larisa.com Forum
August 23, 2017, 07:39:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Yesterday at 09:43:34 PM 
Started by David60 - Last post by David60
http://www.thelist.com/70844/cast-10-things-hate-looks-like-today/sl/larisa-oleynik-bianca

 2 
 on: August 20, 2017, 03:01:04 PM 
Started by David60 - Last post by David60
I attended public school is a so called liberal state taking a year of U.S. history in Junior High and another in High School (both a state requirement).  My grades were A and A-.  I don't remember the Corner Stone speech being covered at all.   The Dred Scott decision was superficially covered but we never read the case opinions.  The reasons for the civil war were downplayed into a superficial list.  If we didn't learn this then it's unlikely students in more conservative states did so either.  This is because after the civil war reconstruction era the citizens of all the United States, both North and South, in order to gain national unity, mythologized that war and condemned people who's skin was too dark to decades of open subjugation and violence.  The misrepresentation of the civil war (obvious from the documents of that time) was deliberate: is wasn't a historical controversy.

The following is from the "The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States".
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

Georgia

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property,

Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union

South Carolina

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
Texas

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.


Virginia

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

 3 
 on: August 20, 2017, 01:39:41 AM 
Started by David60 - Last post by terrance2874
I have mine but haven't watched it yet. Right now I'm kicking it in Monterey, California. Our hotel faces the beach.

 4 
 on: August 19, 2017, 11:13:22 AM 
Started by David60 - Last post by David60
I don't want to keep adding new topics in my current monologue so I'll put this here.
From the Washington Post:

“whataboutism,” the practice of short-circuiting an argument by asserting moral equivalency between two things that aren’t necessarily comparable

What about antifa? What about free speech? What about the guy who shot Steve Scalise? What about the mosque in Minnesota that got bombed? What about North Korea? What about murders in Chicago? What about Ivanka at the G-20? What about Vince Foster? If white pride is bad, then what about gay pride? What about the stock market? What about those 33,000 deleted emails? What about Hitler? What about the Crusades? What about the asteroid that may one day kill us all? What about Benghazi?

Yesterday I made three posts, this one and:

http://www.larisa.com/forum/index.php?topic=2348.0
http://www.larisa.com/forum/index.php?topic=2347.0

As verified from many sources, the Confederate States of America was primarily a white supremacist state.  So there isn't moral equivalence between antifa and the confederacy and the people who want to glorify and revive it.  And now here's the but:  I don't think lack of moral equivalency means the nobody can criticize antifa when some of their members use violent tactics.     

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/whataboutism-what-about-it/2017/08/17/4d05ed36-82b4-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.html?utm_term=.0417dfbebcef

 5 
 on: August 18, 2017, 09:31:59 PM 
Started by David60 - Last post by David60
From http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html

While Antifa members don't fit a single category, they say many are millennials and many live on society's fringes: undocumented immigrants, transgender people, low-wage workers, those who don't conform to the traditional 9-to-5.
And their methods are often violent. Antifa leaders admit they're willing to physically attack anyone who employs violence against them or who condones racism -- as long as force is used in the name of eradicating hatred.
...
Antifa demonstrators have marched in more than a half dozen protests since Election Day in Portland, Oregon, according to police.
Earlier this year, Antifa activists were among those who smashed windows and set fires during protests at the University of California, Berkeley, leading to the cancellation of far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos and withdrawal of Ann Coulter as speakers.
...
Sanders, for his part, has disavowed violence and is not connected with Antifa efforts. A self-described democratic socialist, Sanders has come out against "hard-left" violence, saying of protests over Coulter's UC Berkeley appearance, "I don't like this."
"Obviously, Ann Coulter's outrageous -- to my mind, off the wall," Sanders said. "But you know, people have a right to give their two cents' worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation."
...
"Violence against windows -- there's no such thing as violence against windows," a masked Antifa member in Union Square told CNN. "Windows don't have -- they're not persons. And even when they are persons, the people we fight back against, they are evil. They are the living embodiment, they are the second coming of Hitler."
...
Antifa members also sometimes launch attacks against people who aren't physically attacking them. The movement, Crow said, sees alt-right hate speech as violent, and for that, its activists have opted to meet violence with violence.  Right or wrong, "that's for history to decide," he said.


One comment:  Once this kind of civil violence gets started it takes a long time to stop it.  We had a taste of this in the 1970's (SLA, Weatherman).  These groups provided nothing but harm to all of us and generally very much damaged the cause they supposedly supported.  Oh, and right or wrong is for every individual to decide themselves in the present.     

 6 
 on: August 18, 2017, 03:48:25 PM 
Started by David60 - Last post by David60
By Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States: February 22, 1862 – May 11, 1865
Speech given on March 21, 1861

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.

1)  Note how the speech contradicts the basis for the Dred Scott case in regard to the founders view on slavery.

2) This is the VP of the Confederacy speaking.  Every important person in the Confederacy, from statesmen to generals, knew what they were fighting for.

3) Notice how those who oppose slavery are accused of  insanity and fanaticism

https://web.archive.org/web/20130822142313/http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

 7 
 on: August 18, 2017, 12:35:24 PM 
Started by David60 - Last post by David60
The statue of Chief Justice Taney (U.S Supreme Court, 1836-1864) was just removed from the Maryland statehouse.  One thing his Dred Scott opinion shows is how very "useful" (for certain people) a strict originalist interpretation of the U.S constitution can be.

4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were nut numbered among its “people or citizen.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being “citizens” within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was morally lawful to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.

7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no state can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.

8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens, as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion, and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.

9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construct and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.

10. The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the Slate of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court.

11. This being the case, the judgment of the court below, in favor of the plaintiff of the plea in abatement, was erroneous.


Since this decision the U.S constitution has been amended so that the above decision would unequivocally not be valid (though it's very debatable that it was ever valid).  But note how the originalistic interpretation of the constitution enshrines every prejudice from 1787 (date of constitution) unless they are explicitly amended. For example if justices with this view gained a true majority in the supreme court gay marriage would become illegal in many states (and nationally if congress passed and the president signed such law) and homosexual activity could again be criminalized since that was certainly the view in 1787.
       
https://www.loc.gov/resource/llst.022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/27/14747562/originalism-gorsuch-scalia-brown-supreme-court   

 8 
 on: August 15, 2017, 04:42:28 PM 
Started by David60 - Last post by David60
This is the first review I've seen of the DVD's and it's by someone who hadn't watched the series before.   

Luckily, The Secret World of Alex Mack, which follows a young teenager who gains super powers, is still a good amount of fun. Sure, it’s got its cheesy moments that haven’t aged well, but Larisa Oleynik (best known to ME as one of the leads in the classic 10 Things I Hate About You) is charming in the lead role and she carries a lot of the show.

The reviewer also said "This is one of those shows that debuted when I was already a little too old for it".   Ha.  Some of us were "way too old for it".

search for "mack"
http://blog.timesunion.com/movies/whats-new-noteworthy-on-blu-ray-dvd-august-8-2017/18348/

 9 
 on: August 14, 2017, 06:29:52 PM 
Started by Astsaft - Last post by Doink
https://twitter.com/loleynik/likes

Not a surprise considering she posted about going to a Bernie rally, but Larisa's not a Trump fan.

 10 
 on: August 12, 2017, 02:54:19 PM 
Started by terrance2874 - Last post by David60
I started a pinned topic a few weeks ago (mentioning you) about this film.

http://www.larisa.com/forum/index.php?topic=2345.0

There are links to photos of Larisa in the film.  I think this film got rebooted or something but it seems very active again.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!