Michele Bachmann signed marriage pact suggesting black families were better off during slavery

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gift_from_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Scott_Lafrance said:
Since the South never tried to exert control over the North, it isn’t properly a “civil” war, now is it? And the South had no intention of expanding into the North, so it wasn’t a war of “southern aggression”. The War for Southern Independence would be more appropriate. But, since they lost, the North gets to rewrite history to say whatever it wants.

Feeling a little ragey? Maybe you need to go for a walk or something.
Click to expand...
A civil war does not necessarily mean two sides each trying to take over the whole. However, I would notice if I were you that the confederacy made no atteempt to peacefully secede; instead, they volently attacked an American fort, and and so the American military responded; it escalated from there. In general, you’re right, the North was more the aggressor, and they were a righteous agressor at that. Now, I am not so naive as to pretend the war was about slavery for the north; but if the ending of slavery was the result of the war that alone vindicates the North.

And you shouldn’t be so naive as to pretend that the war was not about slavery for the South; it most certainly was; it had little to do with the right to secede, states’ rights, or any of that nonsense moderns try to impose on history; all that cherry-picked rhetoric was a means to defend the instituion of slavery for the benefit of the aristocratic landowners at the expense of everyone else. They are the ones to blame.

Good grief. We may as well start calling the western front of WW2 the War of Allied Agression while we’re at it.
 
Let’s extend this:

White kids are worse off today than they were during the times of slavery as well. Today white kids stand a significant chance of not having both parents, of knowing about or even seeing adulterous affairs from their own parents, of going through heart wretching divorces and losses of family and friends and homes because of the divorces, of having to live as latch-key children since mom and dad are both working, etc…AND white unborn babies today are under a constant threat of being aborted. White and black families are in trouble today–bigtime.

It is not a wonderful culture for white or black kids. It makes little difference which race gets “a bit more end of the short stick,” both groups are getting hurt. Can we now admit that it works both ways?

Bachman should never have signed…stupid, stupid polical move–it makes no difference if there is some truth in it…
 
Raskolnikov said:
A civil war does not necessarily mean two sides each trying to take over the whole. However, I would notice if I were you that the confederacy made no atteempt to peacefully secede; instead, they volently attacked an American fort, and and so the American military responded; it escalated from there. In general, you’re right, the North was more the aggressor, and they were a righteous agressor at that. Now, I am not so naive as to pretend the war was about slavery for the north; but if the ending of slavery was the result of the war that alone vindicates the North.

And you shouldn’t be so naive as to pretend that the war was not about slavery for the South; it most certainly was; it had little to do with the right to secede, states’ rights, or any of that nonsense moderns try to impose on history; all that cherry-picked rhetoric was a means to defend the instituion of slavery for the benefit of the aristocratic landowners at the expense of everyone else. They are the ones to blame.

Good grief. We may as well start calling the western front of WW2 the War of Allied Agression while we’re at it.
Click to expand...
I am not going to get into the civil war debate and its causes. I am thoroughly researched in it and I disagree with the official story. If you want to debate it, go start a thread somewhere, but I am rather weary of argueing against the same old rhetoric.
 
estesbob said:
What is intellectually dishonest is to try to dismiss ones support of abortion as “just another issue”
Click to expand...
But was his criticism not in part valid? Why should we discuss nothing other than abortion? Especially considering that the tactic you use to “persuade” others of your point does not appear at all successful. It belies that you don’t even want to persuade anyone of anything, just seems like badgering for the sake of badgering. It reminds me of the way Richard Dawkins adresses religious people. It’s more about getting applause from those who already agree than persuading those who don’t, who only walk away more repulsed than ever.
 
ringil said:
Yes, it’s illuminating isn’t it? It’s garbage like the sentiments expressed here that ensures I will NEVER vote for a right-winger.
Code: 
 What is a "right-winger"? To me, it is a person who is alarmed by the reckless bankrupting of generations by socialists in power now, and one who is sickened by the left's disregard of America's Constitution and its founding principles. In most cases, it is a person who believes in moral standards and a strong defense. So, what is the problem? :) Rob
P.S. In short, it is a person who is suspicious of an all-powerful centralized government, and one who believes that individuals making free choices create the happiest, most prosperous society. Usually, there is a love and awe for God as well.
Click to expand...
 
