Neither of which compare to 12 MILLION slaves taken from Africa.

It's tragic that so many had to die, but the fault lies with those who kept slaves.

And your quote shows that Lincoln didn't believe in racial equality. That's unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant to his position on slavery:

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Pretty typical, if the cops want to search your premises, they will. In this case, it was that wall and gate that caused suspicions. Then "anonymous informant" steppes in to the picture, you got all the ticks checked, go ahead in full swat gear, detain everyone, see if there something that you can justify the action.

The bad thing is, often they are right. Suspicious places often are suspicious. So it gets fed back in the system "this method works, we get only x% of wrongful blaa blaa". They do the same here, busting chili growers for marijuana... Then they try to justify it, play it down or simply threaten to keep quiet. Bad thing here is, if you obtain evidence during wrongful seizure or search, it's still valid. So the act of obtaining evidence is is illegal but evidence is not. This sounds right if the reprimand for breaking the law fro obtaining evidence is treated as a crime but it never is in any western society that i know of. Usually things go to internal investigation that results at most a non-paid leave, a paid leave, a verbal notice and most often, absolutely nothing.

It's "end justify the means" policy and we did our best to get rid of that by inventing all these complicated laws protecting us that are now turned on against us. W can do with uncomplicated laws too, the society would stay lawful, peaceful. The injustice that comes should be enough reason to not go back few centuries.

right. and what tries to stop corporations...or anything for that matter from encroaching on our civil liberties too much? Gov't.

What stops gov't from doing the same? People. People have a pretty good track record of stopping gov't that goes too far armed or not. Are people generally slow to react? sure...but they do eventually react to injustices. If gov't really did not rule by the consent of the governed, there would be heaps more unrest, There would be actual revolts happening on a semi frequent basis instead of just people threatening to revolt/secede for the sake of drama.

The problem is, we have a non-insignificant number of people who seem to honestly think corps should run everything, or at the very least, there should be little to no regulation. Like I said, right now, it's chaotic because we have far too many people who all want different things. Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down. bad ideas do eventually get thrown out and good ideas get implemented instead. Part of the problem is that we are in the middle of big technological changes that radically change how we live compared to even just 100 years ago. Again...chaos ensues when new things come up and it just takes time for people to figure it out, adapt, and accept change.

Honestly though, no one has yet to successfully explain how society without gov't...or amoral corporations works. who distinguishes between the amoral corps and the good ones? are there good corps in a non-statist view? if there are...then don't there have to be good gov'ts out there too? Or are we back to the viewpoint of all gov'ts are bad...but some corps are good...I don't see how you can objectively make that distinction. How do you prevent stuff from just devolving into "might makes right" no one seems to be able to answer that one. I think the human race as a whole has collectively decided that rule by force is not preferred. There are just too many people that would take advantage of and screw over other people. or are you honestly advocating a kill or be killed situation here? Again, I think people have decided as a whole that they don't want that.

There's just too much subjective viewpoints instead of objective ones.

I'm sorry, but you've got one heck of an uphill battle trying to convince people that gov't is inherently bad. Sure you've got a lot of loudmouths making a lot of noise about how they think gov't is corrupt, but that's a far cry from actually abandoning gov't. Lots of people bitch about gov't, but don't actually see a lot of people escaping it. We see it every election cycle "if so and so wins, I'm leaving the country" yet they never do.

regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, for all the bluster and rhetoric most people would rather have gov't run by the party they don't like than have no gov't at all.

@shatterdose,
Would you have examples of the farmers Monsanto has sued or driven out of business over cross contamination? I'm not familiar with any myself despite hearing the claim repeatedly and would hate to be blind to such a serious injustice.

