Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[kaz]

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

There isn' as much wrong with him, as there is with the people he's been exposed to.

The great Lee Atwater made use of a strategy that has become a cornerstone for Fox News, Rush, and the GOP. It's where you accuse the other guy of being far worse than you are, when it comes to your worst perceptions.

That's whay you see righties on this site saying that Democrats/Lefties/etc enslave blacks, hate gays, oppress women, etc.....

who accused the GOP of having a war on women?

Who states that that when the GOP is in favor of voter ID that the GOP are racists?

Who accuses the taxed enough already party of being racists?

who accuses the GOP of keepin' the black man down?

you are a lair

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women. Lot's of people accuse Rush Limbaugh of hating women, becase the fat loser can't keep a wife no matter how much he tries to buy them, and they criticized Mitt Romney for having binders full of women. The rest is all in yur head.

The motivations for the GOP's proposed voter fraud protection laws are based in their desire to prevent minorities from voting.

Not all Tea Partiers are racists, but some are.

Nobody accuses the GOP of keeping the black man down, they accuse Stormfronters, KKK types, and other bigots of trying to do that

I suggest you goggle "GOP war on women".

I did google it, and all the articles coming up refer to Democrats saying the GOP has a war on women.

Not lefties in general, but Democratic officials and politicians.

What do you expect?

Who are these lefties who are not Democrats?

 

[-S-]

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really fucking insane.

I should stop here and delete that.

What he really did was violate a taboo.

Dare you actually address what he said?

WHy do you need to simply history to comic book level?

^ And we shall entitle this post "In praise of eternal, generational human bondage."

Nothing I said supports your response.

Are you being dishonest, or are you so knee jerk that it is interfering with your reading comprehension?

Paperview claims the New York Ratification document doesn't contain a clause that reserves the right to secede despite the fact that he even quoted the exact clause he claims doesn't exist.

Is this the clause you are talking about?

“That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.”

Because if it is, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Look at where it says "several states".

That denotes that it is referring to itself in the company of other states as well. Together, these states are called The United States. If they were talking of the right for themselves (NY) to secede, they wouldn't have laid mention to the states collectively. That proves your theory incorrect.


When you want to believe something bad enough, you miss simple details..

 

[bripat9643]

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

There isn' as much wrong with him, as there is with the people he's been exposed to.

The great Lee Atwater made use of a strategy that has become a cornerstone for Fox News, Rush, and the GOP. It's where you accuse the other guy of being far worse than you are, when it comes to your worst perceptions.

That's whay you see righties on this site saying that Democrats/Lefties/etc enslave blacks, hate gays, oppress women, etc.....

who accused the GOP of having a war on women?

Who states that that when the GOP is in favor of voter ID that the GOP are racists?

Who accuses the taxed enough already party of being racists?

who accuses the GOP of keepin' the black man down?

you are a lair

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women. Lot's of people accuse Rush Limbaugh of hating women, becase the fat loser can't keep a wife no matter how much he tries to buy them, and they criticized Mitt Romney for having binders full of women. The rest is all in yur head.

The motivations for the GOP's proposed voter fraud protection laws are based in their desire to prevent minorities from voting.

Not all Tea Partiers are racists, but some are.

Nobody accuses the GOP of keeping the black man down, they accuse Stormfronters, KKK types, and other bigots of trying to do that

I suggest you goggle "GOP war on women".

I did google it, and all the articles coming up refer to Democrats saying the GOP has a war on women.

Not lefties in general, but Democratic officials and politicians.

What do you expect?

The question was "who accuses the GOP of having a war on women." You just answered your own question.

You are a special kind of stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really fucking insane.

I should stop here and delete that.

What he really did was violate a taboo.

Dare you actually address what he said?

WHy do you need to simply history to comic book level?

^ And we shall entitle this post "In praise of eternal, generational human bondage."

Nothing I said supports your response.

Are you being dishonest, or are you so knee jerk that it is interfering with your reading comprehension?

Paperview claims the New York Ratification document doesn't contain a clause that reserves the right to secede despite the fact that he even quoted the exact clause he claims doesn't exist.

Is this the clause you are talking about?

“That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.”

