Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Chitown Kev

(2,197 posts)
125. Oh, I get it...middle of a primary and all of that
Wed Sep 16, 2015, 05:48 PM
Sep 2015

that part of it really interests me less than the history of the arguments here (I'm a long-time history buff)

You deal with the truth.... daleanime Sep 2015 #1
Bernie doesn't speak with forked tongue. GeorgeGist Sep 2015 #2
Such a good response!!!!! AlbertCat Sep 2015 #79
Clinton Campaign Has Many Forked Tounges billhicks76 Sep 2015 #118
Her campaign is going to go down in history... SoapBox Sep 2015 #135
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? malthaussen Sep 2015 #143
That campaign will probably get mixed up and use the WD-40 ON the chickens. Ken Burch Sep 2015 #198
They Know About Our In-House Ostriches billhicks76 Sep 2015 #257
They're putting WD-40 on the stuff that moves when it should and duct Fawke Em Sep 2015 #203
Boy he sure is getting his ass handed to him! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #3
According to his CV he is. historylovr Sep 2015 #54
I guess some people are willing to destroy their reputation for a politician. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #57
Glancing through them now. historylovr Sep 2015 #67
I can't find the comments. Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2015 #99
No. They will appear on the right near the bottom of the article. You'll see a box Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #101
Ah, thank you! Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2015 #136
No, I'm not. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #103
Thank you! Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2015 #137
My pleasure! beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #138
What reputation? Ken Burch Sep 2015 #258
fit into the arc of progressive history over the last half-century or more, AlbertCat Sep 2015 #80
That made me laugh. historylovr Sep 2015 #104
Good! It was supposed to. AlbertCat Sep 2015 #120
Can it be that Hillary truly believes she is progressive... malthaussen Sep 2015 #128
Even the founding fathers knew that slavery was a time bomb buried in the constitution. Warren DeMontague Sep 2015 #4
+100%! Enthusiast Sep 2015 #161
This nation was built on the backs of slaves. bunnies Sep 2015 #5
He's one of her closest advisors. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #8
Great. bunnies Sep 2015 #11
Nuh uh!!! jeff47 Sep 2015 #18
... bunnies Sep 2015 #21
Who were effectively slaves. blackspade Sep 2015 #155
Hence the sarcasm tag. (nt) jeff47 Sep 2015 #193
gotcha blackspade Sep 2015 #242
Naw, there is a huge difference. malthaussen Sep 2015 #206
Indentured servitude was a palatable term for whites in bondage blackspade Sep 2015 #243
Check out Bernard Bailyn's malthaussen Sep 2015 #244
Cool, I'll check it out. blackspade Sep 2015 #245
And on the graves of natives. This Clinton minion is an idiot. n/t arcane1 Sep 2015 #35
+1000. nt bunnies Sep 2015 #39
On the backs of slaves and the bones of Indians. Enthusiast Sep 2015 #162
The foundation of cruelty and hatred. bunnies Sep 2015 #237
I believe it was the late Marc Bloch who observed... malthaussen Sep 2015 #192
Yes. On the backs of the people who have suffered the most. bunnies Sep 2015 #236
Riiiight...not based on racism. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2015 #6
A gruesome response to anyone that doesn't think that this country isn't built on erronis Sep 2015 #109
Uh let's not forget Native American genocide either. ibegurpard Sep 2015 #7
True that. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #17
well, technically it was a lot of LITTLER genocides, and often they just starved to death by MisterP Sep 2015 #81
often they just starved to death AlbertCat Sep 2015 #96
Killing off the buffalo was a stated means used to eradicate the natives. Enthusiast Sep 2015 #165
And things haven't changed much when we invade other nations to steal sabrina 1 Sep 2015 #234
Thank you, sabrina. Once again, you nailed it. Enthusiast Sep 2015 #238
It's racist all the way down. Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #9
Just like turtles. Enthusiast Sep 2015 #167
Gee, I could have sworn I remember reading something... malthaussen Sep 2015 #10
If he talked about Native Americans not paying taxes jwirr Sep 2015 #19
Context, jwirr, context. malthaussen Sep 2015 #23
Ah, I just learned something new. As you know that is jwirr Sep 2015 #229
