The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[Spoonman]

These people had nothing to do with the Abolition movement?

Frederick Douglass
David Walker
Henry Highland Garnet
James Forten
Robert Purvis
Harriet Tubman
Sojourner Truth


I'm sorry, but this was not a case of the poor helpless negro being saved by the gallant white....alone. Free blacks in the North were leading characters within the Abolitionist movement, even before many of the white names we know from history.

oh please. they had no representation. blacks were revolting against slavery from the beginging and it fell on deaf ears, until whites. Yes Whites, started to champion the casue it went no where

Look up David Walker.....he was so effective, he was silenced by the South.

Black Abolitionists

Just one source.....google "black abolitionists"

ok i'm really confused here now. i don't need to look him or them up. but you are pretty much proving my point , for me with all of this

 

[bodecea]

oh please. they had no representation. blacks were revolting against slavery from the beginging and it fell on deaf ears, until whites. Yes Whites, started to champion the casue it went no where

Look up David Walker.....he was so effective, he was silenced by the South.

Black Abolitionists

Just one source.....google "black abolitionists"

ok i'm really confused here now. i don't need to look him or them up. but you are pretty much proving my point , for me with all of this

Maybe I'm the confused one here....were you not saying that the blacks were pretty much powerless and the abolition movement was white christian driven?

 

[TheBrain]

Well I read the last few pages and realized the new side tangent for yesterday and today is that breaking the law=having no morals.


Almost my entire drive to work this morning I was going 75 mph in a 65 mph zone and on a couple of the country roads by my house I did a rolling stop.

How am I going to sleep tonight ? My self-confidence has plundered with this new realization................

You're missing the point. In the military one is expected to act with honor even if one doesn't get caught doing something wrong, violating the UCMJ is certainly not living by that code. Are gays the only ones who violate that code? Of course not, but a gay can't violate that code and then claim to be honorable. They are not honorable. No matter what their discharge papers say. So the claim that a gay who violated the UCMJ is as honorable as everyone else is bogus.

I just did a quick look through and I didn't see anything in the UCMJ that says a gay can't serve, I thought DADT wasn't that a gay couldn't serve, but the law said you couldn't talk about it?

If I'm wrong let me know, but as a sidebar laws can be immoral and violating them could be viewed as a moral action.

The biggest issue you have from what I've read isn't that she violated any law, it's that you're prejudiced.

We are talking about PRIOR to DADT, which she indicated that she served then , and PRIOR to DADT it was absolutely a violation to serve if you were gay. Many in fact were removed from service for exactly that. So does the fact that she didn't get drummed out mean she didn't violate the UCMJ? Of course not. She now admits that she served gay in violation of the rules that were then in place.

You're damned right I'm prejudiced. I am prejudiced against those who dishonor the uniform they wore by LYING. As for gays. I am FOR allowing them to serve, but realize that what I want is irrelevant in respect to the UCMJ.

If this were a moral issue , she would proud that she violated the UCMJ and have no problem that she violated it, but instead she denies that her serving as a gay prior to DADT was in fact a violation of the UCMJ.

Honor is a word that is tossed around with reckless abandon in the civilian world, but in the military world when we speak of honor we mean someone who is truthful, trustworthy, and honorable and we mean it. Honor doesn't simply cease to exist when one retires if one ever had it to begin with.

 

[Spoonman]

Look up David Walker.....he was so effective, he was silenced by the South.

Black Abolitionists

Just one source.....google "black abolitionists"

ok i'm really confused here now. i don't need to look him or them up. but you are pretty much proving my point , for me with all of this

Maybe I'm the confused one here....were you not saying that the blacks were pretty much powerless and the abolition movement was white christian driven?

no, i said the blacks took the the brunt of the physical repercussions from being vocal. and that their movement never gained traction until it gained white sponsorship. blacks could have been as vocal as they wanted, but if it didn't have white backing they would have only ended up dead.

 

[AllieBaba]

It doesn't do any good to explain.

Bod will not listen to what you do say. Instead she will attribute to you statements that you did not make and request repeatedly that you reword what you have already said. She cannot respond directly to fact and she will not accept anything you say. That's just the way she is.

Imagine living with that.

 

[Spoonman]

It doesn't do any good to explain.

Bod will not listen to what you do say. Instead she will attribute to you statements that you did not make and request repeatedly that you reword what you have already said. She cannot respond directly to fact and she will not accept anything you say. That's just the way she is.

Imagine living with that.

I'm safe, i'm a man

 

[Dr.Drock]

You're missing the point. In the military one is expected to act with honor even if one doesn't get caught doing something wrong, violating the UCMJ is certainly not living by that code. Are gays the only ones who violate that code? Of course not, but a gay can't violate that code and then claim to be honorable. They are not honorable. No matter what their discharge papers say. So the claim that a gay who violated the UCMJ is as honorable as everyone else is bogus.

I just did a quick look through and I didn't see anything in the UCMJ that says a gay can't serve, I thought DADT wasn't that a gay couldn't serve, but the law said you couldn't talk about it?

If I'm wrong let me know, but as a sidebar laws can be immoral and violating them could be viewed as a moral action.

