Guest Sloth Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Washington was a slave owner. I would guess many of his values would be different today. Many politicians during his time questioned the idea of slavery, even though they owned slaves. Thomas Jefferson wrote about his thoughts on slavery in his journals. He owned slaves but he had the belief it may be wrong. The "all men are created equal" had just been stated a few years prior and Thomas Jefferson felt they weren't living up to that. I think he and many others were rather afraid to make a push against slavery. It was as if they had the idea of "lets let the next generation(s) deal w/ it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Umm. I'll give you Iraq, but you can't say Afghanistan was manufactured. After all they were complicit in sending four airplanes after the economic, military and poltical infrastructure of this country. You have to pay for that action and what ever part you played in it. Certainly the response is one to debated by the politicians and the historians. Wasn't there also connections to Saudi Arabia and other countries? What's going on in Afghanistan has as little to do with 9/11 as the WMD's did. It is nothing more than a failed attempt to gain a military strong hold in the region. It has cost billions and many innocent lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Not to justify Chattel slavery, but not every slave owner was brutal to their slaves. That is the assumption that has long been puffed up. Stonewall Jackson was actually known to have been kind to those who were in his possession.Furthermore, Washington died before William Wilberforce led the charge in Parliament to abolish slavery throughout the United Kingdom in 1807. While Amazing Grace could have been better directed and edited, it does showcase the struggles and support that Wilberforce encountered in his quest to put the coup de grace upon Chattel slavery. Having not been a slave myself I can only guess that those human beings enslaved may have a differing opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Wasn't there also connections to Saudi Arabia and other countries? What's going on in Afghanistan has as little to do with 9/11 as the WMD's did. It is nothing more than a failed attempt to gain a military strong hold in the region. It has cost billions and many innocent lives. Then we agree to disagree... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Not to justify Chattel slavery, but not every slave owner was brutal to their slaves. That is the assumption that has long been puffed up. Stonewall Jackson was actually known to have been kind to those who were in his possession. Yeah, being forced at gunpoint out of your home, stripped, beaten, and live in your own sh$t for weeks in the hulls of a ship, taken to a different country and no longer able to practice your traditions, then being hung for wanting out... now that's puffed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Yeah, being forced at gunpoint out of your home, stripped, beaten, and live in your own sh$t for weeks in the hulls of a ship, taken to a different country and no longer able to practice your traditions, then being hung for wanting out... now that's puffed up. I'm not going against what you said, but the importation of slaves ended roughly around 1830. Many slaves were born in the U.S. Yes, the majority of slaves were treated wrongly and unjust, but SOME slave owners treated them as family members. I'm not condoning slavery. I'm just trying to point out some slave owners showed a small amount of sympathy. Slavery was wrong and it will always be a part of our nation's history. Also, I have no respect or care for someone who is racist. Just wanted to make that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 The Washington was a slave owner point has driven the thread off course. My original point had little to do with slavery. It was to point out that in Washington's time and the time when the Constitution was written times and values were much different. Men and women were enslaved, women themselves were considered less than citizens and no say and no vote. They are just examples how the Constitution is a living document that needs to and has been changed to coincide with changes within the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Yeah, being forced at gunpoint out of your home, stripped, beaten, and live in your own sh$t for weeks in the hulls of a ship, taken to a different country and no longer able to practice your traditions, then being hung for wanting out... now that's puffed up. Puffed up is right... And then there is the part that isn't taught very much in school....the high end market of slavery in which your daughters were sold as consorts and sexual companions, or "fancy girls" .....and served as concubines or in stables as sexual companions. So you get to see your daughters raped too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 Puffed up is right... And then there is the part that isn't taught very much in school....the high end market of slavery in which your daughters were sold as consorts and sexual companions, or "fancy girls" .....and served as concubines or in stables as sexual companions. So you get to see your daughters raped too. It is frightening that what you have described happens today around the world. Throughout Asia & India young girls are sold into prostitution. I guess this Administrations morality and outrage is limited to small oil producing countries. Maybe if the Sudan had produced more oil then the hundreds of thousands of innocents slaughtered there since 9/11 could have been saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 The Washington was a slave owner point has driven the thread off course. My original point had little to do with slavery. It was to point out that in Washington's time and the time when the Constitution was written times and values were much different. Men and women were enslaved, women themselves were considered less than citizens and no say and no vote. They are just examples how the Constitution is a living document that needs to and has been changed to coincide with changes within the country. Are you now advocating that there should be restrictions on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, bans on private ownership of firearms, eliminating private property ownership, eliminating due process and the right not to incriminate oneself, letting soldiers be quartered in your home regardless if it's peacetime or wartime, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 The only thing I can really remember from Obama's infomercial was that old women without healthcare. I'll never forget the retired Ohio woman without health insurance, trying to straighten out her arthritis-crippled fingers, watching her old husband return to work to pay for her medicine. Pretty sad that has to happen in this day and age I'm sure that what I'm about to say will really get some people riled up in here, but c'est la vie. I've had quite a few people remind me that the Bible says absolutely nothing about retirement. They do have a point. In fact, one of my friends is past his retirement years. He continues to work even though he'll be 69 next month. He's also a widower, so work keeps his mind off of his late wife. Second, I remember clearly being taught in elementary school that one of Captain John Smith's edicts in the Jamestown colony was this: "If you don't work, you don't eat." That should apply today as well to those who are able-bodied and not on major disability or who are so advanced in years that they can't work at all. This is why I don't have any respect for those who can work but who would rather sit around the slum apartment all day and drink beer while we work to pay him to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 There are a couple things that I have noticed since this thread started. How certain members have handled themselves on this thread is also indicative of their mannerisms on everything else - including hockey-related threads. I thought that there was a certain prolific member who was quite a pessimist. With his posts on this thread, he has shown himself to be one of the most miserable members of SabreSpace (if not the most miserable). Responding to anything he says might as well be pointless because it's like talking to a brick wall and expecting any response from it. As the old saying goes, "misery loves company," but I might as well count myself out when he shows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 "Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 2.