Democrat "Slavers Party"

[freedombecki]

Regent, Republicans are being routinely denigrated as racists by President Obama, when in fact, our party is the party of anti-slavery and pro-free people, regardless of color. Didn't you know that? We are against slavery, against inequality, and against bad stuff for minorities as well as majorities.

We've been painted by Democrats, who opposed the Anti-Slavery Amendment, opposed the right of all men to vote in an amendment, and leaders against inequality in housing, schooling, real estate, and pay for jobs doing the same things. The calumny against Rupublicans is so thick, you can't cut it with a knife, because the press is not doing its job of simply publishing the truth, and not lying through omission. I'm sorry, but we are not in our hearts as Democrats routinely paint us in order to take the onus off their latest foray into abolishing the strength of civil rights as stated in the US Constitution.

For example, it isn't fair to treat people who pay taxes on a different basis for any reason. Democrats who are wealthy require their base to ignore their wealth in order to paint Republicans, who work hard and earned their own way honestly, as filthy rich evil, which is not true. America has always traditionally been a country in which wealth was made possible by someone deciding to set goals to earn wealth by setting aside a little from each month's paycheck and investing it in people who are thought to be sincere in wanting an idea to succeed to make life better for other people. People vote with their paychecks for winning ideas as well as losing ones. Sometimes, you can't do what you want to do when one of your lesser ideas goes to the top of other people's popularity. Persecuting winners is not a founding American principle.

Some of our Republicans are very weary of being lied about for every single little idea that crosses the Democrat power-grab spin room. I think you should see things for what they are.

The KKK was comprised from Democrat Party committee meeting decisions. I cannot erase history because today's Democrats know that history does not favor their past decisions in quest for total power over all other human beings on this continent. If you erase the truth, you poison the well for decision-making in the future.

QUOTE] Good post, and perhaps our problem is that we use the words Republican and Democrat, when liberal-conservative would be more fitting? There is racism in the US and groups of people seem to support that racism and it's true that at one time most racism was to be found in the Democratic party.
The racists found the party of Lincoln distatesful so the "solid south" voted Democratic and held key postitions in the Democratic party. Then in the Thirties the Democratic party began easing racism out of the party. Losing all those votes from the Solid South meant a lot to lose but it was done. The racists now had a problem where to go politically, they tried creating their own party and that didn't work so where did they go?

Someplace else when announcing racist propositions. The Republicans at home respond quite unhappily to extremist racists, considering their reasons for being Republicans was first to see to it there was an equanimity for every race and clan represented at the political and business arenas of the land.

Some people take this to mean we are racists for avoiding reverse racism in this equanimity. We are for equality. It is up to each individual to strive to be the best that he or she can be. We support this in people. We do not vote a second time for one who perpetrates racial hatred, anti-Semitism, or those who would cause a person to lose his equality based on ethnicity or race, or on gender, or on family, or on religion.

As a consequence, racists leave the Republican party when they realize intolerance for race is not tolerated for long. So they leave, doing as much damage as possible, heralded by the press which has become a leftist institution in this day and age. Some of those RINOs even go so far as to publicly put lipstick on their racism and call it something else in order to split off a certain number of other Republicans in revenge to other groups. Others pretend to be Republicans or right-wingers, but voice hatred at Republicans for 95% of Republican decisions.

 

[S.J.]

Some republicans did denounce Duke, but the party did not.

How many times did Robert Byrd win a Senate seat again?

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also: "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]

Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.

What the hell do you expect Byrd to say, "I'm a devout racist and that's why I joined the KKK"?

 

[Political Junky]

How many times did Robert Byrd win a Senate seat again?

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also: "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]

Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.

What the hell do you expect Byrd to say, "I'm a devout racist and that's why I joined the KKK"?

David Duke still says that he is a racist.

 

[freedombecki]

When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings. Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people. Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.

Liberals did not want the slaves freed. Liberals did not want equal rights. The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know. They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites. The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power. Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed. They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.

Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.

I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal. Don't give up on Hitler so easily. He had a lot to be admired by modern american conservatives. He hated unions, intellectuals , homosexuals and Negroes.

Wow, that broad paintbrush misses the facts: Republicans accept the work of the early unions good when it promoted equality. Republicans founded colleges that produced intellectuals from profits earned and good will toward all. Many Republicans who work hard to make a business came from intellectual backgrounds and can go toe to toe with the best journalists in the industry, because we earned street savvy the hard way. Log Cabin Republicans are in our party and don't buy the MSM/Democrat Party baloney that we are somehow hateful to homosexuals because we think marriage is an institution of agreement between a man and a woman to raise a family together and pledge fidelity to one another.

