Is America’s house divided again?

Dr. L. John Van Til's picture

Having just viewed Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln,” and having observed Lincoln’s birthday, it seemed fitting to ponder one of Lincoln’s most famous speeches, and perhaps a lesson for Americans today.

On June 17, 1858 — less than three years before the Civil War — Lincoln gave his famous “House Divided” address while being nominated to run for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois.

Lincoln told his friends, who objected to that phrase, that he chose it because it was a biblical idea familiar to the American public. Lincoln quoted Jesus Christ: “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Mark 3:25).

Lincoln went on to say, “I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all of the other.”

At the time of the speech, Lincoln had already been intimately involved in national debates about the nature of the Union for more than a decade. He was prescient about many things, including the coming of war.

How did the Civil War come about and how did Lincoln understand it? What was the basis of this struggle that divided the nation? What prompted Lincoln to speak of a “house divided?”

The Founders had not settled the questions of black slavery and of sovereignty — both at the state and national levels. They did not because these issues were intimately tied together and at the heart of how the nation defined itself.

As for sovereignty, each state had claimed it fully under the Articles of Confederation. That document did not work well, so a convention was called to create a wholly new document — the federal Constitution of 1789.

But, the new Constitution did not deal directly with the questions of slavery and sovereignty either. The Founders, and their successors for several generations, were content to deal with these issues by a series of compromises. As we say today, they “kicked the can down the road.”

Typically, these compromises were like “The Compromise of 1820,” whose principle feature was to admit two new states at the same time — one with and one without slavery. Many, like Lincoln, had no difficulty with this practice because they believed that slavery as an economic system was failing and would die out in the face of the growing industrial revolution.

By 1850 the compromise system was breaking down as many Southern leaders began to vigorously advance the doctrine of the supremacy of state sovereignty. Moreover, the difference between an emerging industrial North and a continuing cotton-based, agrarian South revealed that the North and the South had different visions of what the nation ought to be. Lincoln understood this and spoke about it often.

The election of 1860 was crucial in deciding whether the house divided would stand or fall. Republican Lincoln was one of four presidential candidates in that election. He won. Southern states seceded. The war came. The primary issue was not slavery, but, as Lincoln said, the preservation of the Union. The Union won, and the house was no longer divided, or so it seemed.

During the war, and after, congressional statutes, constitutional amendments, and a reconstruction program abolished slavery and defined national sovereignty, all through the exercise of unprecedented federal power.

This is a very important point. Reconstruction ended in 1877, and national leaders turned their attention to the settlement of the West and a rapidly expanding industrialism. It took a long time — decades — but that expansive federal power used to end the Civil War continued to grow and eventually became an important political issue, even a defining one.

Historians routinely point out that the two World Wars, the New Deal, Square Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society all steadily expanded federal power. More recently, President Obama and his supporters have sought to dramatically increase federal power to achieve their new vision for America.

It seems to some that Obama’s agenda includes a use of power that echoes European-style socialist states. But, there is one huge difference: The American system grants considerable power to the president — which Obama’s followers seem eager to use, or threaten to use.

Perceptive observers see that the Founders’ view conflicts with Obama’s. Recent political gridlock in Congress and in the states is evidence of this fundamental division.

This division has not yet reached crisis proportions, but it may not be far away. There are murmurings in some states to secede in the face of massive and growing federal power. Moreover, it is possible that the federal government may spend itself into oblivion.

If Lincoln were with us today, he might ask: “Is America’s house divided again?” He might suggest, too, that it cannot stand unless the conflicting visions are resolved, one way or another.

[Dr. L. John Van Til is a fellow for humanities, faith, and culture with The Center for Vision & Values (www.VisionAndValues.org) at Grove City (Penn.) College.] © 2013 by The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Not all history is in 'textbooks'

Some claim that knowledge of some facets of history can only be found in textbooks. Many 'facts' regarding African Americans have been left out of textbooks until relatively recently - but there are sources other than 'textbooks' to get informations about Americans. Everyone knows about Google - but there is even a more comprehensive book available in the Fayetteville and Peachtree City libraries if one is interested in African American history. Our libraries in Fayette County are top notch - and the librarians are most professional and helpful.:

Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience

Google:
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=cw#hl=en&gs_rn=7&gs_ri=psy-ab&qe=Q...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
The question is why?

Why would some of the biggest achievements and other historical facts of Black Americans be left out. Was it intentional and if it was intentional why?

Anthony Johnson-The first slave owner held 5 slaves to work his tobacco farm... although it was claimed to have been in textbooks by one in the 50's this was in fact left out until 2010 and it is still only in a few in Texas. One should read up on that factoid the history is very interesting..

Then there are the Black Founding Fathers also not in the textbooks...

James Armistead-A spy for the Colonial forces against the British.. also a personal confidant and adviser of then General Washington

Prince Whipple-Another adviser to Washington and friend. Also was in the crossing of the Delaware

Wentworth Cheswell-First Black American elected to Office. Also the "other" rider in the now famous Paul Revere ride. He went the other way.

Fredrick Douglass-Considered the 3/5th clause in the Constitution to be anti-slavery and went on to help ratify the document.

Lemuel Haynes like our President born of a white women and black father went on to become a preacher in a WHITE church and fought in the American Revolution...

Benjamin Banneker-helped design Washington DC..

...and there are many, many others.

All Black Americans who helped shape America and made it the greatest Country that God put on this Earth.

So the question begs to be asked why? Why are these and others left out of the History books? Why are these same history books filled with nothing but the bad parts of our history particularly viewed through racism and slavery?

