Freedom to be....

[midcan5]

I am often fascinated by the use of the slogan word 'freedom' in both culture and politics. You hear it mentioned as the cure of all things and yet you don't see it in the real world. Freedom to be who you are has been hard fought for race, for gays, it continues still.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX3Awt4emk

[Paperback Writer]

What decade do you live in? The CEO of Mozilla was fired because he doesn't condone gay marriage. Enough said, really.

[Peter1469]

:killme::killme:

[Archer0915]

I am often fascinated by the use of the slogan word 'freedom' in both culture and politics. You hear it mentioned as the cure of all things and yet you don't see it in the real world. Freedom to be who you are has been hard fought for race, for gays, it continues still.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX3Awt4emk

You have the freedom to be who you want to be. You do not have the freedom to force others to accept your choices when you get in their faces with it. The backlash against gays has not been about their gayness it has been about the forcing of their lifestyles onto others by Progressive white heterosexual people who do not have to deal with the backlash.

[Captain Obvious]

What decade do you live in? The CEO of Mozilla was fired because he doesn't condone gay marriage. Enough said, really.

Incorrect.

He was pressured to resign because he publicly supported an unpopular position that was deemed damaging to the companies reputation.

Maybe FauxNews is looking for a good bigot to run their show.

[Archer0915]

Incorrect.

He was pressured to resign because he publicly supported an unpopular position that was deemed damaging to the companies reputation.

Maybe FauxNews is looking for a good bigot to run their show.

Unpopular? It passed by popular support and the courts took it out. Unpopular would mean the majority did not want it and it was imposed on them, like Obama ruling by pen.

[Chris]

I am often fascinated by the use of the slogan word 'freedom' in both culture and politics. You hear it mentioned as the cure of all things and yet you don't see it in the real world. Freedom to be who you are has been hard fought for race, for gays, it continues still.

....



It must be terrible to feel oppressed...by the world, by life. So unfair. :cry:

[Paperback Writer]

Incorrect.

He was pressured to resign because he publicly supported an unpopular position that was deemed damaging to the companies reputation.


And the unpopular position was...? He doesn't condone gay marriage.

My point is made. Twenty years ago he would have kept his position and gays weren't marrying.

[Captain Obvious]

And the unpopular position was...? He doesn't condone gay marriage.

My point is made. Twenty years ago he would have kept his position and gays weren't marrying.

From what I understand he actively did not condone gay marriage.

Did you bother to read my points on CEO's, why they deserve huge salaries and why they have no personal lives outside the companies they lead?

These two factors are crucial to the equation.

[kilgram]

Unpopular? It passed by popular support and the courts took it out. Unpopular would mean the majority did not want it and it was imposed on them, like Obama ruling by pen.
It is unpopular in a movement that promotes freedom. Mozilla is part of the Open Source/free software movement.

[Chris]

It is unpopular in a movement that promotes freedom. Mozilla is part of the Open Source/free software movement.

What about Brendan Eich's freedom of expression?

[Archer0915]

What about Brendan Eich's freedom of expression?

He has none! He is not PC and non PC expression is to be stemmed! You are not allowed to have an opinion.

There are controlling elements in our society that seem to limit free speech and they are trying to direct thought through their government schools as well.

Actually it is not that simple. His free speech had its repercussions as it should have. Sadly when the free speech of the left has repercussions they sue and the government enables and emboldens them.

[junie]

What about Brendan Eich's freedom of expression?


he is free to express himself in his FREE time........is he not?

''society'' - the FREE market - ''has spoken''...



It must be terrible to feel oppressed...by the world, by life. So unfair. :cry:

[Chris]

He has none! He is not PC and non PC expression is to be stemmed! You are not allowed to have an opinion.

There are controlling elements in our society that seem to limit free speech and they are trying to direct thought through their government schools as well.

Actually it is not that simple. His free speech had its repercussions as it should have. Sadly when the free speech of the left has repercussions they sue and the government enables and emboldens them.


True, the company had every right to react as they did, can't dispute that, but to be intolerable of his freedom is ironic coming from the "tolerant" left.

[Chris]

he is free to express himself in his FREE time........is he not?

''society'' - the FREE market - ''has spoken''...


He did so in his free time and on his own dime with a contribution back in 2008.

The company, not society, exercises it's free market rights, that's true, my complaint is not about that.

[Peter1469]

I imagine his golden parachute was over $10 million. I would take that.

[Dr. Who]

What decade do you live in? The CEO of Mozilla was fired because he doesn't condone gay marriage. Enough said, really.

Ordinarily I would suggest that his ability to run the company should have nothing whatsoever to do with his personal philosophies, however in the case of Eich it appears that it is more complicated:

"That’s especially true because of the unusual nature of Mozilla. Mozilla is not like most companies. It’s a wholly-owned subsidiary of the nonprofit Mozilla Foundation, and is just one part of the broader Mozilla community, which includes thousands of open-source software developers and other volunteers around the world. These people still do much of the work behind Mozilla’s products—contributing code, technical support, design improvements, and so on. This means that Mozilla depends on the goodwill of its supporters more than most corporations do; it relies on their willingness to donate their services in pursuit of the broader Mozilla project, which is all about keeping the Web transparent and accessible. If it alienates them, Mozilla’s entire mission will be at risk." http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2014/04/how-mozilla-lost-its-ceo-brendan-eich.html

The article describes the particularly liberal social stance of Silicon Valley and the fact that his personal views would have impeded his ability to run the company. When it was revealed that he had those personal views, even people within the company were calling for his resignation.