Raskolnikov said:
But was his criticism not in part valid? Why should we discuss nothing other than abortion? Especially considering that the tactic you use to “persuade” others of your point does not appear at all successful. It belies that you don’t even want to persuade anyone of anything, just seems like badgering for the sake of badgering. It reminds me of the way Richard Dawkins adresses religious people. It’s more about getting applause from those who already agree than persuading those who don’t, who only walk away more repulsed than ever.
Click to expand...
I know liberal Catholics dislike discussing abortion If I were in their shoes I suspect I would fell the same way But when one embraces a political philosophy that supports this evil it simply can not be ignored in any political discussion
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I am not going to get into the civil war debate and its causes. I am thoroughly researched in it and I disagree with the official story. If you want to debate it, go start a thread somewhere, but I am rather weary of argueing against the same old rhetoric.
Click to expand...
Fine, for another time and place then. But I have no idea where you got that that is the “official story.” It rather annoys we when people say that. Being “PC,” “mainstream media,” “official story” kind of arguments. It’s the same logic conspiracy theorists use; if something is commonly accepted or widely thought to be true, it must be false.
 
MSGirl said:
You mean Bachmann and Santorum signed something without reading it! I thought only Democrats did that.
Click to expand...
I have no idea, but if Fox news is saying it is not clear whether Bahcmann or Santorum knw of the pssage on slavery before signing then it is not fair to accuse them of anything.
 
Raskolnikov said:
Fine, for another time and place then. But I have no idea where you got that that is the “official story.” It rather annoys we when people say that. Being “PC,” “mainstream media,” “official story” kind of arguments. It’s the same logic conspiracy theorists use; if something is commonly accepted or widely thought to be true, it must be false.
Click to expand...
You must believe everything on FOX news then.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Since the South never tried to exert control over the North, it isn’t properly a “civil” war, now is it? And the South had no intention of expanding into the North, so it wasn’t a war of “southern aggression”. The War for Southern Independence would be more appropriate. But, since they lost, the North gets to rewrite history to say whatever it wants.

Feeling a little ragey? Maybe you need to go for a walk or something.
Click to expand...
I wrote “War of Northern Aggression” as that is the stupidity passed around the South.

I am in NC and folks around here refer to Lincoln as “mr.” Lincoln. Black folks would cringe to hear the CR$% I hear in the sauna at my local YMCA when no black folks are in there. Everyone goes quiet when a minority comes in, and racism is dead? It’s freaking EVERYWHERE! If you folks in the South say you don’t hear it you are being dishonest.
 
Raskolnikov said:
Fine, for another time and place then. But I have no idea where you got that that is the “official story.” It rather annoys we when people say that. Being “PC,” “mainstream media,” “official story” kind of arguments. It’s the same logic conspiracy theorists use; if something is commonly accepted or widely thought to be true, it must be false.
Click to expand...
2000 years ago it was commonly accepted or widely thought that “Christians” were a heretical sect of Judaism that would go away once the leader was killed. Sanity is not statistical. 🤷
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
2000 years ago it was commonly accepted or widely thought that “Christians” were a heretical sect of Judaism that would go away once the leader was killed. Sanity is not statistical. 🤷
Click to expand...
Oh my. The slaveocracy compared to Christianity we have truly entered Bizaaro world
 
Gift_from_God said:
Did you read the article? It’s not misleading at all. The pledge suggests that blacks in slavery were better off than they are today
Click to expand...
No, the pledge is supporting the family as an institution, as all Catholics should. It is a fact that the Great Society has greatly harmed the Black family as a stable social institution, and the pledge is not praising slavery as the article is sadly calumniating, but rather pointing out how family stability has declined in recent decades.

Sad to see people lie and stir up anger and hatred for cheap political points.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
2000 years ago it was commonly accepted or widely thought that “Christians” were a heretical sect of Judaism that would go away once the leader was killed. Sanity is not statistical. 🤷
Click to expand...
Well, today it is commonly accepted that slavery is evil. In fact, in most of the western world it was more or less commonly accepted in 1860. Even Russia liberated its serfs by 1861. I’m sure the plantation owners pissed and moaned a lot all these progressive ideas. It is true, there is a danger in unthinkingly embracing “the latest ideas,” but also in unthingly clinging to the old ones.

I don’t know what you mean by “sanity is not statistical.” If you think that an idea being contradictory to statistics makes it more sane? By which logic, it is more sane to jump off of an 8 story buikding than a 4 story building because it flies in the face of the statistical evidence that the fewer people survive the former (assming someone has actually statistically analyzed the survival rate of jumping off buildings.

In short, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. 🤷 I suspect though that you are questioning my sanity because I believe that a racialist slave-state deserves to scorched from the earth in the name of justice, no matter the instrument or its motives, as surely as it was imperative that the Nazi empire be toppled, even if the one to do it was Stalin and his motives were selfish. As far as history is concerned, what actually happens isultimately more important intentions or ideologies behind them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top