shamed into abandoning 
 ZZ   it. 
    
    I respectfully disagree.  Slavery in the Sudan in Africa is very much
    alive and well.  People are branded, they are sold as property...women,
    children, anybody from the southern territory of the Sudan have been
    given this dubious honor.
    
    What is very infuriating is that the black leadership in the United
    States has been and is continuing to turn a deaf ear to this.  So if
    the Jesse Jacksons and the Alan Sharptons of the world are blinded by
    the politics of today...where blacks enslave blacks (but they'll never
    admit this), what makes you think the confederacy would be shamed into
    anything?
    
    -Jack

         <<< Note 439.45 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

>    admit this), what makes you think the confederacy would be shamed into
>    anything?
    
You're right, Jack. I just *assumed* that the confederacy would have 
become one of the developed nations.

    .45
    
    The Sudan is not a highly industrialized nation.  What happens there
    will take longer to evolve, if it ever does.
    
    > So if
    > the Jesse Jacksons and the Alan Sharptons of the world are blinded by
    > the politics of today...where blacks enslave blacks
    
    So what?  The point of slavery in this country was that whites enslaved
    blacks specifically because the latter were black.  This is not the
    case in the Sudan, any more than it was the case thousands of years
    ago.  Race is not a factor; hence, Jackson and his ilk have no business
    making it a racism issue.

Who are the slaveholders in Sudan?  The northern Arabs or the southern blacks?

    Dick, I haven't made any claim wrt Israel and Palestinians such as
    yours wrt Lincoln and legacies.  Teach fishing, pah.
    
    DougO

       <<< Note 439.43 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    If preserving union is worthwhile, why it was so worthy to destroy the
>    political union that bound the American colonies to Britain?  Is there
>    no value in self-determination?

These were very different circumstances. But you knew that.
    
>    > Imagine world history
>    > were we to be now two countries instead of one.
    
>    You imagine it.  Of course things would have been different.  So what? 
>    It's not relevant to this discussion.

Ah, but I think it is. I think Lincoln saw the emerging role of our country 
in the world, as a beacon of freedom and a leader of free societies. That 
purpose would've been crippled by the division. 
    
>    I don't call hypocrites brilliant, either in business or in politics. 
>    And I consider it hypocritical to use the freedom of slaves ONLY IN THE
>    REBELLIOUS STATES as a tool the way Lincoln did.  His views on slavery
>    are known, surely.  "As I would not be a slave, neither would I be a
>    master."  All he need have done to vitiate accusations of hypocrisy was
>    to free all the salves, everywhere, both North and South.  He didn't. 
>    Hence, he was a hypocrite.

There is nothing hypocritical about it. Like all great leaders, Lincoln 
was a pragmatist. He wanted to see slavery gone, but he knew he must first 
preserve the Union. For that reason, he wanted to encourage border states 
who were ambivalent on slavery not to secede. A sound strategy.

    .49
    
    I never said you had made any such claims.  I invited you to think
    about the possibile analogy between the two situations.  You've
    declined.  Pity.

    .50
    
    > These were very different circumstances. But you knew that.
    
    Yup, they were different.  The inspired Founding Fathers wanted, and I
    quote, "the rights of Englishmen," by which they meant a fair voice in
    the government of their affairs.  The damned secesh rebels just wanted
    a fair voice in the government of their affairs.  How different can you
    get?
    
    > purpose would've been crippled by the division.
    
    How could the free choice to let a portion of one's countrymen choose a
    different way to govern themselves be construed as anything other than
    the ultimate belief in freedom?  Please PLEASE remember, slavery was
    NOT the issue until Lincoln made it so.  Liken the situation then to
    one today, i.e., abortion.  Would you be willing to fight a bloody war
    just to prevent the residents of several states, none of them your
    home, from securing abortion?
    
    > There is nothing hypocritical about it.
    
    "Do as I say, not as I do.  Free your slaves, but I don't have to free
    mine because I'm not sassing back to Big Brother."  The "I" in that is,
    of course, the United States of America, whose slaves were not freed by
    Lincoln but rather had to wait until the 14th Amendment was ratified
    after the end of the Civil War.

    
    Perhaps not slavery, but South Africa managed to 
    face down world opinion of apartheid and no voting rights
    for a loooooooong time.  A resonably modern industrialized
    society, No?

    I believe the northern moslims are the slaveholders.  But consider the
    following.  The United States has held three campaigns...one in South
    Africa, another in Haiti, and a third in Somalia.  The United States
    was accused of bigotry by our lack of compassion for these nations. 
    The black leadership of this country did the shouting, screaming,
    fasting, fake fasting, hunger strikes, and all the other symbolic
    practices to ferret out the truth that there is white aggression in
    South Africa and no compassion for Haitians.  The United States is an
    uncaring nation and their policies are racist.
    