History should be taught. Warts and all. Let's leave out nothing. The good, the bad and especially the ugly so that we might remember where we where...and never will again be.

But yet that nagging question remains why were these left out? Would we look at history a little differently if they were included? Would maybe a whole generation of minorities feel pride instead of hatred for that period and for others? (Generalization not painting with a broad brush)

Would maybe a whole new generation of Colon Powell, Condolezza Rice or Clarence Thomas be out there today?

Maybe.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
History

"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past - G. Orwell

Mike Fairbanks
Mike Fairbanks's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/20/2013
The corporations wouldn't accept secession.

Today's corporations and individual investors would not tolerate secession now. Each state is far more interdependent than before the Civil War. How would companies headquartered in Atlanta (Home Depot, Coke, etc.) and companies headquartered in the north (Ford, GM, most banks) go about getting compensation? How many stores, dealerships, branches etc. are spread throughout the entire nation?

According to The Economist (based on IRS stats) (link provided below), most states are in the red when it comes to federal spending. Georgia is a net contributor, along with Texas and Arkansas. All the other Southern states are a drain on the others. Therefore, it would be unwise for any of them to advocate secession as they can't even pull their own weight now.

Perhaps we should entertain a Constitutional Amendment that mandates no state shall receive more than it puts into the system.

I think you would find many states that flirt with secession changing their tune quickly.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Dr. Van Til - The American System

"The American system grants considerable power to the president...."

The Constitution is the law of the land Doctor, the President shares equal power with the other branches of government. He can attempt to persuade Congress, he can file appeals through the Attorney General, he cannot wield dictatorial powers. There have been a few Presidents that have tried including Lincoln and FDR to do just that. One made war on the states to bend them to the will of the central government, the other attempted to change the structure of government itself, both were marginally successful, and that's the problem. Marginalizing the Constitution of the United States continues and the fundamental principles that created it have been forgotten.

It is a Representative Republic that we are losing Doctor, in favor of a Socialist Democracy. Democracy never works, it is mob rule.

Tyranny is the end game of the Lincoln legacy. The tyranny of the law itself.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
GOP Problems

If Bonnie Willis and other Conservatives around the USA really want to know why the GOP is a failing party, they need look no further than the columnists in the Fayette Citizen--especially the Grove College gaggle of wingnuts.

These Grove College nuts foster the idea that Americans should fear socialism represented by FDR,LBJ and now President Obama. And now Dr. Van Til casually throws around the idea of seccsion

The truth is that America is a pragmatic country. It accepts the New Deal, Fair Deal, and the Great Society because those programs helped the middle class. Only the nutwing of the GOP still fights those programs. Reagan, Nixon, and the Bushes all accepted the reality that those programs were beneficial.

But now comes the ultra conservative nuts of the GOP preaching some fantasy that demonizes all who accept those programs as socialists or dupes as best. Those wingnuts think our allies in Europe who have more progressive social programs as something beyond the pale that real Americans should not view favorably.

And now these wingnuts talk casually about states rights and secession.

Most American identify states rights with an ugly past--a defense of slavery and opposition to civil rights.

If the GOP wants to become part of mainstream America, it needs to free itself from the most extreme voices in its party--the extreme anti-government voices, the most extreme anti-abortion nuts, and the most extreme anti-gay positions. The GOP party cannot become more inclusive by
enslaving itself to the most narrow-minded within its reach.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
A fairy tale of Secession

Secession is really not a bad idea. Yes I know it will never happen but ponder this. In a country as large as this why do half the people have to live under laws that they do not believe in? Why should gay marriage be denied to half the population or forced upon the other half? So many topics like gun control, abortion, etc. How about we divide the country into 4 sections using the Mississippi river and the Mason Dixon line? Let one be ultra conservative, one be moderately conservative, one ultra liberal, and one moderately liberal. Let each stand as it's own country and let the people live in the land of the laws that make them happy. Isn't that the true definition of pursuit of happiness?

Some houses should be divided.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35

Houses that remain divided, fall. In a united house, there will be areas of disagreement, but the goal of the United States is for every citizen to have an equal chance to achieve. . . .and after more than 200 years, we seem to be getting there . Laws which discriminate against any American citizen and prevents them from achieving; enjoying equal rights - are almost extinct . Prejudice still exists.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-Were we wrong?

So you're saying that we were wrong to break from the British? Wasn't that the division of a house so to speak? The world in and of itself is a house divided. Some marriages don't work.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35 Dude

So you're saying that we were wrong to break from the British? No. We wanted a 'leader' - not a King or Queen - and we wanted to be able to advance in spite of the circumstances of our birth. We've done OK - and the British followed our lead!

Some marriages don't work. But Americans have the right to at least try to make a 'marriage' work. It's a personal decision - right?

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-Exactly
Quote:

So you're saying that we were wrong to break from the British? No. We wanted a 'leader' - not a King or Queen - and we wanted to be able to advance in spite of the circumstances of our birth. We've done OK - and the British followed our lead!

So then you agree that there are times a house should be split?

Quote:

Some marriages don't work. But Americans have the right to at least try to make a 'marriage' work. It's a personal decision - right?

Exactly. It is my personal decision. Not the governments. I don't feel that I should have to live under a government that thinks it has to make personal decisions for me. I'm not a sheeple. I can think for myself!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35 Dude

If your thinking/acting for yourself doesn't interfere with my right to think/act for myself - what's the problem? It's only when one thinks that giving me a 'right' to do something interferes with their right - that the problems begin. So far, this country has been able to handle these conflicts without splitting.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Deleted by poster

.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Dude--secession

Secession is a really dumb idea. The United States of America is not an Obama slogan but part of our U.S. Constitution. A Civil War and 500,000 dead decided once and forever that secession in not going to happen.