I also have trouble understanding your overall position. You seem to spend most of your time arguing how terrible GMO is for farmers and seem to be arguing it is bad because it is harmfull to them. You end your post arguing in favor of farmers again and calling for a return to showing them greater respect than they are being shown today. I hope I followed that much correctly? As a guy who grew up as a farm kid, and have a very big portion of my family and social circle running family farms I would second the importance of those businesses. What I wonder is if you understand that virtually all family farms whose primary income is that farm have been choosing by their own free will to plant GMO crops because it helps their bottom line.

It's not a corporate conspiracy driving the GMO domination of seeds planted here in North America. In fact, all the family farmers I grew up around are well agreed that GMO crops have been one of the biggest factors that has helped them keep their family operations profitable so they didn't have to close up shop and sell things off. The picture you paint of Monsanto systematically driving family farms out of business is simply put, fictional from what I see in the Family farm dominated economy of the region I live in. I haven't looked outside of North America nearly as closely, but for this region your account just does not bear out to the reality I see around me everyday.

Two things in all this stand out as really worrisome to me. First off, the hateful quote was almost a paraphrasing of the bible. And not the old testament parts that Christianity will dismiss as being supplanted/fulfilled by the coming of Christ, but the new testament. First Timothy 9 and 10 are:

We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine...

It's not hating on gays or comparing them to murderers, it is just listing off a laundry list of behaviors deemed sinful and thus contrary to God's will. Even getting drunk and swearing count, so it's no more hateful against gays than it's hateful against any other non believers choices and lifestyles.

I am worried by our society as a majority looking upon that and either classing it as hatred, or worse still, using it to justify their hatred.

My next beef is the entire liberal side of the country that state like the guy in the video, freedom of speech doesn't mean A&E isn't also free to fire the guy for what he says. I don't disagree with that though. My problem is that if that same hillbilly came out and spoke about his abiding support for same-sex marriage and then A&E exercised their 'freedom' to fire him for his speech, those same Liberals would be up in arms at the injustice. That rankles me something fierce.

@ ChaosEngine-One example of cops barely being able to handle a situation that grows increasingly widespread, reaching into the land of the mounties as well-Believe it ChaosEngine, that prisons and the military and the police all follow the same recruitment scenario with a larger picture beyond what you and most so flippantly believe in using your senses and the programming that has been driven-into you 24/7 365 through constant reinforcement through television commentators, so-called alternative media sources, et-all.

Speaking with someone form Canada recently regarding corporal punishment in U.S. schools, they were aghast to hear that such a thing exists or existed this due primarily to a completely alternate scenario there, their TV programming not having been hi-jacked by perpetrators of the condition that exists in America today, rampant crime, over-bloated prisons, homelessness, poverty of education, a few items on a long list of defective and deliberate aspects of the control-grid of assholes who run the show.

Say that you are not effected by such a ruse and you either are oblivious or from another country. You simply haven't been to war yet nor have you likely never been a victim of injustices that effected yourself on a personal level.

Admittedly, I have always fought the system's cues to conform to injustices, and the fight is daily, as evidenced here in trying to convince those still inebriate, of an obvious condition. SO they whined and justified their actions. Great. The State says its ok, it must be thus, right?

I'm no fan of Bush obviously, but the guy needs to tone down his hatred of Bush. It kinda undercuts his otherwise accurate message. He keeps talking about the contempt the rich has for the poor. Well...he's displaying that same contempt.

They keep referring to things like revolution and "coming storms" I don't think that's how change is going to occur. Back when people were ACTUAL slaves or maybe they were free but were starving to death. They pretty much had nothing to lose so I think it was actually easier for them to commit to change by violent means.

well...things are different now. We're not physical slaves, but you can argue that we're economic slaves. Even poor people usually aren't starving. food is cheap, at least shitty food is. It's a sort of gilded cage. So it's harder to get to that tipping point of committing to a "revolution"

I think he's wrong though, I think change will occur through democracy. It's just going to be extremely slow, extremely painful, and it's going to be a lot of setbacks along the way. I think there will be a lot of moments that will generate outrage. I just don't think there will ever be revolts as this guy describes unless the vote gets taken away and things get monumentally worse.

