Forum posts made by sixtyminuteman

Topic Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants
Posted 06 Aug 2010 00:15

Not to seem like I'm picking on you, there, Felix, but $40 divided by six, for the crew and the driver, is $6.67. And whatever they're making, the grape harvest is about six weeks long, which is very generously 360 hours of work. I'm not sure what business you're going to open on a couple grand.

And FWIW, most undocumented migrant farm workers don't actually go back to Mexico. The cost of the crossing is enormous, way beyond what they make in a year, and the risks are very real. When you see the big caravans of workers with Mexican license plates, those are the documented folks.

That's part of the reason the various proposed reforms- like John McCain's back when he was something other than a creature of the radical party line- always fail. Someone proposes that the process should include everyone who's been here for, say, four years, and it turns out that that's the vast majority of undocumented immigrants. And of course we can't let four million or so Mexicans be absorbed into our 309million-strong population. Why, that would less than a percentage and a half of the total population. I mean, damn those dirty wetbacks, that's... um... statistically insignificant. So what if the effect on our economy would be positive and the effect on the labor market would be to raise farm worker's wages back to an actual living wage by giving all the workers legal standing and the basic right to negotiate, thus letting a fair market set their wages, we've got to keep those...

Meh. I can't even do it in jest. Rant failure.

This is another one of those things that's kind of a double-edged argument for me. On the one hand, the idiot right screams "amnesty! amnesty!" when that's not even on the table. No one's proposed it, not the President or Nancy Pelosi or whoever else they're on about this week. Reform =/= amnesty. So it's a completely baseless accusation.

On the other hand, I dearly wish someone would propose amnesty. General and total. Even with the damage the Bush era did to our economy, we'd never notice the population increase in any negative way. For fuck's sake, they're already here working. Let them have the same protections from abuse and access to life as the rest of us.

Topic Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants
Posted 05 Aug 2010 17:57

That was interesting. Thank-you.

Happy to help, Marine.

Topic Where on Earth are you from? (Location, not heritage)
Posted 05 Aug 2010 17:53

Born on Camp Pendleton Marine base, raised on a farm in Appalachia, moved to California in the service, lived in the Bay area, Washington state, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, couple places in Japan, and finally San Diego.

Topic Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants
Posted 05 Aug 2010 15:52

According to the USDA, the average farm worker wage in California is $6.17/hour, slightly higher than the national average. Because harvest workers only work an average of about 1000 hours a year, they earn well below the poverty limit in even the poorest states.

Here's a nice article for those interested in this lucrative and exciting career:

Topic The US Navy finally divulges
Posted 04 Aug 2010 22:17

Man, the new uniforms still look weird to me. And I agree about that girl. I adore girls who are smarter than me (all together now: "That really doesn't narrow the field much.")

Topic DU...Why use Depleted Uranium for this (or anything else)?
Posted 03 Aug 2010 12:09

Wow, was that a long sentence. There seems to be a direct correlation between the amount of wine I've had over an evening and my ability to make my thoughts coherent. Maybe I can find the perfect ratio and write Molly Bloom's Soliloquy

Topic DU...Why use Depleted Uranium for this (or anything else)?
Posted 01 Aug 2010 22:03

What's going to be amusing to our jaded, cynical old hearts is twenty years from now when the US tanks use railguns and a potential enemy has a significant enough nuclear program to have depleted uranium rounds, and we start whining about how they're firing poisonous radiation at us and how that violates the Geneva Convention.

Topic True story section?!?
Posted 01 Aug 2010 20:17

I could see a True Story tag , for those who'd want to use it, but a section seems problematic to me. I suspect that a big chunk of the stories here are "Well, some of it's true, but..." type stories. I know mine are, they fall into four broad categories:

1)Entirely true- Not many, and the thing is that I'd probably never cop to it on any particular story.
2)Entirely made up- The more time goes on, the more of my stories fall straight into this category.
3)The sex is mostly real, but the situation is made up- A lot, a lot of my stories are stuff that happened within our circle of sex-positive friends back when we were in college, but I've made up a scenario where they happened with strangers because it's that much hotter and that much more fun to write.
4)The inverse of the above- The situation is/was real, but in real life nobody actually fucked. Good few here, too.

