Can you cite a source on that? I have no information to dispute it, but I keep reading these increasingly inflated figures on what percentage of cowboys were Black; the last I read (besides yours) was that half the cowboys were Black. I don’t know who back then was keeping count. I’ve read a lot of first hand accounts of cowboys and trail driving, and these figures do not seem confirmed by what I’ve read.

David Dary in his COWBOY CULTURE–which seems pretty well researched–says that no one can really say what percentage of cowboys in the Old West were ANYTHING, because no one has a verifiable count of how many cowboys there were in toto, especially in the early days.

Cowboy Capitalism. No doubt they mean that as a slur. ha! The jokes on them – I think it is a great term and will be using to myself.

Cowboys work hard, respect others who work harder, have no time for “dudes” or others who don’t pull their own weight.

Cowboys were men like the Lone Ranger or Marshall Dillon; cowboys drop their own work to help form a posse when the need arises. When they fight, they fight to right a wrong and fight so they won’t have to again. (of course, sometimes they fight in the saloon on a Saturday night just for the hell of it – nobody’s perfect)

Yet, cowboys will tip their hat to you, cowboys will be tender with a newborn calf, cowboys will do what’s best for the herd.

Skip the Weinersnitchel and the Parisian escargot; Cowboy coffee and cowboy stew with sourdough biscuits are some of the finest foods after a long day in the saddle. Oh, and real chili is made with beef – not beans!

Do they know that 1 in 3 U.S. cowboys were either Black or Mexican? On the trail color didn’t matter – content of character did. Legend has it that the best badge a cowboy could wear was honesty.

Yep, although I’m not a cowboy (not even close) I rather like that term – cowboy capitalism.

Last year, the College Board, the nonprofit corporation that controls all the high-school Advanced Placement courses and exams, published new guidelines for the AP U.S. history test. They read like a left-wing dream. Obsession with identity, gender, class, crimes against the American Indian and the sins of capitalism suffused the proposed guidelines for teachers of AP American history.

As of a few weeks ago, that tilt in the guidelines has vanished. The College Board’s rewritten 2015 teaching guidelines are almost a model of political fair-mindedness. This isn’t just an about-face. It is an important political event.

…

What really happened was the resurrection of an American idea the left wants to extinguish–federalism. Some states began to push back. Legislative opposition to the guidelines formed in Georgia, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Nebraska, Tennessee, Colorado and Texas.

Stanley Kurtz, of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, has argued that the College Board was concerned that its lucrative nationwide testing franchise would be at risk if states began to replace it with their own courses. I think he’s right.

More background on what slavery had to do with this topic of foreigners and traitors. Democrats=traitors

Democrats=Slavery 2.0 justified under eugenics

Eugenics leads to Sanger. Sanger leads to Planned Profit. PP leads to Slavery 3.0 and the Leftist alliance.

Got to make it simple for some people.

http://neoneocon.com/2015/08/26/what-is-a-conservative/#comment-916658

that likes to think he doesn’t need to read my comments and then thinks he can debate the merits or demerits of stuff he doesn’t understand because he never read them, but that’s a different issue.

Sanger was born after the South had already created a eugenics program and justified it using a quasi religious idea that black beasts are born for the field and white land owning aristocrats could own poor whites, women, and blacks with equal finesse.

The idea that Slavery 2.0 was something Southerners had that was equal to Slavery 1.0 in the Bible or other economic necessities, is the propaganda you were born to believe, Old. But that’s not what really happened back then in the US. Slavery 2.0 was a modification and an advancement, made by Democrat ancestors. Are you perhaps offended that Democrat ancestors are mentioned now and again, when you thought they won Reconstruction after the war, perhaps that’s the real issue you want to talk about and not this issue you lost sight of long ago.

For the sake of clarity, you should specify the “you” whom you’re addressing.

I think you lost the point of the issue some time ago. But that’s not really my problem.

I believe that Trump’s radical methods would include bypassing Congress and doing everything by executive order, much like Obama. I actually see him as very much resembling Obama in that and several other respects.

Trump is used to being the boss. He would consider himself the boss.

Conservatives have always considered methods and process to be as important as ends. Conservatives have always felt the ends don’t justify the means, because it leads constitutes tyranny.

That doesn’t mean that armed rebellion is forbidden. But not adhering to the Constitution is forbidden. I see Trump as a man who does not respect the Constitution and would use radical shortcuts in that sense. He is also in favor of lots of things that conservatives are against (see this and ths), and he would have no hesitation to accomplish them by executive fiat if he can get away with it

If the ends completely justify the means, the person is not a conservative.

They understand it for what it is: real competition with zero-sum spoils to be won.

Like any real competition for real stakes, if you’re not willing to match an obsessed competitor’s zeal and commitment to win, he’ll most likely take the prize and send you home empty-handed.