rushmc 18
Recommended Posts
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>And in none of the examples you gave did what is right or wrong change
To you. To them, slavery was right. It was defensible. The Bible said so. A few quotes on this:
=================================
" . . .Enslavement was actually good for African Americans: slaves were happy and content under the paternal care of their master and his family, toward whom they felt a special affection, and talk of liberty and freedom was irrelevant because slaves could not even understand those concepts. The proponents of slavery also maintained that slaves on plantations in the South were better off than the “wage slaves” in northern factories, where business owners had no real investment in their workers. In contrast, planters had every incentive to make sure their slaves were well fed, clothed, and housed. Harsh masters, more often than not, were northerners who had moved to the South, rather than those born and bred in the region, the proponents claimed. Underlying all the arguments was a fundamental belief in the superiority of whites."
"Proslavery clergymen could cite biblical references that sanctioned slavery and particularly the enslaving of the black race. The primary citation was Genesis 9:25-27, in which Noah, upset over an indiscretion of his son Ham, who was supposed to be black, cursed all the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. They were to be slaves for eternity and were to serve the other six-sevenths of the population.
Canaan's descendants were said to have populated Africa, and the clergy had only to point to history to demonstrate that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Therefore, it was supposedly the divine decree of God that gave the black people the liability of being enslaved by white people and justified the degradation of the entire race. Divine law and natural went hand in hand. It was obvious to the clergy that blacks were inferior to whites and that slavery was the black man's natural state. Indeed, slavery was rationalized as beneficial to the black race. White masters, it was said, gave them sustenance, Christianized them, and offered them hope for salvation."
To you, slavery is wrong. That's because you grew up in a culture that defines it as wrong. That's a good thing.
Your grandkids will grow up in a culture where more classes of people have the same rights as everyone else, and the thought of discriminating against them will seem just as wrong to them as slavery seems to you. That's also a good thing.
To you. To them, slavery was right. It was defensible. The Bible said so. A few quotes on this:
=================================
" . . .Enslavement was actually good for African Americans: slaves were happy and content under the paternal care of their master and his family, toward whom they felt a special affection, and talk of liberty and freedom was irrelevant because slaves could not even understand those concepts. The proponents of slavery also maintained that slaves on plantations in the South were better off than the “wage slaves” in northern factories, where business owners had no real investment in their workers. In contrast, planters had every incentive to make sure their slaves were well fed, clothed, and housed. Harsh masters, more often than not, were northerners who had moved to the South, rather than those born and bred in the region, the proponents claimed. Underlying all the arguments was a fundamental belief in the superiority of whites."
"Proslavery clergymen could cite biblical references that sanctioned slavery and particularly the enslaving of the black race. The primary citation was Genesis 9:25-27, in which Noah, upset over an indiscretion of his son Ham, who was supposed to be black, cursed all the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. They were to be slaves for eternity and were to serve the other six-sevenths of the population.
Canaan's descendants were said to have populated Africa, and the clergy had only to point to history to demonstrate that the prophecy had been fulfilled. Therefore, it was supposedly the divine decree of God that gave the black people the liability of being enslaved by white people and justified the degradation of the entire race. Divine law and natural went hand in hand. It was obvious to the clergy that blacks were inferior to whites and that slavery was the black man's natural state. Indeed, slavery was rationalized as beneficial to the black race. White masters, it was said, gave them sustenance, Christianized them, and offered them hope for salvation."
To you, slavery is wrong. That's because you grew up in a culture that defines it as wrong. That's a good thing.
Your grandkids will grow up in a culture where more classes of people have the same rights as everyone else, and the thought of discriminating against them will seem just as wrong to them as slavery seems to you. That's also a good thing.
rushmc 18
QuoteWhat is your opinion of how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed?QuoteKind of like the Dems saying they were the ones who got the civil rights bill through Congress
From Wikipedia:It wasn't universal, but it was certainly voted on more by the Democrats than the Republicans. And, when you consider that the southern Democrats largely (but not entirely) voted against it, that would make it even more thoughroughly voted for by Democrats.QuoteThe original House version:[13]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[14]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[13]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[13]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
If there is another interpretation, it'd be nice to hear it. "Democrats" and "Republicans" were different then than they are now, also.
Wendy P.