Secession is just another right wing, Neo-Confederacy fantasy.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Lion- When is Civil Disobedience justified?

Losing a war does not make the cause an unjust one.

Quote:

Wars do not decide who's right only who's left. Bertrand Russell

You are correct of course in that secession will not happen. So this is only a philosophical debate. But I can't understand why anyone would think that forcing millions to live under laws that they don't believe in is a good thing. If our fore fathers agreed we'd still be under British rule.

In the Henry David Thoreau essay "Civil Disobedience" he writes:

Quote:

individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice.

This country is already a house divided as far as the will of the people is concerned. And you think forcing millions to submit to laws that are against their beliefs is the answer?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35
Quote:

You are correct of course in that secession will not happen. So this is only a philosophical debate. But I can't understand why anyone would think that forcing millions to live under laws that they don't believe in is a good thing. If our fore fathers agreed we'd still be under British rule.

A whole lot of people believed in segregation and Jim Crow. Thank heavens for non-violent civil disobedience. Don't quite understand your lack of understanding.

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
DM-It's not always black and white.
Quote:

A whole lot of people believed in segregation and Jim Crow. Thank heavens for non-violent civil disobedience. Don't quite understand your lack of understanding.

I'm not surprised that you don't understand. Because you see my post had nothing to do with segregation, Jim Crow, or civil rights. My post started because I had asked myself a few questions like:

1. Does the government have the right to make moral decisions for me? (Gay marriage)
2. Does the government have the right to tell me as a productive, law abiding citizen that I can't own a gun? Or what type gun I can own?
3. Does the government have the right to spend my money in ways that I don't approve of and even steal more from me to spend?

My answer to these questions were no. But I realize that some may like being told what to do. I then read Lindsey's "I want a divorce" post and just expanded it to the point that I made a tongue in cheek suggestion that we divide the country into 4 parts with different laws so all could choose where they wanted to live. You see I'm afraid that this "House" is more in danger of falling if certain groups are forced to stay together. When kids in school don't get along at some point the teacher will separate them to avoid trouble. And this country is more divided today than it ever has been and our "Leaders" are more the cause than the solution. You see DM not everyone posts with only one topic in mind. At some point I'd like to have a few discussions on something other than civil rights.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35 Dude
Quote:

I'm not surprised that you don't understand. Because you see my post had nothing to do with segregation, Jim Crow, or civil rights.

When separation of 'groups' in the US - because they may not 'get along'; when limiting the 'rights' of certain citizens because of their sexual orientation; - then CIVIL RIGHTS becomes an issue. When Fred Garvin and Lindsey make 'right wing' comments which lead to confusion of the facts of history - I will interject. I certainly do have one topic in mind - the equal implementation of 'rights' in this country for all citizens. Your comments have credibility - and sometimes persons may not get your 'tongue in cheek' intention.

Quote:

1. Does the government have the right to make moral decisions for me? (Gay marriage)
2. Does the government have the right to tell me as a productive, law abiding citizen that I can't own a gun? Or what type gun I can own?
3. Does the government have the right to spend my money in ways that I don't approve of and even steal more from me to spend?

1. The government position in some states makes a moral decision for those who wish to have the 'right' to live with and love whomever they chose - and have the same privileges as one who is married. (Government (federal and state) should stay out of the 'marriage' business when it involves a religious ceremony. Those who choose to have civil ceremonies should not lose their 'rights' as a married couple - IMO.) The Supreme Court may decide this for us. No one can force me into a relationship that I do not morally approve of - the same with you - right? I and the 'government' should not have the right to prevent one from entering into a personal relationship. (Civil Rights)

2. Second Amendment rights are not in danger (IMO). I do believe that we, the people, (government) have the right to protect ourselves from those who would misuse military weapons to 'kill' without a declaration of war.

3. The government (we the people) have the power of the vote when we feel that those who have the priviilege of 'leadership' are misusing that power. It looks like after the 2012 election, we the people are realizing what power we actually have. I don't think there will be apathy regarding the responsibility of voting in the near future. (I hope)

I can only assume that in your lifetime, civil rights was not a personal issue for you. For those in this country who are now celebrating the freedoms that we enjoy which at one time during our lifetime, we could not enjoy - we are ever vigilant. If the Garvin's and the Lindsey's had not posted their opinions - to which they are entitled - I would have (and still do) understand your position.

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
Answers G35

1. No, the government should not have the right to make you enter into a Gay Marriage.

2. I think there has to be some type of limits...do you have the right to own tank with active weaponry? How about shoulder fired rockets? Where is the limit? That is the question.

3. We can control this by choosing carefully who we elect, but almost always you will not approve 100% of government expenditures.

That's the way I see it. :)

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Spy and DM

1. Marriage is not a right and therefore does not need to be addressed in any way by the government. Marriage is a civil institution that all societies in history have recognized and used as the best way to legitimize, protect and raise children as well as to solidify familial and political connections.

2. Why do you Spy think that the government, the very institution that the second amendment was created to keep in check, should decide for me where the limit is?

3. If you think that we the people have any control over this government through the election process you are sadly mistaken.

Thats how I see it. :)

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
G35 Dude

Thanks for sharing your opinion. :-)

Spyglass
Spyglass's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2008
g35

Fair enough..i think we agree more than not.