Because if it is, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Look at where it says "several states".

That denotes that it is referring to itself in the company of other states as well. Together, these states are called The United States. If they were talking of the right for themselves (NY) to secede, they wouldn't have laid mention to the states collectively. That proves your theory incorrect.


When you want to believe something bad enough, you miss simple details..

You just get dumber and dumber.

So what do you think they mean by saying the powers they gave up can be reasssumed? What exactly is supposed to occur when they make that decision?

Your Komrade paperview, BTW, agrees with me about what it says. However, he claims it was "rejected" even though he can't produce any official document where this was done.

 

[paperview]

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

It doesn't.

You're too stupid to comprehend simple English

 

[bripat9643]

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

It doesn't.

You're too stupid to comprehend simple English

Then what does "the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness" mean if not the right to secede?

 

[-S-]

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll want to do more than cite your claim as proof to your claim.

Duh.

You think you're taking seriously by anyone but the liberal chorus? LOL. Your advice, I don't need...

That wasn't advice, it was the truth. Nobody will take you seriously if you cite your claim as proof of your claim.

I'm fine with you not being smart. More fun for me

Gotcha, I appreciate the advice from someone so roundly respected by all as you on how to be taken seriously and the time you spent explaining that to me

You're welcome.

I see your point. When I said you equate supporting the Confederacy's right to secession that means you support slavery, and you admitted you did that with bripat, I mean yeah, you agreed with that, but you wanted more examples which I wasn't interested in searching for. Score one for you. I mean if you want 19 examples, it's my job to provide them. One? Seriously? What is that?

As to why you can't find any examples to support your claim bripat supports slavery? OK, I don't understand that. but you must have a good reason, you are so roundly respected. I certainly see why you consider yourself to be on the high horse

I DID quote Bripat saying he supported the Confederacy's cause of continuing slavery outside of the federal government

like, SEVERAL pages back, in a post designated to YOU.

Here's his quote again, in response to the question 'how can anyone support the Confederacy's cause':

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?

Post#325 of the gay marriage thread that was so popular a day or so ago. Skylar and I both tore him apart over that statement.

This is nothing new though, I sent this quote to you PAGES ago. I guess you were so caught up in your own 'facts' that you missed it

Regardless, thanks for admitting to your own shortcomings in this debate (i.e. the constant false claims). I hope we can move past this little spat now that you've all but waved a white flag.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll want to do more than cite your claim as proof to your claim.

Duh.

You think you're taking seriously by anyone but the liberal chorus? LOL. Your advice, I don't need...

That wasn't advice, it was the truth. Nobody will take you seriously if you cite your claim as proof of your claim.

I'm fine with you not being smart. More fun for me

Gotcha, I appreciate the advice from someone so roundly respected by all as you on how to be taken seriously and the time you spent explaining that to me

You're welcome.

I see your point. When I said you equate supporting the Confederacy's right to secession that means you support slavery, and you admitted you did that with bripat, I mean yeah, you agreed with that, but you wanted more examples which I wasn't interested in searching for. Score one for you. I mean if you want 19 examples, it's my job to provide them. One? Seriously? What is that?

As to why you can't find any examples to support your claim bripat supports slavery? OK, I don't understand that. but you must have a good reason, you are so roundly respected. I certainly see why you consider yourself to be on the high horse

I DID quote Bripat saying he supported the Confederacy's cause of continuing slavery outside of the federal government

like, SEVERAL pages back, in a post designated to YOU.

Here's his quote again, in response to the question 'how can anyone support the Confederacy's cause':

What could be more American than fighting against an oppressor for your right to self government?

Post#325 of the gay marriage thread that was so popular a day or so ago. Skylar and I both tore him apart over that statement.

This is nothing new though, I sent this quote to you PAGES ago. I guess you were so caught up in your own 'facts' that you missed it

Regardless, thanks for admitting to your own shortcomings in this debate (i.e. the constant false claims). I hope we can move past this little spat now that you've all but waved a white flag.

Your quote bares no resemblance to what you claim I said.

 

[-S-]

It's verbatim

look it up.

 

[Syriusly]

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.

See? He doesn't disagree.

