Conservatives: Always on the wrong side of history.

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:

I think several of them owned slaves.

Did that mean they approved of it? Yes, or No?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

Legally it hasn't been an issue for over 140 yrs , but somehow to lots of african americans they are psychologically stuck there as if they experienced it daily personally.
They will not ,cannot move on;nor can they compete & function in a global "information"economy.

Slavery dejure has not been in effect for that long, you are right. But if that were the case.....


WHY DID THEY NEED A CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Mav88:

and communism is a dehumanizing tyrranical system of government, nice values

You base that assertion on people who have tried to force communism. I personally don't think certain cultures can share communally without becoming violent, so I can see your perspective.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from PiggyBank:

+2 each

SS just isn't legitimate. It is outside of federal power as laid out in the Constitution. AND there are writings from the time stating, in certain terms, that only the listed powers are legit.. entitlements aren't one of them. This should be a matter for each State to decide.

Some of the founders supported slavery, some did not. The authors of the Constitution knew they could never get it ratified if they made slavery an issue. Jefferson, for one, was aware of his hypocrisy and I believe he released all of his slaves by will, when he died. They left it up to future generations to deal with the problem, it's been dealt with.. let's move the fuck on. Oh and slavery didn't exist here because of the newly formed nation, it was institutionalized by the (British) colonies long before.

But the British ended slavery first....why?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

WHY DID THEY NEED A CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964?

Simple, they didn't need it.

Quote from RCG Trader:

Did that mean they approved of it? Yes, or No?

I haven't had a chance to ask them, but presumably if they owned slaves they approved.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

...I personally don't think certain cultures can share communally without becoming violent...

So...should we segregate then?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:

So...should we segregate then?

No, let them blow themselves up, as they surely will, one way or the other.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Lucrum:

Simple, they didn't need it.


I haven't had a chance to ask them, but presumably if they owned slaves they approved.

Great, then you understand why their foundation was a house built on sand, per their own Christian principles.

God has a very dim view of hypocrites.

 

[Mav88]

Quote from RCG Trader:

You base that assertion on people who have tried to force communism. I personally don't think certain cultures can share communally without becoming violent, so I can see your perspective.

communism requires force, the second someone thinks your sharing scheme isn't fair then you must point a gun at them. more important would be the forced work distribution from a central planner, I can't imagine many societies that could work like that and really be happy about it.

forced sharing is antithetical to freedom and liberty, which was the foundation of the united states. People want freedom, it is fundamental

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RCG Trader:

Great, then you understand why their foundation was a house built on sand, per their own Christian principles.

You arrogantly presume too much, I know no such thing.

God has a very dim view of hypocrites.

Tell you that himself did he?

Next time you talk to him can you find out for sure if I'm really going to Hell?