The Constitution does not say "black folks" Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #22
Article 1, Section 2 , Paragraph 3: malthaussen Sep 2015 #25
Yes, I knew that it didn't say black folks Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #29
Nothing wrong with your memory. But your understanding is completely wrong. ieoeja Sep 2015 #33
Yeah, I'm familiar with that point. malthaussen Sep 2015 #56
No, it does not even come close to saying they only count as 3/5th of a real human. ieoeja Sep 2015 #106
Eh, I don't think you're off-topic. malthaussen Sep 2015 #126
Slaves shouldn't have counted at all. AlbertCat Sep 2015 #87
Exactly Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #93
Like the Spanish Inquisition... malthaussen Sep 2015 #130
Do I see some role reversal going on here? Armstead Sep 2015 #12
He had to ignore Native Americans because manifest jwirr Sep 2015 #13
Wow. Talk about being wrong! in_cog_ni_to Sep 2015 #14
Let The Mudslinging Begin cantbeserious Sep 2015 #15
Must not have heard of the 3/5 compromise. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #16
Utter horseshit. hifiguy Sep 2015 #20
Read Wilentz's discussion, though Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #26
can't both be true ? JI7 Sep 2015 #36
It may be a measure of how smart some of our Founders were... malthaussen Sep 2015 #38
Truth train left Clinton Station long ago. HooptieWagon Sep 2015 #42
Around the time of the NAFTA debate, hifiguy Sep 2015 #49
Frederick Douglass provides an alternate interpretation of the 3/5 language: jonno99 Sep 2015 #76
My main beef with the article is the Mr. Welintz conflates country with Constitution. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #82
"our country was founded on racist principles." - but what does really mean? That some of the jonno99 Sep 2015 #90
Explain Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #107
It is generally agreed that slavery would have eventually ended. jonno99 Sep 2015 #124
Well, we do know that the British, in spite of abolishing slavery in 1833 Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #140
What? The United States was one of last countries to outlaw slavery. mhatrw Sep 2015 #148
One of the last? Your link appears to have the US somewhere in the middle. Not to mention jonno99 Sep 2015 #173
To me that's the question of this thread. Racism's precedes capture and ownership. "Principles" ancianita Sep 2015 #224
"...attempting to judge the past by the present, ...is always a preposterous thing to do" AlbertCat Sep 2015 #92
Perhaps. His statement is somewhat lacking in specifics: jonno99 Sep 2015 #114
which racist principles he is referring to... AlbertCat Sep 2015 #123
Ok - but as codified by what specifially? This whole discussion is a little nebulas. jonno99 Sep 2015 #132
Are you (or Bernie) referring to the "three fifths of all other Persons" language in article 1? AlbertCat Sep 2015 #139
We agree on this: many whites thought they were superior to everyone else. jonno99 Sep 2015 #164
"principles" may be an unfelicitous word choice. malthaussen Sep 2015 #172
No. I think he means what he says… Principles has several meanings... Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #181
Might just be semantics. malthaussen Sep 2015 #185
I agree, and yet our jurisprudence is based on the words of the document - not the jonno99 Sep 2015 #183
Well, to an extent. malthaussen Sep 2015 #190
Consider that the question is between de jure and de facto... malthaussen Sep 2015 #142
Agreed. I think the argument could be made that while the founders jonno99 Sep 2015 #159
I felt the article was reminicient of Fox pundrity myself. Enthusiast Sep 2015 #174
I guess slavery never happened? JRLeft Sep 2015 #24
Both Washington and Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves and freed none during their lifetimes. Nye Bevan Sep 2015 #27
The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson is not a pretty read. Skwmom Sep 2015 #41
Thank you for that link. bunnies Sep 2015 #46
Can Hillary's lawyer explain why a slave could both not vote and only counted 3/5 th? karynnj Sep 2015 #28
Well, he IS using Douglass's argument Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #34
So, Hillary's lawyer is on the wrong side of an argument made a century and a half ago? karynnj Sep 2015 #50
Go read both Garrison's and Douglass' arguments Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #59