[Codename Section]

If you can get fired for not liking gay marriage I think gays are free to be.

[kilgram]

What about Brendan Eich's freedom of expression?
Didn't you defend discrimination against homosexuals in the case of negating them to work or buy some place?

Didn't you defend the right of catholics to negate to provide some services in healthcare related with the sex?

Well, then now don't come to me with the freedom of expression. He has the freedom to express whatever he wants. Now, if this those opinions go against the ideals of the organization of promoting freedom, and sorry but restrinting freedom and rights to a group, it goes pretty against freedom, then is normal that people critize him for having those opinions and holding an important position in an organization that promote freedom in Internet. It goes against the ideals.

It is like if I was going to teach religion in a school according to the Catholic principles and I've been married a few times and divorced and for those reasons the Church decides to dismiss me.

[midcan5]

You have the freedom to be who you want to be. You do not have the freedom to force others to accept your choices when you get in their faces with it. The backlash against gays has not been about their gayness it has been about the forcing of their lifestyles onto others by Progressive white heterosexual people who do not have to deal with the backlash. @Archer0915 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=323)

This comment from a person who wears a symbol on his back for a war that's only reason was enslave another? Can you spell....

Re: Resignation: Corporations do not like controversy of any sort, it is why MSM is conservative in its approach to so many tough topics.

[Archer0915]

@Archer0915 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=323)

This comment from a person who wears a symbol on his back for a war that's only reason was enslave another? Can you spell....

Re: Resignation: Corporations do not like controversy of any sort, it is why MSM is conservative in its approach to so many tough topics.

I see you do not know your history. The war was not about slavery and only became about it when Lincoln needed a rallying cry. The war was not necessary to end the enslavement of people in the US as it was phasing out anyway.

The war was about the Federal monster.

As to the rest of your post... Do you have a point?

[Peter1469]

I see you do not know your history. The war was not about slavery and only became about it when Lincoln needed a rallying cry. The war was not necessary to end the enslavement of people in the US as it was phasing out anyway.

The war was about the Federal monster.

As to the rest of your post... Do you have a point?

The war was about slavery. Read the congressional record from 1825 until the war.

[Chris]

Didn't you defend discrimination against homosexuals in the case of negating them to work or buy some place?

Didn't you defend the right of catholics to negate to provide some services in healthcare related with the sex?

Well, then now don't come to me with the freedom of expression. He has the freedom to express whatever he wants. Now, if this those opinions go against the ideals of the organization of promoting freedom, and sorry but restrinting freedom and rights to a group, it goes pretty against freedom, then is normal that people critize him for having those opinions and holding an important position in an organization that promote freedom in Internet. It goes against the ideals.

It is like if I was going to teach religion in a school according to the Catholic principles and I've been married a few times and divorced and for those reasons the Church decides to dismiss me.


I defend their right to choose for themselves and not be coerced to what is politically correct.

I also defend Mozilla choosing to do what it did.

[Archer0915]

The war was about slavery. Read the congressional record from 1825 until the war.

The war became about it. It was a states rights vs federal power issue.

[Peter1469]

The war became about it. It was a states rights vs federal power issue.

And if you read the congressional record (the recorded debates in Congress), you will see that the states rights issue at that time was only concerned with the slavery question. Sorry, I didn't believe it until I read them for myself.

[Archer0915]

And if you read the congressional record (the recorded debates in Congress), you will see that the states rights issue at that time was only concerned with the slavery question. Sorry, I didn't believe it until I read them for myself.

I know there were issues but facts do not change only the reported history...

Why did Lincoln threaten the rebel states? He gave them an ultimatum to the rebel states that they had to free their slaves. This did not apply to the Union states with slaves!

This was done to stop the support for the south by many European nations.

[Peter1469]

The congressional record is "reported" history. It is the sessions of congress transcribed.....

Read those from 1830 until the war and get back to me. :smiley:


I know there were issues but facts do not change only the reported history...

Why did Lincoln threaten the rebel states? He gave them an ultimatum to the rebel states that they had to free their slaves. This did not apply to the Union states with slaves!

This was done to stop the support for the south by many European nations.

[Archer0915]

The congressional record is "reported" history. It is the sessions of congress transcribed.....

Read those from 1830 until the war and get back to me. :smiley:

You totally missed my point. Why did the first lincoln threat apply only to the southern states? There are many issues involved in this and it did become about slavery for the north after they saw the south garnering support from europe.

The was did not start to free slaves.

[Peter1469]

You totally missed my point. Why did the first lincoln threat apply only to the southern states? There are many issues involved in this and it did become about slavery for the north after they saw the south garnering support from europe.

The was did not start to free slaves.

I didn't miss your point. I understand what Lincoln said. Put that into the context of what was going on.

To claim that he civil war wasn't primarily about the slavery question is to believe in unicorns.

[Archer0915]

I didn't miss your point. I understand what Lincoln said. Put that into the context of what was going on.

To claim that he civil war wasn't primarily about the slavery question is to believe in unicorns.

But it was not. It was about federal power and if it had been about slavery only and primarily things would have not gotten as far as they did. It was about POWER and control of states that did not agree with other states.

[Matty]

That's why Lincoln stepped in. To stop secession from the union!

[Peter1469]

But it was not. It was about federal power and if it had been about slavery only and primarily things would have not gotten as far as they did. It was about POWER and control of states that did not agree with other states.

I suppose 20 years of debates in congress (to include some beat downs) don't factor into your version of history.

[Archer0915]

I suppose 20 years of debates in congress (to include some beat downs) don't factor into your version of history.