The biggest issue you have from what I've read isn't that she violated any law, it's that you're prejudiced.

We are talking about PRIOR to DADT, which she indicated that she served then , and PRIOR to DADT it was absolutely a violation to serve if you were gay. Many in fact were removed from service for exactly that. So does the fact that she didn't get drummed out mean she didn't violate the UCMJ? Of course not. She now admits that she served gay in violation of the rules that were then in place.

You're damned right I'm prejudiced. I am prejudiced against those who dishonor the uniform they wore by LYING. As for gays. I am FOR allowing them to serve, but realize that what I want is irrelevant in respect to the UCMJ.

If this were a moral issue , she would proud that she violated the UCMJ and have no problem that she violated it, but instead she denies that her serving as a gay prior to DADT was in fact a violation of the UCMJ.

Honor is a word that is tossed around with reckless abandon in the civilian world, but in the military world when we speak of honor we mean someone who is truthful, trustworthy, and honorable and we mean it. Honor doesn't simply cease to exist when one retires if one ever had it to begin with.

I meant prejudice towards gays, not towards people who break the UCMJ.

I still don't think DADT said you couldn't be gay and serve. I think it says you couldn't openly talk about being gay and sodomy is against the UCMJ.

So being gay is ok, just don't talk about it, or if you're a gay man you can't have gay sex.

 

[bodecea]

ok i'm really confused here now. i don't need to look him or them up. but you are pretty much proving my point , for me with all of this

Maybe I'm the confused one here....were you not saying that the blacks were pretty much powerless and the abolition movement was white christian driven?

no, i said the blacks took the the brunt of the physical repercussions from being vocal. and that their movement never gained traction until it gained white sponsorship. blacks could have been as vocal as they wanted, but if it didn't have white backing they would have only ended up dead.

OK, I can go with that....I was mistaken in the point you were trying to make. But blacks were not completely helpless and passive in this endeavor either....would you agree?

 

[bodecea]

It doesn't do any good to explain.

Bod will not listen to what you do say. Instead she will attribute to you statements that you did not make and request repeatedly that you reword what you have already said. She cannot respond directly to fact and she will not accept anything you say. That's just the way she is.

Imagine living with that.

Wow, Allie! That's a symptom of one of the more severe cases of reflective behavior I've ever seen. Impressive in a way.

 

[TheBrain]

It doesn't do any good to explain.

Bod will not listen to what you do say. Instead she will attribute to you statements that you did not make and request repeatedly that you reword what you have already said. She cannot respond directly to fact and she will not accept anything you say. That's just the way she is.

Imagine living with that.

Yes I have figured out that she is just here to fight. She has no interest , any maybe no capability of , learning anything.

She's a disgrace and I'm done wither.

 

[TheBrain]

I just did a quick look through and I didn't see anything in the UCMJ that says a gay can't serve, I thought DADT wasn't that a gay couldn't serve, but the law said you couldn't talk about it?

If I'm wrong let me know, but as a sidebar laws can be immoral and violating them could be viewed as a moral action.

The biggest issue you have from what I've read isn't that she violated any law, it's that you're prejudiced.

We are talking about PRIOR to DADT, which she indicated that she served then , and PRIOR to DADT it was absolutely a violation to serve if you were gay. Many in fact were removed from service for exactly that. So does the fact that she didn't get drummed out mean she didn't violate the UCMJ? Of course not. She now admits that she served gay in violation of the rules that were then in place.

You're damned right I'm prejudiced. I am prejudiced against those who dishonor the uniform they wore by LYING. As for gays. I am FOR allowing them to serve, but realize that what I want is irrelevant in respect to the UCMJ.

If this were a moral issue , she would proud that she violated the UCMJ and have no problem that she violated it, but instead she denies that her serving as a gay prior to DADT was in fact a violation of the UCMJ.

Honor is a word that is tossed around with reckless abandon in the civilian world, but in the military world when we speak of honor we mean someone who is truthful, trustworthy, and honorable and we mean it. Honor doesn't simply cease to exist when one retires if one ever had it to begin with.

I meant prejudice towards gays, not towards people who break the UCMJ.

I still don't think DADT said you couldn't be gay and serve. I think it says you couldn't openly talk about being gay and sodomy is against the UCMJ.

So being gay is ok, just don't talk about it, or if you're a gay man you can't have gay sex.

Nope I have no ill will towards gays and support letting them serve. But you are wrong, prior to DADT it was against the UCMJ to serve. That was the entire point of DADT.

 

[bodecea]

It doesn't do any good to explain.

Bod will not listen to what you do say. Instead she will attribute to you statements that you did not make and request repeatedly that you reword what you have already said. She cannot respond directly to fact and she will not accept anything you say. That's just the way she is.

Imagine living with that.

Yes I have figured out that she is just here to fight. She has no interest , any maybe no capability of , learning anything.

She's a disgrace and I'm done wither.

You are certainly free to run away...especially considering you can't point out what part of the UCMJ I violated as you accused me of doing:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3611923-post1858.html

 

[Spoonman]

Maybe I'm the confused one here....were you not saying that the blacks were pretty much powerless and the abolition movement was white christian driven?

no, i said the blacks took the the brunt of the physical repercussions from being vocal. and that their movement never gained traction until it gained white sponsorship. blacks could have been as vocal as they wanted, but if it didn't have white backing they would have only ended up dead.