Oh yeah, my GS400 can take your G35, IF that is a car reference. :)

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Spy-GS400 vs G35
Quote:

Oh yeah, my GS400 can take your G35, IF that is a car reference. :)

It is a car reference. That debate seems to be going on here.

http://g35driver.com/forums/other-cars/66977-g-vs-lexus-gs400.html

Personally I wouldn't know. My G35 is an automatic that I bought new in 05. In 05 the automatics only had 280hp while the sticks had 298. So you're probably right. But when I win the lottery and get a new G37 and chip it we'll meet somewhere and check it out. LOL

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Segregation & Jim Crow
Davids mom wrote:

A whole lot of people believed in segregation and Jim Crow. Thank heavens for non-violent civil disobedience. Don't quite understand your lack of understanding.

The DEMOCRAT party were the champions of bringing both segregation and Jim Crow laws to America!!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Joe

Let's tell the whole story. When a Democratic president from Texas signed the Civil Rights / Voting Rights Bill - the Democrats of the south (Dixiecrats) became the Republicans of the solid south. Now we're looking at 'Purple' states - because people are not too proud of the 'racial' perception that goes with Red states. But you keep posting! Thanks!

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Dave’s Mom – I see that you remember the transition

Of course you are correct that the disgruntled, racially motivated whites in the South moved (over time) from the Democratic and Dixiecratic Parties to Reagan and Atwater’s GOP. However (and thankfully) these ideological dinosaurs are a distinct minority in the Republican Party and are just as embarrassing to the GOP as they were to the Democrats.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Stf

Yes, I remember - but I celebrate where we are today in this country. Those under 50 will learn history without this spin (Lindsey and Joe Kawfi)and move on to make sure that the sick period of manipulating based on racist ideas will not return.
This discussion shows that economic issues can be discussed and although there are different ideologies regarding solutions to problems, there are areas where consensus can be reached. Thanks for putting the 'transition' in correct perspective .

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
The only spin here...

...is yours. Again DM show me ONE just one Democrat that voted against the 64 CRA that switched Parties as YOU claim.

Just one DM is all it would take.

Oh and btw-noted that you absolutely refuse to touch the three separate reference sources by BLACK men...you would just rather claim I am spinning facts.

Neither you nor stf can prove your points... so everyone else has to be wrong..

Wow...just wow.

danz57
danz57's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2012
Strom Thurmond

Sen. Thurmond was elected to the Senate as a Democrat in 1954 and switched to the Republicans in 1964.

A member of Congress who switches parties usually loses all accumulated seniority. It is as if the were beginning again as freshman members. Definitely a disincentive to switch.

However, the larger point that segregationists and conservatives migrated from the Democratic to the Republic party over time is unassailable.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Danz57

This individual may or not believe you, for he/she is always 100% correct.

Quote:

However, the larger point that segregationists and conservatives migrated from the Democratic to the Republic party over time is unassailable.

I admitted to this individual that my assertion that it was an immediate 'turn-over' was incorrect. However, Lyndon Johnson was correct. When he signed the Votng Rights Act of 1965, the Democrats lost the southern states.

JeffC
JeffC's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/21/2006
deleted

...

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Couldn't find one huh..

...funny how sometimes we are so sure of what we learned in Government Schools only to find out that it is more Myth and Urban Legend.

There is a reason for that Jeff. Government/Progressive Democrats MUST keep these myths being perpetrated. A people who they believe has been wronged by one Party is a reliable voter for the other party. Forget the truth that doesn't matter.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Last Chance Mr. Lindsey

I’ll try one last time to assist you in understanding the shift of Southern politics from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Please read it slowly (or perhaps have your wife read it and explain it to you).

The Dixiecrats and Southern Democrats of the 1950s and 1960s did not immediately change party affiliation to the Republican Party. You are ACCURATE about that fact, but it misses the larger (and much more important) point that racial issues like forced school integration, the Civil Rights Act, the voting Rights Act, etc. repelled many Southern Democrats and Dixiecrats from the party they had been loyal to for 100 years. LBJ famously said to Bill Moyers after signing the VRA , “We’ve lost the South for a generation.”

Remember, the Republican brand was so tarnished during reconstruction in the South that few Southerners would come near it, even in the mid-20th Century. For instance, Sonny Perdue was the first Republican governor in Georgia from 1872 until 2002 (and he started his political career as a Democrat, switching only in 1998).

By the mid-1960s, the Southern Democrats and Dixiecrats had no attractive choices. Avowed segregationist, George Wallace, ran on the American Independent Party ticket in 1968 and won 5 Southern states (including Georgia).

Both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan utilized the “Southern strategy” to woo Caucasian voters to their camps, and eventually the strategy worked very well. Now the South is more solidly Republican than Democrat.

Racial issues are certainly not the only reason that the South is now more Republican, of course. The rise of suburban populations, the shift of U.S. population to the South, the retreat of the Southern agrarian economy, limited government initiatives, gun rights, and other issues have also played a part. However, the point here is to understand why the Southern racist of my childhood eventually moved from the Democratic to the Republican Party.

There are hundreds of web explanations for these points including: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-southern-strategy.htm. However, I am an eye witness observer throughout my lifetime.