This thread is a poignant reminder of how much conservatives hate the United States of America.

That's what happens when your country turns into a big fascist empire of subjects and job holders.

See? He doesn't disagree.

No I don't. this country used to be something admirable, but now it isn't.

Apparently to Brip- ever since slavery ended.....

 

[Syriusly]

Earlier, one of our really despicable racists went so far as to say Booth was a hero for assassinating Lincoln. Odious or whatever his name is. He's an ignorant jackass.

Some of these dummies still hold on to confederate money rather than invest in the US or their own future.

All in all, not a very smart lot.

So if someone thinks States have the right to secede from the union, that means they think the reasons any State ever wanted to secede from the union were just.

Hmm

And you talk about other people not being "smart?"

Hmm

Carry on, simpleton

you calling anyone else a simpleton is kind of amusing.

Didn't read the post, did you slut bunny? It was pretty simpleton

I realize you hate women, especially those who are smarter than you, but I've never given anyone cause on this board to call me a slut, you lowlife ignoramus.

Now go crawl back in your basement.

And I reiterate what I said. You calling anyone else a simpleton is laughable.

So besides being a liar- Kaz is also a misogynist- not a surprise there.

 

[bripat9643]

It's verbatim

look it up.

What is verbatim?

 

[paperview]

Hey, stupid silly flipping the bird toddler -- New York explicit and directly SAID we want an opt out -- we want the right to secede.

Look it up:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

To repeat:

"At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

The vote for the NY secession provision was vetoed. Ka-put.

"the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever."

 

[-S-]

What he really did was violate a taboo.

Dare you actually address what he said?

WHy do you need to simply history to comic book level?

^ And we shall entitle this post "In praise of eternal, generational human bondage."

Nothing I said supports your response.

Are you being dishonest, or are you so knee jerk that it is interfering with your reading comprehension?

Paperview claims the New York Ratification document doesn't contain a clause that reserves the right to secede despite the fact that he even quoted the exact clause he claims doesn't exist.

Is this the clause you are talking about?

“That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution.”

Because if it is, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Look at where it says "several states".

That denotes that it is referring to itself in the company of other states as well. Together, these states are called The United States. If they were talking of the right for themselves (NY) to secede, they wouldn't have laid mention to the states collectively. That proves your theory incorrect.


When you want to believe something bad enough, you miss simple details..

You just get dumber and dumber.

So what do you think they mean by saying the powers they gave up can be reasssumed? What exactly is supposed to occur when they make that decision?

Your Komrade paperview, BTW, agrees with me about what it says. However, he claims it was "rejected" even though he can't produce any official document where this was done.

Your argument is ridiculously vague

It never says powers can be resumed by "the state" or by "New York", it says by "the People" which doesn't specifically mean ONLY the people of NY, ESPECIALLY when you go on to read that they are referring to SEVERAL STATES.

You're grasping at straws, man.

 

[-S-]

It's verbatim

look it up.

What is verbatim?

ver·ba·tim
vərˈbādəm/
adverb & adjective

1. in exactly the same words as were used originally.

 

[paperview]

It's verbatim

look it up.

What is verbatim?

It's an adverb meaning in exactly the same words as were used originally.

 

[paperview]

dammit. -S- beat me by a second.

lol

 

[Syriusly]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Well lets talk about those 'good aspects of slavery' that you think are important?
a) Learned a trade- some did- but the majority of slaves were agricultural workers that learned no specific trade. If you noticed- learning a trade was something that also happened in places were the person was not subject to beating or rape from his owner.
b) 'many slaves formed lasting friendships'- I am sure it did happen- but many slaves were raped and beaten, and after slavery ended, many of those former slaves were raped and beaten and murdered.
c) 'many slaves converted to Christianity'- yes-if you master told you to convert, you converted- not really a choice.
d) 'vast majority of slaves had better standard of living than they would have had in Africa then- prove it. You made the claim- just to make it simple for you- you can narrow it to West Africa- though I am not certain that pointing to where their forefathers were kidnapped from, and managed to survive a trip from hell to the Americas is a winning argument.
e) 'most slaves were not abused'- prove it. ANY slave was potentially subject to abuse- virtually without restraint. A female slave was likely to be raped- and she might have her children sold away from her- families were routinely broken up, especially as cotton became king.