OK, I can go with that....I was mistaken in the point you were trying to make. But blacks were not completely helpless and passive in this endeavor either....would you agree?

i never said they were passive. infact i think the words i used was they bore the brunt of the physical retaliation for their efforts.

 

[bodecea]

no, i said the blacks took the the brunt of the physical repercussions from being vocal. and that their movement never gained traction until it gained white sponsorship. blacks could have been as vocal as they wanted, but if it didn't have white backing they would have only ended up dead.

OK, I can go with that....I was mistaken in the point you were trying to make. But blacks were not completely helpless and passive in this endeavor either....would you agree?

i never said they were passive. infact i think the words i used was they bore the brunt of the physical retaliation for their efforts.

Just clarifying.

 

[TheBrain]

By the way Article 125 : Sodomy made unnatural sex a crime against the UCMJ for those who are curious

So, I suppose gays who don't have sex weren't violating the UCMJ.

 

[Dr.Drock]

We are talking about PRIOR to DADT, which she indicated that she served then , and PRIOR to DADT it was absolutely a violation to serve if you were gay. Many in fact were removed from service for exactly that. So does the fact that she didn't get drummed out mean she didn't violate the UCMJ? Of course not. She now admits that she served gay in violation of the rules that were then in place.

You're damned right I'm prejudiced. I am prejudiced against those who dishonor the uniform they wore by LYING. As for gays. I am FOR allowing them to serve, but realize that what I want is irrelevant in respect to the UCMJ.

If this were a moral issue , she would proud that she violated the UCMJ and have no problem that she violated it, but instead she denies that her serving as a gay prior to DADT was in fact a violation of the UCMJ.

Honor is a word that is tossed around with reckless abandon in the civilian world, but in the military world when we speak of honor we mean someone who is truthful, trustworthy, and honorable and we mean it. Honor doesn't simply cease to exist when one retires if one ever had it to begin with.

I meant prejudice towards gays, not towards people who break the UCMJ.

I still don't think DADT said you couldn't be gay and serve. I think it says you couldn't openly talk about being gay and sodomy is against the UCMJ.

So being gay is ok, just don't talk about it, or if you're a gay man you can't have gay sex.

Nope I have no ill will towards gays and support letting them serve. But you are wrong, prior to DADT it was against the UCMJ to serve. That was the entire point of DADT.

Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't sound like it's saying no gays in the military, I'll need to see a quote from old legislation or something specifically saying no gays in the military to buy that. As that's not what I've seen from the searches I've done.

Sure seemed like to me you made a lot of posts talking about how morally awful it was for a human to be gay .

 

[bodecea]

By the way Article 125 : Sodomy made unnatural sex a crime against the UCMJ for those who are curious

So, I suppose gays who don't have sex weren't violating the UCMJ.

So anyone in the military committing sodomy was a disgrace to their Uniform and is dishonest, eh?


(BTW...what makes you think I committed sodomy during my career?)

 

[TheBrain]

I meant prejudice towards gays, not towards people who break the UCMJ.

I still don't think DADT said you couldn't be gay and serve. I think it says you couldn't openly talk about being gay and sodomy is against the UCMJ.

So being gay is ok, just don't talk about it, or if you're a gay man you can't have gay sex.

Nope I have no ill will towards gays and support letting them serve. But you are wrong, prior to DADT it was against the UCMJ to serve. That was the entire point of DADT.

Don't Ask Don't Tell doesn't sound like it's saying no gays in the military, I'll need to see a quote from old legislation or something specifically saying no gays in the military to buy that. As that's not what I've seen from the searches I've done.

Sure seemed like to me you made a lot of posts talking about how morally awful it was for a human to be gay .

Come on man. You are either not reading, or you're deliberately being dishonest.

We are NOT discussing DADT , we are discussing about the military PRIOR to DADT, that means BEFORE. Before DADT gays were absolutely kicked out of the military. PERIOD. Bode claims to have served in the Navy before DADT was enacted. She also claims to be gay. Therefor it stand to reason that she acted illegally.

 

[AllieBaba]

OK, I can go with that....I was mistaken in the point you were trying to make. But blacks were not completely helpless and passive in this endeavor either....would you agree?

i never said they were passive. infact i think the words i used was they bore the brunt of the physical retaliation for their efforts.

Just clarifying.

No, you weren't. Your "clarifying" involves ignoring what was said, pretending it wasn't clear, and attributing a completely different meaning to the statement.

What you attempt to do is to muddy the waters. The exact opposite of clarifying.

 

[TheBrain]

By the way Article 125 : Sodomy made unnatural sex a crime against the UCMJ for those who are curious

So, I suppose gays who don't have sex weren't violating the UCMJ.

So anyone in the military committing sodomy was a disgrace to their Uniform and is dishonest, eh?


(BTW...what makes you think I committed sodomy during my career?)

As I said, I'm done talking to you about this matter. You have no desire to have an actual conversation about anything.