    This is fine, it may be worthy of noting.  But the bottom line is 
    the leadership in this country is hunger striking over underdeveloped
    countries like Haiti; however, the Sudan which involves black on black
    violence is being turned a deaf ear lest Jesse et al offend the muslim
    element of this country.  
    
    -Jack

The northern Sudanese are Arabs, not blacks.  And what "campaign" did the
U.S. "hold" in South Africa?

    Binder, you're a piece of work today.  I've declined to consider your
    parallel because its barmy, you must realize.  The claim in the last
    sentence of your .20 is with what I take issue- that and your tone.
    
    And this latest, "slavery was not an issue until Lincoln made it so",
    as if he could have risked alienating the slaveholders in the border
    states, as if the war to preserve the Union wasn't politically divisive
    throughout the North.  Lincoln had no such maneuvering room and issued
    the Proclamation explicitly as punishment to the states in rebellion-
    something he hadn't the political capital to risk attempting elsewhere.
    You're getting in deeper, and polite hints evidently aren't enough
    warning- well, you've put your foot in it now.
    
    DougO

    There was a national cry for divestment in South Africa because of the
    racial disparity.  Like I said in another note, private sector
    boycotting is far more preferable in my mind than involving big
    brother.  I saw goodness in this and agree it needed to be done.
    
    I am only commenting on the quiet demeanor of our black leadership in
    this country toward the Sudan.  My understanding based on what I've
    heard is that black Northern muslim Sudanese are very much involved in
    the slave trade in the Sudan...it is well known in the black caucous
    and has been silenced.  I fear there is political reasons for
    this...one of which is not to cause division within the African
    American ranks between muslim and non muslim individuals.  
    
    -Jack

Jack, no matter how many times you repeat it, northern Sudanese aren't black.

    Gerald:
    
    Fine, then let's use Idi Amin as the example.  His favorite meal is
    black children.  Is this sobering enough?  
    
    Same outcry from our leadership...none!
    
    -Jack

Um, I don't think Idi Amin was too popular in the U.S.  The NAACP didn't give
out an Idi Amin Humanitarian Award, nor did the U.S. government pour money
into his Swiss bank accounts.

Next!

    True...but no hunger strikes that's for sure!!!!!
    
    -Jack

There was practically no U.S. investment in Uganda, so there was no point in
pushing for disinvestment.  Amin forceably disinvested the Indian merchant
class.

    Even this one is pretty strange the Idi Amin weirdness index...

    It seems that Amin one applied for a visa to visit the US to
    participate in the Professional Bowler's tour. The state
    department denied the application. I'm not making this up...

    It's good to see our government strike out under its own
    initiative and spare us the embarrassment of letting the
    Ugandan king pin into the country.

    -b

    .56
    
    > Binder, you're a piece of work today.
    
    You will have to admit that I have stimulated a lot of disucssion, some
    of it even posted after the writers thought for a while.  Which was in
    fact my purpose.
    
    I will not contend that there would be no racism today had Lincoln not
    forced emancipation down the throats of the Southern people.  But I do
    contend that whatever racism existed today would have been different,
    and likely far less vicious.  People resent for a long time that which
    they are compelled to do against their will.
    
    > explicitly as punishment to the states in rebellion
    
    As if the people of the South just knuckled right under to what the
    president of an enemy country proclaimed and freed all their slaves. 
    Yeah, right.  In fact, the proclamation angered them and hardened their
    determination to fight for the right to decide for themselves how to
    conduct their affairs.
    
    'S also a fact that not all slaves were particularly happy about the
    idea that they'd have to be free, with no education and no money, to
    compete with whites who had both.
    
    > foot in it
    
    DougO, I really had thought you able to realize the value of debate. 
    Obviously, I overestimated you.  My apologies.

       <<< Note 439.64 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    As if the people of the South just knuckled right under to what the
>    president of an enemy country proclaimed and freed all their slaves. 
>    Yeah, right.  In fact, the proclamation angered them and hardened their

Actually, it served many purposes. One of which was to bolster the Union 
army with black recruits. Not especially noble. But pragmatic.

    > You will have to admit that I have stimulated a lot of disucssion
    
    a meowski defense?  Now who's being a disappointment.
    
    > I will not contend that there would be no racism today had Lincoln not
    
    Ah, then that pot-stirring you engaged in in .20 is withdrawn.  Good.
    
    > DougO, I really had thought you able to realize the value of debate. 
    
    I expect better than .20 from you.
    
    DougO

    Hey DougO, quit acting like an uncircumcised philistine!!

    Hey maybe DougO, is an uncircumcised philistine!!  :)
    
    ...Tom

    
    It's no skin off his nose