We have those same debates today. If we had a war today Gay rights may be called the cause in 100 and fifty years.

It was about federal power and control.

[Peter1469]

We have those same debates today. If we had a war today Gay rights may be called the cause in 100 and fifty years.

Iyt was about federal power and control.

No. But I can't make you think. Carry on in your own world.

[Peter1469]

Two decades of records of elected men fighting over the slavery issue.... And some modern progressive today says the civil war had nothing to do with slavery?

Meh.

[Archer0915]

No. But I can't make you think. Carry on in your own world.


Two decades of records of elected men fighting over the slavery issue.... And some modern progressive today says the civil war had nothing to do with slavery?

Meh.

There are two sides to everything. No need to get all huffy about it and start getting childish. I can respect your position and not agree with your conclusions.

[Peter1469]

There are two sides to everything. No need to get all huffy about it and start getting childish. I can respect your position and not agree with your conclusions.

Well, I can't make the congressional record say what you seem to what it to say.

[Archer0915]

Well, I can't make the congressional record say what you seem to what it to say.

Congressional record was not the only thing though. I am not saying that slavery was not an issue but the root cause was an overbearing federal government that tried to rule the southern states. Slavery was constitutional you know.

[Peter1469]

Congressional record was not the only thing though. I am not saying that slavery was not an issue but the root cause was an overbearing federal government that tried to rule the southern states. Slavery was constitutional you know.


The conflict between the two sides was only anti- federal control with regards to slavery. Read the Congressional Record.

[Archer0915]

The conflict between the two sides was only anti- federal control with regards to slavery. Read the Congressional Record.

Just curious... Have you? I presume you have. You do realize there is much more than congress.

[Peter1469]

Just curious... Have you? I presume you have. You do realize there is much more than congress.

Of course I read it. That is why I bring it up in a discussion about slavery and the reaction to it in Congress. If I had not read it, I wouldn't have a basis to comment on it. Make sense?

[Archer0915]

Of course I read it. That is why I bring it up in a discussion about slavery and the reaction to it in Congress. If I had not read it, I wouldn't have a basis to comment on it. Make sense?

I figured you had. You seem pretty smart.

[Peter1469]

Nope. Just another infantry ape.

[Archer0915]

Now back to things. there were many issues and one was the Christian agricultural south did not feel a part of the industrialized north... Oh the slavery? Yeah the north only wanted jobs for white ment in the west (they did not want blacks out that way) so they were against having slavery in the west. They wanted jobs for white folk.

[Archer0915]

Nope. Just another infantry ape.

I never bothered studying the politics of the era. I was more into society and culture. I think our disagreement has more to do with point of view than facts as none are really in dispute.

Infantry? Hope you are out. Do I know you by another name?

[Peter1469]

Now back to things. there were many issues and one was the Christian agricultural south did not feel a part of the industrialized north... Oh the slavery? Yeah the north only wanted jobs for white ment in the west (they did not want blacks out that way) so they were against having slavery in the west. They wanted jobs for white folk.

Read the congressional record. It is very clear.

[Archer0915]

Read the congressional record. It is very clear.

The congressional record is not the only history.

[Peter1469]

The congressional record is not the only history.
Haha.

It is a contemporaneous record of what was said.

As opposed to your opinion today several hundred years late.

[Archer0915]

Haha.

It is a contemporaneous record of what was said.

As opposed to your opinion today several hundred years late.

Several hundred? Not even two hundred but the slavery issue was with us from day one... Still not several.

The issue was the federal government did not have the authority to dictate things to the states as they did.

Furthermore you mention slavery but you know that the issues were many and it was states rights that were at the core.
What was going on from 1830-1860? Spanish American war? Killing the natives?.. There were plenty of issues and though slavery was a hot topic was not the only thing.

[Peter1469]

I never said it was the only issue. It was the primary issue.

[Chris]

Have to agree with archer here. Slavery was used as an propoganda issue, the way religion can be, or the evils of a foreign adversary, but the primary issue was power between two distinct ways of life, an agricultural south vs an industrialized north, and all that those two represented.

Peter's simply and only saying read the Congressional Record isn't convincing.

[Peter1469]

Have to agree with archer here. Slavery was used as an propoganda issue, the way religion can be, or the evils of a foreign adversary, but the primary issue was power between two distinct ways of life, an agricultural south vs an industrialized north, and all that those two represented.

Peter's simply and only saying read the Congressional Record isn't convincing.

Well if you don't read it, of course not. I didn't expect otherwise.

[Chris]

Well if you don't read it, of course not. I didn't expect otherwise.

What I'm saying is you're merely saying "read it" is a shallow argument. It gives nothing to go on.

[Peter1469]

What I'm saying is you're merely saying "read it" is a shallow argument. It gives nothing to go on.

I didn't intend to summarize it for you. It has been years since I have read those documents. I guess the summary is - yes slavery was the number one issue discussed on the floor of the House and Senate. It was part of all important debates.

But, nobody who has not read the documents for themselves will agree. They believe the revisionist version that white washes the slavery issue.

[Chris]

I didn't intend to summarize it for you. It has been years since I have read those documents. I guess the summary is - yes slavery was the number one issue discussed on the floor of the House and Senate. It was part of all important debates.

But, nobody who has not read the documents for themselves will agree. They believe the revisionist version that white washes the slavery issue.


And will continue to do so because you do not intent to communicate any about it. Up to you.

[Peter1469]

And will continue to do so because you do not intent to communicate any about it. Up to you.

Are you asking me to read the Congressional Record to you?

