• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Go figure

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
34,677
Reaction score
14,225
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?
 
Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.
it is funny that she put most of the planned parenthood in black communities.
which also corresponds to the plummet in black births.
 
Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?



Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery.

I didn't realize we still had slavery?


Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset?

I would say those people are tired of this drumbeat of "slavery" for political reasons
 
Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

Really? Did slavery actually start 400 years ago "this month"?
 
it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

The Democrats voted to pass the civil rights act of 64' and voting rights act of 65' with a solid majority and while nearly 40% of Democrats voted against those 30% of Republicans voted against them as well. The only voting bloc that has truly and consistently voted against equal rights even to this day is The South. The South, i.e. southern representatives of any stripe, be it Democrat or Republican, voted against those two pieces of legislation by over 90%. And we all know who The South votes for today.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

If you think slavery is getting something for doing nothing then son, you don't seem to know what slavery is. It just about the complete opposite of that.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.

The Founders of this country were slave owners. :shrug:
 
The Democrats voted to pass the civil rights act of 64' and voting rights act of 65' with a solid majority and while nearly 40% of Democrats voted against those 30% of Republicans voted against them as well. The only voting bloc that has truly and consistently voted against equal rights even to this day is The South. The South, i.e. southern representatives of any stripe, be it Democrat or Republican, voted against those two pieces of legislation by over 90%. And we all know who The South votes for today.



If you think slavery is getting something for doing nothing then son, you don't seem to know what slavery is. It just about the complete opposite of that.



The Founders of this country were slave owners. :shrug:

The Founders of this country were slave owners.

But... only about 1/4 of them
 
it depends on how they framed it and if they actually told the truth.
The main party for slavery are democrats that started with Jackson.
Democrats fought every civil rights act that there was and the starting on the KKK were all democrats.

they continue their slavery programs today just in a different form trying to get everyone dependent on government.
for some reason though i doubt the NY time mentioned this.

The founder of planned parenthood is a devout democrat and racist.
it is funny that she put most of the planned parenthood in black communities.
which also corresponds to the plummet in black births.

What a batch of unhinged trash this is.

The Democrats are racist?

If that's so, then after the 2013 partial overturning of the voting rights act, why were the REPUBLICANS asking for racial voting data? Explicitly, who and what color of people were registering to vote with a drivers license number?

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. Richard Spencer is a republican.

The southern strategy is real and the republicans today are the Democrats of 50 years ago.
 
why?

why run a piece on slavery?

is it to garner support for the reparations crazies who are out there?

is it to garner support for a particular candidate?

slavery has been gone for since the civil war ended

civil acts was passed in the early 60's

why? why now?
 
How do ya figure?

Even Ben Franklin?

Yes Luther even him. That's how it works. Slavery was a business and industry that was allowed to operate within the United States. Just as we are complicit in the deplorable conditions at our southern border. Some of us just have the decency to feel ****ty about it and fight and vote to change it.
 
Yes Luther even him. That's how it works. Slavery was a business and industry that was allowed to operate within the United States. Just as we are complicit in the deplorable conditions at our southern border. Some of us just have the decency to feel ****ty about it and fight and vote to change it.

No, you said they had their hand in it which they did not


complicit
 
why?

why run a piece on slavery?

is it to garner support for the reparations crazies who are out there?

is it to garner support for a particular candidate?

slavery has been gone for since the civil war ended

civil acts was passed in the early 60's

why? why now?

Your reaction alone would be reason enough for me to want it reprinted every day on the front page. :lamo
 
No, you said they had their hand in it which they did not


complicit

Yes. They were 100%, all of them complicit in slavery. Your inability to understand this simply concept is your own error. Not mine.
 
Yes. They were 100%, all of them complicit in slavery. Your inability to understand this simply concept is your own error. Not mine.

No, On the contrary it's quite the opposite

It's you who don't understand a simple concept(wink)
 
No, On the contrary it's quite the opposite

It's you who don't understand a simple concept(wink)

Complicit - involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.

Allowing and taxing the importation of slaves, which the American government did, makes the country and the Founders responsible for it's creation, involved. So unless you don't think slavery was wrong I'm not sure were your misunderstandings steams from. Care to explain?
 
Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

It would be helpful if you posted a link to comments or anything else "Gingrich" and others said so the informed poster could understand what you are upset about.
 
Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

In a meeting with his staff, Dean Baquet came right out and said that the designed and contrived attacks on Trump based on Russian collusion did not do the job.

As a result, he was changing the structure of the NYT to attack Trump on a different front.

He was both admitting that the previous Propaganda Campaign did NOT work and hoping the the new Propaganda Campaign would work.

This rag is a propaganda, political action fish wrap. No more. No less.

From his comments:

Inside the New York Times town hall.
<snip>
Dean Baquet: If we’re really going to be a transparent newsroom that debates these issues among ourselves and not on Twitter, I figured I should talk to the whole newsroom, and hear from the whole newsroom.

We had a couple of significant missteps, and I know you’re concerned about them, and I am, too.

But there’s something larger at play here.

This is a really hard story, newsrooms haven’t confronted one like this since the 1960s.

It got trickier after [inaudible] … went from being a story about whether the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia and obstruction of justice to being a more head-on story about the president’s character.

We built our newsroom to cover one story, and we did it truly well.

Now we have to regroup, and shift resources and emphasis to take on a different story.

<snip>
 
Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

Hard to accept as part of our history?

I find it very easy to accept as part of our history. Clearly it's the historical record. Our founding document acknowledged it with the 3/5 compromise. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 codified it. And then conscientious juries and the civil war effectively ended it.

If it were up to certain intolerant people in high office, it would still be here today.
 
Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

You can't go back and change the beginning, but you can start where you are and change the ending.
C. S. Lewis
 
Your reaction alone would be reason enough for me to want it reprinted every day on the front page. :lamo

the liberal rags in this country can keep publishing anything they want....

it is what will reelect Trump....if that is what you want

the more you keep pushing this far left bull****, the more you push moderates away from your side

but continue on....its your party, you can cry after Nov 2020 and wonder what the hell happened again
 
the liberal rags in this country can keep publishing anything they want....

it is what will reelect Trump....if that is what you want

the more you keep pushing this far left bull****, the more you push moderates away from your side

but continue on....its your party, you can cry after Nov 2020 and wonder what the hell happened again

:lamo

Trump has almost no chance of being re-elected

:lamo:lamo
 
:lamo

Trump has almost no chance of being re-elected

:lamo:lamo

yep

and he had almost NO chance of being elected the first time too

keep driving the path from the middle to the far far left, and see what happens

i mean all i hear right now is

free college
reparations for slavery
universal insurance
$ 1000 a month given to everyone

and no way to pay for any of it.....

yeah....should be a riot come Nov 2020
 
Have been reading the NYTimes special on slavery. Good stuff, though hard to accept as part of our history. Now I discover that while generally positively received on the left and the right, some conservatives are upset with it. I can understand differing with some of the opinions expressed, but the Times does us a great favor in highlighting what started 400 years ago this month. Can someone from the right explain why/how Gingrich and others are upset? Fine to differ with some opinions expressed in some articles, but attacking the paper for running it? Are their other "commemorations" out there from outlets perceived as conservative that have a different slant on the topic?

Any links to the upsettedness? How can we discuss it without some background?
 
Count me among those wondering why the NYT is publishing 400-year-old "news".

Or not, in light of Mr. Baquet's recent pep rally. I believe we all know exactly why the NYT is publishing this.
 
Back
Top Bottom