Conclusion: Your statement that Dixiecrats and Southern Democrats did not immediately change party affiliation after the CRA is accurate (congratulations!). However, the larger point is that these racial issues were instrumental in the eventual change of party affiliation for racially motivated members of these parties. Many other non-racially motivated Democrats changed party affiliation for myriad reasons.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Apology for the tone of the posting Mr. Lindsey

I apologize for the condescending tone above. The facts are accurate, but I need not use supercilious rhetoric to make the points. The South’s history with race relations has been a very emotional experience for me throughout my life as I have witnessed so many instances of human indignity for no other reason than color. My tone emanated from this affect. I apologize.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
STF & Lindsey

Besides, you don't even know if he HAS a Wife! Never mind, if you ever get in a situation and all of a sudden discover that this lady in front of you has a Pink .380 in her hand, you'll know who you've encountered,esp. if there's a 6'6", 250lb guy nearby. Oh, and there's a good chance he'll be packing a .45!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
stf-No apology needed..

I am a big boy and can handle a little heated rhetoric.

stf the argument was and is did Democrats that voted against the 64 CRA switch parties as DM asserts?

No they did not and that sir is a fact that no one can change...

DM has asserted multiple times across years of posting that those Democrats switched parties and became Republicans and thus the reason for their racist views. That is a "fact" she has stated over and over. She is wrong. I was not arguing who or even which party was racist or not. I am a stickler for facts.. not myths or urban legends. DM is perpetrating propaganda and that stf is why I am debating the issue...

Like you said I am correct. I just wish I could get DM to see that.

You came in late to an old argument DM and I have had for years so I understand your stance... just are wrong on the reasoning.

Like the old saying everyone is entitled to their own opinion just not their own facts.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
STF: You have my respect

I don't always agree with you- usually I happen to-but it takes a man comfortable in his own skin, his own opinions, and respect and basic decency towards others to say that "maybe I went a little overboard here." Kudos to you. I'll try to follow that approach myself because sometimes I know I have fallen short.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
STF - Class

act pal. We need not debase our future with the soil of the past.

We all live in the same world, it's up to us to make it better than before.

For this, we don't need government, we simply need each other.

Happy Easter

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
In other words....

STF and DM cannot name one, not one, person that switched parties.

They, like most other bedwetting liberals like obama, make up crap to fit their own twisted minds.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Steve

Correct. The left continues to demonize the right as bigots and racists, when it is their own party that are the biggest culprits.

Just look at these examples:
- The outright voter intimidation by blacks against whites and the failure of the obama administration to prosecute said inimidators.
- They claim that because conservatives are for voter i.d. in order to provent voter fraud, that they are trying to stifle the minority vote. Meanwhile, the there have been several recent cases of voter fraud confessed to by liberals. The mainstream media doesn't care. They just continue to call conservatives racists.
- The lies regarding opponents of Obamacare spitting and hurling racial epithets at members of Congress.
- The call by Obama to argue and "get in their faces" (i.e., intimidate and beat them up) in regard to his opponents. obama's call for intimidation and physical attacks on his opponents
- The left continually attacts black conservatives in the most vile and disgusting terms, yet democrats remain mum about it.
The most recent such attack came from a liberal blogger who described tea party favorite Herman Cain as a “black garbage pail kid” and a “monkey” propped up to reaffirm white “superiority.”

The bedwetting liberal democrat party acts as if they are as pure as the driven snow, yet they are the most vile, hateful, violent, racist party in the U.S.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Joe it is not the Liberal I am concerned with...

...it is, however, the Progressives that are the problem. They are the ones pushing Socialism.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
..and here we go again
Davids mom wrote:

Let's tell the whole story. When a Democratic president from Texas signed the Civil Rights / Voting Rights Bill - the Democrats of the south (Dixiecrats) became the Republicans of the solid south.

DM please list those Democrats that switched parties. Please list those Democrats that voted against the '64 CRA and which ones exactly ended their careers as Republicans.

http://
www.black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth/

"The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore."

"Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies."

"Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home."

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
...and another

http://
truthbeforedishonor.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/the-dixiecrat-myth/

"I have noted this many times over the past couple years, but then the Liberals start talking about the Dixiecrat myth. First off, Liberals have to completely ignore what the Democrat Party said. “Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That’s why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers.” That quote is a Democrat lie. The histo-facts bear witness to that quote being a Democrat lie. And that’s why Liberals have to completely ignore the statement in pushing the Dixiecrat myth."

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
...and one more

http://www.freedomsjournal.net
/2011/10/22/urban-legends-the-dixiecrats-and-the-gop/

"The Dixiecrats During the Philadelphia nominating convention of the Democrat Party in 1948 a number of disgruntled southern segregationist democrats stormed out in protest. They were upset about planks in the new platform that supported Civil Rights.[1] They left to form a new Party called the State’s Rights Democratic Party also known as the Dixiecrats. Segregationist like George Wallace and other loyalists, although upset, did not bolt from the party; but instead supported another candidate against Harry Truman. According to Kari Frederickson, the goal for the Dixiecrats “was to win the 127 electoral-college votes of the southern states, which would prevent either Republican Party nominee Thomas Dewy or Democrat Harry Truman from winning the 266 electoral votes necessary for election."

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
The colorful party

Mr. Lindsey - You never cease to amaze. I guess next you will explain how that lily white Republican Convention last August in Tampa was just a mirage.

Cherry pick your "facts" and enjoy your fantasy world.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
stf...funny how I use facts and give sources...

...you give talking points and rhetoric.

Please tell us how any of which I posted was cherry picked and exactly what do you find it that is incorrect.

Remember simply disagreeing does not make you right...it just makes you disagreeable.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey / stf
Quote:

Remember simply disagreeing does not make you right...it just makes you disagreeable

Stf was absolutely correct - I was not.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Facts vs. Explanatory Concepts

Mr. Lindsey – You are quite correct that you cite facts in your postings. However, the citation of disparate facts without understanding their historical contexts results in proof-texting rather than elucidation. You are hardly alone – many students slept through U.S. history classes. Understanding Southern Democrats is a complex issue and warrants more space than a blog easily affords. Here’s a very quick explanation of the main points.