[Chris]

Are you asking me to read the Congressional Record to you?

No, just provide some sort of summary, some highlights, in context. Some to sink teeth into. Archer, right or wrong, gives an argument and in each post expands on it in various ways. You just keep repeating read the record, read the record, read the record.

[Peter1469]

No, just provide some sort of summary, some highlights, in context. Some to sink teeth into. Archer, right or wrong, gives an argument and in each post expands on it in various ways. You just keep repeating read the record, read the record, read the record.

I did provide a summary.

[Codename Section]

Sheesh

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html

[Chris]

Sheesh

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html


OK, I'll spend the next few weeks reading rather than ask someone who has read it. Sheesh.

[Chris]

I did provide a summary.


Forget it.

[Peter1469]

Forget it.

Already done.

[Archer0915]

Sheesh

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html

Thanks but... I can read it.

I do not want to debate this and I do not think Peter wants to either. We are just going to discuss this.

The issue is not the facts (I do not think he has disputed me nor I him) but our conclusions based on our knowledge of those facts and our perspective.

If we go down that road Peter is welcome to introduce items of that record...

The facts in the Record do not represent the reasoning behind it. It was a power grab that played on emotions and stupidity. The North did not want blacks working in society... They wanted an industrialized white west. They wanted higher tariffs as well which was not good for king cotton...

There were so many underlying issues. Like the power grabs of today... Nothing changes.

[midcan5]

OMG, more apologies for slavery. Having just returned from a trip south I wonder sometimes. Remove slavery and there is no war, that has to be clear to everyone including revisionist apologists but is it? Some time ago I had a discussion on this with a nephew who was in a college in the South and I was surprised anyone who has read the literature would think this was about anything else. The best apology anyone can reasonably make is the 'Walmart Rational' - raising prices would ruin us - or freeing our slaves will ruin us (any equivalence here lol). That's tongue in cheek but let me see what I can find in my DBs - links below:


"I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”


I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.


But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html


Links from above piece:
http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/Ordinance.htm
http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/Transcription_002.pdf


'What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War'


"Chandra Manning uses letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take the reader inside the minds of Civil War soldiers-black and white, Northern and Southern-as they fought and marched across a divided country. With stunning poise and narrative verve, Manning explores how the Union and Confederate soldiers came to identify slavery as the central issue of the war and what that meant for a tumultuous nation."


"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it." http://www.amazon.com/What-This-Cruel-War-Over/dp/0307277321


"An Analysis Of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession" http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html


SCOTUS on secession: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700


Admission of a State to the Union: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/annotation16.html#2


"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)



"You can't take the truth." from 'A few Good Men'

[Codename Section]

I just provided a link to the documents if anyone cares/cared.

Isn't this thread about how gays like to still pretend its the 1980s even though they get everything they want and go mafioso on you if you don't give it to them right away?

[Peter1469]

First time I agreed with Midcan.


OMG, more apologies for slavery. Having just returned from a trip south I wonder sometimes. Remove slavery and there is no war, that has to be clear to everyone including revisionist apologists but is it? Some time ago I had a discussion on this with a nephew who was in a college in the South and I was surprised anyone who has read the literature would think this was about anything else. The best apology anyone can reasonably make is the 'Walmart Rational' - raising prices would ruin us - or freeing our slaves will ruin us (any equivalence here lol). That's tongue in cheek but let me see what I can find in my DBs - links below:


"I can testify about the South under oath. I was born and raised there, and 12 men in my family fought for the Confederacy; two of them were killed. And since I was a boy, the answer I’ve heard to this question, from Virginia to Louisiana (from whites, never from blacks), is this: “The War Between the States was about states’ rights. It was not about slavery.”


I’ve heard it from women and from men, from sober people and from people liquored up on anti-Washington talk. The North wouldn’t let us govern ourselves, they say, and Congress laid on tariffs that hurt the South. So we rebelled. Secession and the Civil War, in other words, were about small government, limited federal powers and states’ rights.


But a look through the declaration of causes written by South Carolina and four of the 10 states that followed it out of the Union — which, taken together, paint a kind of self-portrait of the Confederacy — reveals a different story. From Georgia to Texas, each state said the reason it was getting out was that the awful Northern states were threatening to do away with slavery." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/opinion/19Ball.html


Links from above piece:
http://www.teachingushistory.org/lessons/Ordinance.htm
http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/Transcription_002.pdf


'What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War'


"Chandra Manning uses letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers to take the reader inside the minds of Civil War soldiers-black and white, Northern and Southern-as they fought and marched across a divided country. With stunning poise and narrative verve, Manning explores how the Union and Confederate soldiers came to identify slavery as the central issue of the war and what that meant for a tumultuous nation."


"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it." http://www.amazon.com/What-This-Cruel-War-Over/dp/0307277321


"An Analysis Of President Lincoln's Legal Arguments Against Secession" http://apollo3.com/~jameso/secession.html


SCOTUS on secession: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/74/700


Admission of a State to the Union: http://constitution.findlaw.com/article4/annotation16.html#2


"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114). Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)



"You can't take the truth." from 'A few Good Men'

[Chris]

I just provided a link to the documents if anyone cares/cared.

Isn't this thread about how gays like to still pretend its the 1980s even though they get everything they want and go mafioso on you if you don't give it to them right away?


Thought the thread was about freedom framed in terms of oppressed vs oppressor with a gay as example. But even the OP has returned to change topic.

[Archer0915]

Thanks but... I can read it.

I do not want to debate this and I do not think Peter wants to either. We are just going to discuss this.