And the can of worms thing is very real, too. One of the reasons I quit posting on another story site *coughLitcough* is that stories in any of several categories get inundated with hate. This place seems free of that in my (admittedly limited) experience, but I suspect that would change real quick if an incest story was marked as real. Or a gay story, or any MMF, etc.

Topic Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants
Posted 01 Aug 2010 18:21

To that statement it's not that the US doesn't want people coming into the country it's just do it legally is what the fight is really about.

Go to HaileSelassie's link. Read that hot mess. Then tell me: if you lived in Mexico, especially one of the areas of Mexico that is presently an open drug war, would you wait years for a chance that might not even come? Or would you get your family to the "land of the free" by any means necessary?

Thank god my ancestors emigrated illegally during the Potato Famine. We were the original wetbacks. And thank god we're correctly colored to subsequently blend into society. WASPs were heavily prejudiced against the Irish when we arrived, but after a couple generations we lost the accent and blended right in. If we were brown? Hmm...

Topic Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants
Posted 01 Aug 2010 18:04

Undocumented workers do pay taxes, in fact Social Security estimates that they're worth $6 to $7 billion- that's billion, with a b- to the system that they'll never claim. They don't file for returns, but that very much does not mean that they don't pay. And contrary to what Faux News likes to scream, they're ineligible for welfare, food stamps, medicaid, etc, 90% of the men are employed, and they aren't criminals any more than the rest of the population. They're just people looking for a better life, who have enough guts to risk the border crossing to get it and enough work ethic to earn it once they're here.

$9 to $11 is very optimistic for a wage estimate. They make the minimum wherever they are when they're working for an employer who's filing payroll as required, and they make a lot less than minimum for a criminal employer.

I never understand how people talk themselves into this hate. We're blaming people for wanting to come to the US? I thought we all felt that this is the best country on earth and everyone should idolize it?

There are, at any given time, somewhere between 4 and 7 million undocumented immigrants in this country. It is a far, far smaller percentage of the population than the Irish mass immigration represented in the middle of the 19th century, and less than a lot of other European migrations at their peak. And unlike the Irish, who were unskilled, broke, and desperate, the majority of Latin immigrants are coming here directly to a job. They contribute to society, contribute to the economy, and are generally the salt of the earth.

And to affirm something that was mentioned up-thread, no amnesty is being discussed. Reform is being discussed. The 1986 reform was not amnesty either.

Topic Do you like petite girls?
Posted 01 Aug 2010 11:02

My life partner is 4'10" or 4'11", although she tries to claim 5'1", and she weighs between 85 and 90 pounds most of the time. When we met at the UW 15 years ago (15 years? Holy, fuck, I'm old!) I didn't even hit on her at first because I thought she was a high school student taking college classes or something. Tiny.

As to whether I like tiny bodies for their own sake... hard so say if I've got a preference. There are things to love about big girls and small ones. It's fun to be with someone with a lot of strength, but I've probably filled most of my urge toward that by being with men. And there are definitely fun aspects to tiny girls in bed. When we're in the right mood our sex gets extremely, um, let's go with the word athletic .

What I'm saying in my long-winded way is yes. I like petite girls. Obviously when we talk about relationships bodies don't matter, but speaking simply about physical attraction, yeah. Petite is great.

Topic Condoms
Posted 29 Jul 2010 05:51


The Onion really hit that one out of the park. As did you, for finding it. Hilarious.

Topic The Confederate Flag
Posted 29 Jul 2010 05:22

I'm not DEFENDING the flag. Read what I've actually written. The War was partly about slavery, partly about other things. Saying anything else is lying, pure and simple.

Right, yeah, I'm a liar. I have every piece of scholarship plus the words of the actual participants on my side, but I'm lying.

OP: "What do you think of the Confederate Flag? Do you think it's racist?"

Me: "Well, yeah, actually."

You: "No it's not! No it's not!"

Me: "It is, and here's why."