Yep, it is an interesting question. malthaussen Sep 2015 #71
Yes, Garrison's argument (and Bernie's argument here, too) Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #88
Garrison favored emigration too, at first. malthaussen Sep 2015 #111
Yes, some speculate that Garrison was jealous of Douglass Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #121
Can Hillary's lawyer explain why AlbertCat Sep 2015 #98
right out of the gop playbook restorefreedom Sep 2015 #30
the guy is a fucking jackass. he was one of those going after Obama on rev wright JI7 Sep 2015 #31
There ya go. I did not know that. Enthusiast Sep 2015 #177
Stick a fork in her get the red out Sep 2015 #32
Slavery was NOT abolished until 1865 with the 13th Amendment. Are we going to ignore history. n/t Skwmom Sep 2015 #37
The only reason this matters to some is the supposed connection to Hillary...duh randys1 Sep 2015 #40
Did I blame Hillary? Oh no I did not. I do hope someone asks her about it, though. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #44
OMG, at least be sincere HILLARY'S HISTORIAN what in the WORLD does that mean? randys1 Sep 2015 #52
Because he advises her on historical issues and is sometimes referred as Hillary's Historian. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #60
so Hillary's historian says, US not founded on racist principles, but Obama's campaign was? virtualobserver Sep 2015 #69
HuffPo: beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #61
Their whole record belies any claim to any "fit into the arc of progression." Their record fits, ancianita Sep 2015 #146
yeah just look at the comments . JI7 Sep 2015 #53
I doubt they really care beyond hoping it hurts her politically. AlbertCat Sep 2015 #108
All the Cornell West posts? Armstead Sep 2015 #58
BINGO. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #63
People here are focused on criticizing DEMOCRATS, most of that is against Hillary. randys1 Sep 2015 #65
Hillary's surrogates are attacking Bernie in the NYT.... virtualobserver Sep 2015 #91
You were defending Brock's use of guilt by association earlier. frylock Sep 2015 #89
and there is a whole hell of a lot more "association" with this story virtualobserver Sep 2015 #158
You are, I kid you not, the best and most HONEST "Bernie supporter" on DU. delrem Sep 2015 #186
Aww geee shucks, thanks. randys1 Sep 2015 #187
How come I never see you do this? BASH bash BASH Bernie Autumn Sep 2015 #223
I correct people all the time, problem is there is a 20-1 ratio of attacks on hillary. randys1 Sep 2015 #247
Like I said you don't defend Bernie in those threads. What if they keep it up Autumn Sep 2015 #248
I make positive comments about him all the time. You cant win this with me randys1 Sep 2015 #249
Positive comment are one thing. My point is that I have never Autumn Sep 2015 #250
None of them have threatened NOT to vote if their candidate isnt the one. randys1 Sep 2015 #251
I call bull shit, the OP does not threaten to NOT to vote if their candidate isn't the one Autumn Sep 2015 #252
racist principles ? left-of-center2012 Sep 2015 #43
And they still had to wait 56 more years after the 14th amendment for citizenship jfern Sep 2015 #156
hopefully Clinton supporters will not defend this JI7 Sep 2015 #45
I can't imagine the 80 or 90 whatever % of African Americans who support her m-lekktor Sep 2015 #51
Another unforced error.. 99Forever Sep 2015 #47
I can't find a full version of Garrison's argument Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #48
Is this what you are looking for? (Had it bookmarked) Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #55
That's one of them Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #62
Do you agree that the USA was not founded on racist principles? n/t mhatrw Sep 2015 #157
Of course I don't agree with that Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #171
"Wilentz's argument was not complete, though." < AKA Lying by omission. n/t jtuck004 Sep 2015 #240
Strictly speaking, the only way that Wilentz CAN make this argument Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #256
dear Sean olddots Sep 2015 #64
This is almost genocide denial Cheese Sandwich Sep 2015 #66
+1. historylovr Sep 2015 #78
I was incredulous, so I had to google. azmom Sep 2015 #68
"Jacksonian Democrat?" malthaussen Sep 2015 #86
Maybe he's the type to do anything azmom Sep 2015 #97
Sean Wilentz is a highly respected historian... riversedge Sep 2015 #70
