[OAW]

The anti-government ramblings of Glenn Beck have recently reached an all new low. Here's the latest example of shameless demagoguery from this individual. Around the 2:30 mark this "person" has the audacity to say this nonsense on the air ....

Originally Posted by Glenn Beck

I would like to propose that the president is exactly right when he said, "slaves sitting around the campfire didn't know when slavery was going to end, but they knew that it would. And it took a long time to end slavery." Yes it did. But, it also took a long time to start slavery. And it started small. And it started with seemingly innocent ideas. And then a little court order here and a court order there, and a little more regulation here and a little more regulation there. And before we knew it, America had slavery. It didn't come over in a ship to begin with as an evil slave trade. The government began to regulate things because the people needed answers, they needed solutions. It started in a courtroom and then it went to the legislatures. That's how slavery began. And it took a long time to enslave an entire race of people, and to convince another race of people that they were somehow or another less than them. But it can be done. I would ask you to decide: Are we freeing slaves? Or are we creating slaves? That's a question that must be answered.

Our sponsor this half-hour -- Oh, was that dangerous? Was that a danger to our republic for asking that question?

I'm sorry ... but WTF????

And for the record ... I say this is shameless demagoguery for the following reason.

demagogue - (noun) a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

I wonder what these "seemingly innocent ideas" were that were at the foundation of the Transatlantic Slave Trade? What exactly where these government regulations that turned it into an "evil slave trade" ... since it didn't start out that way according to Mr. Beck? Need I even refute this insanity?

OAW

[sek929]

Beck's comments are tailor-made to get people like you in a twist.

His income is based on how many people he can get to pay attention to him, and in that vein business is very good. Sure some people take him seriously, but some people also take the Insane Clown Posse seriously so what does that tell us?

A: It tells us that the world is full of loudmouth morons, and usually the biggest idiots of them all are the loudest.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I wonder what these "seemingly innocent ideas" were that were at the foundation of the Transatlantic Slave Trade?

Well, your initial start to the slave trade (bypassing the fact that about a third of Africans were already enslaved by Africans) was the sale of African criminals by African governments to foreign traders because said governments couldn't be arsed to build prisons and wanted rid of their criminals.
So, the "seemingly innocent idea" was to get shut of the criminal element from the African societies in question. In much the same way the Britain got shut of its crims by sending them to Oz.

Let's not forget that Africa invented slavery.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Let's not forget that Africa invented slavery.

This is like saying Europe invented cave-painting.

[OAW]

Actually "slaves" in Africa were generally POWs. Additionally, slavery in Africa was not the dehumanizing "chattel slavery" as practiced in the Americas. The term might be the same but the practices were quite different. Furthermore, the Brits that sent their criminals to Australia didn't subject them to "chattel slavery" once they got there. If anything they were made "indentured servants" at worst for a period of time to pay off their trip to the new land. As was the case with many poor and/or imprisoned European immigrants who came to the US. So the comparison is lacking to say the least. In any event, that is neither here nor there and is certainly not the topic of this thread. The question here is simple ....

How did the Transatlantic Slave Trade go from being a "seemingly innocent idea" to an "evil slave trade" as the result of US "government regulation"? Especially considering how the Transatlantic Slave Trade involved a lot more countries than the US?

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

You libs and dems sure like to fawn over Glenn Beck. It's even worse than the zombie Al Gore thread. Just ask him out already

[OAW]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Beck's comments are tailor-made to get people like you in a twist.

I wouldn't say that at all. Beck (and Limbaugh) is a demagogue and an incessant race-baiter whose comments are designed to appeal to the fears, prejudices, and racial animosity that exists in much of his audience. This much is obvious to the point of it being like a "dog bites man" story whenever they go there. I've been on these boards nearly 10 years and I think I've started a thread about something Beck or Limbaugh has said along these lines once for each. So I'm definitely not one to get into a "twist" about things these fools say. But every now and again they something so over the top that it warrants comment.

Originally Posted by sek929 

His income is based on how many people he can get to pay attention to him, and in that vein business is very good. Sure some people take him seriously, but some people also take the Insane Clown Posse seriously so what does that tell us?

A: It tells us that the world is full of loudmouth morons, and usually the biggest idiots of them all are the loudest.

You get no argument from me on that one.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And for the record ... I say this is shameless demagoguery for the following reason.

demagogue - (noun) a political leader...

Fail.

Glenn Beck isn't a political leader. He's a political commentator, IE: a talk show host. It's amazing how liberals can't fathom the difference, but then again, no it isn't.

The funniest thing about Glenn Beck graduating to the top of the left's pants-wetting list is that before he helped expose ACORN and the SEIU, few people even knew who he was.

I always thought he was a rather minor figure among the scores of talk radio hosts, but leave it to leftist fear to elevate him to mega status.

I'd bet his audience is about 40% lefties trying to be outraged over something he says, hanging on his every word, and then advertising for him constantly. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

[ort888]

Didn't slavery exist in this country for like a hundred years before we were even a country? What government is he talking about? The British government? Tiny local courts? I don't get it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

From wikipedia:

Before the widespread establishment of chattel slavery (outright ownership of a human being, and of his/her descendants), much labor was organized under a system of bonded labor known as indentured servitude. This typically lasted for several years for white and black alike. People paid with their labor for the costs of transport to the colonies. They contracted for such arrangements because of poor economies in their home countries.[4]

By the 18th century, colonial courts and legislatures had racialized slavery, essentially creating a caste system in which slavery applied nearly exclusively to Black Africans and people of African descent, and occasionally to Native Americans.

Definitely an interesting subject, and the real origins I'm sure are not as simple as it gets boiled down to by people on either side of the political spectrum.

[besson3c]

While the argument that Glenn Beck is not a politician but just a commentator/entertainer is true, I often wonder whether this argument really even matters...

I mean, people like Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart are going to have *far* more influence on elections and political matters than the vast majority of politicians in either party. At the end of the day does it matter if you label them as entertainers, commentators, soldiers of the left/right, or whatever else? What's true is that regardless of their titles, they have a tremendous amount of power and influence. Their respective rallies are testimony to this.

This puts them in a unique position. While they have no responsibility to do anything other than what they want so far as influencing these elections, is criticizing their use of their power fair game when it is perceived that they are using their power to manipulate and change things? I would argue yes, although I would also say that it's pretty sad that entertainers have this power in the first place.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Fail.

Glenn Beck isn't a political leader. He's a political commentator, IE: a talk show host. It's amazing how liberals can't fathom the difference, but then again, no it isn't.

:::::::: sigh :::::::::::::

How many times do I have to tell you that you are simply not on my level when it comes to this debate thing Crash? Huh? How many?

Since you take issue with the definition of demagogue that is in the built-in dictionary in OS X let's try some others and see what they have to say shall we?

The Free Dictionary

demagogue - n.

1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.

demagogue - n.

1. a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob.

Merriam-Webster

demagogue - n.

1. a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.

Is Beck a political commentator? Indeed he is. Tell us something we don't know! But he is still a "leader". As is Sarah Palin. As is Rush Limbaugh. Hell as is Mitt Romney. Is it your contention that only those who hold a political office are "leaders" in the area of politics? If that's the case then I suppose Karl Rove or James Carville aren't "leaders"? Ed Rollins and Donna Brazile aren't "leaders" either huh? Rahm Emmanuel isn't a "leader" because he doesn't have an official government job anymore right? To be a "leader" one simply has to have followers. People who listen to you and are influenced by you. To argue that someone as high-profile as Beck ... someone who has the ability to significantly influence the political debate in an entire country is not a "leader" is nonsensical at best.

But wait ..... here comes the crusher! Of all those various definitions only one said "political leader". A couple simply said "leader". One said "political agitator". You certainly couldn't deny that. In any event, as you can see by the terms I italicized the common thread among them all is that a demagogue is someone who appeals to the "prejudices", "emotions", and "passions" of people ... rather than using rational argument.

But bless your heart ... you do try. Unfortunately, you really ought to save that "FAIL" for yourself player.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

It's a bizarre train of thought because African slavery in the United States was defended in part based on the absence of government intervention (regulation), i.e. respect for private property.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But bless your heart ... you do try. Unfortunately, you really ought to save that "FAIL" for yourself player.

OAW

The one cool thing about having him on ignore is that when his constant aggression and abrasive edge gets met with push back like this it almost always makes for popcorn worthy entertainment!

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's a bizarre train of thought because African slavery in the United States was defended in part based on the absence of government intervention (regulation), i.e. respect for private property.

Indeed.

OAW

[besson3c]

Perhaps government regulation has become the new taxes (i.e. all that is wrong with everything)?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by OAW 

:::::::: sigh :::::::::::::

How many times do I have to tell you that you are simply not on my level when it comes to this debate thing Crash? Huh? How many?