You: "Well I'm not defending the flag, I'm just saying it's not about racism!"

So now I say: "That's pretty much the definition of defending it, since racism was the accusation."

Obviously you're intending to call me a liar, but the thing is you're actually leveling that accusation at every southern politician of the Civil War era, every northern politician of the Civil War era, and virtually every modern historian.

James M. McPherson, the scholar of the Civil War, won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on the subject, Battle Cry of Freedom. The book is so respected, so thorough, so balanced, and so exhaustive that it is chapter six in The Oxford History of the United States. It is absolutely where you start if you want to learn about that war, and not having read it is the same as saying "I don't know a thing about that era." From chapter one of that book (and I'm editing only for brevity, anyone with the book can confirm):

The greatest danger to American survival at midcentury... was sectional conflict between North and South over the future of slavery. To many Americans, human bondage seemed incompatible with the founding ideals of the republic...

By midcentury this antislavery movement had gone into politics and had begun to polarize the country...

The slavery issue would probably have caused an eventual showdown between North and South in any circumstances. But it was the country's sprawling growth that made the issue so explosive. Was the manifest destiny of those two million square miles west of the Mississippi River to be free or slave?... The country's territorial growth might have created a danger of dismemberment by centrifugal force in any event. But slavery brought this danger to a head at midcentury.

Call him a liar, I'm done. Personal insults are where any debate, internet or not, reaches the point of absurdity.

When it was introduced, the Stars and Bars was a standard flown so troops on a hazy, smoky battlefield could more easily identify their own armies. Nothing more, nothing less. At THAT time, it wasn't even the true adopted flag of the Confederate States, just a battle standard. Any meanings that the flag has been imbued with since then are strictly the products of other people's bigotries and vileness.

The Stars and Bars, which was the "national" flag of the racist, slaveowning, seditious assholes:

The battle flag:

The naval flag:

And maybe if you don't even know that much about the subject, you shouldn't be throwing names around.

The secessionist southerners were racist. Their war was racist. The flags they flew during that war were symbols of that racism. The Klan is racist. The opposition to the Civil Rights movement was racist. The flag that they adopted because of its ties to the racist government of the slaveowning south is as racist as any symbol can possibly be. There is no more racist symbol, not even the swastika, because at least it has non-racist affiliations in Asia.

Liar, huh? I'm demonstrably not, and you've definitely made a strong case for another ugly word to apply to you. This is my last foray into this thread, I'm not getting myself kicked out of a place I think I like because one guy doesn't like being wrong.

Topic Quick question, Dick or Cock?
Posted 28 Jul 2010 21:49

*Checks stories*

I seem to go with "cock" a lot. A lot . Perhaps I need to copy WMM's list.

Topic The Confederate Flag
Posted 28 Jul 2010 21:18

Erp. Don't know how I did that, I got it right the first time. Stephenski? McStephens? Stephanovich? One of those.

And yeah, I'm generally against -isms when used to divide. Pride in where one is from is all well and good, so long as it doesn't blind one to the flaws of that place and people. And so long as it doesn't turn into a reason to view everyone else as less. It's the line between patriotism and nationalism, I suppose.

Obviously I agree with you about that flag. Fondly reminiscing about the Confederacy is like fondly reminiscing about Apartheid, and flying that flag is just signaling to the world "Hey, I'm the bad kind of southerner, out here giving the decent people a bad name!"

A significant percentage of the people of this country had to be shot to convince them to stop enslaving their fellow man. I'll never comprehend why some see that as a thing to celebrate or honor in any way.

Topic The Confederate Flag
Posted 28 Jul 2010 20:30

You are correct in one way - it WAS about slavery. But you're wrong when you say it was ONLY about slavery. I've been re-reading the Cornerstone Speech. Is it an accident that the first "improvement" to the Constitution that he notes in his dialog is the removal of tariffs?