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 3.74" According to the chart, I'm in good company with Stephen Harper the Canadian PM and Kevin Rudd the new Australian PM. Harper I can understand, but Rudd??? I thought some of those questions were a bit restrictive in terms of methodology and did not allow much freedom to give a more accurate answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FogBat Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 The New Robin Hood. (That was something a friend of mine on YouTube came up with.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TM8-PL16 Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 The New Robin Hood. (That was something a friend of mine on YouTube came up with.) I love the subtle Soviet emblem on the hat! nice touch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted November 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 I know that the election is very soon, but how can you think about politics after a 5-0 blowout?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 are we there yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRobertEichel Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 The New Robin Hood. (That was something a friend of mine on YouTube came up with.) :lol: You found Inkman's new avatar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Are you now advocating that there should be restrictions on freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, bans on private ownership of firearms, eliminating private property ownership, eliminating due process and the right not to incriminate oneself, letting soldiers be quartered in your home regardless if it's peacetime or wartime, etc? I guess you never heard of the Patriot Act. Ask broadcasters who had to pay FCC fines about "freedom of speech". Ask those stuck in Gitmo about "due process". To answer a part of your question more directly 'the Right to Bare Arms' is antiquated. There is no need for anyone to own a hand gun. You don't hunt with handguns. As for "Freedom of Religion"? Everyone should have the right to practice what ever they want at home or in their church. Keep it out of the schools and keep it out of the work place. It has no business in either. And most importantly, keep it out government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 I'm sure that what I'm about to say will really get some people riled up in here, but c'est la vie. I've had quite a few people remind me that the Bible says absolutely nothing about retirement. They do have a point. In fact, one of my friends is past his retirement years. He continues to work even though he'll be 69 next month. He's also a widower, so work keeps his mind off of his late wife. Second, I remember clearly being taught in elementary school that one of Captain John Smith's edicts in the Jamestown colony was this: "If you don't work, you don't eat." That should apply today as well to those who are able-bodied and not on major disability or who are so advanced in years that they can't work at all. This is why I don't have any respect for those who can work but who would rather sit around the slum apartment all day and drink beer while we work to pay him to do that. From what I recall the Bible doesn't mention anything about abortion either? I wonder how Seniors, a group that McCain needs to be elected, would feel if he came out this morning and said "you don't work, you don't eat". Again, the number of people who sit home and have no willingness to work is small. Not all on unemployment, public assistance or SSI are there by choice. They are men and women who would love to have jobs and be able to provide for their families. But due to circumstance an economic structure designed to keep the rich remainign rich and the poor remaining poor they find themselves trapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 From what I recall the Bible doesn't mention anything about abortion either? Have you read the constitution? It can be rather vague and not provide a direct meaning on a number of things in our government. Yet, our nation interprets and follows the constitution. The Bible, too, can be vague, on a limited bases, on how we are to live our lives and practice our faith. The 6th commandment says thou shall not commit murder. Life is created by God. The moment the egg is fertilzed God has created life. A person that practices abortion is committing murder. I pray that one day you will find our lord and our saviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 It doesn't but it'll be my door and your door they come knocking down to get what they need to live. I'm guessing at that point you'll shoot them and feel good about yourself. Ever notice that the folks who don't want the government to do anything about the poor are very often the same folks who support all kinds of craziness in the name of religion...in fact, not just any religion, but a certain religion that was basically founded on the principle of helping the poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carpandean Posted November 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 The 6th commandment says thou shall not commit murder. Life is created by God. The moment the egg is fertilzed God has created life. A person that practices abortion is committing murder. This is why the abortion issue will never be agreed upon. I don't believe what you do about life, as stated above, but if I did, then I would be against abortion, too. I am pro-choice, especially in cases of rape or when the mother's life is at risk, but I can't condemn you for your beliefs, because I understand where you are coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRobertEichel Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 To answer a part of your question more directly 'the Right to Bare Arms' is antiquated. There is no need for anyone to own a hand gun. You don't hunt with handguns. WRONG :wallbash: . The second amendment was first and foremost about the right to defend one's self, family, and property from GOVERNMENT. The Founding Fathers wanted its citizens to have the ability to fight back and tear down the government if/when the time came where it no longer worked for its constituents but rather for its own power. The right to hunt and the right to self-defense from criminals naturally follows from the aforementioned primary aim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnRobertEichel Posted November 2, 2008 Report Share Posted November 2, 2008 Ever notice that the folks who don't want the government to do anything about the poor are very often the same folks who support all kinds of craziness in the name of religion...in fact, not just any religion, but a certain religion that was basically founded on the principle of helping the poor? I'm not normally in the business of defending religious people, neither their beliefs nor their actions. However, donation statistics from religious organizations show that many religious people are quite charitable. It's not that they don't want to help the poor, it's that they don't feel the government should FORCE them to help the poor. They'd rather do it through private charity; it's a much more efficient way of helping others, and the non-compulsory element of it all makes it more wholesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.