Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: A Politically Incorrect, but Historically Accurate Women's Suffrage.

  1. #1 A Politically Incorrect, but Historically Accurate Women's Suffrage. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    What was the purpose of granting the vote to women under the XIXth Amendment, ca. 1920?

    Why would a terrorist organization such as the KKK support it?

    Could there be another agenda, linked to another Amendment?

    Say, the XVIIIth Amendment?

    The Fresh Air Interview: Author Daniel Okrent, Prohibition Life: Politics Loopholes And Bathtub Gin : NPR


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Advocates of Prohibition today, with the benefit of hindsight, seem terribly naive. Those who BACKED Prohibition from behind the scenes, enlisting aid wherever they might, by appeals to greed, xenophobia, or the nobler sentiments, realized it would produce a robust criminal infrastructure in the United States, suitable for the eventual marketing of morphine in defiance of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, ca. 1914.

    By plying the American public with debilitating, addictive drugs in violation of the law, the British were able to undermine the public health and productivity, respect for law and the efficacy of republican of government generally and realize tremendous monetary gain. How did they know the outcome? From experience, the best of teachers, in Canada. Vast amounts of liquor entered the United States FROM Canada during the brief and sordid reign of the bootlegger, in fact, not coincidence. Chemical warfare, in short, and self-financing.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Nativist "Anglo-Saxon" sentiment generally, is the result of British interference- a supreme irony of our history. It focuses upon trivial similarities of language and custom at the very real expense of widely differing laws and values.

    KKK is a good example, and a menace which has persisted since the Confederate Rebellion, in one guise or another.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Angler View Post
    Advocates of Prohibition today, with the benefit of hindsight, seem terribly naive. Those who BACKED Prohibition from behind the scenes, enlisting aid wherever they might, by appeals to greed, xenophobia, or the nobler sentiments, realized it would produce a robust criminal infrastructure in the United States, suitable for the eventual marketing of morphine in defiance of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act, ca. 1914.
    Taking things over the top is an incredibly effective tactic. For example: putting a sympathetic personality like Martha Stewart in jail after the Enron debacle served to quiet down a lot of public outrage over insider trading and other violations of financial conduct. It was ingenious. If instead they had rounded up some serious offenders, ugly middle aged men who had stolen millions from legitimate companies..... the feeding frenzy would have continued until a real difference had been made.

    Same thing here. Outlaw the mildest mind altering drug and people will start to turn to illegal means to get it, turning public sympathy toward the drug dealers. Right now Marijuana serves that purpose. You feel bad seeing some guy do 10 or 20 years over a drug that doesn't really cause a lot of harm to anyone (not more than alcohol anyway). There's this huge conservative segment of the public who are easily stirred into mindless opposition to something. It's like they're just looking for a "righteous cause" to fight for, and they can't think of one, so they choose instead to fight for something stupid rather than stay home and sit on their couch.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    652
    Over the top? Nothing of the sort, old bean. The Confederate Rebellion was a British attempt to destroy the United States, according to Morse- and though the British strategy may have changed over the years, perfidious Albion's GOAL has not:

    The present attempt to dissolve the American union : a British aristocratic plot : Morse, Samuel Finley Breese, 1791-1872 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    What was the purpose of granting the vote to women under the XIXth Amendment, ca. 1920?

    Why would a terrorist organization such as the KKK support it?
    The KKK bought into one of the arguments advanced by a few American suffragettes. To their everlasting shame, some leaders of the women's movement claimed that one good reason for giving them the vote was that they were much more deserving and 'proper' citizens than the dirty, smelly, ignorant peasant immigrant men.

    And many others in the women's movement actually favoured granting suffrage to freed black slaves, but most leaders deliberately chose not to 'mix messages' in case it affected their own cause. So they either ignored the 'coloured' question or, just like the men around them, actively opposed any civil rights movement outside their own. The KKK would have liked that, too.

    Never forget. It was the women who packed the picnic baskets and took the children along to watch the men at lynchings. They weren't private or discreet affairs. Of course, this was not long after people did much the same in treating some battles of the Civil War as occasions for spectator sport.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Taking things over the top is an incredibly effective tactic. For example: putting a sympathetic personality like Martha Stewart in jail after the Enron debacle served to quiet down a lot of public outrage over insider trading and other violations of financial conduct. It was ingenious.
    So you think Martha Stewart's trial was not a real trial, but just a show orchestrated by a bunch of fat cats? How do you suppose they pulled that off?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    So your argument Arthur, is that the British are continuing a centuries old attempt to bring about the downfall of the US and not just by sending old Monty Python episodes to air on PBS. Is that acorrect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Taking things over the top is an incredibly effective tactic. For example: putting a sympathetic personality like Martha Stewart in jail after the Enron debacle served to quiet down a lot of public outrage over insider trading and other violations of financial conduct. It was ingenious.
    So you think Martha Stewart's trial was not a real trial, but just a show orchestrated by a bunch of fat cats? How do you suppose they pulled that off?
    Oh it was a real trial. I think it's likely the let several more deserving candidates go in order to focus their resources on getting that one conviction. It's called "selective prosecution". The prosecutor is not required to pursue every case that falls in their jurisdiction, only the ones they think they have the best chance of winning, or the one's they feel like bothering over.

    At present, insider trading is still pretty widespread. It's not like there's ever a shortage of cases that could be tried and won. Just the prosecutors' budgets are only so big, and they can't afford to go after everyone.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 8th, 2011, 09:32 PM
  2. Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 22nd, 2009, 12:33 PM
  3. Politically Incorrect Evolution
    By Carcharias in forum Biology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 22nd, 2009, 10:53 AM
  4. Inequalities re who is allowed to be politically incorrect
    By Theoryofrelativity in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: August 26th, 2007, 03:46 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 8th, 2005, 08:15 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •