fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Do you still beat your wife, Shag?
YES OR NO! ANSWER THE QUESTION DAMMIT!!!!!!ONE!!!!!!1!11ELEVENTY!!!!
GOP Candidates Back Off From Signing Pledge that Praises Slavery
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
YES OR NO! ANSWER THE QUESTION DAMMIT!!!!!!ONE!!!!!!1!11ELEVENTY!!!!
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I sde no difference in what he did and what you are trying to do.
So in your mind, when someone is referred to as a Nazi, the mental image that most people immediately come up with is asking the candidates to sign a non-binding "pledge" in order for them to be considered for an endorsement or political support in a primary election?
That's interesting, most people tend to think of things like fascism, total government, and maybe eugenics. In fact, your association is even more outrageous when you consider that the "pledge" Vander Plaats asked candidates to sign is fundamentally and philosophically different from something a Nazi would have endorsed. It speaks of concepts associated with limited government, not the national socialism associated with the Nazis.
Actually Cal - it was the first thing that came to my mind - people raising their arm and blindly stating their allegiance to a pledge - those images of thousands of Nazi's standing before Hitler - arm in the air - and then Vander Plaats' stating that unless a candidate 'blindly' follows his pledge and signs it - they won't get his support in the election - it seemed like the same tactics - the same 'method'.
You obviously don't see it in the same light -
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
And obviously Bachmann is a Nazi for not publicly denouncing the pledge.
New tactic - announce pledge after pledge, demanding that each candidate sign it, and when they refuse, conclude publicly that they are against whatever you put in the pledge.
This is a new tactic and it's being used by the "right" and politically exploited by the left and the media. This is a losing proposition for any Republican candidate in the primary, which is why they should stop signing these stupid pledges. And these little groups need to stop writing them.
This entire story need not exist if not for a crappy, wordy, preamble to a silly pledge that will account for nothing other than ultimately being a liability.
Walter E. Williams said it best, and there is no "implication" in the tie in.
The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done; namely, break up the black family...Today, just over 30% of black kids live in two parent families. Historically, from about the 1870's on up to around 1940's, depending on the city, 75-90% of black kids lived in two parent families.
NO ONE is arguing that slavery is better then freedom. The only people implying that are the author of the article in the fist post and your false choice in echoing his gross distortion.The point being made is precisely what Williams said; that, "[t]he welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery could not have done, the harshest Jim Crow laws and racism could not have done; namely, break up the black family."
Our society only suffers when we cower in fear of talking about unpleasant truths because they might be offensive to racially hypersensitive, politically correct sensibilities.
Do you stand by this statement - and do you understand what slavery did to blacks?
Because of the high premium placed on male labor, throughout every period of American slavery, black men were the most likely to be parted from their families. For slave owners, who considered the basic family unit to be comprised of mother and child, husbands and fathers could be, and were, easily replaced. Many a slave woman was assigned a new 'husband' by her master. Male children were also frequently taken from slave mothers. The bond between an enslaved mother and daughter was the least likely to be disturbed through sale. Yet this tie was also fragile. Owners could reap large returns by selling pretty girls, especially light-skinned ones, into prostitution or concubinage.
The possibility of separation was an ever-present threat to every member of a slave family. When a master died, his slaves might be indiscriminately distributed among his heirs or sold off to multiple buyers. When a planter's child was born or married, he or she might receive the gift of a black attendant. Mothers were taken from their own children to nurse the offspring of their masters. And slave children were torn from mothers and brought into the house to be raised alongside the master's sons and daughters.
The idea that a father/mother/child nuclear family was more likely to occur during America's slavery period then it is today is false - heck, slaves weren't allowed to marry during most of America's history of slavery, almost all slaves were illegitimate - slave owners did this so a sense of 'family' didn't exist - and it would be easier to separate mother or father from child as well as separate men and women - so a husband/wife relationship wouldn't get in the way when a man was sold to another plantation and the female slaves were required to accept a new man.
We can talk about unpleasant truths - but rather than use a foolish and false comparison - Slavery was good for nuclear families, and social welfare isn't - how about finding a comparison that doesn't elevate slavery while degrading freedom.
And yes shag it looks like you are trying to state that black families were better off during slavery than now. 'Now' might not be 'good' - or even 'adequate' but it certainly is better than when they were slaves.
Well it's a good thing that is not the argument, then.
The argument is that the legacy of slavery was not as destructive to the black family unit as the welfare state has been.
It is focused on the fallout of slavery.
The argument is a response to the false argument of the "legacy of slavery" peddled by shakedown artists like Jackson and Sharpton.
The truth is that there was a tremendous effort on the part of the black community to reunite families after the civil war. That is why there were those low illegitimacy rates in the black community by the turn of the century.
Compare that to the fallout of the welfare state.
It would help to know the argument you are countering before actually attempting to counter it. I can point to numerous books and articles by Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell and many other economists if you are actually interested in understanding that argument.
No - shag there was never any mention of 'legacy' - you have just injected that.
The discussion was whether or not slavery was better for the nuclear family unit.
It wasn't. There were the many reasons I stated above - but if for the only reason blacks weren't free to choose, that would be enough. A black woman may chose to leave her abusive husband. A black slave was forced to sleep with an abusive slave owner, while her children were sold to the highest bidder.
Once they weren't slaves shag - while they were slaves - there was almost only illegitimacy because they weren't married.
And everyone had lower illegitimacy rates at the turn of the 20th century - black and whites - how has that changed in the white community compared to the black community - shouldn't that also be mentioned? Are they similar, or does one significantly overshadow the other.