Did you trust his writing in 2008 when he said this about Obama? Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #74
The work of any historian, regardless of how respected he or she may be, is still subject Maedhros Sep 2015 #253
This guy is an NSA apologist to boot! TM99 Sep 2015 #72
Don't make the mistake of assuming Hillary's supporters are arguing in good faith. Maedhros Sep 2015 #254
So, Hillary's historian denies the founding racism of this country, seemingly unaware ... hedda_foil Sep 2015 #73
Spaghetti Flinging. Trying to see what sticks. aidbo Sep 2015 #75
It's an OpEd in the NYT by a Clinton advisor who claims that Bernie poisoning the current presidential Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #77
Hillary seems lost. She will say and do anything to get elected. Why? jalan48 Sep 2015 #83
This has very little to do with Hillary. Metric System Sep 2015 #85
True-he's just an advisor. She still seems lost though. jalan48 Sep 2015 #94
Hillary surrogates, writing op-eds in the NYT virtualobserver Sep 2015 #150
he's a big Jackson booster, redeeming the "white Republic" MisterP Sep 2015 #84
What a fucking idiot. Fantastic Anarchist Sep 2015 #95
I hate to say it, Sean, but . . . DrBulldog Sep 2015 #100
This what he wrote during the 08' campaign Truprogressive85 Sep 2015 #102
WOW. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #110
I'm not defending him at all Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #117
This is classic Clinton politics and he knows how to play the game. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #119
Oh, I get it...middle of a primary and all of that Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #125
Yeah, you joined right at the beginning and it's only going to get worse. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #127
LOL, 2008 didn't even bother me that much Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #154
I understand his argument and that is not my main complaint. Bernie stated the COUNTRY Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #129
Bernie (and William Lloyd Garrison) made a cultural argument, yes Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #147
Please do. I can't anymore because I timed out on my 10 free monthly access to the Times. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #151
Yeah, Sean doesn't mention Garrison at all. malthaussen Sep 2015 #163
Thanks for that; especially your second paragraph. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #168
Yeah, this is when DU gets good. malthaussen Sep 2015 #176
Thank you (that is, if I am "the new guy") Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #196
Indeed. You are the new guy. Welcome and thanks for your every contribution. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #211
The state of Virginia, for instance Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #182
Ditto for Pennsylvania malthaussen Sep 2015 #189
You can delete cookies and reset the count. nt DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2015 #166
But I looooooove cookies! Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #169
There is a plague of assholes aligned against Bernie and us. Enthusiast Sep 2015 #194
Yup. beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #233
I like how he tossed in "by any means necessary" Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #116
How does a moron like this even get close to a Democratic candidate? BillZBubb Sep 2015 #105
He shilled for her in 2008 and accused Obama of deploying "racial politics": beam me up scottie Sep 2015 #112
Not founded on racism because.... Geronimoe Sep 2015 #113
He doesn't refute anything demwing Sep 2015 #115
Conservatives are lying idiots regardless of party. TheKentuckian Sep 2015 #122
Yesterday it was Sanders is like some guy in England DaveT Sep 2015 #131
"This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free." -George Carlin Fearless Sep 2015 #133
Hillary's historian... PowerToThePeople Sep 2015 #134
Are people going to claim that "3/5ths of a person" has nothing to do with racism? jfern Sep 2015 #141
Yep. Read the thread. malthaussen Sep 2015 #145
So Sanders is only 3/5ths correct about this? n/t mhatrw Sep 2015 #144
No system of evil has "principles." Sanders just needs to lose that word. That's 17th Century l ancianita Sep 2015 #149
It means, in this context, the underlying foundation for a belief or behavior system. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #160