The issue is not the facts (I do not think he has disputed me nor I him) but our conclusions based on our knowledge of those facts and our perspective.

If we go down that road Peter is welcome to introduce items of that record...

The facts in the Record do not represent the reasoning behind it. It was a power grab that played on emotions and stupidity. The North did not want blacks working in society... They wanted an industrialized white west. They wanted higher tariffs as well which was not good for king cotton...

There were so many underlying issues. Like the power grabs of today... Nothing changes.

If anyone can shoot down my arguments here I will surrender! No shame in being wrong but there is shame in pushing one side of an argument and claiming it is the only truth. Perhaps Peter and I are both doing that.

Peter I accept what you say but I just think it was a tool to an end, keep your thoughts and your opinions. I am man enough to accept that mine is not the only point of view here, are you?

[Peter1469]

If anyone can shoot down my arguments here I will surrender! No shame in being wrong but there is shame in pushing one side of an argument and claiming it is the only truth. Perhaps Peter and I are both doing that.

Peter I accept what you say but I just think it was a tool to an end, keep your thoughts and your opinions. I am man enough to accept that mine is not the only point of view here, are you?

Agreed.

[junie]

I just provided a link to the documents if anyone cares/cared.

Isn't this thread about how gays like to still pretend its the 1980s even though they get everything they want and go mafioso on you if you don't give it to them right away?



lol are you ascared of the gay mafia? :laughing4:

[Codename Section]

lol are you ascared of the gay mafia?

Bill Maher told me I should be. I trust him. :shocked:

[junie]

Bill Maher told me I should be. I trust him. :shocked:



it's those poor bigots who have to closet themselves these days...who doesn't weep for that kind of oppression...? :laugh:

[Codename Section]

it's those poor bigots who have to closet themselves these days...who doesn't weep for that kind of oppression...? :laugh:

What's a bigot?


Is it someone who thinks they should be allowed to get married, be openly gay, etc? Because that's me.

[Captain Obvious]

What's a bigot?


Is it someone who thinks they should be allowed to get married, be openly gay, etc? Because that's me.

It's someone who rejects the positions of others out of fear and ignorance, especially when those others are of no threat to anyone.

So, is that you?

[Terminal Lance]

It's someone who rejects the positions of others out of fear and ignorance, especially when those others are of no threat to anyone.

So, is that you?


Hold up. If I think your position is dumb I'm a bigot? I thought bigotry involved being mean to people instead of just disagreeing with them. When we did we have to agree with everyone in the United States?

[Codename Section]

Hold up. If I think your position is dumb I'm a bigot? I thought bigotry involved being mean to people instead of just disagreeing with them. When we did we have to agree with everyone in the United States?

Guess so. We're bigots if we don't go with the new status quo. You can't disagree without hating people anymore, Lance. That's the new freedom Bush and Obama have given us. We're free to agree with society.

Or is that the right to agree with society? I get those confused.

[Terminal Lance]

Guess so. We're bigots if we don't go with the new status quo. You can't disagree without hating people anymore, Lance. That's the new freedom Bush and Obama have given us. We're free to agree with society.

Or is that the right to agree with society? I get those confused.

It's the freedom to agree and the right to not be offended by mean people.

[Archer0915]

It's someone who rejects the positions of others out of fear and ignorance, especially when those others are of no threat to anyone.

So, is that you?

No, that is your definition and, fear and ignorance, have nothing to do with the word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

[Codename Section]

It's the freedom to agree and the right to not be offended by mean people.

Oh, that's right. I forgot. Thank you, kind sir.

[Captain Obvious]

Hold up. If I think your position is dumb I'm a bigot? I thought bigotry involved being mean to people instead of just disagreeing with them. When we did we have to agree with everyone in the United States?

Racism is harming someone you're bigoted against.

Bigotry is just dislike, fear based in ignorance.

In my humble, honest and typically 100% accurate opinion of course.

[Captain Obvious]

No, that is your definition and, fear and ignorance, have nothing to do with the word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Everyone's textbook all of the sudden.

Funny how that works.

:biglaugh:

For the record, I stand by my definition.

[Captain Obvious]

Usually bigots also, who suddenly get defensive.

[Archer0915]

Everyone's textbook all of the sudden.

Funny how that works.

:biglaugh:

For the record, I stand by my definition.

yes your definition is the definition of the ignorant so that anyone who disagrees with them is a Bigot...

SIR YOU ARE A

BIGOT

By your own definition.

[Captain Obvious]

yes your definition is the definition of the ignorant so that anyone who disagrees with them is a Bigot...

SIR YOU ARE A

BIGOT

By your own definition.

Circular reference.

Your only flaw is fear - I don't fear ignorance, I try to resolve it.

Then I mock it if it's too out of hand.

[Terminal Lance]

Usually bigots also, who suddenly get defensive.

There ya go, we're bigots because we disagree with you. The definition keeps changing.

I swear, I love America 2014. Can't wait til we're fined for cursing.

[Archer0915]

Circular reference.

Your only flaw is fear - I don't fear ignorance, I try to resolve it.

Then I mock it if it's too out of hand.

Bigot! You can not disagree with me! If you do not share my opinion you are a BIGOT.

[Captain Obvious]

Bigot! You can not disagree with me! If you do not share my opinion you are a BIGOT.

Don't forget racist.

[Captain Obvious]

There ya go, we're bigots because we disagree with you. The definition keeps changing.

I swear, I love America 2014. Can't wait til we're fined for cursing.

I've been on record, several times now supporting bigotry.

Hell, when I was a mod here I staunchly defended bigots and argued against any rulemaking against what was perceived as "bigotry".

I support your right to be a bigot, actively support it, thank you.

Now, do you have the balls to admit being one? Or are you just going to play defensive?

For the record, I never called you or anyone else a bigot - except Akula, Libhater (who are racists by definition).

[Captain Obvious]

Oh yeah, just to finish that thought.

No, there should be no rules, laws against bigotry. No punishments, no fines - you are constitutionally protected IMHO to be a bigot.

However... don't come crying to anyone when society ostracizes and/or rejects you.

Tough shit, bigot.

[Archer0915]

Don't forget racist.

Oh you are a racist as well?

[Captain Obvious]

Oh you are a racist as well?

I am many things to many people.

[Archer0915]

Oh yeah, just to finish that thought.

No, there should be no rules, laws against bigotry. No punishments, no fines - you are constitutionally protected IMHO to be a bigot.

However... don't come crying to anyone when society ostracizes and/or rejects you.

Tough shit, bigot.

Is society not being bigoted by attacking people for not having their opinion?

[Captain Obvious]

Is society not being bigoted by attacking people for not having their opinion?

Can you be a little more unclear?

[Archer0915]

Can you be a little more unclear?

A person chooses to support something that you do not support. No matter their reasons they are labeled a BIGOT! If they are against AA they are a Bigot! If they are against welfare they are a Bigot! If they are for drug testing for unemployment or welfare they are a BIGOT! If they are not pro gay rights they are a BIGOT! If they are a traditional Christian they are a BIGOT! Oh and only if they are white heterosexuals that is.

[Ravi]

Guess so. We're bigots if we don't go with the new status quo. You can't disagree without hating people anymore, Lance. That's the new freedom Bush and Obama have given us. We're free to agree with society.

Or is that the right to agree with society? I get those confused.Not remotely true. I don't think you're a bigot, in fact I doubt anyone on this forum thinks you are a bigot. If you'd just stop generalizing so much you my come across as a person of intelligence instead of someone with a chip on his shoulder.

[Archer0915]

Not remotely true. I don't think you're a bigot, in fact I doubt anyone on this forum thinks you are a bigot. If you'd just stop generalizing so much you my come across as a person of intelligence instead of someone with a chip on his shoulder.

Seems that works all ways around.

[Captain Obvious]

A person chooses to support something that you do not support. No matter their reasons they are labeled a BIGOT! If they are against AA they are a Bigot! If they are against welfare they are a Bigot! If they are for drug testing for unemployment or welfare they are a BIGOT! If they are not pro gay rights they are a BIGOT! If they are a traditional Christian they are a BIGOT! Oh and only if they are white heterosexuals that is.

Sure.

If supporting something that goes against what someone believes in even though it has no personal benefit and/or provides no protection against any perceived threat, simply because a certain group of people are disliked, misunderstood.

... yeah, you're right. Bigotry!

Now maybe you're finally getting it.

(doubt it)

[Captain Obvious]

What two gay people do in the privacy of their home - married or otherwise has no impact on heterosexual christians.

None.

The only reason to be anti gay marriage is because you're bigoted against gays.

Period.

All this "sanctity of marriage" is bullshit. 100% fucking bullshit. Just like "religious freedom", it's a red herring thrown in to mask bigotry, hatred and a purely political agenda.

So nah, you're not bullshitting me.

[Archer0915]

Sure.

If supporting something that goes against what someone believes in even though it has no personal benefit and/or provides no protection against any perceived threat, simply because a certain group of people are disliked, misunderstood.

... yeah, you're right. Bigotry!

Now maybe you're finally getting it.

(doubt it)

Nope I understand what you are saying but it applies to both sides of the argument.

[Archer0915]

What two gay people do in the privacy of their home - married or otherwise has no impact on heterosexual christians.

None.

The only reason to be anti gay marriage is because you're bigoted against gays.

Period.

All this "sanctity of marriage" is bullshit. 100% fucking bullshit. Just like "religious freedom", it's a red herring thrown in to mask bigotry, hatred and a purely political agenda.

So nah, you're not bullshitting me.

You see that is where you are wrong. I see gay marriage as nothing more that a stepping stone to protected status. AA for gays...

Forced (legal and promoted by the government) discrimination against heterosexual white males.

[Captain Obvious]

You see that is where you are wrong. I see gay marriage as nothing more that a stepping stone to protected status. AA for gays...

So?

What harm does that bring you?


Forced (legal and promoted by the government) discrimination against heterosexual white males.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001943211/934280166_TinFoilHatArea_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg


Awsome!

So bigotry against this group in order to calm your unsubstantiated paranoia is the right thing to do then?

Un... fucking... believable.

[Captain Obvious]

It just amazes me how people scrape the bottom of the barrel, to what lengths of ridiculousness they will go to when it comes to justifying blatant bigotry.

It's really laughable sometimes, I wish they could step out of their minds and see it for themselves.

[Archer0915]

So?

What harm does that bring you?



http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001943211/934280166_TinFoilHatArea_answer_2_xlarge.jpeg


Awsome!

So bigotry against this group in order to calm your unsubstantiated paranoia is the right thing to do then?

Un... fucking... believable.

We already have it. If they get the status then it boosts them up a bit. You can not deny it and you can take that tinfoil cap and shove it up your... Rectum!

[junie]

:laugh: 'status' as a citizen?



All persons (except gays?) born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside (except gays?). No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States(except gays?); nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (except gays?).

[Terminal Lance]

Who here doesn't want gays to get married?

