Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 268

Thread: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary[W:101]

  1. #231
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,690

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    But this is called the American Civil War because it involved the entire country, not regions of it or sections of it. And the fact of the matter remains that the Democrats supported slavery and the Republicans, like today, supported freedom and the idea that all people should be treated as equals. The Democrats (or liberals or leftists) then as now, do not feel Black people are capable of looking after themselves and should be treated as something less than adults.
    Ahistorical nonsense.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  2. #232
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,854
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    not unlike southern politicians who talk midwestern in DC and with a twangy drawl back home.
    But BHO was supposed to be "change." Is he just like the other guys?
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  3. #233
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,348

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hays View Post
    But BHO was supposed to be "change." Is he just like the other guys?
    No, I don't believe he is. No other POTUS has stated that he will lower ocean levels and heal the planet. And there is no disputing that he has certainly changed things for many Americans. It is unfortunate that he has called at least half of us "enemies," though. I had always believed that we are all equal Americans, no matter our political leanings. I guess I was wrong.

    Good evening, Jack.

  4. #234
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,854
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    No, I don't believe he is. No other POTUS has stated that he will lower ocean levels and heal the planet. And there is no disputing that he has certainly changed things for many Americans. It is unfortunate that he has called at least half of us "enemies," though. I had always believed that we are all equal Americans, no matter our political leanings. I guess I was wrong.

    Good evening, Jack.
    Good evening, Polgara.

    Well said, as usual.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  5. #235
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I am using regional and sectional interchangeably. Consider them the same.
    How can I consider them the same when they have two different meanings?

    re·gion·al 1. Of or relating to a large geographic region.
    2. Of or relating to a particular region or district.
    3. Of or affecting a region of the body: regional pain.
    4. Of or characteristic of a form of a language that is distributed in identifiable geographic areas and differs in pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary from the standard form; dialectal.

    sec·tion·al 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular district.
    2. Composed of or divided into component sections.

    n. A piece of furniture made up of sections that can be used separately or together.

    But, in any case, the Civil War was between the Democrats who wanted Slavery and the Republicans who want people to be free. Those beliefs continue today.

    This is entirely erroneous. Firstly, as I pointed out, Democrats of the time were for states rights.
    Quite right. The Democrats felt it their right to have slaves.

    If we use that as a benchmark for determining their lean, they were conservatives, not liberals.
    You seem to be of the opinion that 'liberals' are actually 'liberal' and conservatives cannot be 'liberal', which is a liberal definition of all that is good. This is the cliche of modern politics but it is very misleading. In fact if you reread what you said it was "conservatives' who fought for the freedom of slaves and 'liberals' then as now, who wanted to keep Blacks on the plantations.
    Further, if we look at this today, we can easily see that it is extreme conservatives who are the biggest racists in America.
    Really? What is an 'extreme conservative'? In fact conservatives have certain values and traditions they feel are inherent in the freedom of mankind.
    Go to stormfront and find out how many liberals are there.
    These people have defined themselves as conservative? If so your idea of what a 'conservative' is demonstrates your clear misunderstanding of what being a conservative means. And do you really believes Liberals would fight for anyone's freedom? These are the same people who embraced communism!!

    Continuing, you have failed to prove that the Civil War was anything BUT a regional issue...
    If you feel that the Democratically controlled Southern United States was a 'region' and the Republican North another 'region' then you may have a point, whatever it may be. But it was an American Civil War and it was fought largely between Democrats and Republicans.

    you know, North verses South? Pretty basic stuff here, Grant. The fact that Democrats were in the South is related to they being for states rights. This was not a partisan issue, but a regional issue.
    There were several Southern States involved in this with most people not referring to these as either 'regions' or 'sections'. In fact you may be the first person I've heard who referred to it this way. Everywhere else it has always been 'north vs South'.

  6. #236
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Ahistorical nonsense.
    Then please point out the errors.

  7. #237
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,696

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    How can I consider them the same when they have two different meanings?

    re·gion·al 1. Of or relating to a large geographic region.
    2. Of or relating to a particular region or district.
    3. Of or affecting a region of the body: regional pain.
    4. Of or characteristic of a form of a language that is distributed in identifiable geographic areas and differs in pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary from the standard form; dialectal.

    sec·tion·al 1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a particular district.
    2. Composed of or divided into component sections.

    n. A piece of furniture made up of sections that can be used separately or together.
    And I explained that I was using the interchangeably. Further, if you look at the definitions, the difference between the South and the North can apply to either.

    But, in any case, the Civil War was between the Democrats who wanted Slavery and the Republicans who want people to be free. Those beliefs continue today.
    Historical revisionism. The Civil War was between the South and the North. Democrats and Republicans were incidental. Your understanding of American history is completely absent.

    Quite right. The Democrats felt it their right to have slaves.
    Wrong. The South felt it was their right to have slaves. Political party was irrelevant. Lean was relevent, though, as state's rightsers were and are conservatives. So, we can conclude that it was conservatives who supported slavery. I do not believe they still do.

    You seem to be of the opinion that 'liberals' are actually 'liberal' and conservatives cannot be 'liberal', which is a liberal definition of all that is good. This is the cliche of modern politics but it is very misleading. In fact if you reread what you said it was "conservatives' who fought for the freedom of slaves and 'liberals' then as now, who wanted to keep Blacks on the plantations.
    The fact that you do not understand basics of American history... that the Civil War was between the South and the North... and that conservatives were and are states rightsers and, at that time it was the states rightsers who supported slavery, is pretty amazing. I guess that's what partisanship does.

