https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3QTCBrQ_Sk

In favor of illegal immigrants becoming property of the state. I'm sure the right wing will eat this up.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/22/iowa-gop-kingmaker-has-a-slavery-proposal-for-immigration.html

What's wrong with it is that slaves waste all my time by making me whip them for their insolence. Can't they just work properly?

Hey maan, we're all slaves to The Man, maan.

Sickening to the core, who is that mentally retarded host who has trouble saying words?

He should definitely consider joining ISIS. I hear they're pretty open to the idea of slavery.

Sixteen months from now, a Democrat will swear in as the 45th president, no matter what any poll says right now.

The worst thing that can happen is that the radio host gets a bigger platform on a regular basis.

What I never understand is why does the other host bring it up? He is just giving the illegal slaver more airtime.

He loves slavery so much, he should try it for a month himself. Sick bastards like this don't deserve the freedom they have.

And then Ted Cruz goes on his show.

In a rational world that would disqualify him from consideration.

But yeah this guy is a vile human being of the lowest order.

In a rational world that would disqualify him from consideration.

What's wrong with America if it doesn't though?

As dumb as it is ironic: fundamentally antithetical to core right-wing views.

It's also just plain dumb.

Slavery still exists in places such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but according to some it must be ok because those countries are not right wing (or Biblical).

Had your ancestors actually read The Bible on this topic you might have less trouble now:
https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2011/10/is-god-a-moral-monster/
LS: What about those slavery texts in the Old Testament? They conjure up images of slavery in the pre-Civil War South.

PC: Servitude in Israel was radically different than slavery in the antebellum South. Although people on both sides argued that the Bible does—or does not—endorse slavery, I argue that we have good reason to think that the “biblical case” for Southern slavery doesn’t hold up.

For one thing, the term “slave” or “slavery” in the Old Testament is often a mistranslation. The Mosaic Law typically refers to “servitude” as indentured service—much like arrangements in colonial America: those who couldn’t pay for their voyage to the New World would work for seven years to pay off their debt, and then they were free to operate in society as ordinary citizens.

What’s interesting about contracted servitude in Israel was that it was, first of all, voluntary: a person would “sell himself” or parcel out family members to work, and they would in return receive clothing, a roof over their heads, and food on the table. Servitude was also limited to seven years unless the servant voluntarily chose lifelong servitude, which brought both stability and security in difficult economic times.

Furthermore, if Bible-readers of the South had adhered to three Mosaic laws, slavery wouldn’t have been an issue: (a) Anti-harm laws: The Law of Moses calls for the release of servants maimed by their employers (Ex. 21:26-7). (b) Anti-kidnapping laws: The Mosaic Law also condemns kidnapping a person to sell as a slave—an act punishable by death: “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death” (Ex. 21:16; cp. Deut. 24:7). (c) Anti-return laws: Unlike the antebellum South, Israel was to offer safe harbor to (foreign) runaway slaves (Deut. 23:15-16)—a marked contrast to the Southern states’ Fugitive Slave Law. This law was also a marked contrast to other law codes in the ancient Near East. In Babylon, harboring a fugitive slave meant the death penalty!

Slavery still exists in places such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but according to some it must be ok because those countries are not right wing

Really, according to some Saudi Arabia is not right wing ?

I would thought that Saudi Arabia was a candidate for the most right-wing conservative country in the world.

Had your ancestors actually read The Bible on this topic you might have less trouble now:

Well who could have afford one (and be able to read), also the bible is a huge collection of books wrote by different people that say different things about the same subject like slavery. Some part are clearly pro some form of slavery (the anti arm law you just quoted is one of them it talk about how a slave owner should treat is slave, that is a pro slavery code).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery#Enslavement

Modern work agencies could be argued to use a form of slavery. Maybe so, but this all has to be put in context. It's ironic that the source that gets most often brought up (Bible) regarding slavery has the most human form of it, but thought to be the most negative by those who never read it (in context).

True context is important, for a big part of human history being a slave or a slave owner, was the norm.

And you had a big diversity of slave, some with high social status like the Mamluk. Or the pyramid builder, at the time for them it was seen a bit like doing your military service for us now in some country, and it was during the season that no agricultural work could be done.

Also for a long time, work in exchange of food and shelter was pretty much it anyway.

Well, there's religious right-wing, and political right-wing. Putting aside for the moment any discussion of the former, I can only imagine how much (more) tax money and state-federal expansion would be necessary to run such a circus that this guy is proposing.

Not at all surprising in this day and age. I suspect the far right base will eat this shit right up.

Slavery would be a good punishment for con artists or bank robbers. You stole somebody's money. Now you have to do free labor for them.

Another fun story along similar lines, from a nearby state:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clGzREnlf-g