*snip for brevity*

No, it's not an accident. It's him building up to the central point of the speech. He also covers changes in the tenure of the president, the government's reasons and methods for scheduling internal improvements to the new country, and several other points that are comparatively trivial and clearly not reasons for war. Then he comes to the thrust of the thing, and my apologies to those whose stomachs will turn at this speech. I excised the nastiest bits last time, but let's have the thing in the open:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

So no more beating around the bush. THAT is whose flag you're defending. Clearly, clearly, he saw the war as about slavery above all else. If you think flying that guy's flag is okay, I honestly don't know what else to say. And if you don't feel a little queasy after reading that speech, well, maybe you need to spend some time in introspection.

Topic The Confederate Flag
Posted 28 Jul 2010 19:52

It fell out of use because of the Reconstruction-era necessity to keep up at least a pretense of being undercover with the racist activities of the Klan and others- nothing subtle about that flag, after all. Then in the early 20th Century the Klan reached the height of their power, they didn't have to hide anymore. They openly endorsed politicians and created an entire power structure based on racism. Accordingly, they could be more open with their symbolism.

And yes, the world is shades of gray. Hence the survival of slavery in the first place. But sometimes those shades of gray are dark enough to closely resemble black and light enough to closely resemble white. I'm not sure what it would take to convince you- the southerners of the day said it was about slavery, the northerners of the day said it was about slavery, today's historians say it was about slavery. The only people denying that are Revisionist apologists who seize on a blatantly transparent alternate excuse. If you'd like to respond with any factual counterpoints, I'd be happy to continue the debate, but it's impossible to argue with blind rhetoric. You say you have no dog in the hunt, yet you cling to specious arguments in the face of the historical record. While that's certainly your right, I'm obviously not going to get into a pointless back-and-forth with you.

And, for the record, what I meant was that I didn't want to throw a massive wall of text at you for fear of making you feel... not sure what word I'm looking for... picked on? Not that I was going to personally attack you. And may I humbly suggest that if the word "bullshit" is problematic for you that you don't start responses with "opinions are like assholes".

Topic Condoms
Posted 28 Jul 2010 19:11

Bareback all the way. Of course, I've only been with virgins. I can spot a 'loose woman' from a mile away.

Awesome, we should definitely hang out. You can point out all the loose women for me.

Now, can you tell degrees of looseness? Like, "Oh, hell, you just need to buy that girl one drink" vs. "Yeah, she gets around, but not until the third date."

Because that would be awesome. Lwinking

Topic The Confederate Flag
Posted 28 Jul 2010 18:40

If the state rights argument was the crux of the southern miscontent, why were they so eager to use the federal government to deny northern states the right to emancipate any slave who made it onto free territory? And they gladly endorsed tariffs that protected their interests.

"State Rights" is not a term that exists in a vacuum. The rights in question were to maintain and expand slavery.

You're just going right down the Revisionist arguments, aren't you? The Nullification Crisis occured thirty years before the Civil War. And it was only South Carolina that threatened to secede. They'd done so once before, mind you, when the federal government prevented them from arbitrarily imprisoning all black sailors who arrived in their state.

Again: Tariffs had nothing to do with secession. There are no protections from government tariffs in the Confederate Constitution, because that was not their concern. There are protections for slavery because that was their concern. The tariff that Revisionists cite as cause for the sedition was the tariff of 1857. Look it up. It was written by a Virginian and most of its support came from the South.

Lincoln won the Presidency without even token electoral votes from the South. They were being overwhelmed, and they knew that his tenure would bring assaults on rulings like Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Law- both of which, by the way, are clear examples of the hypocrisy of southerners claiming that state rights had anything to do with their grievances. When they had control of Congress they were happy to use it to assert slave rights over northern states.

It was not a coincidence that they seceded when Lincoln was elected. He was not a symbol of trade tariffs, for God's sake.

I'll rise above your attempt to provoke and point out that the quotes I provided are not opinion. The Cornerstone Speech was the enumeration of the Southern cause for secession. It was their own stated case for the war. Shall I respond to your out-of-context quotes by quoting the foremost Civil War historians? McPherson, Catton, and Shelby Foote have all gone out of their way to call the Lost Cause bullshit what it is. Bullshit.

Okay, I had more typed here, but I don't want this to sound personal. I will point out, again, that that flag fell out of use during all the long decades after the war and was only revived by the Klan, then adopted by the openly racist opposition to Civil Rights. It has no history that is not about racism, period.