The radical Republicans and their promotion of African Americans so tormented Southerners during Reconstruction that the Republican brand was anathema for a century in the South. Racism was ubiquitous among the white Democratic Party, and the South willfully partitioned itself from the rest of the country, relying on a limited agrarian economy. The South was the poorest section of America, and this resulted in abject poverty for most African-Americans and very many whites.

During the Depression, FDR offered vast governmental welfare that the Democratic South readily embraced because it largely transferred Northern wealth to the Southern states (sticking it to the Yankees). When social consciousness for African-American equality emerged after WW II, Southerners were conflicted. They were attracted by the Democratic Party to which they had unyielding allegiance for decades and simultaneously repelled by this same Democratic Party’s advocacy for African-Americans. The driving issues were racial and economic rather than any visions for the limited government of today’s Republicans. Essentially, Southern Democrats wanted the federal government to continue sending them Northern money, but also to stay far away from their race relations. After LBJ “betrayed” the Southern Democrats, the writing was on the wall for a shift in party allegiance (and Johnson predicted as much). It still took several more election cycles (until 1980), but white Southerners came to embrace the Republican party as an alternative to the now tainted Democratic Party that welcomed ideological and racial diversity.

Alas, any credible understanding of the largely homogenous Republican Party and its Southern devotees must account for race. To suggest that this is a function of devotion to limited government ignores 150 years of Southern history.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
STF - Nice

Summation of this history, a little more than a little left out though, not that I expect to see everything in your post.

Here's a book you might enjoy reading.

"The Promise of the New South
Life After Reconstruction"

Edward L. Ayers

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Thanks Observer

I appreciate your encouragement. Of course, I omitted a huge amount of history in this summation. I only wanted to provide a brief history of the rise and fall of the Democratic Party in the South and how the old white Southern Democrats and Dixiecrats have now joined the GOP (along with many others who have concerns that are not primarily race-oriented).

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
STF - But

to label the GOP racist goes a bit too far, doesn't it? I am not for the GOP but I think labels are.....well.... stereotyping. It seems that the extremes of both parties have problems.

The real question for me is do we really think this system of government works? I say, no.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Not intended

Observer - I never intended to label the WHOLE GOP racist, and I am not asserting that at all. Please see my posts above.
Thanks.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
STF - Not you

specifically STF, I was carrying on a conversation, that's all. I didn't think you were calling the entire GOP racist. The question on the table is do you think this form of government can survive?

I don't think so because it is a social democracy, democracies always fail under their own weight. It's all about collective greed.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
stf-nice dodge

Facts vs. Explanatory Concepts????

In other words, I state a Fact, the Earth is round in juxtaposition to someones argument that the Earth is, in fact, FLAT. Your position is that someone can "Explain" that their "concept" of the fact in some way breaks the original argument and overlays the actual fact?

That sir, is total and complete non-sense. If you can't LOGICALLY argue that my facts are wrong OR argue that I have misinterpreted said facts then you are using a logical fallacy to argue your point is a non sequitur.

..the argument was over DM's continued and ever present charge that the Democrats that voted against the 1964 CRA switched to the Republican Party to continue their Racist ideas and thus the Republican Party is the home to racist. Thus the term was born Dixiecrat.

That is a LIE. That never occurred.

Now, did the Democrats LOSE the South and did the People switch to more Republican then Democrat... YES... but that can in no way infer that the reason was racism...actually since the Dixiecrat myth is just that a myth it shows that the population DISAGREED with the Democrats... It actually shows you the Population was less bigoted then the Politicians and the Democrat Party no longer held their values and Principles. (There's that Principle word again).. So the People of the South viewed the Republican Party a party, at that time, of limited Government and racial equality as more in line with what they actually believed. So as the old dinosaurs died out or left Government younger REPUBLICAN Politicians took over and turned the South from Blue to Red.

So is DM's Statement of Democrats that voted against the 64 CRA actually change parties true?

No and you nor DM can provide one shred of evidence to prove it. Just like Dr. Eric Wallace said.. It's just a Urban Legend.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
That explains it

And that explains why the democrat party had a grand kleegle of the KKK as Senator in their party until he died.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Good - You Get it

Yes, the Democrat Party of your youth was highly conflicted. There were many avowed racists then. There may be many now, but very few white ones are out of the closet.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Wrong Again

The only thing conflicted is your reasoning that excuses the outright racism that continues to plaguethe democrat party from the top down.
The democrat party is nothing but a bunch of lying, thieving, racist, hypocrites that prey on the stupid.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
That's Racist!
stranger than fiction wrote:

I guess next you will explain how that lily white Republican Convention last August in Tampa was just a mirage.

"A Conclave of Lily-White Racists"

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Actually it is factual, not racist

Joe - Because NBA owners want to field the best basketball players for their teams, they stock their rosters with 80% African-Americans.

Because middle and high income whites want to lead America in their image, they chose to vote Republican.

These are merely descriptions of what is happening in reality.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
That's RACIST!!
stranger than fiction wrote:

Joe - Because NBA owners want to field the best basketball players for their teams, they stock their rosters with 80% African-Americans..

"White People Celebrate Heat Loss in Exceedingly White Fashion."

You just can't make this crap up.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
I get it now....

The Democrat leadership is lily-white because they are closet slave-masters that wish to rule over an electorate that they believe to be beneath them.
It all makes perfect sense now. Have you seen the movie "Runaway Slave"? It's not too late to leave the plantation.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
What are you smoking?

The Democrat leader is an African-American President.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Wrong

He's not African-American. "African-American" is a statement of origin, not of racial identification. Don't tell me you're one of those idiot 'truthers'!
No, he's half-black/half-white, and he attended a racist, hate filled church and had a racist, hate filled mentor during his formative years. (After being raised by a Marxist) Obama hates white people, hence the reason why he wants to destroy America. It's the dream from his father. Get back at whitey.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/27/2012
Please take your medication!

Joe - Please take your medication quickly.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
stf...It is factual

...what did Joe say that is not?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Read The Invisible Man

Required reading during the Civil Rights movement. Nice 'spin' Joe! Ignorance is bliss!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Just a Reminder - Lee Atwater

In a 1981, Lee Atwater shared his strategy for getting the racists in our country to back the Republican Party.

Quote:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Racists are not in power anymore - regardless of the 'party' or ideology they embrace. The Republican Party can shake this racist perception - but it will take more than paying 10 million dollars to representatives to 'explain' the Republican Platform to minorities and women. Conservative principles used to be voiced in both political parties in this country - and by dropping the 'Atwater' strategy, this can occur again.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
All it takes...

.. to shake the perception is for propagandist to stop spreading propaganda and actually use facts instead of myths and urban legends.

But then when you have a agenda of race hustling no amount of facts even from BLACK educators makes a difference does it DM?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
G35 I would love a Divorce...

...just isn't going to happen however and right here is the reason it should happen...

lion wrote:

These Grove College nuts foster the idea that Americans should fear socialism represented by FDR,LBJ and now President Obama. And now Dr. Van Til casually throws around the idea of seccsion

The truth is that America is a pragmatic country. It accepts the New Deal, Fair Deal, and the Great Society because those programs helped the middle class. Only the nutwing of the GOP still fights those programs. Reagan, Nixon, and the Bushes all accepted the reality that those programs were beneficial.

In other words we should just ACCEPT Socialism because it was beneficial to some... Hey Lion... could you show us just where anywhere in the World
Socialism has ever WORKED?

The problem is just as Margaret Thatcher said.." The Problem with Socialism is.... you eventually run out of other people's money".

We are fast approaching that prediction. Socialism like it's older Cousin Communism like Whoopie said "Looks good on paper..but... People get involved and screw it up".

btw- there lion... was there a call from the people for SS? Did they ask their Politicians for it?

As for me Lion I will keep fighting Socialism for as long as I have a breath. You want it so bad I hear Venezuela is looking for a new leader.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

I get it!! To you 'socialism' = 'integration of American citizens' HMMMMMM.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm you are not half as smart as you think you are...

... Where in anything I said did I mention Integration?

Go take your pills Dm...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Lindsey

Never - that's the point Sir. Many here in Fayette County celebrate the progress that has been made here since the days of Jim Crow and segregation. :-)

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
OK..DM you are not making sense again..

... again where did I say Socialism = Integration...or as usual is this just your interpretation of what you think I "really" meant.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Lindsey

It's called spin.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO. Spin? No
Quote:

It's called spin.

No - as it's been pointed out to me, it's the sad attempt by insecure persons who have a difficulty accepting the successful integration of all Americans in our country. Ignorance and bigotry worked in the 80's - but this is 2013 and the demographics throughout our country has changed. The enemies of our country would love to see the United States divided based on a perceived 'race problem'. We as a nation throughout history have tried to solve our problems through non-violent dialogue. The wars we initiated were for 'freedom' and 'protection' of our citizens. (There are those who would challenge me on that last statement in regards to our current involvement in the Middle East.). Our weak spot, (Archilles heel), is 'race'. In the eyes of the world, we are overcoming that weak spot. On the whole, we are not divided based on 'race', but on the correct way to work our way out of this economic mess we and other parts of the globe are dealing with. Not spin - but my perception of life in my country as 5 generations of Americans have lived it.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM your back must really hurt....

.... from that HUGE chip on your shoulder. You might try to knock it off once and awhile. You might just find you feel better.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTCO...I know it is what DM does..

DM, Jeff, stf and others don't have actual factual History on their side, but they do have revisionist History, however, so they will continue to use that no matter how many times you prove them wrong.

There is never one more blind then the one that will not see.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Fact vs. "Fact"

Take my advice on this Lindsey, ignore her. She always goes down the well worn paths that so many other exploiters have walked, there is no happy ending in it, unless you are one of the select few.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
I for some reason PTCO...

...love beating my head against that wall.

I really need to kick that habit.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Two simple questions for PTCO and LINDSEY

Do you feel that citizens in these United States should have equal rights and opportunities regardless of sex, race, or religion?

Do you celebrate the progress in 'race relations' in the United States since the Civil Rights Movement?

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Simple Answers

Yes

Yes

What I don't celebrate is racism by any color.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
A question - PTCO

Thank you for your 'simple answers'. Another question: How has 'institutioalized racism' negatively affected you? I have no idea regarding your ethnicity - and don't need to know it .

Your answer is not important in debating - but will be interesting in the discussion of race relations in these United States. Thanks.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - What

do you mean, your question is not clear to me. What do you mean by ""institutioalized"(sic) racism"?

