Not to mention, a lot of that white wealth was originally produced by slave labor.

Do you have any data on the 'discrepancy in wealth between people who are the descendants of slaveholders and people who are the descendants of slaves?'

#31 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

I never said or implied that what the Portuguese and the Hispanics did excused what the British colonists did. I would say the wider context is relevant when one of the selling points of the NY Times story is that "most Americans still don't know the full story of slavery" and it's aiming to clear up misconceptions people may have about it.

In terms of the impact it had on the Africans who were brought here and their descendants (which is the point of the story), it's a distinction without a difference.

Why don't "conservatives" want to deal with the root cause of the vast discrepancy in wealth between people who are the descendants of slaveholders and people who are the descendants of slaves? Maybe because it's easier to blame blacks for their own plight.

close italics

One of the things that I never knew growing up was that the colonies which became United States were neither the first nor even one of the largest participants in the Transatlantic Slave Trade. The first Transatlantic slave voyage was completed in 1526 by the Portuguese, to Brazil. The United States' territory accounted for about 5% of the total Transatlantic slave trade.

#21 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Ah, the old "But Bobby did it first, and he did it more" excuse. Did your parents buy that one?

Funny comment, from a citizen whose country is 1.2% Native American.
#51 | POSTED BY SNOOFY
Native America was a country?
Did it have citizens?
A government?
Healthcare?
Taxes?

#52 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Is that what is required in order to be exempt from invasion and extermination? By the way, there were many "nations" here when the Europeans arrived, and they had government, which implies citizenship. Did the invading Europeans have "healthcare"? The Iroquois had established a democracy which, some argue, inspired the U.S. Constitution. Does that somehow justify what amounts to genocide?

"Definitely agree. Some bloat is OK. However, I think it's safer to have the company hire the individuals. Who do you think is more likely to care about the quality of the meat...a company owned by rich people who want to get richer or some audit guy who works for the government and doesn't give two cents about the company's financial status, only about public health"?

--FTFY

The House and senate are supposed to be leading. The President is only there to execute laws given to him by congress, enforce laws and lead the military.

#135 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Oh, really? Tell me: when did that ever happen? Which President and what is his "legacy"?

Oh yea, you are a liberal, you only like ONE thing, ie ONE government, ONE leader, ONE world..yea..
You need to open your mind to how our government is constructed and what it was intended to be.

#124 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You mean like e pluribus unum, "out of many, one", i.e., "ONE government", and yes it has ONE leader - POTUS. As for "one world", that's just a fear held by those who think they're better than everybody else. "One world" is a corporate fantasy (only ONE set of politicians to corrupt), not a Progressive one.

How many were not blocked?
Are we talking 50% were blocked? 75% were blocked? .0001% blocked?
#75 | Posted by Petrous
Whatever the number is, it's higher than all the other states which DIDNT block them.

#77 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Any proposed solution must solve 100% of the problems 100% of the time.
(Of course, if you come up with such a solution, we'll still vote against it.)
--The Right

How do you defend the "state" if the "enemy" has helicopters, stealth bombers and fighters, tanks, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons? With your AR-15?

The 2nd Amendment is obsolete! We (with very few exceptions out of 330,000,000 people) no longer need protection from wild animals, "savage natives", or British/French soldiers. We no longer have slave patrols or the need to suppress slave rebellions. We have (effectively) a standing army, though it has to be re-authorized every two years, to protect us from foreign invasion. Having this kind of firepower in civilian society is a danger with no redeeming social value ("shooting is fun" is not a redeeming social value). Nobody uses AR-type weapons for hunting, at least nobody who is a "sportsman". So the COST is high, and the BENEFIT is what?

Slavery was also originally constitutionally protected. When the 13th Amendment was ratified, the requirement for slave patrols became invalid. And if you think your weapons are going to protect you from the government, ask David Koresh how that worked out in Waco.

#9

You don't remember Sam's "Made In America" approach?

#8

How about what they did when Sam Walton was running the company?

If that is the case, why aren't the democrats doing something about the black on black crime in the ghettos?

Why aren't the Republicans doing something about the white on white crime in the financial industry? Most crime (of all types) is committed by white people.

But we cant. Democrats are too worried the poor will whine cause they cant get their flat screen tv at tax time.

#24 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You know they stopped making tube tvs about 10 years ago, right? You can get a 24" LED-LCD on Amazon for $70. Do you remember how much a 24" tube set used to cost?

How do you know? There is more than 1.

#40 | POSTED BY SNIPER

And they are all appointed to the FISA court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (that notorious Democrat John Roberts).

When will we start asking white Americans to prove they're not Russian or Irish (or Canadian, for that matter) "illegal immigrants"?

If he can't be indicted, and the majority party in the Senate refuses to remove him...

Or maybe betrayal of one's country and/or cheating in an election isn't a serious enough crime.

The best way to remove a corrupt president is at the ballot box.

#43 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

So if the president commits murder in plain sight on inauguration day, he can't be arrested or prosecuted and he will remain president for 4 years (or maybe 8)? If elections were the only way to remove the president, what's the point of the impeachment clause or, for that matter, the rest of the Constitution?

"A republic, if you can keep it"

-- B. Franklin

If Trump is not impeached, the precedent is established that there are NO laws binding on presidents or presidential candidates. You can be impeached for lying about a consensual BJ (if you're in the wrong party), but not for subverting an election with the help of a foreign adversary and then covering it up. Impeachment is DEAD as a constitutional process. So much for the rule of law.

BTW, since the majority of the Republicans (including Trump), are only familiar with snippets of the Mueller Report, I wonder why the Dems haven't gone digital and put the whole narrative on disk, free to the general public. Like an audio book.

#2 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

The audio book is available at Audible.com for no charge.

The orange sloth only acts in the best interests of the billionaire class he wishes he belonged to.

FTFY