Topic The Confederate Flag
Posted 28 Jul 2010 17:09

In case anyone's interested, I think the darkest anal in human history is scene 3 of this video:

Got busy with the serious reply and forgot to say that this was absolutely hilarious. I was going to let "anals" slide, but I'm glad you didn't. I literally laughed out loud.

Topic The Confederate Flag
Posted 28 Jul 2010 16:01

Florida has a state monument where they fly the flag of every government ever to rule over the peninsula. This includes old Spanish Colonial flags, Seminole Tribe standards, Old Glory, and yes, the Confederate "Stars and Bars". Several times, people have sued the state, trying to force them to remove the Confederate flag from this memorial, and they lost their suit each time. The flag itself doesn't stand for slavery, any more than Betsy Ross's original flag did (remember - many of our founding fathers were slave owners).

Also, keep something else in mind - from the viewpoint of the Southern governors and politicians, the War was not about ending slavery.

Yes, it was. From what is known as the Cornerstone Speech, by Confederate VP Alexander Stephens, one of the prime figures in the Secession and the formation of the new southern government:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

...foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

At that time, the "United States of America" was not the way we know it. It was, as it's name implies, a group of independent States, united by common locale and purpose. These States had all agreed to help look after each other's welfare, and band together if the need arose for common defense, but in most other ways, each state was it's own independent entity, responsible for writing and enforcing it's own laws. If one state decided that a 30-year-old man could marry a 10-year-old girl, for instance, no other state could gainsay it.

Also untrue. The Constitution was the law of the land in 1861, just as it is now. Some peripheral responsibilities like banking have come and gone, but our basic system of federal government and state participation has remained constant since 1788.

The issue of slavery became a hotbed of dispute. There were factions on both sides of the issue, living in all the different states. Many Northerners didn't care about slavery, while many Southerners felt that it should be outlawed. The war came about because the Federal government, in the person of Abraham Lincoln, decided that it could over-rule the individual State's statutes, based on the idea that the federal Constitution was the law of the land, and should rule supreme. Many states felt this usurped their own authority and wanted to separate themselves for the rest of the United States. Hence, slavery was the cause for the war, but not the reason for it.

Revisionist, apologist, and factually wrong. See the above, and here's Republican Senator Charles Sumner weighing in:

here are two apparent rudiments to this war. One is Slavery and the other is State Rights. But the latter is only a cover for the former. If Slavery were out of the way there would be no trouble from State Rights.

The war, then, is for Slavery, and nothing else. It is an insane attempt to vindicate by arms the lordship which had been already asserted in debate. With mad-cap audacity it seeks to install this Barbarism as the truest Civilization. Slavery is declared to be the "corner-stone" of the new edifice.

Many people think that the slave economies, not being as competitive as free ones, would have died out eventually, and should have been left to dwindle and die on their own. You can even see hints of this in "The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass" , when Douglass (an escaped slave) compares the wealth he sees evident in his new northern friends to the wealth he had always assumed existed with the Southern slave owners.

Which was why the South seceded. They'd long controlled much of the government through the 3/5ths compromise, which for those unfamiliar was the absolutely reprehensible practice of letting slaves count as 3/5ths of a human for purposes of government representation. Meaning that, in essence, slaveowners got to use their slaves to vote for slavery.

Lincoln's election was seen by both sides as a signal of the death knell for slavery. The key point of argument at that moment was whether the new territories east of the Mississippi would be slave or free. If they were slave, the slave-voting mob would overwhelm the free states and slavery would be the law of the land for the foreseeable future. If they were free, slavery was doomed. It wasn't that Lincoln had promised emancipation or anything like it; he hadn't. It was what he signified.

In my opinion, the flag itself only represents the failed government of the Confederate States of America. What's dangerous about flying it is the meaning that some of our citizens who do fly it imbue it with. They use it as a symbol of their own hatred, racism, fear, and superstition. Part of being American means you're free, though, and that includes having the freedom to have an unpopular opinion (and demonstrate it vividly). Therefore, I support the rights of people to fly that flag, no matter what their motive, because you never know when an opinion YOU hold dear will become "unpopular"...

