We Were So Much Freer Back in the Day!

[Bono]

This thread will be an ode to the free America that once was!

-------------------------------------------

Montana governor to pardon 78 convicted during WWI
Posted 5/3/2006 8:58 AM ET    E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Nearly seven dozen Montana residents convicted of sedition during World War I are finally getting official pardons from the governor, years after their deaths.

In a ceremony Wednesday afternoon, Gov. Brian Schweitzer, the grandson of German-Russian immigrants, planned to sign posthumous pardons for 78 men and women convicted in 1918 and 1919 for criticizing the U.S. government or its war effort.

Relatives of some of those being pardoned were expected to attend the Statehouse ceremony.

Montana's Sedition Act, passed in 1918 but since repealed, was one of the harshest in the country and a basis for a national sedition law passed the same year.

Of those convicted, more than 40 were sent to state prison, said Clem Work, a University of Montana journalism professor whose book inspired the pardon effort.

UM law students spent months combing old court records and archives across the state to clear those convicted.

In one case, a 38-year-old traveling liquor salesman was arrested after he called wartime food regulations in the United States a "big joke" while talking with a Montana hotel owner in 1918. Less than a month later, he was in prison.

Another was a German immigrant who ended up serving two years in prison for suggesting that Americans "would have hard times" if Germany's kaiser "didn't get over here and rule this country."

In a letter to Schweitzer in late March, more than three dozen professors, lawyers and historians nationwide urged him to grant the pardons "to affirm Montana's commitment to free expression and to bring a measure of justice and redemption to these people and their living descendants."

[A18]

You thank Woodrow Wilson, one of our "near great" presidents, for that.

[© tweed]

You thank Woodrow Wilson, one of our "near great" presidents, for that.

Wilson was a visionary.  If he had been listened to, Hitler never rises to power and WWII never happens.

[MODU]

You thank Woodrow Wilson, one of our "near great" presidents, for that.

Wilson was a visionary.  If he had been listened to, Hitler never rises to power and WWII never happens.

Some argue that it was Wilson's handling of WWI that led to the rise of Hitler.

[A18]

You thank Woodrow Wilson, one of our "near great" presidents, for that.

Wilson was a visionary.

So was Hitler.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

World War I was in a stalemate, and a negotiated settlement would have taken place had we not entered. Hitler never rises to power, and there is no World War II.

[Bono]

You thank Woodrow Wilson, one of our "near great" presidents, for that.

Wilson was a visionary.

So was Hitler.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

World War I was in a stalemate, and a negotiated settlement would have taken place had we not entered. Hitler never rises to power, and there is no World War II.

Methinks Germany would have won, but Hitler wouldn't rise to power in that scenario either.

[Sam Spade]

You thank Woodrow Wilson, one of our "near great" presidents, for that.

Wilson was a visionary.  If he had been listened to, Hitler never rises to power and WWII never happens.

Woodrow Wilson was certainly a visionary.  His book, History of the American People was quoted in the film "Birth of a Nation", a film which led to the second coming of the Ku Klux Klan:

"The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation ... until at last they had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South to protect the Southern country."

He also reintroduced segregation into federal government offices.  Great man.

[Bono]

You thank Woodrow Wilson, one of our "near great" presidents, for that.

Wilson was a visionary.  If he had been listened to, Hitler never rises to power and WWII never happens.

Woodrow Wilson was certainly a visionary.  His book, History of the American People was quoted in the film "Birth of a Nation", a film which led to the second coming of the Ku Klux Klan:

"The white men were roused by a mere instinct of self-preservation ... until at last they had sprung into existence a great Ku Klux Klan, a veritable empire of the South to protect the Southern country."

He also reintroduced segregation into federal government offices.  Great man.

Well, remember you're talking to Boss "Blacks can't provide for themselves" Tweed.

[© tweed]

Well, remember you're talking to Boss "Blacks can't provide for themselves" Tweed.

Nobody has proven to me how that is untrue.

[Bono]

Well, remember you're talking to Boss "Blacks can't provide for themselves" Tweed.

Nobody has proven to me how that is untrue.

You're the one who has to prive that is true.
Nice try though.

[© tweed]

Well, remember you're talking to Boss "Blacks can't provide for themselves" Tweed.

Nobody has proven to me how that is untrue.

You're the one who has to prive that is true.
Nice try though.

Fine.  Here's a snapshot for your naive mind:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html

Poverty rates remained unchanged for Blacks (24.7 percent) and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003) and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003).

The poverty rate differential between blacks and whites is 16.1%, up from 14.6% in 2000:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty00/pov00hi.html

[Bono]

Well, remember you're talking to Boss "Blacks can't provide for themselves" Tweed.

Nobody has proven to me how that is untrue.

You're the one who has to prive that is true.
Nice try though.

Fine.  Here's a snapshot for your naive mind:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html

Poverty rates remained unchanged for Blacks (24.7 percent) and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003) and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003).

The poverty rate differential between blacks and whites is 16.1%, up from 14.6% in 2000:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty00/pov00hi.html

That doesn't mean they can't provide for theselves.
You formulated it as an absolute, which implied no blacks could provide for themselves. THat fact that there are 75.3 of black people who are above poverty line shows that blacks indeed are capable of providing for themselves.

[© tweed]

Well, remember you're talking to Boss "Blacks can't provide for themselves" Tweed.

Nobody has proven to me how that is untrue.

You're the one who has to prive that is true.
Nice try though.

Fine.  Here's a snapshot for your naive mind:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html

Poverty rates remained unchanged for Blacks (24.7 percent) and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003) and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003).

The poverty rate differential between blacks and whites is 16.1%, up from 14.6% in 2000:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty00/pov00hi.html

That doesn't mean they can't provide for theselves.
You formulated it as an absolute, which implied no blacks could provide for themselves. THat fact that there are 75.3 of black people who are above poverty line shows that blacks indeed are capable of providing for themselves.

75.3 is extremely unimpressive in a nation where 88% of all citizens are above the poverty line and 91.4% of whites live above the poverty line.

The fact that triple the % of blacks live in poverty in relation to whites backs up my statement.  Obviously, in the richest nation on earth, you aren't going to have a majority of any demographic living below the poverty line.

[A18]

Probably ghetto areas. Poor education and so forth.

[Bono]

Well, remember you're talking to Boss "Blacks can't provide for themselves" Tweed.

Nobody has proven to me how that is untrue.

You're the one who has to prive that is true.
Nice try though.

Fine.  Here's a snapshot for your naive mind:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html

Poverty rates remained unchanged for Blacks (24.7 percent) and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003) and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003).

The poverty rate differential between blacks and whites is 16.1%, up from 14.6% in 2000:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty00/pov00hi.html

That doesn't mean they can't provide for theselves.
You formulated it as an absolute, which implied no blacks could provide for themselves. THat fact that there are 75.3 of black people who are above poverty line shows that blacks indeed are capable of providing for themselves.

75.3 is extremely unimpressive in a nation where 88% of all citizens are above the poverty line and 91.4% of whites live above the poverty line.

The fact that triple the % of blacks live in poverty in relation to whites backs up my statement.  Obviously, in the richest nation on earth, you aren't going to have a majority of any demographic living below the poverty line.

YOu said blacks can't provide for themselves. That's an absolute statement. Only one single black being able to provide for himself is enough to disprove it.
kthxbye

[© tweed]

Well, remember you're talking to Boss "Blacks can't provide for themselves" Tweed.

Nobody has proven to me how that is untrue.

You're the one who has to prive that is true.
Nice try though.

Fine.  Here's a snapshot for your naive mind:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html

Poverty rates remained unchanged for Blacks (24.7 percent) and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003) and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003).

The poverty rate differential between blacks and whites is 16.1%, up from 14.6% in 2000:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty00/pov00hi.html

That doesn't mean they can't provide for theselves.
You formulated it as an absolute, which implied no blacks could provide for themselves. THat fact that there are 75.3 of black people who are above poverty line shows that blacks indeed are capable of providing for themselves.

75.3 is extremely unimpressive in a nation where 88% of all citizens are above the poverty line and 91.4% of whites live above the poverty line.

The fact that triple the % of blacks live in poverty in relation to whites backs up my statement.  Obviously, in the richest nation on earth, you aren't going to have a majority of any demographic living below the poverty line.

YOu said blacks can't provide for themselves. That's an absolute statement. Only one single black being able to provide for himself is enough to disprove it.
kthxbye

Hardly.  You read into the comment far too literally.

By that logic, if I had said 'whites are able to provide for themselves', would one white person in poverty be enough to disprove that statement?

My comment was made in ratio to the general population: that is, in relation to the general population and especially to the white population, blacks are unable to provide for themselves.

[Bono]

Well, remember you're talking to Boss "Blacks can't provide for themselves" Tweed.

Nobody has proven to me how that is untrue.

You're the one who has to prive that is true.
Nice try though.

Fine.  Here's a snapshot for your naive mind:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty04/pov04hi.html

Poverty rates remained unchanged for Blacks (24.7 percent) and Hispanics (21.9 percent), rose for non-Hispanic Whites (8.6 percent in 2004, up from 8.2 percent in 2003) and decreased for Asians (9.8 percent in 2004, down from 11.8 percent in 2003).

The poverty rate differential between blacks and whites is 16.1%, up from 14.6% in 2000:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty00/pov00hi.html

That doesn't mean they can't provide for theselves.
You formulated it as an absolute, which implied no blacks could provide for themselves. THat fact that there are 75.3 of black people who are above poverty line shows that blacks indeed are capable of providing for themselves.

75.3 is extremely unimpressive in a nation where 88% of all citizens are above the poverty line and 91.4% of whites live above the poverty line.

The fact that triple the % of blacks live in poverty in relation to whites backs up my statement.  Obviously, in the richest nation on earth, you aren't going to have a majority of any demographic living below the poverty line.

YOu said blacks can't provide for themselves. That's an absolute statement. Only one single black being able to provide for himself is enough to disprove it.
kthxbye

Hardly.  You read into the comment far too literally.

By that logic, if I had said 'whites are able to provide for themselves', would one white person in poverty be enough to disprove that statement?

My comment was made in ratio to the general population: that is, in relation to the general population and especially to the white population, blacks are unable to provide for themselves.

And you've proved nothing of the sort. A 13% disparity, where most of it can be explained by historical reasons anyways, doesn't prove that blacks are unable to provide for themselves, no matter how you spin it. It doesn't show any inherent inferiority of the black race.

[MODU]

Hardly.  You read into the comment far too literally.

By that logic, if I had said 'whites are able to provide for themselves', would one white person in poverty be enough to disprove that statement?

My comment was made in ratio to the general population: that is, in relation to the general population and especially to the white population, blacks are unable to provide for themselves.

Even if your argument was that half of the black families could not provide for themselves, it would still be false.  So why waste everyone's time on a racist opinion?

[© tweed]

Hardly.  You read into the comment far too literally.

By that logic, if I had said 'whites are able to provide for themselves', would one white person in poverty be enough to disprove that statement?

My comment was made in ratio to the general population: that is, in relation to the general population and especially to the white population, blacks are unable to provide for themselves.

Even if your argument was that half of the black families could not provide for themselves, it would still be false.  So why waste everyone's time on a racist opinion?

My argument is that blacks are less able to provide for themselves than whites by large margins.

And Bono: if was was all due to historical reasons, why wouldn't the black/white poverty rate be getting closer?  Now ~40 years removed from segregation and ~140 years removed from slavery, there still is no trend to show blacks getting closer economically to whites.

[MODU]

My argument is that blacks are less able to provide for themselves than whites by large margins.

And Bono: if was was all due to historical reasons, why wouldn't the black/white poverty rate be getting closer?  Now ~40 years removed from segregation and ~140 years removed from slavery, there still is no trend to show blacks getting closer economically to whites.

Then I think the language should be changed.  They are, in fact, able to provide for themselves.  Now, they may not be able to live a more afluent life style than whites, which is totally different from how you have phrased the argument.

[© tweed]

My argument is that blacks are less able to provide for themselves than whites by large margins.

And Bono: if was was all due to historical reasons, why wouldn't the black/white poverty rate be getting closer?  Now ~40 years removed from segregation and ~140 years removed from slavery, there still is no trend to show blacks getting closer economically to whites.

Then I think the language should be changed.  They are, in fact, able to provide for themselves.  Now, they may not be able to live a more afluent life style than whites, which is totally different from how you have phrased the argument.

That's just an issue of semantics rather than an issue with the actual argument I presented.

[© tweed]

Hardly.  You read into the comment far too literally.

By that logic, if I had said 'whites are able to provide for themselves', would one white person in poverty be enough to disprove that statement?

My comment was made in ratio to the general population: that is, in relation to the general population and especially to the white population, blacks are unable to provide for themselves.

Even if your argument was that half of the black families could not provide for themselves, it would still be false.  So why waste everyone's time on a racist opinion?

My argument is that blacks are less able to provide for themselves than whites by large margins.

And Bono: if was was all due to historical reasons, why wouldn't the black/white poverty rate be getting closer?  Now ~40 years removed from segregation and ~140 years removed from slavery, there still is no trend to show blacks getting closer economically to whites.

Didn't your own numbers show that the the % of whites and blacks living in poverty are getting closer?

In 2000, they were.  However, the divide has become larger since.

[John Dibble]

In 2000, they were.  However, the divide has become larger since.

Tweed - I think you're looking too much in the short term. 6 years may seem significant, but if we look at this graph going up to 1999:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/poverty99/povrac99.html


we see that poverty is in the long run down for everyone. Notice the recessions between 1979 and 1984 - the rise in poverty rates hit blacks and hispanics the hardest. It's sort of expected for the poorer groups to be hit harder, and remember to keep in mind that we just had one that we're finally seeming to get out of. I think you'll also notice that it seems the disparity is closing in the long term, with the greatest gap closing coming during the tech boom of the 90's. These things have no instant solution, but I think given time things will even out and the disparity along racial lines will decline. Of course this largely depends on the black community and how it decides to conduct itself(specifically the parts near, at, or below the poverty line, as self-destructive behavior would be the worst for them).

[J. J.]

You thank Woodrow Wilson, one of our "near great" presidents, for that.

Wilson was a visionary.  If he had been listened to, Hitler never rises to power and WWII never happens.

... and you all could be referring to me as "Freiherr."

[© tweed]

Dibble,

Of course blacks became closer to whites in the poverty line at the fall of segregation and at the beginning of the Great Society.  That seemed to stabilize for 20 years before the Clinton economy took hold.  Under Clinton, we likely saw a narrowing of the gap due to the improving economy taking people out of poverty.  White poverty has already for the most part bottomed out and can't go much lower, but the same wasn't/isn't true for black poverty.

Now we have seen a stabilization again in the past 7 years and we're probably going to hold at the current 16%ish difference for the forseeable future.  With the playing field even, and perhaps even tilted a bit towards the black side through affirmative action and the like, blacks still can't approach whites in terms of earning money and improving their standard of living.