I can tell you how the civil rights movement improved my life over the last 50 years or so. I can walk into a restaurant with my friends and not get beaten up for doing so. I don't have to worry about the police coming to my door and threatening me and my friends for going a restaurant together. I don't have to worry when I walk down a street with friends. I don't have to worry about the police killing one of my friends. I don't have to worry about seeing a man and woman of different colors married with beautiful children. Nothing about racism has affected my life DM because I refuse to let it. You can't change people, you can change laws but you can't change people. We will always have racism, it will never leave us because it is human nature. You can never pass enough laws to change the human heart. Jim Crow laws were laws DM, the police attempted to enforce them, they failed because they weren't consistent with the Constitution and a lot of people suffered to get rid of them. You can relax, they are gone now.

I have served in a desegregated military and every Marine was a Marine. They weren't a white Marine, black Marine, Asian Marine, or a Hispanic Marine....they were Marines first. I saw all of them sacrifice for this country, some with their lives.

I have met some of the most talented, skilled and successful business people that I would have never met before the civil right movement. People that take risk, fail, risk again and become successful (all without government help). I have a wide variety of friends of various hues and quite frankly race never comes up. It's simply not an issue with how we interact. It also may surprise you that I have gay relatives, friends and associates. I have Asian family, friends and associates. I have Irish family, friends and associates. I have Hispanic friends and associates. None of it means anything, because it doesn't matter to us DM. It simply doesn't matter.

Now if your referring to institutionalized victims, well that's another story. They like to continually bring up race, gender, etc., they like to highlight differences, they like to feel important by "representing" an entire race or group. So, how do they make my life more difficult? They separate us and I suppose they do it out of self interest. They make it more difficult to meet people without preconceived notions. They make it difficult for others to see beyond color. There are no "race relations" unless they are the human race. There aren't men and women, blacks or whites, there are people of ability, skill, honesty, ethics and hard work. These are people I want to know and associate with at all levels.

We simply see the world differently; you cast dispersion, doubt and discord. You throw around race or gender like some personal rag doll. I attempt to live my life absent the superficial differences in people and look to their core values, how they act and not how they talk. If they act outside my core values, well I don't associate with them. I know, you would like to pass a law to make me associate, but I would refuse anyway. I would become a criminal in your world.

BTW I can assure you, I will never be seen at one of your speeches, rallies, whatever, I have better things to do, like spending time with my family, friends and associates. Besides your rhetoric sounds too familiar to me, it sounds like Lester Maddox, he too loved to point out "injustice" and differences. Perhaps you could run for Governor.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
PTCO

Most men who have experienced what you claim to have experienced would not have even bothered to participate in this discussion - or claim that I cast dispersion, doubt and discord. What ever gave you the idea that I speak at 'rallies'? My words have expressed my pride in being a resident of Fayette County - for I was here in Georgia when integrated groups were beaten. They weren't beaten for their ideological beliefs - but for the color of their skin and being 'together'. There were many 'whites' who sat side by side with 'blacks' during the Civil Rights movement. It doesn't sound like you were one of 'those'. What that experience taught me is that not all 'whites' in the south or in this country were hateful and/or prejudice.

You obviously don't know what constitutes or constituted 'institutionalized racism' . That is not really important.

Not many Marines that I know have given up on 'democracy' - which many of your Marine buddies and Marines throughout history have fought and died for. Thanks for your participation. I've learned a lot.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
DM - There you go again

Being judgmental again, don't you ever stop?

You asked a question I attempted to answer it. Take it or leave, it makes no difference to me.

You learned nothing based on your response to my post DM, nothing.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Beating that head against that wall too PTCO...

...on the upside she said she is never going to respond to me again so I do have that going for me.

snappynappy
snappynappy's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2007
PTCO

Bravo my good man, Bravo!

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
PTCO - Celebrate

A celebration is an event. One usually celebrates birthdays, anniversaries, individual accomplishments, etc. etc. Not sure how you would 'celebrate' diversity or something that has happened over time. Do you have the celebrations at your house? When is the next celebration?
Normal people just go about our daily lives without the need to celebrate day to day life. We are certainly thankful for each day the Lord brings us, and we are thankful that we live in a mostly peaceful and safe society. We don't necessarily celebrate it though and don't need the race hustlers and race pimps to judge us because we don't 'celebrate' something with festivities.

It interesting that while most of us are just trying to get on with our lives, there are crap-weasels like 'Reverend' Luis Leon chose the holy day of Easter to preach hate and division. Yes, this crap-weasel said this in his 'sermon' to the Obama's today:

"It drives me crazy when the captains of the religious right are always calling us back ... for blacks to be back in the back of the bus ... for women to be back in the kitchen ... for immigrants to be back on their side of the border."

Notes from Reverend Luis "Crap-Weasel" Leon's message to the left.

Note that reverend Crap-weasel didn't provide any facts to back up his claim. He just used his brush of hatred to paint all religious conservatives the same color.

Obama seems to gravitate towards the preachers of hate and division. Birds of a feather.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Celebrate?

Fourth of July. All Americans 'celebrate' this event. How about you? The first man to die in the Revolutionary War was Crispus Attucks (His skin was the same color as our current president.). The others were immigrants from England, Scotland, Ireland, etc. ( I guess it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that Mr. Attucks had roots in Africa.)

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
Correction, DM...

...as the Boston Massacre was 6 years prior to the Revolution, but of course was part of the chain of events leading up to the war (the battles of Lexington and Concord were the first 'official' military engagements of the war; they were fought on April 19, 1775, with of course the 'declaration' being made July 4, 1776). Attucks was one of six killed in the massacre. FYI, John Adams, our 2d president, was actually the defense lawyer for the British officers tried for the deaths!