Thank goodness. Who else but hyteckit/various aliases is?

Since you take issue with the definition of demagogue

I didn't take issue with demagogue, I took issue with the term political leader. Reading comprehension- try it sometime. (Hint- it doesn't just involve overusing bolded text willy-nilly, but actual understanding of what's been said.)

But he is still a "leader". As is Sarah Palin. As is Rush Limbaugh. Hell as is Mitt Romney.

Classic illustration of my point! It's impossible for you to tell the difference between a talk show host and an elected official! Too funny!

Geesh, no wonder talk show hosts lead you around by the nose and make piles of cash off of people like you. You're like deer caught in headlights.

[The Final Dakar]

The guy led a rally to promote the restoration of honor to this country. Sounds like leading to me.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed.

OAW

My understanding is that the practice of African slavery in the colonial period spread before any particular legal structure was put in place to faciliate it, simply as a process of market forces. Basically, in the late 1600s/early 1700s you didn't have enough indentured servants coming over from Europe. African slaves (which, in context, really were more expensive than indentured servants) became more attractive. Over time the development of the plantation system and resulting economies of scale locked in the system. After wider use of African slaves you saw things like anti-miscegenation laws, etc.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Thank goodness. Who else but hyteckit/various aliases is?

CRASH HARDDRIVE,

You are a f*cking typical paranoid conservative idiot.

I don't have any aliases you f*cking fool.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The guy led a rally to promote the restoration of honor to this country. Sounds like leading to me.

No, he was merely commentating...to a large group of people who followed his instructions to travel to DC.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The one cool thing about having him on ignore is that when his constant aggression and abrasive edge gets met with push back like this it almost always makes for popcorn worthy entertainment!

Well I for one don't use the ignore list at all. I guess I don't really see the point. In any event, when it comes to debate there are some among our good friends on the right around here who are worthy intellectual opponents. Crash is most definitely not one of them.* I tussle with him occasionally simply because it amuses me.

But in the spirit of being "positive" I will say one thing about Crash. He is consistent.

OAW

* - I mean did he really think he was going to "correct" me on a dictionary definition?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well I for one don't use the ignore list at all. I guess I don't really see the point. In any event, when it comes to debate there are some among our good friends on the right around here who are worthy intellectual opponents. Crash is most definitely not one of them.* I tussle with him occasionally simply because it amuses me.

But in the spirit of being "positive" I will say one thing about Crash. He is consistent.

OAW

* - I mean did he really think he was going to "correct" me on a dictionary definition?

I don't rely on the ignore list feature either, although I use it for some people... When I refer to being on ignore I usually mean simply deciding to ignore the person. I mean, some people just don't seem to have the ability or interest in being reasonable, so why bother beating your head against the wall? I mean this in a general way. Sometimes it can be amusing though...

[OAW]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Thank goodness. Who else but hyteckit/various aliases is?

It's good for you to acknowledge my sheer intellectual dominance over you. That's the first step to a brighter future for yourself.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I didn't take issue with demagogue, I took issue with the term political leader. Reading comprehension- try it sometime. (Hint- it doesn't just involve overusing bolded text willy-nilly, but actual understanding of what's been said.)

Classic illustration of my point! It's impossible for you to tell the difference between a talk show host and an elected official! Too funny!

Again. Let me break out the stick figures and crayons for you ok?

1. The topic of the thread is the demagoguery of Glenn Beck when it comes to government regulation. Specifically as it relates to this most recent statement of his regarding slavery. If you aren't commenting on that then why are you even talking?

2. If you think that Glenn Beck is not a "political leader" then you are either astonishingly dense or deliberately obtuse. I, and just about everybody else around here, can easily tell the difference between a talk show host and an elected official. The thing that we all get that you are still riding the short bus about is this:

All "elected officials" are "political leaders". But not all "political leaders" are "elected officials".

3. Similarly, there are "civil rights leaders" who are not "officials" in a civil rights organization such as the NAACP, Rainbow/Push Coalition, National Action Network, etc. Community leaders, neighborhood activists, talk show hosts, etc.

Must we all have to continue to explain basic sh*t to you Crash? Or can you just concede the point (or at least decline to further comments on it) so we can get back on topic?

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Beck's comments are tailor-made to get people like you in a twist.