Then we disagree on depravity, which is the basis of slavery, not "principles". "Foundation" is ancianita Sep 2015 #170
No. We disagree that a word can have more than one meaning. The members of the KKK Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #175
Like I said, there are no principles as the foundation of any evil system of bigotry/racism. ancianita Sep 2015 #184
Actually, Sanders and my definition is the first definition in every dictionary. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #210
Definitions are living documents subject to change by thinking through words' ramifications. ancianita Sep 2015 #213
Oh I understand. I just think removing context and contracting meaning makes us less Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #216
To say that "foundation" and "principles" are synonymous muddles context and makes us unintelligent. ancianita Sep 2015 #218
I've not said that at all. The definition of principles has a foundation. That foundation is Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #230
The foundation of racism is fear, depravity and greed. Those are not principles. Principles are ancianita Sep 2015 #232
Like it our not, principles are the ideological foundation of both the odious and the sublime. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #235
Actually, your disagreement is whether a meaning is appropriate. malthaussen Sep 2015 #199
Thank you. If a word could have two different meanings, there wouldn't be need for different words, ancianita Sep 2015 #205
I understand that but I loathe disregarding context and the contraction of vocabulary. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #207
Well, as a thought exercise, you might want to noodle the idea... malthaussen Sep 2015 #212
Yes, it certainly does dictate context, particularly when one tries to rationalize the real world ancianita Sep 2015 #214
I also look to motives of those who strive to restrict language within narrow bounds. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #221
But you're not the Shadow malthaussen Sep 2015 #222
I'll point this out... malthaussen Sep 2015 #226
This is where we are done. Enjoyed the conversation. Reject where's black Waldo. Luminous Animal Sep 2015 #228
Sorry my trust was misplaced. malthaussen Sep 2015 #239
Disagree Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #200
That's beyond the scope of this thread. You could agree if you didn't distract yourself with that. ancianita Sep 2015 #202
"Old school" though, in the context I was using it... malthaussen Sep 2015 #209
Fair enough. But I'm on record as not putting anything past the language of status quo supporters. ancianita Sep 2015 #217
I wouldn't have said that Chitown Kev Sep 2015 #215
Fine. I got the history part. But I'm trying to deal with a candidate's use of language today. ancianita Sep 2015 #219
You're confused. Maedhros Sep 2015 #255
Wow, and I decided not to use the old Schools argument... malthaussen Sep 2015 #195
It is possible to support evil when one rationalizes the benefits of it by using exonerating words ancianita Sep 2015 #197
Neither is the question of willing evil a semantical question. malthaussen Sep 2015 #204
Changing language changes thinking. Language use is psycholinguistic training. It's crucial to seein ancianita Sep 2015 #208
Language of rebellion may also be the tool of falsity malthaussen Sep 2015 #220
Oh yes. No doubt. All kinds of astroturf uses of language...meet the new boss, same as the old boss ancianita Sep 2015 #225
I'd enjoy it as well. malthaussen Sep 2015 #227
I like the thread, too. Thanks for all your posts! Have a restful night. ancianita Sep 2015 #231
Wilentz is a revisionist historian. blackspade Sep 2015 #152
You would rather he was a conformist historian? malthaussen Sep 2015 #179
Revisionist in the sense that he wants to rewrite history to fit a racist world view. blackspade Sep 2015 #241
What is it with the Clintons and self-sabotage? nichomachus Sep 2015 #153
Did he ever work for Monsanto ? orpupilofnature57 Sep 2015 #178
Wow, what a douchebag. Major Hogwash Sep 2015 #180
I had a feeling this statement would come back to bite him FloridaBlues Sep 2015 #188
To whom are you referring? malthaussen Sep 2015 #191
Seems to me Hillary is taking the black azmom Sep 2015 #201
It was written into the Constitution me b zola Sep 2015 #246
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary's historian refut...»Reply #125