Not me. I think people should marry who and what they want as long as its consensual and I think they should be able to leave their property to who they want without having to get married. I want more freedom not less. I don't like that single people now have to not only pay more taxes usually, don't have protections like married couples, and single males will bear the cost burden of Obamacare.

That's just not fair.

But two dudes or two chicks fucking...makes no diff to me.

[Chris]

It just amazes me how people scrape the bottom of the barrel, to what lengths of ridiculousness they will go to when it comes to justifying blatant bigotry.

It's really laughable sometimes, I wish they could step out of their minds and see it for themselves.


Equally laughable are those who scrape the bottom of the barrel and go to ridiculous lengths to accuse others of bigotry and racism when there's really none to be found.

[Chris]

:laugh: 'status' as a citizen?



All persons (except gays?) born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside (except gays?). No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States(except gays?); nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (except gays?).





If that were enforced it would bring this government to its knees.

[1751_Texan]

What decade do you live in? The CEO of Mozilla was fired because he doesn't condone gay marriage. Enough said, really.

If a company can fire a person based on their sexual orientation...without repercussion, what is the difference?

Are you fighting for the rights of gay employees to keep their jobs and not be fired for being gay?

[Terminal Lance]

I think that no one should be fired from a government job for reasons of age, sex, race, or orientation. I do think we should fire more of them, though.

Private companies should be allowed to do what they want and consumers what they want.

[1751_Texan]

And the unpopular position was...? He doesn't condone gay marriage.

My point is made. Twenty years ago he would have kept his position and gays weren't marrying.

20 years ago their would have been no position at Mozzilla to keep. Mozzilla was founded in 2003.

[junie]

If that were enforced it would bring this government to its knees.



i know, right? :laugh: the 'gay mafioso' would be all over that like white on rice!

[junie]

oh wait... :smiley:

[junie]

to be fair, it is definitely true there are many good people who are not bigots who oppose gay marriage.

people just need to understand the issue better and realize that their opinion of gays just-doesn't-matter.

http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php

[Peter1469]

Does anyone like the really long signature lines? I may start a poll on it.

[Chris]

:laugh: 'status' as a citizen?



All persons (except gays?) born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside (except gays?). No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States(except gays?); nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (except gays?).




Equally laughable are those who scrape the bottom of the barrel and go to ridiculous lengths to accuse others of bigotry and racism when there's really none to be found.


In case I was misunderstood, I meant even without the parenthetical statements, if that amendment were enforced it would bring our government to its knees.

[Archer0915]

Who here doesn't want gays to get married?

Not me. I think people should marry who and what they want as long as its consensual and I think they should be able to leave their property to who they want without having to get married. I want more freedom not less. I don't like that single people now have to not only pay more taxes usually, don't have protections like married couples, and single males will bear the cost burden of Obamacare.

That's just not fair.

But two dudes or two chicks fucking...makes no diff to me.

I really do not care what they do! THEM. I do care that the government does that affects me negatively. I see the potential for very bad things in the near future and the Gay Mafia makes more moves. Protected status??? Uhhhhhh... Prefered status! Affirmative Action... Uhhhhhhh.... Legal government promoted discrimination against non protected classes...
Wait we do not have a legal government.

[junie]

upholding the 14th amendment would bring our government to it's knees?? how so??

[Terminal Lance]

upholding the 14th amendment would bring our government to it's knees?? how so??

Upholding any of the first 10 would crush the United States right now.

[Captain Obvious]

Equally laughable are those who scrape the bottom of the barrel and go to ridiculous lengths to accuse others of bigotry and racism when there's really none to be found.

Glad you agree.

[Codename Section]

i know, right? :laugh: the 'gay mafioso' would be all over that like white on rice!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoectiG_n7k

[Chris]

i know, right? :laugh: the 'gay mafioso' would be all over that like white on rice!


I suppose, but here's the thing, the Constitution, and its amendments, were never intended to apply to the people, but to apply as permissions (the body) or prohibitions (the amendments) on what government might and might not do.

IOW, I agree with Lance:


I think that no one should be fired from a government job for reasons of age, sex, race, or orientation. I do think we should fire more of them, though.

Private companies should be allowed to do what they want and consumers what they want.


Am I personally against a private company not hiring or firing for those reasons, yes, I am, but it's not my business other than as a consumer with dollars to do anything or as a person with a voice to say something.

[Codename Section]

Does anyone like the really long signature lines? I may start a poll on it.


No one likes them. That's why some people do it.

[junie]

Upholding any of the first 10 would crush the United States right now.


please write a thesis and start a thread so we may ponder your bold assertion further...

chris, please explain the big problem with the 14th which would 'bring USA to it's knees'.

[Codename Section]

please write a thesis and start a thread so we may ponder your bold assertion further...

chris, please explain the big problem with the 14th which would 'bring USA to it's knees'.

Please condense your signature space so we're not all annoyed at having to see an old english guy.

[Chris]

upholding the 14th amendment would bring our government to it's knees?? how so??


Upholding any of the first 10 would crush the United States right now.



Because it is a great violator of those prohibiting amendments, a great trampler of our rights.

[Chris]

Equally laughable are those who scrape the bottom of the barrel and go to ridiculous lengths to accuse others of bigotry and racism when there's really none to be found.


Glad you agree.


Well, yes, and I carefully said "equally" for those who are bigots and racists and such deserve our scorn just as much as those who try to make others out as such when they're really not.

[junie]

Please condense your signature space so we're not all annoyed at having to see an old english guy.


i've already done that. finally you can rightfully say 'mine is bigger than yours'. :laugh:

[Peter1469]

No one likes them. That's why some people do it.