His income is based on how many people he can get to pay attention to him, and in that vein business is very good. Sure some people take him seriously, but some people also take the Insane Clown Posse seriously so what does that tell us?

A: It tells us that the world is full of loudmouth morons, and usually the biggest idiots of them all are the loudest.

I told them that over a year ago, and they still keep padding Beck's pockets. He makes them angry and they make him incredibly wealthy. It's sheer genius, really. I'd say he sits around with his country club buds and laughs his ass off.

Oh well, like the ancient Chinese proverb says, "there's no cure for stupid".

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My understanding is that the practice of African slavery in the colonial period spread before any particular legal structure was put in place to faciliate it, simply as a process of market forces. Basically, in the late 1600s/early 1700s you didn't have enough indentured servants coming over from Europe. African slaves (which, in context, really were more expensive than indentured servants) became more attractive. Over time the development of the plantation system and resulting economies of scale locked in the system. After wider use of African slaves you saw things like anti-miscegenation laws, etc.

Exactly. The Transatlantic Slave Trade is a prime example of what can happen when "capitalism" and "market forces" are allowed to run amok with no controls. It's what happens when the concept of "private property" doesn't have a governing regulatory structure in place to say that "human beings are not capital" to be bought, sold, and owned. But nowadays right-wingnuttery has run so far off the rails that "up is down and down is up". It's a sad day for our country indeed when the demonstrably false can be spewed over the airwaves with reckless abandon ... and is actually believed by millions. When did it become fashionable to be so utterly ignorant?

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exactly. The Transatlantic Slave Trade is a prime example of what can happen when "capitalism" and "market forces" are allowed to run amok with no controls

But there were controls on the trans-atlantic trade.
Unlike the internal African one.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But there were controls on the trans-atlantic trade.
Unlike the internal African one.

"Controls" to help make it more profitable for certain national corporations in Europe. Not intervention to provide incentives for its very development, which is the kind of thing that Beck appears to be alluding to. Further, the transatlantic slave trade had developed substantially before African slaves began to be imported into the future U.S. in large numbers, with destinations in the Caribbean and Central/South American continent. I don't think what Beck is talking about has anything to do with the slave trade per se. If we're talking about the influx of African slaves into North America, it's really about the labor market.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't think what Beck is talking about has anything to do with the slave trade per se.

Of course he isn't. He's not even talking about people from Africa.
He's talking about the state of slavery which you all currently find yourselves in, and juxtaposing that against historical slavery.

I move to a 0% tax haven, I pay no tax.
You move to a 0% tax haven, you still pay your federal tax.
The US owns its citizenry. That's the slavery he's talking about.

Of course, those who're inclined to think that everything's about their own "experience" won't notice that this is what he's talking about, and thus subsequently become confused as to the meaning of the message.

[ort888]

It's such a stupid ****ed up analogy though.

Yes, sure, our government and corporations are huge bloated entities that have too much control over our lives, but come on. Compare the average american today to any slave and get back to me. The quality of life of even the poorest of americans is probably superior to the lives of the richest slave owners... let alone an actual slave, who had to toil in a field every day with no reward until he died.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Of course he isn't. He's not even talking about people from Africa.
He's talking about the state of slavery which you all currently find yourselves in, and juxtaposing that against historical slavery.

I move to a 0% tax haven, I pay no tax.
You move to a 0% tax haven, you still pay your federal tax.
The US owns its citizenry. That's the slavery he's talking about.

Of course, those who're inclined to think that everything's about their own "experience" won't notice that this is what he's talking about, and thus subsequently become confused as to the meaning of the message.

Oh, I know full well what he's trying to say. He's just not saying it. Your editing him so that he makes some coherent sense doesn't make him any less of an idiot. The notion, the idea of "slavery", especially in America, has nothing to do with government control.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ort888 

It's such a stupid ****ed up analogy though.

Yes, sure, our government and corporations are huge bloated entities that have too much control over our lives, but come on. Compare the average american today to any slave and get back to me. The quality of life of even the poorest of americans is probably superior to the lives of the richest slave owners... let alone an actual slave, who had to toil in a field every day with no reward until he died.

Which goes back to the entire, "Ignore Beck, he likes riling people up by saying fuct things."

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Oh, I know full well what he's trying to say. He's just not saying it. Your editing him so that he makes some coherent sense doesn't make him any less of an idiot.

He's a genius.
Speaks in such a way that his target audience understands exactly what he's saying while his opponents (who'll oppose him no matter what) get the wrong end of the stick and consequently go off on forum rants.
Win / win.
Genius, I tell ya.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The notion, the idea of "slavery", especially in America, has nothing to do with government control.

And you're still not getting it.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

He's a genius.
Speaks in such a way that his target audience understands exactly what he's saying while his opponents (who'll oppose him no matter what) get the wrong end of the stick and consequently go off on forum rants.
Win / win.
Genius, I tell ya.

Political genius, intellectual idiot. There are a lot of them.

And you're still not getting it.

Yes, I do. Americans are getting enslaved by their system, blah blah. Maybe Beck has finally caught up to 1980s sci-fi themes or something. Whatever. My point is that the juxtaposition with African slaves is not at all illuminating, nor really clever in a sort of artistic way, because the forces at work within the two are wildly different. He might as well have just started with his main point and left that out entirely, with no harm done to his argument. And, on a side note, it's ridiculously disingenuous for him to despair over a process of "slavery" that he is personally benefiting immensely from.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But there were controls on the trans-atlantic trade.
Unlike the internal African one.

At the risk of derailing this thread further, I'm going to try to put address this once and for all so we can get back on topic. Prior to the arrival of European colonizers, there was no concept of the private ownership of land in Africa. Land was held communally by villages or large clans and alloted to individual families according to their need. In agricultural and herding societies the primary mechanism for generating wealth was to work the land and tend to cattle. To increase production and garner a larger share of the available land a family or clan had to invest in more laborers. POWs (male and female) were the most available source for additional laborers. The only issue was that a POW could escape and return to a nearby village or area where he was from ... only to be an opponent if hostilities broke out again. So POWS were often sold or traded as slaves to tribes in distant lands. I'm by no means trying to "glamorize" things, but the reality is that chains were often unnecessary at that point because escape was impractical due to the great distances to return home through unknown and potentially hostile territory. Additionally, the fact remains that slavery in Africa was NOT of the dehumanizing "chattel" variety. A "slave" in African society was more like a "peasant" or an "indentured servant". They were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. A "slave" in African society could be someone who performed menial tasks like gathering water or domestic chores. A "slave" in African society could be the wife or concubine of a wealthy man. A "slave" in African society could be an animal herder or a metal worker. A "slave" in African society could hold positions of great military and administrative power (e.g. Joseph rising to become Pharaoh's right hand man in Egypt). A "slave" in African society was often integrated into the family of the slave owner over time and freed from their slave status ... especially the children born to them.

Being a slave in Africa was certainly not a desirable condition. But the internal African slave trade was a far more benign institution than the variety that was conducted by the Europeans and Arabs. So to say that there were no "controls" on the internal African slave trade is simply not true. There were societal and cultural norms in place that kept the practice from being even remotely comparable to the Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Saharan, and Arab Slave Trades on anything but the most nominal levels.

OAW

OAW

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

At the risk of derailing this thread further, I'm going to try to put address this once and for all so we can get back on topic. Prior to the arrival of European colonizers, there was no concept of the private ownership of land in Africa. Land was held communally by villages or large clans and alloted to individual families according to their need. In agricultural and herding societies the primary mechanism for generating wealth was to work the land and tend to cattle. To increase production and garner a larger share of the available land a family or clan had to invest in more laborers. POWs (male and female) were the most available source for additional laborers. The only issue was that a POW could escape and return to a nearby village or area where he was from ... only to be an opponent if hostilities broke out again. So POWS were often sold or traded as slaves to tribes in distant lands. I'm by no means trying to "glamorize" things, but the reality is that chains were often unnecessary at that point because escape was impractical due to the great distances to return home through unknown and potentially hostile territory. Additionally, the fact remains that slavery in Africa was NOT of the dehumanizing "chattel" variety. A "slave" in African society was more like a "peasant" or an "indentured servant". They were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. A "slave" in African society could be someone who performed menial tasks like gathering water or domestic chores. A "slave" in African society could be the wife or concubine of a wealthy man. A "slave" in African society could be an animal herder or a metal worker. A "slave" in African society could hold positions of great military and administrative power (e.g. Joseph rising to become Pharaoh's right hand man in Egypt). A "slave" in African society was often integrated into the family of the slave owner over time and freed from their slave status ... especially the children born to them.

Being a slave in Africa was certainly not a desirable condition. But the internal African slave trade was a far more benign institution than the variety that was conducted by the Europeans and Arabs. So to say that there were no "controls" on the internal African slave trade is simply not true. There were societal and cultural norms in place that kept the practice from being even remotely comparable to the Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Saharan, and Arab Slave Trades on anything but the most nominal levels.

