SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 11:08:14 AM
From: Mongo2116  Respond to of 1575535
 
he is what he is!!!!! pity the fool!!!



To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 11:09:18 AM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575535
 



To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 12:05:37 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1575535
 



To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 12:06:40 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1575535
 



To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 12:13:37 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
locogringo

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575535
 
are you saying blacks didn't own slaves



To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 12:18:55 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1575535
 
In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2013/03/black_slave_owners_did_they_exist.html



To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 12:21:10 PM
From: longnshort2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Respond to of 1575535
 
When Anthony Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro." He developed a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres (100 ha), and the services of four white and one black indentured servants. In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant whose contract Johnson appeared to have bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally by Johnson. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened and persuaded Johnson to free Casor.



Handwritten court ruling.
March 8, 1655

Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling. [10] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker. [11]

This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

Though Casor was the first person declared a slave in a civil case, there were both black and white indentured servants sentenced to lifetime servitude before him. Many historians describe indentured servant John Punch as the first documented slave in America, as he was sentenced to life in servitude as punishment for escaping in 1640. [17] [18] The Punch case was significant because it established the disparity between his sentence as a negro and that of the two European indentured servants who escaped with him (one described as Dutch and one as a Scotchman). It is the first documented case in Virginia of an African sentenced to lifetime servitude. It is considered one of the first legal cases to make a racial distinction between black and white indentured servants. [19] [20]

Significance of Casor suit[ edit]The Casor suit demonstrates the culture and mentality of planters in the mid-17th century. Individuals made assumptions about the society of Northampton County and their place in it. According to historians T.R. Breen and Stephen Innes, Casor believed he could form a stronger relationship with his patron Robert Parker than Anthony Johnson had formed over the years with his patrons. Casor considered the dispute to be a matter of patron-client relationship, and this wrongful assumption ultimately lost him the court and the decision. Johnson knew that the local justices shared his basic belief in the sanctity of property. The judge sided with Johnson, although in future legal issues, race played a larger role. [21]

The Casor suit was an example of how difficult it was for Africans who were indentured servants to keep from being reduced to slavery. Most Africans could not read and had almost no knowledge of the English language. Planters found it easy to force them into slavery by refusing to acknowledge the completion of their indentured contracts. [1] This is what happened in Johnson v. Parker. Although two white planters who confirmed that Casor had completed his indentured contract with Johnson, the court still ruled in Johnson's favor. [22]



To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 12:35:41 PM
From: Broken_Clock2 Recommendations

Recommended By
locogringo
TideGlider

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575535
 
What type of person would vote for Hillary …knowing she and her campaign are crooked through and through?

Iowans claim instances when Sanders was shorted delegates

Jennifer Jacobs, jejacobs@dmreg.com8:56 a.m. CST February 7, 2016

Keane Schwarz is certain he knows the outcome of the vote in his precinct: He was the lone caucusgoer in Woodbury County No. 43.

But the Iowa Democratic Party's final results state that Hillary Clinton won one county delegate and Bernie Sanders received zero.

"I voted for Bernie," Schwarz, 36, of Oto, told The Des Moines Register. “It was really suspicious … I’m actually pretty irate about it.”

Some complaints that Iowa Democrats have shared with the Register about discrepancies in caucus results appear to be valid. Others stem from confusion over how the math-heavy delegate-awarding system works in the Democrats' caucus process.


Party officials on Friday night were still reviewing reports and correcting errors and hadn’t yet shared candidates' updated totals of state delegate equivalents, which determine the winner of the caucuses.

Sanders’ backers are more likely than Clinton’s to think the political system is rigged, polling has found. So it might not come as a surprise, especially since he lost by a hairsbreadth, that some think the Democratic caucus system is rigged. It also doesn't help the optics that the state party chairwoman drove around for years in a car with “HRC2016” license plates.

Several caucusgoers told the Register they thought Sanders had been shorted county delegates, including in Knoxville No. 3.

A total of 110 people were present for the final vote, and the count was 58 people for Sanders and 52 people for Clinton — which amounted to five county delegates for Sanders and four for Clinton, said Lonnie McCombs, a 59-year-old Knoxville Democrat who is retired from careers in the military and in manufacturing.

“That’s how it was recorded,” said McCombs, a Sanders backer.

But when the Knoxville Journal Express newspaper posted the Democratic Party’s official results, it showed Knoxville No. 3 results as Clinton with five county delegates and Sanders with four.

“It cost Bernie a (county) delegate,” said McCombs, who took to Facebook to report his concerns.

Steve Eck, who was Clinton’s precinct captain for Knoxville No. 3, confirmed: “Somebody transposed those numbers.”

Eck, a 61-year-old nurse anesthesiologist, said the problem was reported to party officials.

Dig deeper on the data: Maps, charts on Iowa caucus results

Iowa Democrats choose about 11,000 county delegates, and there are about 1,400 state delegates. The fraction of state delegates awarded per county delegate varies, from as little as 0.0167 to 0.3517. The variation hinges in large part on the strength of the Democratic vote from a county in previous statewide elections.

The bottom line is that it would take lots of mistakes from lots of precincts in determining county delegates, with a disproportionate number going Sanders' way, to affect the outcome.

Elsewhere, counting problems were a cause for heartburn.

Debra Langguth, who lives in Cedar Rapids No. 9, said the precinct’s four delegates split evenly between Sanders and Clinton, who won by just one person's vote.

The problem, she said, was that 131 people signed in at the beginning of the caucus but two separate head counts showed that 136 people voted.

“No steps were ever taken to find out who these extra five people were. They could have had everyone step to one side of the room, and go to the other side as their names were read off the registration list,” Langguth said. “Who knows if these people were even registered to vote in our district.”

In some cases, the math seemed fishy. For example, the final count in Ankeny No. 12 was 148 people for Sanders and 128 people for Clinton, caucusgoer Tucker Melssen told the Register. The precinct had been awarded eight county delegates.

Clinton and Sanders each got four county delegates, the official party records show. Melssen wondered if that’s an error: Shouldn't Sanders have gotten at least one more than Clinton?

No, state party officials said. The math worked out to Sanders getting 4.29 county delegates and Clinton 3.7. With the rounding rules, each received four. Sanders couldn't receive 0.29 of a delegate because Democrats were electing real people to be delegates at their county convention.

Another prevalent complaint was that some caucusgoers left after the first count, skewing the final count. The final count was taken after undecided voters or Iowans who backed underdog Martin O’Malley joined the Sanders or Clinton groups.

Register editorial: Something smells in the Democratic Party

And many have called for the release of raw vote totals.

John Rousseau, a Sanders backer who lives in Des Moines No. 42, the precinct that turned in the final batch of votes from among a dozen missing precincts on caucus night, said he appreciates being “a part of such a historic and chaotic evening.”

But after everyone had formed initial groups for their preferred candidate, “a Hillary supporter was addressing the O'Malley and ‘undecided’ supporters,” said Rousseau, a 40-year-old small business owner. “He said to them they could stay and realign or leave.”

Some mistakenly thought that meant the voting was done and left, Rousseau said.

Rousseau would like to see the popular vote count, not just the delegate count.

He said: “I think (Sanders) won, by that count."

desmoinesregister.com



To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 1:13:02 PM
From: locogringo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1575535
 
Only a racist asshole would posting such garbage, or recommend it.

I see Gene C gave you a rec. Thanks for calling a spade........a spade.

For the racists on this thread:

Call a spade a spade - Idioms by The Free Dictionary



To: zax who wrote (919667)2/7/2016 2:07:13 PM
From: combjelly  Respond to of 1575535
 
It is from Shorty. What do you expect?