I just don't there will be any magic shortcuts to a fair and equitable society. Even if there was a revolt. what do the revolutionaries do to make things better? It's relatively easy to revolt, but if you win, then the real work begins. It's easy being an armchair general, but when you actually do have to make decisions that affect thousands, if not millions of people, It's not that easy.

I think the key thing is that there are just too many who don't actually agree with the founding fathers "that all men are created equal" If we actually believed in that idea. A lot of these injustices would not occur.

Lol.

Edit:

Sorry, that was juvenile, I should add content. Bullying is not up for debate. You would not try to let me make up my mind if some kid got beat to hell and back on a bus by three or four other kids. Yet this is your opinion here--let yourself decide.

Letting someone burn to death or suffocate is not up for emotional debate. See, there is no easy solution here. How can the law break the law? How can they put their liability out there when they are commanded "to serve and protect." Would you? If so you would no longer have that choice after the first time. You might be in jail for a long time, who knows. I just don't like the damned if you do. Perhaps the law should be changed, but the sense of injustice therefore falls on the law.

I'm going to leave aside the highly dubious assertion that is was democracy and not rampant capitalism that stole the land from the Native Americans.

But you still don't get it. I am not required to condone or accept everything that is done in the name of "statism", any more than being an atheist makes me condone Stalins religious purges.

Once again, yeah, that is a terrible injustice and it should be righted. But on balance, "statism" has done far more good than harm.

@bcglorf
how come it always take you 4-5 posts to get an idea across that i can relate to?
its frustrating.

dont know how you got i feel america is some kind of 'special" place.
again i seem to have failed in conveying how wretched i think my government has been for the past few decades.

irregardless...
not american eh?
interesting.....
so you think america should play the global police?
and what exactly gives us that right?
because we have the bigger guns? bigger military?

since it cant be on moral grounds it HAS to be military might.

and america only likes to play with those countries it wants/covets/desires in order to perpetuate this global hegemony thing is has going on.

god you are confusing.
on the one hand you wish to see injustice brought to its knees and are willing to make a deal with the devil to do it.

yet on the other hand you reference history as if you have a semblance of understanding and if THAT is the case then you KNOW nothing is a delineated black vs white dynamic.
nothing is ever as simple or easy as it appears.

so you choose to use american military might to crush the religious zealots and in doing so create more...
but your argument appears to be:if we use drones LESS jihadists will be created and this is a good thing.

no.
it..is ..not.

you cant have it both ways.
you cant have your justice with zero (or less) consequences.
there will ALWAYS be consequences.

do you allow a country to work their problems out (as horrific as it can become).
OR do you go in and possibly extend the suffering of normal folk?

how long?
how long do you think it morally right to intrude on another country and most likely extend conflict,while feeding the rage and resentment creating even more fanatics and zealots who only desire is to bring the suffering to your your door?

and here is what really blows me away.
you are utterly oblivious to just how arrogant your statements are.
yes they are coming from a moral outrage.
yes they are coming from a reaction to horror.
but it is still arrogant all the same.

who are you?
who are you to dictate to anyone how or what they should do?

are there homeless in your country?
are there people starving?
is there injustice?
horrors?

or is it only the countries populated by brown people where the injustices warrant violence?
should america come to your country and clean house there as well?

hell,you wanted us in syria and now pakistan.
any other country you want us to drone?
specific people?

or is it a specific religion?
you seem awfully unsure of those muslim folk.
isreal has been doing all kinds of nasty things to the palestinians for the past 80 yrs.
how come no mention of america droning them?

are you starting to see why your argument makes no sense to me?
it is illogical.

because at the end of the day the poor and less fortunate will always pay the price.
how high a price are you willing to pay for seeing a wrong righted?
does it matter that those people you wept for and were outraged for paid an even higher price?

violence begets violence.
if history taught you anything it had to be that equation.

and a drone strike is violence.
it is intimidation.
it is assasination.
and it is wrong.
without a declaration of war passed by congress and no accountability it is wrong.

i will not make a deal with the devil to get justice today.
because when payment comes due the injustices wrought will tower over everything.
i know you disagree with me.
know that i am ok with that.

well,that takes us right back to where you and i disagree.
sometimes what is moral is not legal.
and are we really talking about morality? or justice?
these also are not the same and they are highly subjective.

the rule of law was the one thing i really found fascinating about this country in its early years.not so much the execution of said laws..but the idea of it.

i like the idea of it.
we can temper the law with our own sense of justice and morality,but not in its absolute form.

from a morality standpoint i dont think the US has a leg to stand on.
would you give any credence to ted bundy on a morality argument?
of course you wouldnt,and neither would i.
we would also not give an argument from him on the topic of justice any weight.

he would be removed from the conversation because his past actions dictated how any opinion he had was null and void.

so my dilemma has never been with YOU having moral outrage but rather from my government.
because past decisions have dictated that any opinion from a moral or justice standpoint should be viewed as false and insincere.

i share your moral outrage and anger at the injustice.

there has never been a war that has been a pure black and white dynamic.
but wars have always..and i mean always..fought over:land,resources and labor.
regardless of how it was implemented,be it religion or nationalism.

so.
you and i and our fellow citizens can be (and on average ARE) moral and just,but our government has lost its right to pontificate their right to engage in warfare on moral grounds.

if the international community gets together and decides on a course of action...fine.
the US government should not be the one to lead that charge though.
the hypocrisy would be too much to bear.

It's this kind of apathy, and lack of understanding that allows for such horrific injustices to exist in the first place.

But you don't care.

Firstly, i consider your comment quite overly dramatic in itself; so it's a bit rich that you're invoking histrionics.

Secondly, your comment is without substance - which parts of history does this video lie about? If you think it's wrong, prove it so; according to him, many things in the public domain are set up to fool us, so it should be easy for you to show exactly where he's wrong, and i will not do you the injustice of donning a tinfoil hat and calling all sources propaganda. I will listen to you just as i listened to him.

Finally, at least this person cares enough to be passionate and speak about something he is emotionally invested in. He has not asked me to vote for anyone, he has not asked me to send him any money, he has not asked me to break any laws. He has simply asked me to try and spread information to as many people as possible that our governments are lying to us.

And on top of that - i don't need anyone else to tell me that, because i have been alive and aware of politics for over 10 years. My government has lied to me more times than i can count. They do so each time the elections come around when they make promise after promise that they renege on.

I'm sick of these trials in the court of public opinion. The brief and over-sensationalized facts you gain from watching MSNBC doesn't make you an informed jury member. The justice system worked in this case as it was intended to work. End of story.

Why aren't we as outraged when LAPD burned Chris Dorner alive? Where was the public outcry for justice then? Or when an American minor was droned without his day in court? Where did all these incensed grandstanders go? But let the media spin a criminal trial between two individuals into a race war, and we all get our panties in a wad.

I will concede Obama made a great point, that if Trayvon was the one who stood his ground, would the police have let him go? Probably not. That's the real injustice, in my opinion. Not whether or not Zimmerman was convicted. *promote

Well, the main distinction really is that MLK and others in the Civil Rights movement broke laws in order to show the injustice of those very laws. Going to trial and living through the punishment was part of the demonstration of the absurdity of the laws themselves.

The only law that Snowden broke (IMO) was the unauthorized release of classified/secret information. He didn't break that law to show the absurdity of the US government's secrecy regime (though it is out of control), he did it to notify the US and the world citizenry of the extent of US surveillance of electronic communications. Getting punish for breaking the law does not serve his objective of informing and sparking debate, it only restricts his ability to continue to engage on these issues.