    Really? What is an 'extreme conservative'? In fact conservatives have certain values and traditions they feel are inherent in the freedom of mankind. These people have defined themselves as conservative? If so your idea of what a 'conservative' is demonstrates your clear misunderstanding of what being a conservative means. And do you really believes Liberals would fight for anyone's freedom? These are the same people who embraced communism!!
    The fact that you equate liberalism to communism shows that you do not understand either.

    If you feel that the Democratically controlled Southern United States was a 'region' and the Republican North another 'region' then you may have a point, whatever it may be. But it was an American Civil War and it was fought largely between Democrats and Republicans.[/quote]

    It was fought between the North and the South. The political parties of each were irrelevant and are even MORE irrelevant to the parties of today.

    There were several Southern States involved in this with most people not referring to these as either 'regions' or 'sections'. In fact you may be the first person I've heard who referred to it this way. Everywhere else it has always been 'north vs South'.
    The North and South are regions or sections of the US. This fits the definitions pretty well and I've heard PLENTY describe these parts of the US this way.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  8. #238
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,696

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Then please point out the errors.
    I already did. They are abundant and glaring.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And I explained that I was using the interchangeably. Further, if you look at the definitions, the difference between the South and the North can apply to either.



    Historical revisionism. The Civil War was between the South and the North. Democrats and Republicans were incidental. Your understanding of American history is completely absent.



    Wrong. The South felt it was their right to have slaves. Political party was irrelevant. Lean was relevent, though, as state's rightsers were and are conservatives. So, we can conclude that it was conservatives who supported slavery. I do not believe they still do.



    The fact that you do not understand basics of American history... that the Civil War was between the South and the North... and that conservatives were and are states rightsers and, at that time it was the states rightsers who supported slavery, is pretty amazing. I guess that's what partisanship does.



    The fact that you equate liberalism to communism shows that you do not understand either.

    If you feel that the Democratically controlled Southern United States was a 'region' and the Republican North another 'region' then you may have a point, whatever it may be. But it was an American Civil War and it was fought largely between Democrats and Republicans.
    It was fought between the North and the South. The political parties of each were irrelevant and are even MORE irrelevant to the parties of today.



    The North and South are regions or sections of the US. This fits the definitions pretty well and I've heard PLENTY describe these parts of the US this way.[/QUOTE]

  10. #240
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Crowds gather for March on Washington 50th anniversary

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And I explained that I was using the interchangeably. Further, if you look at the definitions, the difference between the South and the North can apply to either.
    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
    Historical revisionism. The Civil War was between the South and the North. Democrats and Republicans were incidental. Your understanding of American history is completely absent.
    So it is your contention that the Democrats supporting slavery, and the Republicans supporting freedom, was not an issue? That the philosophies of those two parties was also not an issue? It just happened that Democrats lived in the South and Republicans lived in the North and they fought because 'the sections' didn't like each other? That's an interesting and unique take.


    Wrong. The South felt it was their right to have slaves. Political party was irrelevant.
    The policies of the political parties were not important, huh? Both parties believed the same thing. This is fascinating!
    Lean was relevent, though, as state's rightsers were and are conservatives. So, we can conclude that it was conservatives who supported slavery. I do not believe they still do.
    Your conclusions seem a bit muddled here. Conservatives tend to believe that some traditions are important, yes, but slavery has never been a tradition in the democracies. Conservatives tend to believe in the rights of man while liberals tend to believe the fashions of the day, as you know. Slavery was actually a brief and ugly period in America, as well as in other parts of the civilized world, but those who believed more in the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" philosophy (Conservatives) eventually won the day.

    The fact that you do not understand basics of American history... that the Civil War was between the South and the North... and that conservatives were and are states rightsers and, at that time it was the states rightsers who supported slavery, is pretty amazing. I guess that's what partisanship does.
    This is odd. You seem ready to give these two warring groups a mixed bag of names but refuse to call them what they were. Democrats and Republicans. Democrats South, Republicans North. It's really not so complicated.

    The fact that you equate liberalism to communism shows that you do not understand either.
    Again, you are wrong. I said it was the liberals who 'embraced communism' which millions did, while the conservatives opposed it because, as you will remember, it related to a differing opinion on human rights and freedoms. Just as in the Civil War. Liberalism and Communism is not the same, just in case you harbored any doubt as to what I said, but as Liberals no longer have a firm footing in any philosophical school they are easily led into believing in whatever new philosophy which might arrive on their doorstep.
    It was fought between the North and the South. The political parties of each were irrelevant and are even MORE irrelevant to the parties of today.
    Right. Between the North and the South. The parties philosophies were extremely relevant at the time and the Democrats of today share a great deal with their ancestors. Thinking that a Black person is something less than anyone else is one of those shared characteristics.

    The North and South are regions or sections of the US. This fits the definitions pretty well and I've heard PLENTY describe these parts of the US this way.
    Not when it's referring to the Civil War. You seem to be getting the participants in the civil war confused with simple directions.
    Last edited by Grant; 09-02-13 at 09:43 AM.

Page 24 of 27 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •