Republicans..The real allies of African Americans

[Dragon]

Well I'm going to leave it there for now because we are slightly off topic your posts just shows the working of the liberal mind and it's view of this country and it's founding.

It shows the fact-based mind and its view of the country and its founding. Any reputable historian will say the same things I did above, whether or not he's a liberal.

 

[daveman]

Well I'm going to leave it there for now because we are slightly off topic your posts just shows the working of the liberal mind and it's view of this country and it's founding.

It shows the fact-based mind and its view of the country and its founding. Any reputable historian will say the same things I did above, whether or not he's a liberal.

Name a conservative historian whose work you respect.

 

[Dragon]

Name a conservative historian whose work you respect.

Henry Adams.

There are several, actually, but that's going by the dictionary definition of "conservative" of course.

 

[daveman]

Name a conservative historian whose work you respect.

Henry Adams.

There are several, actually, but that's going by the dictionary definition of "conservative" of course.

You picked a guy who's been dead for 94 years?

How about someone still alive?

 

[Dragon]

Name a conservative historian whose work you respect.

Henry Adams.

There are several, actually, but that's going by the dictionary definition of "conservative" of course.

You picked a guy who's been dead for 94 years?

How about someone still alive?

Are there any conservative historians still alive? The problem is that while that used to be possible and even common, the modern "conservative" movement is all based around a denial of facts including large-scale historical revisionism, so that serious historians, just like serious scientists, won't be caught dead having anything to do with it.

Perhaps I've missed some, though. Remind me, if so.

EDIT: While we're having this digressive discussion, I feel I should remind everyone exactly what it's about. Jroc was making the claim that the U.S. Constitution was an anti-slavery document from its beginning. I pointed out that it's going to be impossible to find any historians of repute to agree with that. So while we're playing around with this "liberal/conservative historian" red herring, someone might try to find anyone's informed and serious opinion that agrees with what Jroc was saying. Failure to do so will support my claim that this is not a "liberal" but simply a fact-based position.

 

[daveman]

Henry Adams.

There are several, actually, but that's going by the dictionary definition of "conservative" of course.

You picked a guy who's been dead for 94 years?

How about someone still alive?

Are there any conservative historians still alive? The problem is that while that used to be possible and even common, the modern "conservative" movement is all based around a denial of facts including large-scale historical revisionism, so that serious historians, just like serious scientists, won't be caught dead having anything to do with it.

Perhaps I've missed some, though. Remind me, if so.

Just as I thought. You're a closed-minded partisan hack.

Dismissed.

 

[Dragon]

Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.

You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.

That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?

 

[daveman]

Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.

You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.

That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?

You can stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but I feel no obligation to defend an opinion I haven't expressed.

 

[Dragon]

Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.

You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.

That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?

You can stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but I feel no obligation to defend an opinion I haven't expressed.

Thank you. I'll take that for a "no." (Which only proves that there are posters here who are stupider than you are.)

That being the case, why are you, as you put it, defending an opinion -- Jroc's, specifically -- that you haven't expressed, and probably disagree with?

 

[daveman]

Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.

You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.

That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?

You can stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but I feel no obligation to defend an opinion I haven't expressed.

Thank you. I'll take that for a "no." (Which only proves that there are posters here who are stupider than you are.)

That being the case, why are you, as you put it, defending an opinion -- Jroc's, specifically -- that you haven't expressed, and probably disagree with?

My goodness, you're not very bright.

I'm not defending Jroc. I'm questioning your standards for judging the validity of historians' work.

As I suspected, and as you so amply proved, it's purely political.

 

[Jroc]

Just as I thought, the whole thing was a red herring. Par for the course.

You can remove that stigma by simply answering the above question yourself, Dave: was the Constitution, in your opinion, an anti-slavery document at the time of its original ratification.

That's really the question, and everything else is just fluff. Yes or no?

You can stamp your feet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, but I feel no obligation to defend an opinion I haven't expressed.

Thank you. I'll take that for a "no." (Which only proves that there are posters here who are stupider than you are.)

That being the case, why are you, as you put it, defending an opinion -- Jroc's, specifically -- that you haven't expressed, and probably disagree with?

The title of the thread genus

"Republicans..The real allies of African Americans"

Of which I've provided tons of info all through this thread. The Decenters?...Not so much, Now if you want to start a thread on the pro slavery Constitution of the United States be my guest, I'll be happy to contribute to it

 

[Dragon]

I'm not defending Jroc. I'm questioning your standards for judging the validity of historians' work.

In other words, you're contributing nothing of substance to the discussion, but merely being an ass, as usual.

Dismissed.

 

[Dragon]

Now if you want to start a thread on the pro slavery Constitution of the United States be my guest, I'll be happy to contribute to it

It was germane to an earlier part of the same discussion, but if you want to abandon it now, that's fine.

Once again, my problem with your thread title is the implied present tense. If you had said that the Republicans WERE or USED TO BE the real allies of African Americans, no one would have a quibble; obviously that's true. But in pretending that the Republican Party today is the same party, holding the same positions, that it did back when that was true, you are presenting an untruth. And that could not be more obvious.

 

[Jroc]

Now if you want to start a thread on the pro slavery Constitution of the United States be my guest, I'll be happy to contribute to it

It was germane to an earlier part of the same discussion, but if you want to abandon it now, that's fine.

Once again, my problem with your thread title is the implied present tense. If you had said that the Republicans WERE or USED TO BE the real allies of African Americans, no one would have a quibble; obviously that's true. But in pretending that the Republican Party today is the same party, holding the same positions, that it did back when that was true, you are presenting an untruth. And that could not be more obvious.

Implied indeed, Asserted definitely... Now if you'd have bothered to read though entire thread you would have known this.

 

[Dragon]

Implied indeed, Asserted definitely... Now if you'd have bothered to read though entire thread you would have known this.

Whether asserted or implied, it's bullshit.

 

[Jroc]

Implied indeed, Asserted definitely... Now if you'd have bothered to read though entire thread you would have known this.

Whether asserted or implied, it's bullshit.

If you say so.... Anyone who takes the time to actually read through this thread might think otherwise. They'd also see that you've got nothing.

 

[Dragon]

If you say so.... Anyone who takes the time to actually read through this thread might think otherwise.

No they wouldn't. Anyone who came to that opinion would have demonstrated their complete inability to THINK at all.

 

[daveman]

I'm not defending Jroc. I'm questioning your standards for judging the validity of historians' work.

In other words, you're contributing nothing of substance to the discussion, but merely being an ass, as usual.

Dismissed.

Well, aren't you a pompous little bastard.

You sure do get upset when your hyperpartisanship is exposed, don't you?

You may think it's cleverly hidden, but it's astoundingly obvious. That's because you're not nearly as clever as you think -- by several orders of magnitude.



Yes, boy -- I'm laughing AT you.

 

[Dragon]

Well, aren't you a pompous little bastard.

You sure do get upset when your hyperpartisanship is exposed, don't you?

You think I'm upset, Dave? Nonsense.

You can't do anything here that would upset me; that requires actions in real life. You can contribute to the discussion, or you can try to make it all about me. If you do the first, I'll answer. If you do the second, I'll blow you a raspberry.

Either way, I'm not upset. If I ever am upset (and that would require us actually knowing each other), trust me, you'll know.

 

[Jroc]

Democrats are for aborting black babies because they are black...

The House of Representatives voted down a bill Thursday that sought to ban sex-selective abortion, 246-168, according to the Washington Post. The bill “failed to pass as House Republicans brought it up under a suspension of normal rules that required it to earn a two-thirds majority vote.” The Prenatal Non-discrimination Act would have created legal penalties of up to five years in prison for anyone who knowingly “performs an abortion knowing that such abortion is sought based on the sex, gender, color or race of the child, or the race of a parent of that child.” Just seven House Republicans voted against the bill, with 20 Democrats voting in favor of the ban

U.S. House Democrats defeat sex-selective abortion ban | The Raw Story