It would help to know the argument you are countering before actually attempting to counter it. I can point to numerous books and articles by Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell and many other economists if you are actually interested in understanding that argument.
And it would help if you didn't change the point of the discussion - once again the 'preamble' wasn't about the legacy of slavery - but about slavery.
No, that is what you made the discussion about in order to avoid the actual argument.
The "legacy of slavery" argument has been around for decades. It was in response to that argument that Sowell, Williams and others actually studied the empirical evidence and developed a counter-argument. The crude reflection of the counter-argument in the pledge is what started this thread.
If the argument were that slavery was better for the black family unit, then why would one of the economists who developed the argument start his example in 1870, after slavery was abolished. Why would the crude summary of the argument in the pledge cite "a child born into slavery in 1860"; the start of the decade slavery was abolished?
If you are going to argue that slavery was more beneficial to black families then the welfare state, you wouldn't start the argument when slavery was abolished.
Shag - you have reframed the argument - you put Williams into contention:
Lets take this part first - you apparently agree that slavery broke up black families less than the Welfare State - correct?
Where are any numbers showing that black slave families (not after shag - this statement is obviously not about the legacy of slavery, but about slavery itself) were more 'nuclear' than today. After slavery, yes, black families took it upon themselves to get their family units back together - but that was in spite of slavery - not the happy result of slavery.
So, after slavery black families stayed together - but once again - where are the numbers regarding slave families - Williams is creating a false front - trying to make you believe that you can equate slavery to the period immediately following slavery. His numbers should also include 1840 if he want to create a real comparison between slavery/the period following slavery/the welfare state.
Yes it has been - but this wasn't about the 'legacy' of slavery until you injected it - it was about if black families were better of during slavery - not the period immediately following slavery - shag, you changed the discussion.
I don't know but VanPlatt wrote in his preamble 1860 - not 1870 - his statement was about when slavery was very much a reality in the united states. Those 'families' weren't husbands and wives - but slaves that had illegitimate children - and the nuclear black family wasn't better off during slavery in 1860. It was better in 1870 - but not 1860.
I don't understand this at all - your 'legacy' argument starts when slavery was abolished.
You are really determined to avoid the argument, aren't you. There is a history to the argument and how it was developed that I have already spelled out and that you are continuing to ignore.
The "legacy of slavery" argument has been around for decades. It was in response to that argument that Sowell, Williams and others actually studied the empirical evidence and developed a counter-argument. The crude reflection of the counter-argument in the pledge is what started this thread.
To ignore that history is to take the argument completely out of context, which is clearly your intention.
Have fun battling those straw men.
The "legacy of slavery" argument has been around for decades. It was in response to that argument that Sowell, Williams and others actually studied the empirical evidence and developed a counter-argument. The crude reflection of the counter-argument in the pledge is what started this thread.
To ignore that history is to take the argument completely out of context, which is clearly your intention.
Have fun battling those straw men.
shag - the legacy of slavery was never a part of this until you included it -
It was about if slavery (not the 'legacy' of slavery) was better for black families.
But - you are anxious to change the subject - to bend it to something different than the original argument -
Sorry shag, won't fly.
It was about if slavery (not the 'legacy' of slavery) was better for black families.
But - you are anxious to change the subject - to bend it to something different than the original argument -
Sorry shag, won't fly.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually, I have a pledge that I'd like to see all candidates sign.
"I pledge to rescind TEN Presidential executive orders PER DAY until I leave office."
Barry had his moments....
“There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.” - Barry Goldwater
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It's hilarious to see people getting their panties in a wad over Bachmann's mere gaffe, while they never blinked an eye at the long tenure in the Senate of DEMOCRAT Robert 'KKK' Byrd, who ACTUALLY WAS a Grand Wizard, or at Bill Clinton, who defended him for it.
Oh yea, well Executive Order #9981 desegregated the military, after Wilson segregated it, so you must be for segregation.
ford nut
Local nut case
:bowrofl:
She has been one good gaffe after another since November 2000.
Its been fun to watch, hope she keeps it up while she has the public eye.
I only hope she holds it short term.
She is the last thing this country needs.
The only way she will see the White House is if God gives her a vision.
Just as I was explaining on the first page, a person's faith, or lack of faith, doesn't necessarily determine what their philosophy of government. Using the government to force personal behavior decisions on a person is no when it's done in the name of religion as it is when it's done in the of the collective will.
It Bachman's case, while she's a religious woman, she supports limited government. She doesn't think the federal government has the authority to impose her religion upon you.
This is in contrast to a secular person, like Barrack Obama. He thinks the federal government DOES have the authority to impose the general will upon you, for the collective good.
Or, if you do think he's religious at all, he embraces the concept of "collective salvation."
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Wonders never cease
Like the clock---'right twice a day'---there just has to come a time when you and I agree. Faith is of God, and religion is of men. With some religious systems, the two are almost antithetical.
KS
Like the clock---'right twice a day'---there just has to come a time when you and I agree. Faith is of God, and religion is of men. With some religious systems, the two are almost antithetical.
KS
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
I have 'faith' that it's daylight outside at 2 PM. And that faith may have little to do with Faith in God. But what does that have to do with the topic here? Or your meaningless comment? It seems to be merely a taken opportunity to bash the beliefs of those who aspire to Godliness!
KS
KS
It almost looks as if he is admitting faith of his own, unless...he's come up with some sort of logical proof for materialism?
Faith is most readily identified with religion but everyone practices faith in countless ways everyday.