Snoopy

and I haven't properly expounded yet in that setting.

What do you mean? You haven't properly understood what occurred?

I don't "support" nationalism, in the sense that I think it ideal.  

But you do understand the path that you could go to right? 

I don't find nationalism practical in a sense that a nation is inherently "good". 

This is not about what is inherently is good is if this is good compared to other ideas. So do you consider you ideal of nationalism better than others ideals?

I view nationalism in a consequential sense in a world in which people do not agree to a universal state. 

What do you mean like people care about the community around them or country more than people who are not apart of that? I think that is a given but that that person can still have that stance if they do not unfairly look down at others due to this bias.

Nationalism, is morally and practically necessitated in some respects.

Example? 

Whoa

Why are you so shocked about this anyway?

It would be where you are headed since you do support nationalism. That entails many other viewpoints that can lead to where he is headed like you might be. 

Snoopy: Communism?

You don't know what that means, but it's truly better. Humans aren't.

If this is meant to contribute to the thread would you clarify the implication?

If you hate illegal aliens so much, stop eating at restaurants that hire them and stop buying produce that is harvested by them and stop staying at hotels that employ them and stop visiting buildings that were constructed by them.

Just stop.

unproductive people from the gene pool. The only people that need worry are the slow and the lazy.

You want to get rid of the 1%ers too? Good for you.

Illegals should be taking zero benefits. Every remittance sent to Mexico and other shithole countries should be confiscated and used to build the wall until the illegals deport themselves. Coyotes should be eradicated instead of being a 20 billion dollar a year industry in trafficking humans to get free healthcare and free education in the USA as an illegal invader. The USA does not need to subsidize Mexican cartel coyotes.

Simply boycott every product you normally buy that employs immigrant labor

Free market capitalism baby!!

either way the resources will be less because of illegals right?  I mean if more illegals enter, more taxes are taken/needed.  Given a finite amount of resources, that means less for actual citizens.

this would also reduce the reason/incentive for illegals to enter, well, illegally.  And all levels of law enforcement would be forced to deport illegals and prevent them from entering in the first place.

Imagine if you will for a moment I wave my magic wand and poof, every illegal is gone.  Now the money they are using is rather substantial and no longer being used by them.  This could be relocated or refunded to the tax payer.  Either way it would no longer be used/wasted on criminal aliens who quite frankly don't deserve it when citizens, veterans etc don't have what they need.

"The fact of the matter is Confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".  "

You don't seem to understand the definition of "fact".

Please explain your alternative hypothesis regarding why the Confederate states seceded from the Union.

Something appears to be leading to your responding as though you aren't reading what is wrote and to make gross generations in error.  For example, White Southerner =/= Confederate.  Maybe I am wrong, like you could just hate statues and your mind is already made up so you would be fine with any justification rather than taking in the facts in context.  Really, if its just a stupid statue, people can make whatever they want of it.  I am interested in what you are making of it.  

The same people and the children of the same people who fought the Union in order to protect their livelihood (through the practice of slavery) were the same people who lobbied for Jim Crow.

The linked article confirms that 23 states, twice that of the secessional states had Jim Crow.  Your statement is redundant.

Certainly many states supported Jim Crow who were not part of the Confederacy.  However this is irrelevant.  The same attitudes that led to the Confederacy were manifest in Jim Crow.  The statues in question honor the men who represented those values.

5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step

NOT going to war would have "expedited the abolition of slavery" in a much faster and more humane fashion.

Why did you write this?

It's pretty simple.  If the Confederate states had abolished slavery, like the Union states did, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO SLAVERY AND NO CIVIL WAR.

Snoopy: reducing the social security benefits from people with cushy retirements would properly facilitate a greater distribution of limited funds to those in need.

I don't think that is necessary when you can simply put more money into social security that are for people in need. 

Resurgent: often try to get rich people to be exempted from receiving Social Security. Democrats vote to stop that from happening. Why is that? It's because, even though rich people receive SS, SS is still a net transfer away from the rich towards to more poor.

UBI would be a lot more acceptable if it didn't discourage charity within the community.  If under a certain threshold of income, people could opt out and get full tax refunds for their charity, what have you, this would make a lot more sense to a lot more people.

I think that this is entirely wrongheaded; how do you figure that it discourages charity? I would certainly give more if I had more to give. To my church, and to the poor in general.

This is based on the assumption that the inflation rate won't increase and the people who need it the most will use the money rationally? The only way you can prove inflation rate won't increase is to provide a trial that also gave people 1k a month. Didn't realise Alaska got 1k a year. How about Finland?