Nobody's imbuing it with anything it didn't have all along. The Confederacy was never about anything but slavery. That flag never belonged to anyone or anything that was not a directly racist entity. The Confederate government, the Klan, and the opposition to Civil Rights. That's it and that's all. All the bullshit revisionist lost-cause posturing is just that- bullshit. It was the symbol of a government whose sole reason for existence was to perpetuate slavery.

Revisionists like to claim that the South wanted to limit federal power in some non-specified way, that they wanted a weaker constitution and thus a weaker central government. And yet the Confederate Constitution was a word-for-word copy of the US Constitution with the addition of this phrase: No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed

So they established exactly the same government with exactly the same powers, point-by-point, except that it could not impede slavery. Hardly seems like this was a conflict over the form of federal government.

You're a bright guy, I encourage you to do some objective reading. It's a racist symbol, man, whether everyone who flies it is aware of that or not. When it flies over southern capitols it is a not-so-subtle reminder that a great percentage of white southerners are still nostalgic for a time when blacks were property.

Topic Smoking Laws
Posted 28 Jul 2010 06:08

I agree... opinions often differ when it comes to marijuana. I would love it if they were sold pre-packaged. I'm pathetic at rolling joints... happy8

You know what's funny? I've been smoking weed off and on since the late 1980s, and I still fumble with joints. Comes with mostly using a pipe, I guess. My best friend rolls 'em up in two seconds flat, perfect every time, but he calls my joints "weed burritos."

Ah well. I prefer bong hits anyway.

Topic Would you donate your body to science or for organ donation?
Posted 28 Jul 2010 05:58

These days it's just a dot saying "donor" in the middle of your driver's license here in Cali, but there used to be a card that went with it. I checked every box and wrote "Take what you like, I'm done with it!" in the space provided.

Topic Pay The Fine
Posted 28 Jul 2010 05:33

Smoked pot -- $10

Did acid -- $5

Ever had sex at church -- $25 Does oral count? Probably.

Woke up in the morning and did not know the person who was next to you -- $40 What if I remember the person but not the name? Yeah, I suppose that counts. *grumble*

Beat up someone -- $20 No fair, I used to be a boxer, kinda!

Been jumped -- $10 Sexually, or as in beat up? Well, either way, I'm paying.

Crossed dressed -- $10

Given money to stripper -- $25

Been in love with a stripper -- $20

Kissed some one who's name you didn't know -- $0.10

Hit on some one of the same sex while at work -- $15

Ever got drunk at work, or went to work while still drunk-- $20 Does doing paperwork after the guys are all off the clock count? Damn, this is getting expensive.

Used toys while having sex -- $30

Got drunk, passed out and don't remember the night before-- $20

Went skinny dipping -- $5

Had sex in a pool -- $20

Kissed someone of the same sex -- $10

Had sex with someone of the same sex -- $20

Masturbated -- $10

Done oral -- $5

Got oral -- $5

Had sex with someone who has been in jail -- $25

Made a nasty home video -- $15

Had a threesome -- $50

Had sex in the wild -- $20

Been in the same room while someone was having sex -- $25

Had sex with someone 10 years older--$20

Had sex with someone under 21 and you are over 27 --$25

Been in love with two people or more at the same time -$50

Been arrested -- $5

Spent time in jail -- $15

Done something you regret -- $20

Had sex with your best friend --$20

Had sex with someone you work with at work -- $25

Had anal sex -- $80

Lied to your mate -- $5 Hell, I must have at some point.


So $595.10. Is there some kind of community service I can do in lieu of the fine?

Topic The Confederate Flag
Posted 28 Jul 2010 04:36

The thing about that flag is that you have to undestand exactly what the history is. It is not a flag associated with the antebellum south or with the plantation society or with, honestly, anything good or defensible. It was only used during the war itself, a war fought to preserve a horrible institution. It's the flag of sedition.