Maybe a poll is in order.

[Peter1469]

i've already done that. finally you can rightfully say 'mine is bigger than yours'. :laugh:

I had to thank that one.... :smiley:

[Ravi]

No one likes them. That's why some people do it.
I don't mind them. I have sigs turned off. Personal responsibility, baybee!

[midcan5]

I was engaging in the American Male's favorite pastime channel surfing last evening, and I saw that Honey Boo Boo was still on TV so I watched a bit, oddly it reminded me of this thread. I thought could Honey's family be Black or Hispanic or ?. I am also reading Cormac McCarthy's 'Suttree' and just returned from a trip South so the South was on my mind. Earlier my wife and I watched a bit of 'Southern Charm.' Yikes I thought, didn't 60 Minutes do a piece on the Healthcare Wagon in Appalachia North Carolina and the extreme poverty of a place where mountain tops explode and make more money for the entitled in America. Add then a commercial on childhood hunger in America and you have a stew of absurdity. Meanwhile we argue.... You are...No, you are.....


I noticed no one challenged this post? http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24302-Freedom-to-be?p=568697&viewfull=1#post568697


Bigotry is the conditioned, primarily unconscious, but deeply rooted response and stereotyping of those ideas and people different from us. It allows simple categorizing. Today in America it is evident especially in the talking points that play out like theater lines on TV, radio, and other media. Say certain words and the audience nods in unthought. This isn't as hard as some make it.


Homosexuality cause [this may be off line, I'll check later]: http://www.scottowen.org/topic/cause


"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." Lynne Lavner


"What deity in the realms of dementia, what rabid god decocted out of the smoking lobes of hydrophobia could have devised a keeping place for souls so poor as is this flesh. This mawky worm-bent tabernacle." Cormac McCarthy, Suttree


ACA, In America this is true? http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/affordable-care-for-those-still-uninsured/



"In the political turnover in the United States in the autumn of 1994, as previously indicated, those opposing aid to the poor in its several forms won their stunning victory with the support of less than one quarter all eligible voters, fewer than half of whom had gone to the polls. The popular and media response was that those who had prevailed represented the view and voice of the public. Had there been a full turnout at the election, both the result and the reaction would have been decidedly different. The sense of social responsibility for the poor would have been greatly enhanced." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Good Society'

[Codename Section]

Freedom does not equal entitlements, midcan5

Gays, blacks, and hispanics should be free to live their lives in peace. What is not "freedom" is when their lives are subsidized by the involuntary collection of revenue of other people.

FYI, I don't think any married couples should have rights automatically conferred and I think we all should be able to designate our SS to whomever we want it to go to.

[Chris]

I was engaging in the American Male's favorite pastime channel surfing last evening, and I saw that Honey Boo Boo was still on TV so I watched a bit, oddly it reminded me of this thread. I thought could Honey's family be Black or Hispanic or ?.....


No, you can put on a show about white trash like that but any other group you'd hear progressive screams of racism and bigotry.

[midcan5]

Freedom does not equal entitlements...


Not everything in life is an entitlement, you guys are like a broken record, some things are responsibilities, some things are owed to another by their legal contract, some things are legally due another because of their relationship. Get off the choir bus and start thinking on your own.





No, you can put on a show about white trash like that but any other group you'd hear progressive screams of racism and bigotry.


I did not call them 'white trash,' you did, and my point differed from your reading. How is it they can act this way but others cannot? If others acted this way would they have their own show?


OT - by the way the conservative stays LOL.

[Chris]

I was engaging in the American Male's favorite pastime channel surfing last evening, and I saw that Honey Boo Boo was still on TV so I watched a bit, oddly it reminded me of this thread. I thought could Honey's family be Black or Hispanic or ?.....


No, you can put on a show about white trash like that but any other group you'd hear progressive screams of racism and bigotry.


...I did not call them 'white trash,' you did, and my point differed from your reading. How is it they can act this way but others cannot? If others acted this way would they have their own show?

...


Did anyone say you called them white trash? Did anyone say your point was my point?



How is it they can act this way but others cannot? If others acted this way would they have their own show?

That was the point of my question to you, midcan, which you have done a remarkable job of deflecting. Try and answer.

[nic34]

bump


I noticed no one challenged this post? http://thepoliticalforums.com/thread...l=1#post568697 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/24302-Freedom-to-be?p=568697&viewfull=1#post568697)



Nope, no one can. It's the best post I've seen on the subject.

[Mister D]

I


Bigotry is the conditioned, primarily unconscious, but deeply rooted response and stereotyping of those ideas and people different from us. It allows simple categorizing. Today in America it is evident especially in the talking points that play out like theater lines on TV, radio, and other media. Say certain words and the audience nods in unthought. This isn't as hard as some make it.


:smiley_ROFLMAO:I love this guy.

Midcan, you know that's how our minds evolved, right? Without what you call "simple categorization" we probably wouldn't have made it. It's how human beings process the vast majority of their life experiences.

[Chris]

bump



Nope, no one can. It's the best post I've seen on the subject.



Several have, nic, just not to your satisfaction.

[nic34]

Several have, nic, just not to your satisfaction.

Ummmm, nope didn't see any on this thread ....

[Archer0915]

bump



Nope, no one can. It's the best post I've seen on the subject.

No but it is not the entire reason. Peter and I went over it for a long time. A good calm debate (not even a debate just sharing views) and we simply respected each others opoinions in the end and agreed to disagree... Like adults you know?