No. Your rose-tinted view of your ancestral homeland is tainting your vision.

Originally Posted by OAW 

OAW

OAW

Doofy

Doofy

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, I do. Americans are getting enslaved by their system, blah blah. Maybe Beck has finally caught up to 1980s sci-fi themes or something. Whatever. My point is that the juxtaposition with African slaves is not at all illuminating, nor really clever in a sort of artistic way, because the forces at work within the two are wildly different. He might as well have just started with his main point and left that out entirely, with no harm done to his argument.

But that wouldn't piss the left off, so where's the fun in that?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But that wouldn't piss the left off, so where's the fun in that?

Who knows. I don't care if he's laughing or crying as he swims in his piles of money. It's irrelevant, because a seemingly large, sympathetic audience does take his opinions seriously.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No. Your rose-tinted view of your ancestral homeland is tainting your vision.

No. My reliance on facts and logic allows me to see the situation for what it actually was. We'll just let the fact that you didn't refute a single thing I said speak for itself.

Originally Posted by Space Monkey

Oh, I know full well what he's trying to say. He's just not saying it. Your editing him so that he makes some coherent sense doesn't make him any less of an idiot. The notion, the idea of "slavery", especially in America, has nothing to do with government control.

Exactly. He devotes an entire paragraph of statements that are blatantly false in a historical sense about actual slavery in America ... in order to close with a single sentence that makes a bogus analogy about political "slavery" to the government in the connotative sense. It's demagoguery ... plain and simple.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Who knows. I don't care if he's laughing or crying as he swims in his piles of money. It's irrelevant, because a seemingly large, sympathetic audience does take his opinions seriously.

Well who would have thought that being a race-baiting demagogue who taps into the paranoia and prejudices of a sizable portion of the Fox News crowd could pay so well? Says a lot more about the mentality of his audience than it does about Mr. Beck himself.

OAW

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Glenn Beck isn't a political leader. He's a political commentator, IE: a talk show host. It's amazing how liberals can't fathom the difference, but then again, no it isn't.

Maybe because you shift your argument from differentiating between political leaders and elected officials, they're two different things.

Glenn Beck is a political leader in addition to being a commentator. He organized a political group, even organized a political demonstration. He may not be an elected official, but he's certainly a political leader.

Considering that FOX (Murdock in general) and its affiliates control the majority of television and radio infotainment and commentary, it's not unreasonable to assume that Glenn Beck has considerable influence as a political figure.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It's demagoguery ... plain and simple.

Nobody disputes this. Even CRASH who came closest, explicitly did not dispute this label. Nobody cares.

Originally Posted by OAW 

...race-baiting...

And you were successfully baited. Hook, line and sinker. You should be... proud... of this?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Nobody disputes this. Even CRASH who came closest, explicitly did not dispute this label. Nobody cares.


And you were successfully baited. Hook, line and sinker. You should be... proud... of this?

Actually ... not so much. I wasn't baited at all. Like I said before ... this is par for the course with Beck and Limbaugh. It's hardly anything that I get my blood pressure up about. My purpose in starting the thread was to see the following with regard to our good friends on the right:

1. Who would outright defend this foolishness? Doofy ... as usual.

2. Who would sidetrack the conversation by arguing tangential topics? Doofy and Crash ... as usual.

3. How long would #1 and #2 go on before one of them simply acknowledged the obvious? 40+ posts before Uncle Skeleton did so.

And now we know.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Actually ... not so much. I wasn't baited at all.

He got you to start a thread complaining about him, didn't he? He trolled you, plain and simple.

My purpose in starting the thread was to see the following with regard to our good friends on the right:

1. Who would outright defend this foolishness? Doofy ... as usual.

Doofy defended the premise of trolling (for profit), not the content of the trolling.

2. Who would sidetrack the conversation by arguing tangential topics? Doofy and Crash ... as usual.

3. How long would #1 and #2 go on before one of them simply acknowledged the obvious? 40+ posts before Uncle Skeleton did so.

And now we know.

OAW

And with that, you're a troll too. I guess you do agree with doofy, that Beck's methods are admirable

BTW, I'm not a "winger," whatever that is. I'm a contrarian.

[Doofy]

Shock news just in: Supplier of service tailors service for his customers!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

CRASH HARDDRIVE,

You are a f*cking typical paranoid conservative idiot.

I don't have any aliases you f*cking fool.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well who would have thought that being a race-baiting demagogue who taps into the paranoia and prejudices of a sizable portion of the Fox News crowd could pay so well? Says a lot more about the mentality of his audience than it does about Mr. Beck himself.

OAW

Beck didn't bring up slavery, he addressed Obama's statement regarding slavery and used the same analogy in the opposite direction. Lest we forget who started the demagoguery in this scenario.

Who is the "Fox News crowd" anyway? Are they political antagonists who employ crude oratory like "Daily Kos crowd" to provoke the prejudices and passions of the mob? Do they produce more or less demagogues than the "MSNBC crowd"?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

At the risk of derailing this thread further, I'm going to try to put address this once and for all so we can get back on topic. Prior to the arrival of European colonizers, there was no concept of the private ownership of land in Africa. Land was held communally by villages or large clans and alloted to individual families according to their need. In agricultural and herding societies the primary mechanism for generating wealth was to work the land and tend to cattle. To increase production and garner a larger share of the available land a family or clan had to invest in more laborers. POWs (male and female) were the most available source for additional laborers. The only issue was that a POW could escape and return to a nearby village or area where he was from ... only to be an opponent if hostilities broke out again. So POWS were often sold or traded as slaves to tribes in distant lands. I'm by no means trying to "glamorize" things, but the reality is that chains were often unnecessary at that point because escape was impractical due to the great distances to return home through unknown and potentially hostile territory. Additionally, the fact remains that slavery in Africa was NOT of the dehumanizing "chattel" variety. A "slave" in African society was more like a "peasant" or an "indentured servant". They were paid wages and were able to accumulate property. A "slave" in African society could be someone who performed menial tasks like gathering water or domestic chores. A "slave" in African society could be the wife or concubine of a wealthy man. A "slave" in African society could be an animal herder or a metal worker. A "slave" in African society could hold positions of great military and administrative power (e.g. Joseph rising to become Pharaoh's right hand man in Egypt). A "slave" in African society was often integrated into the family of the slave owner over time and freed from their slave status ... especially the children born to them.

Being a slave in Africa was certainly not a desirable condition. But the internal African slave trade was a far more benign institution than the variety that was conducted by the Europeans and Arabs. So to say that there were no "controls" on the internal African slave trade is simply not true. There were societal and cultural norms in place that kept the practice from being even remotely comparable to the Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Saharan, and Arab Slave Trades on anything but the most nominal levels.

OAW

OAW

INTERPRETATION:

• black ownership of black slaves, explainable. Many were treated crappy, but others didn't even need chains and were paid wages, and weren't compelled to escape.
• white ownership of black slaves, despicable. Many were treated crappy, but others didn't even need chains and were paid wages, and weren't compelled to escape.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, your initial start to the slave trade (bypassing the fact that about a third of Africans were already enslaved by Africans) was the sale of African criminals by African governments to foreign traders because said governments couldn't be arsed to build prisons and wanted rid of their criminals.
So, the "seemingly innocent idea" was to get shut of the criminal element from the African societies in question. In much the same way the Britain got shut of its crims by sending them to Oz.

Let's not forget that Africa invented slavery.

Wait ... I thought it was invented by government regulation?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exactly. The Transatlantic Slave Trade is a prime example of what can happen when "capitalism" and "market forces" are allowed to run amok with no controls. It's what happens when the concept of "private property" doesn't have a governing regulatory structure in place to say that "human beings are not capital" to be bought, sold, and owned. But nowadays right-wingnuttery has run so far off the rails that "up is down and down is up". It's a sad day for our country indeed when the demonstrably false can be spewed over the airwaves with reckless abandon ... and is actually believed by millions. When did it become fashionable to be so utterly ignorant?

OAW

This is utter nonsense.

The Transatlantic Slave Trade is a prime example of what can happen in the absence of a rational understanding or evasion of the nature of rights. Slavery has nothing to do with free market capitalism anything. This has to do with the violation of peoples' rights. Period.

The government failed in its primary duty, the protection of the peoples' rights. What you are supporting in reference to property and economic rights is more of the same failure.

I would also like to remind you that the government did not…in its infinite benevolence…abolish slavery because it is right. Abolitionism was a grassroots movement started among the people. The government was dragged along kicking and screaming and only changed the law when it was politically unavoidable to keep the status quo.