How does it improve negotiating power? I think it is fair to say most people carry on with their job because of the healthcare they. 

So I can understand, in the current context we have debt to pay off, and greater tax cuts at the high end of income essentially shield some people from that burden, arguably unfair.  I have to ask though, what do you have against tax cuts?

My problem was that he said a bill was for tax cuts for the middle class but his cut the rich more than the middle class. 

He says he will cut taxes for middle class but more taxes were cut for the rich.

Hate speech is also a word. Saying that is recently made doesn't mean it isn't a word.

Want to try again?

6. Disputing the quoted fact is futile.  Its a fact.

Please be more specific.

2. Confederates have already surrendered in the introduced context and many have died, or moved on post civil war.

But they were still alive and still hated former slaves, and they created Jim Crow specifically in order to generationally disenfranchise them.

Who is they?  Be specific.

The white people in the former Confederate states.

1. You are clearly making the same sort of fallacy is that racists do, putting your current train of thought in question thereafter

3. Jim Crow is a national movement

In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America,

Here's a chart of the states. [LINK]

4. Union States had slaves, and other forms of exploitation

This is an irrelevant red-herring.  Just because some people get away with murder does not make murder less horrific.

5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step

NOT going to war would have "expedited the abolition of slavery" in a much faster and more humane fashion.

1. You are clearly making the same sort of fallacy is that racists do, putting your current train of thought in question thereafter

Please be more specific.

2. Confederates have already surrendered in the introduced context and many have died, or moved on post civil war.

But they were still alive and still hated former slaves, and they created Jim Crow specifically in order to generationally disenfranchise them.

5. The war expedited the abolition of slavery, the first step

NOT going to war would have "expedited the abolition of slavery" in a much faster and more humane fashion.

To reiterate, the fact of the matter is that confederates did not necessarily cause "generational disenfranchisement", and they did not necessarily base their decisions upon political ideals or the preservation of "the greatest material interest in the world".  

Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States.[1]

The laws were enforced until 1965.[3] 

In practice, Jim Crow laws mandated racial segregation in all public facilities in the states of the former Confederate States of America, starting in the 1870s and 1880s, and were upheld in 1896, by the U.S. Supreme Court's "separate but equal" legal doctrine for facilities for African Americans, established with the court's decision in the case of Plessy vs. Ferguson. Moreover, public education had essentially been segregated since its establishment in most of the South, after the Civil War (1861–65). [LINK]

This is clearly generational disenfranchisement.

Another, is that the ssoutherners were literally "fighting for slavery". Slavery was not going anywhere. but the political interests of the southern elite would predictably be undermined to an increasing degree.. Some confederate slave owners freed their slaves prior to the emancipation proclamation.

The idea that because some unknown number of slaves were reportedly freed has absolutely zero bearing on the fact that the Confederate states EXPLICITLY name "the institution of slavery" as "the greatest material interest of the world".

For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. [LINK]

How about an someone who served their country for decades, sided with their state, surrendered gracefully, commanded respect not only from their troops, but also their adversaries and union representatives, negotiated reasonable terms of surrender through mutual respect, and/or generally supported their country thereafter?  By comparing this to a serial killer I think you are taking this out of context and not giving your opinion a fair hearing.  For one, the civil war greatly accelerated the abolition of slavery in the United States which hadn't yet occurred throughout the Northern States.

So, if you kidnap a person from their home and then force them (under threat of death) and their children to work for you until they die or you choose to sell them, and then you TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST your own government when they suggest that you let them go free, and then when it is obvious that you've lost that battle, you surrender and apologize, DOES THAT MAKE YOU A HERO?

The original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization." In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. "In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals," the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states.

In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

The myth that the war was not about slavery seems to be a self-protective one for many people, said Stan Deaton, the senior historian at the Georgia Historical Society.

"People think that somehow it demonizes their ancestors," to have fought for slavery, Deaton told LiveScience. But the people fighting at the time were very much aware of what was at stake, Deaton said. [LINK]

God forbid that we have statues as a reminder what happens when we blindly believe what people in power tell you to believe.

This seems uncompelling to people who were systematically disenfranchised by "Confederate war figures".

So the commands of the Yahweh are inconsistent. This makes determining his politics much more difficult. But at least if we view conservative politics as consistent we can say definitively that the commands of the Yahweh are not directly equatable to conservatism.

To relate, think of your father.  Does your love of family cause you to act with bigotry?  No.

If I tried to claim that my father is the one and only true father and that all other fathers are fakes, then I might run into some problems