A timeline of that flag's history-

Before 1861: Does not exist. There is no link to the antebellum (pre-war) South. Neither the stars and bars nor the battle flag (which is what we now think of as the Confederate flag) were dreamed up until the war.

1861-1865: The naval ensign and battle flag of the Confederacy, albeit in different forms. This is the first and predominate association for ALL the Confederate flags. They were the flags of a people fighting to keep other people in bondage.

1865-the early 20th Century: Little seen. Not officially outlawed as the stars and bars were, but generally out of use.

19-teens and twenties: Revived by the Klan. The main reason they chose the naval ensign was that the stars and bars were still technically illegal in a lot of places.

1950's and 60's: Comes back into popular usage as a symbol of those opposed to the Civil Rights Movement. Note that until this point it was not on state flags (except maybe one- Mississippi, maybe?) but during the height of the hate southern states adopted it left, right, and center.

That flag has no history that is not associated with hate. Flying it is absolutely no different from flying a swastika to taunt Jewish people. I understand that a lot of people are unaware of its full history and just why it even survives, but that doesn't make it okay. "Heritage not hate" is bullshit. The heritage IS hate.

Topic Things you would never write about.
Posted 27 Jul 2010 22:27

Stuff I won't touch- rape, scat, kids, animals. And now felching. And rainbow-whatevers, I'm not even looking that one up.

Stuff I just can't pull off- incest. I won't even mess around with parent/child stuff, and sibling incest creeps me out too. A person I sometimes write for really wants some sister/sister smut, but I get the crawlies every time I try.

Topic Condoms
Posted 27 Jul 2010 17:18

I've always thought that one of the unacknowledged benefits of condoms is that they give even us jaded old sluts a "taboo" turn-on in condomless sex. Nothing hotter than going bareback when you're used to a raincoat.

And it's a kind of monogamy for the non-monogamous, if you follow. My cock thinks every girl on earth except my Marie is made of latex. Every time we have sex we are instantly and constantly reminded of our fluid bond and all the commitment it implies to each other.

As far as funny stories go, I've had a few amusing conversations when less-experienced partners have seen inside my bedside table. I keep several kinds of condoms in there- spermicidal, regular lube, unlubed, etc- as well as lube, of course, and a couple toys. And sometimes I forget that 95% of the population is very vanilla:

"Ready for another round? Grab us a condom out of that drawer."

"Hell yes, I... dude, what the hell? It looks like a sex shop in here."

"Oh, right. Just grab a spermicidal one. Blue box."

"Okay... um... little scared now..."

"Heh. Oh, it's not that bad. Spermicidal ones for the obvious, non-spermicidal for women whose bodies don't like the chemicals, and non-lubed for anal. Better to use lube from the bottle for buttfucking."


"Relax, that's more of a third-date kind of thing."

"Oh my god. And the toys?"

"Weekend visit, don't you think?"

" this where I run screaming, or where I ask to move in?"


My funniest condom-related moment, though, is probably a you-had-to-be-there kind of thing. One night at a party we got to talking about magnum condoms and I pointed out that even pornstars don't use them, that you can stretch a regular condom over your head, etc, etc. So we go back and forth for a few minutes, laughing it up and teasing the guy who'd said he needed magnums, when suddenly my very drunk girlfriend says "Well, magnums have their uses. I pulled one over my hand when I fisted Karen." Dead silence falls, then "Oh my god, did I say that out loud?" Meanwhile poor Karen is trying to hide under the couch, red from neck to scalp.

Still one of the queen mothers of all drunken blurts, ever. But, like I said, probably not so funny to people who weren't there. Ah well.

Topic Story behind your avatar
Posted 26 Jul 2010 08:24

Just a sexy picture. That's Quinne and Zoli from Suicide Girls. I love the combination of the "Desire" tattoo, the beauty of the girls, and the sensuality of the kiss.

Topic What's your personality type?
Posted 26 Jul 2010 07:52

I knew there was something I liked about you. ;)

Topic What's your personality type?
Posted 26 Jul 2010 07:41

Took this test years ago and came up INFP. Maybe I'll give it another go and see if a decade's made a difference.