If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave, stay out of my business...

[Cellblock2429]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

So let's tear down Robert E Lee's statues. They glorify slavery.

/—-/ OK and while we are at it, we’ll tear down MLK statutes because he was a commie sympathizer.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—— Abortion was not settled 40 years ago. It’s an on going battle. Abortion is murder.

Nope. Issued has been settled. In this country a woman has the right to abortion. It is the law and it isn’t going to change. Spending time, money and effort on trying to change that law detracts otherwise good people from making a difference in other causes.

/—-/ How many decades did you Libs fight for ghey marriage? Did you give up? We will continue to fight to stop you baby killers.

Not a lib sport, I am a realistic conservative. And I was opposed to Same sex marriage on the grounds that it changed what marriage has always been in any culture- that being a union between a male and a female. The abortion issue has had its day in court and the Republicans waste valuable capital trying to overturn the issue. This is done at the expense of other issues that are still winnable. I support and encourage you to try and convince women not to have an abortion, but there is one certain fact, you will never end abortions.

/—/ the pro abortionists are always pushing their agenda forward. We are working to stop them, court decisions not withstanding.

There are no “pro-abortionists”. There are people who are pro-choice. Those who claim to be “pro-life” are lying. Most favour the death penalty. Many oppose any form of social assistance or legal protections for women who choose to be pregnant.

Many of those of claim to oppose abortion are in fact seeking to control women’s sexuality. Women who have sex must “face the consequences”. A baby isn’t a “consequence”, it’s a human being who deserves to be loved, wanted, and properly cared and provided for. If you aren’t capable of doing that, you shouldn’t have the baby in the first place.

Those who say that if you don’t want a baby, you shouldn’t have sex assume that sex is only for procreation. It’s not. There are many strong and valid reasons for a healthy sex life that have nothing to do with procreation. The hormones released during sex are essential to humans’ physical and mental well being.

The anti-abortionists spent a lot of time in the 1970’s “rebranding” themselves to make their message more palatable to mainstream women and to disguise their desire to vilify and control female sexuality. They consciously changed the language of the discussion. They weren’t “anti-abortion” because their research showed that this equates with being anti-freedom and that people reacted negatively to being “anti” anything.

Language is critical in a debate. Those who control the language control the debate. Don’t let the anti-choice crowd control the language. Call them out for what they are. They oppose a woman’s right to determine when and how she will increase her family. They seek to force women to live by their religious beliefs.

They have imposed stricter requirements on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion than they have on your 2nd amendment right to own a gun. These restrictions are hardest for poor women, who may have to travel out of state, enduring the cost of waiting in a motel, the costs of unnecessary sonograms which force them to see their fetus in utereo in the hope they will change their mind.

Those who would take away the choice God have us, should be opposed. Their language game exposed and derided and their true agenda denied.

Anti-choice is an attempt by government to deny women’s rights and freedoms.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one. You have no right to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own body.

/—-/ What choice does the father have? What choice does the baby have? None.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

I would recommend you avoid further temptations to make analogies.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

So let's tear down Robert E Lee's statues. They glorify slavery.

Lee wasn't a slave owner. Robert E. Lee's statue glorifies honor, integrity, loyalty as he chose to be loyal to his state and its people rather than the mill owners of the north.

 

[g5000]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

So let's tear down Robert E Lee's statues. They glorify slavery.

Lee wasn't a slave owner. Robert E. Lee's statue glorifies honor, integrity, loyalty as he chose to be loyal to his state and it's people rather than the mill owners of the north.

Lee chose to fight to preserve slavery.

So Lee was "on the immoral side of a moral argument".

Tear down the statues!

 

[Cellblock2429]

It really is a poor analogy. Slaves didn't live in the bodies of slave owners.

It’s a poor analogy on many levels. Abortion is one reason I left the GOP, they don’t recognize a loser issue when it bites them in the ass. Especially one that was settled over 40 years ago. It’s like the southern Dems trying to keep slaves in 1904. Senseless!

/—— Abortion was not settled 40 years ago. It’s an on going battle. Abortion is murder.

Nope. Issued has been settled. In this country a woman has the right to abortion. It is the law and it isn’t going to change. Spending time, money and effort on trying to change that law detracts otherwise good people from making a difference in other causes.

It's a great excuse for calling lefties murderers, though.

/—-/ If the shoe fits....

 

[bendog]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

Does this mean we get our slaves back .... finally?

 

[Cellblock2429]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

I would recommend you avoid further temptations to make analogies.

/—-/ Blackrook is 100% correct

 

[Syriusly]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

Why can't Democrats move on?

I don't know anyone today who is a slave, whose parents were a Slave, whose grandparents were a Slave...

It is unlawful for anyone to own another person today, and there is no one and United States who believes that is not the case today

Note- one of your own Contards brought up slavery in this thread.

Why can't the Republicans move on?

 

[bendog]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

So let's tear down Robert E Lee's statues. They glorify slavery.

Lee wasn't a slave owner. Robert E. Lee's statue glorifies honor, integrity, loyalty as he chose to be loyal to his state and it's people rather than the mill owners of the north.

Lee chose to fight to preserve slavery.

So Lee was "on the immoral side of a moral argument".

Tear down the statues!

Plainly he said no statutues But I've never really understood WHAT he fought for.

He acknowledged slavery was immoral, but he was caught up in it But more importantly the idiotic comment by Trump's pet general about "compromise." There was no more compromise to be had after Dred Scott. Southerners could come to free states and essentially legall repossess slaves who'd escaped. Some free states refused to enforce the SC holding. And the Republicans adamantly opposed creating any more slave states.

But there was no effort to free slaves held in slave states.

There were 4 million slaves ... and they bred. There was no labor shortage. Actually the opposite. Most likely slavery and the slave economy would have failed. It seems to me the only logical explanation for Lee's actions was that he was essentially a sociopath who chose to lead in our bloodiest war to protect an economic system he knew was immoral and that he expected would eventually die of it's own makings.

 

[bendog]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

Why can't Democrats move on?

I don't know anyone today who is a slave, whose parents were a Slave, whose grandparents were a Slave...

It is unlawful for anyone to own another person today, and there is no one and United States who believes that is not the case today

Note- one of your own Contards brought up slavery in this thread.

Why can't the Republicans move on?

They took our slaves! How can you move on from that? Look no further than Blanche Dubois!

 

[The Derp]

Lee wasn't a slave owner. Robert E. Lee's statue glorifies honor, integrity, loyalty as he chose to be loyal to his state and its people rather than the mill owners of the north.

LOL! Lee was loyal to himself. How do you think he got to be rich in the first place? Free labor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

I would recommend you avoid further temptations to make analogies.

/—-/ Blackrook is 100% correct

That makes you as stupid as he is.

Conservatives have fought against civil rights for centuries, no matter what party they called themselves.

 

[The Derp]

It seems to me the only logical explanation for Lee's actions was that he was essentially a sociopath who chose to lead in our bloodiest war to protect an economic system he knew was immoral and that he expected would eventually die of it's own makings.

An economic system from which he personally profited. You get rich real fast when you don't have to pay labor.

 

[easyt65]

Note- one of your own Contards brought up slavery in this thread.

You DO realize that this thread's topic is about 'slavery', right snowflake?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

Why can't Democrats move on?

I don't know anyone today who is a slave, whose parents were a Slave, whose grandparents were a Slave...

It is unlawful for anyone to own another person today, and there is no one and United States who believes that is not the case today

Note- one of your own Contards brought up slavery in this thread.

Why can't the Republicans move on?

They took our slaves! How can you move on from that? Look no further than Blanche Dubois!

Keep in mind that disturbingly widely held conservative opinion that blacks were fortunate to be enslaved, because it meant they got to come to America!!

 

[DrLove]

Another one who actually believes that the Dixiecrat party of old bears a resemblance to anything other than the Republican party of today.

 

[bendog]

...is what the Democratic Party Southern plantation owners said to the Republican Party Abolitionists.

Does this argument sound familiar to us in this modern day?

Yes, because once again the nation is faced with a great moral issue.

And once again the Democrats are on the immoral side of a moral argument, and Republicans are on the moral side.

Is this a coincidence?

No, the parties are really not changed over the past century and a half.

Democrats, then and now, are the party of "the ends justify the means."

Even slavery and murder of the unborn can be justified under this analysis.

The Republicans, then and now, are the party of belief in moral standards that don't change based on circumstances.

Why can't Democrats move on?

I don't know anyone today who is a slave, whose parents were a Slave, whose grandparents were a Slave...

It is unlawful for anyone to own another person today, and there is no one and United States who believes that is not the case today

Note- one of your own Contards brought up slavery in this thread.

Why can't the Republicans move on?

They took our slaves! How can you move on from that? Look no further than Blanche Dubois!

Keep in mind that disturbingly widely held conservative opinion that blacks were fortunate to be enslaved, because it meant they got to come to America!!

We brung em ter the Lord too.

 

[bendog]

Note- one of your own Contards brought up slavery in this thread.

You DO realize that this thread's topic is about 'slavery', right snowflake?

Well, that's giving the OP a lot of credit for logic.

 

[BlindBoo]

Don't like abortion? Don't have one. Stay out of my business.