96 dems voted against original version
There was 248 Democrates and 171 Repulicans in the house
67 Democrates and 33 Republicans in the Senate
The Republicans got over 80% of their memebers to vote for it while the best the Dems did was 69%
The numbers tell the true story
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteWhat is your opinion of how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed?QuoteKind of like the Dems saying they were the ones who got the civil rights bill through Congress
From Wikipedia:It wasn't universal, but it was certainly voted on more by the Democrats than the Republicans. And, when you consider that the southern Democrats largely (but not entirely) voted against it, that would make it even more thoughroughly voted for by Democrats.QuoteThe original House version:[13]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[14]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[13]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[13]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
If there is another interpretation, it'd be nice to hear it. "Democrats" and "Republicans" were different then than they are now, also.
Wendy P.
96 dems voted against original version
There was 248 Democrates and 171 Repulicans in the house
67 Democrates and 33 Republicans in the Senate
The Republicans got over 80% of their memebers to vote for it while the best the Dems did was 69%
The numbers tell the true story
No, in fact they don't. You show a lack of understanding of the history of the parties since the mid-20th Century; and Wendy touched upon the correct perspective when she noted that the parties are different today than they were circa 1964.
As I've discussed in detail in at least 2 posts in other threads, on the issue of race, the Democratic Party was DEEPLY divided since the end of WWII. On that issue, it might as well have been 2 separate parties; and in many other countries the mostly Southern pro-segregation wing of the Party would have split off to form a third major party. That socially conservative, mostly Southern wing of the Democratic Party began defecting to the Republicans to help elect Nixon in 1968 (the Nixon campaign referred to it as their "Southern Strategy", i.e., wooing disaffected socially conservative Democrats from the Deep South); and the shift completed itself to elect Reagan in 1980. Those former Southern Democrats are now part of the most socially-conservative wing of the current Republican Party.
Most of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Southern pro-segregationists. Any analysis that ignores that factor in favor of merely a raw statistic, without context, is a fool's enterprise.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteQuoteWhat is your opinion of how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed?QuoteKind of like the Dems saying they were the ones who got the civil rights bill through Congress
From Wikipedia:It wasn't universal, but it was certainly voted on more by the Democrats than the Republicans. And, when you consider that the southern Democrats largely (but not entirely) voted against it, that would make it even more thoughroughly voted for by Democrats.QuoteThe original House version:[13]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[14]
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:[13]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[13]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)
If there is another interpretation, it'd be nice to hear it. "Democrats" and "Republicans" were different then than they are now, also.
Wendy P.
96 dems voted against original version
There was 248 Democrates and 171 Repulicans in the house
67 Democrates and 33 Republicans in the Senate
The Republicans got over 80% of their memebers to vote for it while the best the Dems did was 69%
The numbers tell the true story
No, in fact they don't. You show a lack of understanding of the history of the parties since the mid-20th Century; and Wendy touched upon the correct perspective when she noted that the parties are different today than they were circa 1964.
As I've discussed in detail in at least 2 posts in other threads, on the issue of race, the Democratic Party was DEEPLY divided since the end of WWII. On that issue, it might as well have been 2 separate parties; and in many other countries the mostly Southern pro-segregation wing of the Party would have split off to form a third major party. That socially conservative, mostly Southern wing of the Democratic Party began defecting to the Republicans to help elect Nixon in 1968; and the shift completed itself to elect Reagan in 1980. Those former Southern Democrats are now part of the most socially-conservative wing of the current Republican Party.
Most of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Southern pro-segregationists. Any analysis that ignores that factor in favor of merely a raw statistic, without context, is a fool's enterprise.
I do understand the context
But like your post, liberals and Dems like to run around saying they ended slavery and they championed the civil rights movement to the exlusion of the Republican Party
This is false
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Andy9o8 0
Quoteliberals and Dems like to run around saying they ended slavery and they championed the civil rights movement to the exlusion of the Republican Party
That's just bullshit. I have to tell you bluntly: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
rushmc 18
QuoteQuoteliberals and Dems like to run around saying they ended slavery and they championed the civil rights movement to the exlusion of the Republican Party
That's just bullshit. I have to tell you bluntly: you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
Of course you have to do this
It is what liberals do when others will not roll over to the superior intellect and understanding that only they (liberals) can have
Totally expected
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteIt's only the religious right that wants to force its morality on the rest of us.
Irony score, incalculable.
Who forced you out of a relationship with another man, John?
Who prevented your wife from having an abortion?
Who forced your kids to attend religious school?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteIt's only the religious right that wants to force its morality on the rest of us.