Republicans were horrified at the treatment of Matthew Shepherd who was a student at Laramie, the University of Wyoming, when he was murdered by two homophobic individuals who are each serving a life sentence in Rawlins Prison to this day for that crime. Democrats used the incident to attempt to change Wyoming State Law to favor homosexual men and women, but the Legislature decided a maximum sentence for a crime such as life without the possibility of parole was as stiff as it gets for any crime, and refused to be pushed by the national one-world way. Republicans are for equality under the law, and the harshest life sentence is enough so that the crime has not been repeated in the state, to the best of my knowledge.

The trouble with equality is knowing where it begins and ends. Some people learn it only to suit themselves. Equality in the law goes hand in hand with justice being blind. It takes work to keep things even. We believe the American system does that, but if it is changed to suit every extremist, ignores the Middle Class, so we do not feel we should change that in any way, since it is a founding principle, this concept of equality. The crimes against Matthew Shepherd were committed by teenagers. It isn't fitting to hang a teenager, because that's the time of life if people are going to do inappropriate behaviors, it's most often done before the age of 21. It also just isn't fitting to kill a person who has the mentality of a child, and Wyoming had already meted out the maximum sentence that could be given to occupy the rest of a criminal life for such an egregious crime, although at least one of the perpetrators had a double-digit iq on the low scale, and one was only a few points lower than a normal intelligence.

If you think Republicans "admire" Hitler because he hated blacks, you must not realize that the Republican Party began in Presbyterian Church Parlors in which a law against slavery was being formulated several years prior to the election won by Republican Abraham Lincoln. And it didn't stop with Presbyterians and Quaker Friends! But the work of antislavery didn't end, and to this day, Republicans still have the same regard for such notions as slavery, and so do the majority of Americans nowadays.

But the Democrats have gone too for perpetrating this yarn, which history dispels as current politically iniquitous exaggeration and precocious power-grabbing.

 

[S.J.]

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also: "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]

Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.

What the hell do you expect Byrd to say, "I'm a devout racist and that's why I joined the KKK"?

David Duke still says that he is a racist.

Yeah, and???

 

[Luissa]

Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?

I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask

That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..

Slaves came to the US as early as 1619, long before the Democratic Party was formed. Yes, they were Pro Slavery but there is nothing exclusive in their Shame . You might also want to open up a history book, google the Whig party, Zachary Taylor(for starters), and not be an idiot.
Democrats owned slaves, my ancestors owned slaves and were in the KKK, that says nothing about me.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

And news flash, Bryd is dead.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[paperview]

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry...



Slavers.

 

[freedombecki]

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry...

Slavers.

Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships. By the time that passed between 1619 when the first known slaves arrived on European-flag ships until the Civil War, people who owned slaves were brought up in homes that had them. In fact, all of the above opposed slavery but yielded to pressure from Southern States who'd also been denied civil rights by King George of England. Benjamin Franklin shilled for slaves becoming free men in 1776 along with other American founders. None of them thought slavery was fair, but they needed the other southern states. Please eschew making judgments on men whose backgrounds are little known except for those who've studied their individual diaries as biographies. This nation would appreciate it.

Slavery is a horror to many free people, a relief to people who do not wish to make hard choices with a willingness to get out there and fend for themselves. None of the founders fit your alleged and broad-stroked paradigm of them, and many of the slaves hated their circumstance. Many more did not because it was much easier to do the do and get well fed for it than fight for who knew what. That has not disbursed one iota in all ethnicities who make up modern America. The silly child in most of us would have somebody else do the math and be free from worries.

[ame="http://youtu.be/d-diB65scQU"]Bobby McFerrin - Don't Worry Be Happy - YouTube[/ame]

Only in America: can we have it all?

 

[Esmeralda]

I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask

I understand. I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one. He's a master of it apparently.

Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.

The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!

 

[paperview]

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry...

Slavers.

Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships.
...

I stopped right there.


slav·er1
ˈslāvər/
nounhistorical

plural noun: slavers
1.
a person dealing in or owning slaves.

 

[freedombecki]

And then American society has its share of fatalists...

[ame=http://youtu.be/4Sdfwan5tMw]Sounds Orchestral Cast Your Fate To The Wind - YouTube[/ame]

And do-gooders...

[ame=http://youtu.be/8ehFg66qpyo]Dr. Seuss' Horton Hatches the Egg Audio Book - YouTube[/ame]

 

[freedombecki]

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry...

Slavers.

Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships.
...

I stopped right there.


slav·er1
ˈslāvər/
nounhistorical

plural noun: slavers
1.
a person dealing in or owning slaves.

Technically, the language is being changed by those who want to smear the owners whose lives were basically inherited from earlier people who grew to depend upon slavery as a means of prosperity. The situation was as indentured as the slaves were, who were selected by African princes to be deported due to clan, personal, or competitive differences.

In my book, a slaver is one who trades in slaves. An owner is one who owns slaves, often by 1776, these slaves were owned by their parents, and they were raised into a kind of entitlement, a word we're hearing a lot of lately.

Here's my dictionary's understanding of the word as a noun:

3slav·er

noun \ˈslā-vər\
Definition of SLAVER

1
a : a ship used in the slave trade
b : a person engaged in the slave trade

2
: white slaver

Origin of SLAVER

1slave First Known Use: 1827

I stick by my dictionary's use of the word. I've been using it since 1960 when I won over people 6 years older than me the all-school Charles Palmer Davis current events award.

Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slaver

 

[paperview]

Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships.
...

I stopped right there.


slav·er1
ˈslāvər/
nounhistorical

plural noun: slavers
1.
a person dealing in or owning slaves.

Technically, the language is being changed by those who want to smear the owners whose lives were basically inherited from earlier people who grew to depend upon slavery as a means of prosperity. The situation was as indentured as the slaves were, who were selected by African princes to be deported due to clan, personal, or competitive differences.

In my book, a slaver is one who trades in slaves. An owner is one who owns slaves, often by 1776, these slaves were owned by their parents, and they were raised into a kind of entitlement, a word we're hearing a lot of lately.

Holy fucking shit!

What the actual hell???

Here's my dictionary's understanding of the word as a noun:

3slav·er

noun \ˈslā-vər\
Definition of SLAVER

1
a : a ship used in the slave trade
b : a person engaged in the slave trade

2
: white slaver

Origin of SLAVER

1slave First Known Use: 1827

I stick by my dictionary's use of the word. I've been using it since 1960 when I won over people 6 years older than me the all-school Charles Palmer Davis current events award.

Reference: Slaver - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Poster unwittingly kills her premise.

In 1808, it was no long legal to purchase slaves from ships from Africa.

The Democratic party had not even been formed until a few decades later.

 

[Luissa]

Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships.
...

I stopped right there.


slav·er1
ˈslāvər/
nounhistorical

plural noun: slavers
1.
a person dealing in or owning slaves.

Technically, the language is being changed by those who want to smear the owners whose lives were basically inherited from earlier people who grew to depend upon slavery as a means of prosperity. The situation was as indentured as the slaves were, who were selected by African princes to be deported due to clan, personal, or competitive differences.

In my book, a slaver is one who trades in slaves. An owner is one who owns slaves, often by 1776, these slaves were owned by their parents, and they were raised into a kind of entitlement, a word we're hearing a lot of lately.

Here's my dictionary's understanding of the word as a noun:

3slav·er

noun \ˈslā-vər\
Definition of SLAVER

1
a : a ship used in the slave trade
b : a person engaged in the slave trade

2
: white slaver

Origin of SLAVER

1slave First Known Use: 1827

I stick by my dictionary's use of the word. I've been using it since 1960 when I won over people 6 years older than me the all-school Charles Palmer Davis current events award.

Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slaver

The first known use is 20 years after the slave trade ended in the US?
And how does a current events award in 1960 have to do with the Slave trade? I think it was history by then, not a current event.
The term probably did start out that way, but the broadening of it probably has nothing to do with "smearing" the reputation of slave owners. Like many terms, it probably evolved.
As for your link, me pointing out the year it states it was first used is proof the word most likely evolved. The word had to be used before, and most likely became a slang term 20 years after "slavers" were not allowed to trade Africans in the US.

Oh! And God forbid we smear the reputations of slave owners.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask

I understand. I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one. He's a master of it apparently.

Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.



The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!

How did dems start the slave trade when the slave trade ended in the US almost 20 years before the party was formed? With it starting in the US before it was it's own country.
I do love right wing revisionist history. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Pogo]

I understand. I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one. He's a master of it apparently.

Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.



The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!

How did dems start the slave trade when the slave trade ended in the US almost 20 years before the party was formed? With it starting in the US before it was it's own country.
I do love right wing revisionist history. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

Yeah, you have to suspend the concept of linear time in order to get that to work -- which the OP is amazingly willing to do.

Another perspective to add to Becki's background is that centuries ago slavery was a worldwide practice: there were Africans enslaving other Africans, there were Native Americans enslaving other Native Americans; and there were Europeans enslaving other Europeans, all as a kind of booty of conquest. It's only when slaves began to get exported around the 15th century that not only the concept of slave trade began, but even the concept of race. Before that there wasn't even a concept of "Europe".

 

[jillian]

How did dems start the slave trade when the slave trade ended in the US almost 20 years before the party was formed? With it starting in the US before it was it's own country.
I do love right wing revisionist history. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

yeah, that's a pretty neat trick...

they must be doing the time warp to get to that one.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Eh yeah whiners, Southerners had slaves and they ended up voting Democratic Party .... and there's a substantiation history of Democratic racism..Democrats are the party of racists.

If the best you can do is whine about a few years while the Democratic Party was developing and you can rationalize away your racist history, well, so what's new...



I suppose I could have said this instead, to make y'all happy....

Why do Democrats include others when their "direct ancestors" bought the African Slaves in the first place?

 

[Victory67]

If the Democrats are the party of Slavery, then the Republicans are the party that burned down The South and subverted the Constitutional process with the 14th Amendment's ratification.