I think it is fair to note that there were slave owners that treated their slaves relatively well- didn't beat them, didn't rape them- but it was common for slave owners to do these things- and this fact loomed over all slaves. But I can't think of any reason to really note the 'good aspects' of slavery for fairness- there was nothing 'fair' about slavery.

Really- if someone kidnaps a child- do we in fairness need to mention that in fairness, he fed the kidnapped child well?

 

[Syriusly]

ROFL! What a sleazy weasel. Did you have anything besides cheap personal attacks?
.

If you were prevented from cheap personal attacks- you wouldn't be able to post here.

 

[paperview]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Well lets talk about those 'good aspects of slavery' that you think are important?
a) Learned a trade- some did- but the majority of slaves were agricultural workers that learned no specific trade. If you noticed- learning a trade was something that also happened in places were the person was not subject to beating or rape from his owner.
b) 'many slaves formed lasting friendships'- I am sure it did happen- but many slaves were raped and beaten, and after slavery ended, many of those former slaves were raped and beaten and murdered.
c) 'many slaves converted to Christianity'- yes-if you master told you to convert, you converted- not really a choice.
d) 'vast majority of slaves had better standard of living than they would have had in Africa then- prove it. You made the claim- just to make it simple for you- you can narrow it to West Africa- though I am not certain that pointing to where their forefathers were kidnapped from, and managed to survive a trip from hell to the Americas is a winning argument.
e) 'most slaves were not abused'- prove it. ANY slave was potentially subject to abuse- virtually without restraint. A female slave was likely to be raped- and she might have her children sold away from her- families were routinely broken up, especially as cotton became king.

I think it is fair to note that there were slave owners that treated their slaves relatively well- didn't beat them, didn't rape them- but it was common for slave owners to do these things- and this fact loomed over all slaves. But I can't think of any reason to really note the 'good aspects' of slavery for fairness- there was nothing 'fair' about slavery.

Really- if someone kidnaps a child- do we in fairness need to mention that in fairness, he fed the kidnapped child well?

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Well lets talk about those 'good aspects of slavery' that you think are important?
a) Learned a trade- some did- but the majority of slaves were agricultural workers that learned no specific trade. If you noticed- learning a trade was something that also happened in places were the person was not subject to beating or rape from his owner.
b) 'many slaves formed lasting friendships'- I am sure it did happen- but many slaves were raped and beaten, and after slavery ended, many of those former slaves were raped and beaten and murdered.
c) 'many slaves converted to Christianity'- yes-if you master told you to convert, you converted- not really a choice.
d) 'vast majority of slaves had better standard of living than they would have had in Africa then- prove it. You made the claim- just to make it simple for you- you can narrow it to West Africa- though I am not certain that pointing to where their forefathers were kidnapped from, and managed to survive a trip from hell to the Americas is a winning argument.
e) 'most slaves were not abused'- prove it. ANY slave was potentially subject to abuse- virtually without restraint. A female slave was likely to be raped- and she might have her children sold away from her- families were routinely broken up, especially as cotton became king.

I think it is fair to note that there were slave owners that treated their slaves relatively well- didn't beat them, didn't rape them- but it was common for slave owners to do these things- and this fact loomed over all slaves. But I can't think of any reason to really note the 'good aspects' of slavery for fairness- there was nothing 'fair' about slavery.

Really- if someone kidnaps a child- do we in fairness need to mention that in fairness, he fed the kidnapped child well?

I've been tousling and beating the crap out of Mike's poverty-ridden arguments for over ten years now, and he does indeed try and make the case - in exactly this context, that if a person was kidnapped and they treated them well, then that's a comparable to how we should see "the good aspects of slavery."

And when cornered about what he brags are how kind and noble the slavemasters were, he trucks out <very carefully selected snippets> of the Slave Narratives

-- told in the depression era, by what were only the youngest of children at the time of slavery. Many of whom were of course very scared to say much to government workers in the Jim Crow days -- and if you look deeper at the ones who *did* expand, would talk about the brutal whippings they watched or endured.

Mike doesn't talk much about that.