You need to get out of your safe room if you really believe this
OK - looking at it objectively, I'll grant that liberals forced morality on others by enacting anti-discrimination laws, so that shopkeepers, hotel owners, restaurants, public bus operators, etc., who believed in racial segregation, were forced to accommodate everyone, and not just white people. Please address the good-vs.-bad of that example.
If you're talking about the equal rights laws from the mid-60's, that would be the CONSERVATIVES, not liberals.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 18
QuoteSo, what are the historical details about civil rights that few Americans know? According to historians, it was the Democrats who fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it. From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. After the Civil War, Republicans amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans also passed the civil rights laws of the 1860′s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as well as the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks.
It was Democrats who started the Ku Klux Klan that became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party to lynch and terrorize Republicans – black and white. Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws and fought every piece of civil rights legislation from the 1860’s to the 1960’s. Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws, and when the Democrats regained control of Congress in 1892, they passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans. Republicans founded the HCBU’s and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats. It took Republicans six decades to finally achieve again the passage of civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
It defies logic for Democrats today to claim that the racist Democrats suddenly joined the Republican Party after Republicans – including Republican Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – finally won the civil rights battle against the racist Democrats. In fact, the racist Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 18
http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=975
BTW, I love it when you ignore me
BTW, I love it when you ignore me
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
mnealtx 0
QuoteMost of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were Southern pro-segregationists.
And yet the Dems claim that they went over to the Republicans - a party that was overwhelmingly FOR the Act.
QuoteAny analysis that ignores that factor in favor of merely a raw statistic, without context, is a fool's enterprise.
Yet we still keep hearing the same old saw, over and over.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Coreece 190
Quote>Newt represents his supporters, not himself.
Yep. Do we really need a Freddie Mac representative in the presidency?
Hey, if Obama apparently isn't immune to the influence of the corrupt financial gurus that are running this country then I don't think any republican is...except maybe Ron Paul, but he'll probably just crack and shit himself when he realizes that there is nothing he can do about it until the people decide to stop deluding themselves with their illusions of wealth nicely gift wrapped in the greedy guise of "The American Dream."
Quote>Politics is a dirty business...
Indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMfCG6nn1w
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Quote
It used to be that anyone who supported gay rights was immediately labeled gay themselves.
no, we still see that sort of behavior around gay (and other) rights in this forum.
Coreece 190
Quote"Proslavery clergymen could cite biblical references that sanctioned slavery and particularly the enslaving of the black race. The primary citation was Genesis 9:25-27, in which Noah, upset over an indiscretion of his son Ham, who was supposed to be black, cursed all the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. They were to be slaves for eternity and were to serve the other six-sevenths of the population.
Wow, that's quite a stretch...
QuoteTo you, slavery is wrong. That's because you grew up in a culture that defines it as wrong. That's a good thing.
So did the protestant church during the civil war...Here is the statement that directly preceeded the quote from your source that you conveniently left out:
"By the end of the Civil War, the Protestant churches in the United States had split into Northern and Southern factions over the issue of slavery."
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
billvon 2,400
>Wow, that's quite a stretch...
Yep, just as the claims "the Bible outlaws homosexuality" are. But people like using the Bible to "prove" their points.
>So did the protestant church during the civil war...
Agreed. It took years before both sides agreed that slavery was bad.
Yep, just as the claims "the Bible outlaws homosexuality" are. But people like using the Bible to "prove" their points.
>So did the protestant church during the civil war...
Agreed. It took years before both sides agreed that slavery was bad.
jakee 1,255
QuoteQuoteIt's only the religious right that wants to force its morality on the rest of us.
Irony score, incalculable.
Who forced you out of a relationship with another man, John?
Who prevented your wife from having an abortion?
Who forced your kids to attend religious school?
You have got to be fucking kidding me Mike. Seriously? You're using abortion as an example of something the right doesn't want to get involved in?
Sometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,255
QuoteDid I use the word behave?QuoteEasy to say that. So who is forcing you to behave according to their morality?
Hah!
So how did you manage to change your lifestyle without changing your behaviour?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
mnealtx 0
QuoteSometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.
Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jakee 1,255
QuoteQuoteSometimes you just can't fit enough crazy faces on one screen.
Agreed - it's just CRAZY that you won't recognize the parallels between left/right issues as a rebuttal to his post.
You haven't pointed out any parallels.
Gay rights advocates don't want to make you gay.
Pro choice advocates don't want to make you have an abortion.
Secular advocates don't want to stop you from teaching your kids learning about religion.
The word is 'liberal' for a reason.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Agreed
the debate then becomes where is the line?
I say it is along the right and wrong line
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites