Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "ABC News"
channel.
-
9
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BimRen246 Slave labor only provided cheap cotton, and European powers weren't exactly jumping up and down to help the Confederates in the US Civil War. So your theory makes no sense, especially the part about "being propped up". Like WHAT? All the European powers expected the US to collapse, the British outright kept their forts and encouraged Native tribes to attack US towns prior to 1812. In what world do you live in dis European powers prop up the US? If you are referring to its independence, then all countries get some outside help in those, Haiti included.
Haiti was a broken mess by the end of its revolution. The war ruined Haiti's economy, especially since it was a slave labor economy; it had no industry to build upon and collapsed like the US South did economically when slavery was removed, except it did not have a industrialized North to stip the economic fall. Not to mention the deatruction of sugar canes which was Haiti's prosperous crop by revolutionaries.
The debt wasn't even thr big deal. The big deal was the unwillingness of Haiti's new allies being unwilling to trade with it after it massacred its white populace. Even the early US, which discreetly aided Haiti, balked and refused to trade after that.
So again. Haiti made its choices. And many of them self-inflicted.
Edit: Hell, until 1812, France and the UK outright kidnapped US sailors for their wars. The US was and would remain a backwater untip the late 19th century.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@toddmintz4269 It will be outright banned in certain States, meaning it won't be regulated at all, or it will be so regulated that its near impossible to get it forcing pregnant women to take illegal means. That's bad for the average American.
Like I said, in certain cases, the will of the States has to be secondary. This is one of those matters. Raising taxes, lowering them, having State-wide healthcare? That's one thing. But civil rights is another matter. You can make the same argument that the State Capitals don't know anything about the common people across the State; it's reductionist at best, and again justifies logic effectively dragging the US back to the dark ages of States having too much power. I'm not advocating for less States Rights, just not to give them rights.
For example, again, how far can you take this? Remember, it was the States Rights people that effectively allowed for Jim Crow laws to be created, allowing for the State-wide oppression of African Americans for several decades.
You're being disingenuous about the "Government out of my Uterus". You're right in the fact that its an ironic statement, but no in how you figure; all civil liberties are effectively supposed to be guaranteed by the government -thus forcing government to pass laws to enforce the rights of Abortion is not hypocrisy or incorrect. The same goes for other civil rights like Freedom of Speech, Assembly, or Guns for example. In short, the phrase is meant to imply that the Government should guarantee the right for a woman to do what she wants with her Uterus, alas it's ironic because even then there are specific rules that must exist even if Abortion is legal. Can't exactly terminate a pregnancy in the last trimester, after all.
This is important because State governments may just enforce a complete ban, which is effectively the issue.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1