The reason pussharder wants this to become about abortion is that he is out of his depth when it comes to the original topic.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think Lincoln’s war on the Confederate States ended what was created by the founding fathers.[/quote]
And thank God for that.[/quote]
Only the founding fathers didn’t ‘create’ slavery. Many were against it. Many tried to insert an anti-slavery clause during the constitutional convention but were stymied by Southern land owners. Slavery had been the norm since time immemorial. It couldn’t be stopped over night. And it didn’t end in practice until decades after the end of the war. The biggest abolitionists? Christians.[/quote]
Never said any of this wasn’t the case. Some it already been covered.
Doesn’t change the point–the Founders created a slave state, it got the death it deserved, thank God. Simple and true.[/quote]
The Founders also created:
A woman’s suffrage-less state
A heterosexual marriage only state
A property owner’s only suffrage state
A system of federalism where individual states could make laws “respecting an establishment of religion”
A state that could appropriate the legally deeded lands of the Cherokee nation and others by sheer threat of force
…and so on and so forth with many more available examples.
[/quote]
And thank God each of those states suffered and died as they did.
[quote]
Should we also make a list (one of negative and malignant acts) of what the descendants of the Founders have now created?[/quote]
I think that’s what PWI is.
Yes. Can I say that I’m happy Syphilis was cured, despite the fact that HIV hasn’t been?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Speaking of 1861 Mississippi churches who failed to join the abolition movement that Northern churches espoused, I think you’d find it’s the opposite today in regards to abortion.
Funny deal.[/quote]
Southerners are better to babies, Northerners are better to blacks. Nobody’s perfect, I guess.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Only the founding fathers didn’t ‘create’ slavery. Many were against it. Many tried to insert an anti-slavery clause during the constitutional convention but were stymied by Southern land owners. Slavery had been the norm since time immemorial. It couldn’t be stopped over night. And it didn’t end in practice until decades after the end of the war. The biggest abolitionists? Christians.[/quote]
Yep…don’t know if it has ended in practice even now…unless you were just referring to the United States. If you thought I was referring to slavery when I talked about what the founding fathers created in my original post, I was not-I was talking about the Constitution they created.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A property owner’s only suffrage state
[/quote]
And thank God each of those states suffered and died as they did.
[/quote]
Why is it a good thing that someone who does not own property can vote to decide how another’s is used?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A property owner’s only suffrage state
[/quote]
And thank God each of those states suffered and died as they did.
[/quote]
Why is it a good thing that someone who does not own property can vote to decide how another’s is used?[/quote]
Things would surely look different if old fashioned suffrage laws were still in effect. Big time.[/quote]
Yep! Our rulers no longer acknowledge any limits on their powers, and get to steal to purchase votes from those who have no legitimate right to vote.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think Lincoln’s war on the Confederate States ended what was created by the founding fathers.[/quote]
And thank God for that.[/quote]
Only the founding fathers didn’t ‘create’ slavery. Many were against it. Many tried to insert an anti-slavery clause during the constitutional convention but were stymied by Southern land owners. Slavery had been the norm since time immemorial. It couldn’t be stopped over night. And it didn’t end in practice until decades after the end of the war. The biggest abolitionists? Christians.[/quote]
Never said any of this wasn’t the case. Some it already been covered.
Doesn’t change the point–the Founders created a slave state, it got the death it deserved, thank God. Simple and true.[/quote]
The Founders also created:
A woman’s suffrage-less state
A heterosexual marriage only state
A property owner’s only suffrage state
A system of federalism where individual states could make laws “respecting an establishment of religion”
A state that could appropriate the legally deeded lands of the Cherokee nation and others by sheer threat of force
…and so on and so forth with many more available examples.
[/quote]
And thank God each of those states suffered and died as they did.
What?
The point was that the link you established was a false one. Of course we can say that slavery was a moral wrong and that it’s damn good thing the wrong was corrected, entirely irrespective of abortion.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A property owner’s only suffrage state
[/quote]
And thank God each of those states suffered and died as they did.
[/quote]
Why is it a good thing that someone who does not own property can vote to decide how another’s is used?[/quote]
Because that isn’t the only thing determined by voting. Obviously.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why is it a good thing that someone who does not own property can vote to decide how another’s is used?[/quote]
Because that isn’t the only thing determined by voting. Obviously.[/quote]
Are you sure? If government didn’t allow some to use money belonging to others, it really wouldn’t be much of anything, would it? I can’t think of anything else that government does. At least when property owners vote on how property is used, they have to be wary of the fact that any decision they make to take another’s property will set a precedent allowing their own to be taken.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Why is it a good thing that someone who does not own property can vote to decide how another’s is used?[/quote]
Because that isn’t the only thing determined by voting. Obviously.[/quote]
Are you sure? If government didn’t allow some to use money belonging to others, it really wouldn’t be much of anything, would it? [/quote]
But it does, so it is much of many things, so everybody votes.
If only property owners voted, the government would not disband as per your desire. Somebody would get elected, would continue to pass/enforce/interpret (in the case of appointees) law with universal effects, so on.
By the way, many people who don’t own property pay taxes.
Lincoln HATED slavery, but he had no intention to end it. His intention was to preserve the union by any means. Slavery became the very thing that was tearing the nation apart, so ending it was a means to an end of keeping the union together. Ending slavery wasn’t an end in itself as an accomplishment, it was a means to an end.
"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.
“I think slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio” (September 17, 1859), p. 440.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
A property owner’s only suffrage state
[/quote]
And thank God each of those states suffered and died as they did.
[/quote]
Why is it a good thing that someone who does not own property can vote to decide how another’s is used?[/quote]
Because property owners can decide if a non-property owner’s life can be lost when they vote for a war. So if property owners want non-property owners to not vote then property owners should be the only ones who join the military. Property owners get the benefits of the collective, which includes property owners and non-property owners, so they must defer to the collective.
Kind of seems like who gets to vote should be decided on who it involves or who is affected.
Notes of a fed-up Southerner
[quote]Wavy wrote:
Notes of a fed-up Southerner
Funny, but a metric asston of hypocrisy over every inch of that blog post and so much wrong it would be hard to get in one post 