The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[Foxfyre]

And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.

Nor do they consider that it was white, mostly devoutly Christian, people who forced the abolishment of slavery to the forefront and they seem to discount the great price in blood and treasure in a terrible war that ended slavery in this country and ultimately ended segregation as well. To judge past cultures on a modern sense of morality is generally pretty tunnel visioned; most especially when a blind eye is tuned to the immorality and/or injustice of one's own time.

 

[bodecea]

And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.

Hardly. Interpol has one of it's largest sub bureaus on human trafficking...which is only 2nd to Drug trafficking and a greater problem than gun trafficking. But you might want to check your last assertion.....Russia and SE Asia are pretty high on the list as sources.

 

[bodecea]

In order to have stolen land one must have had to own it. The indians never owned the land.

What the heck were the Indians doing on the white man's land!!!!!!?


And I do have to ask....if the Indians didn't own the land, why did they have conflicts with other Indian tribes and with the white men over ownership of the land?

It wasn't the white man's land until we claimed it.

They had conflicts with other tribes for many reasons, none of which was over the ownership of land.

Truely? What were their conflicts over then?

 

[bodecea]

And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.

Hardly. Interpol has one of it's largest sub bureaus on human trafficking...which is only 2nd to Drug trafficking and a greater problem than gun trafficking. But you might want to check your last assertion.....Russia and SE Asia are pretty high on the list as sources.

Oh, btw, Allie...I did a check here:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/HT-globalpatterns-en.pdf

Look particularly at the Figure 26 map on page 59....your assertion about "Conducted primarily by Islam" is very wrong.

 

[bodecea]

And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.

Nor do they consider that it was white, mostly devoutly Christian, people who forced the abolishment of slavery to the forefront and they seem to discount the great price in blood and treasure in a terrible war that ended slavery in this country and ultimately ended segregation as well. To judge past cultures on a modern sense of morality is generally pretty tunnel visioned; most especially when a blind eye is tuned to the immorality and/or injustice of one's own time.

You mean there were not black Americans in the forefront of the Abolition movement?...even tho they ran more risks physically than did white people?

 

[Dr.Drock]

And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.

Hardly. Interpol has one of it's largest sub bureaus on human trafficking...which is only 2nd to Drug trafficking and a greater problem than gun trafficking. But you might want to check your last assertion.....Russia and SE Asia are pretty high on the list as sources.

Oh, btw, Allie...I did a check here:

http://www.unodc.org/documents/human-trafficking/HT-globalpatterns-en.pdf

Look particularly at the Figure 26 map on page 59....your assertion about "Conducted primarily by Islam" is very wrong.

That's a great find, I'm sure it will be ignored but really gives insight into where this stuff takes place.

Sad.

 

[AllieBaba]

And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.

Nor do they consider that it was white, mostly devoutly Christian, people who forced the abolishment of slavery to the forefront and they seem to discount the great price in blood and treasure in a terrible war that ended slavery in this country and ultimately ended segregation as well. To judge past cultures on a modern sense of morality is generally pretty tunnel visioned; most especially when a blind eye is tuned to the immorality and/or injustice of one's own time.

You mean there were not black Americans in the forefront of the Abolition movement?...even tho they ran more risks physically than did white people?

You mean you're an idiot?

 

[Foxfyre]

And without an exception, the yahoos who piss and moan about American slavery, which was eradicated at no small cost of American lives, turn a blind eye to the current slave trade....conducted primarily by Islam.

Nor do they consider that it was white, mostly devoutly Christian, people who forced the abolishment of slavery to the forefront and they seem to discount the great price in blood and treasure in a terrible war that ended slavery in this country and ultimately ended segregation as well. To judge past cultures on a modern sense of morality is generally pretty tunnel visioned; most especially when a blind eye is tuned to the immorality and/or injustice of one's own time.

You mean there were not black Americans in the forefront of the Abolition movement?...even tho they ran more risks physically than did white people?

Tunnel vision always focuses on one aspect and ignore the whole. Black people certainly were not at the forefront of the abolition movement in the 1800's. And black people would not have succeeded in the abolition of segregation in the 1900's without a majority of white people joining that cause.

Honest people give credit where credit is due. Ideologues always look for a way to diminish the contributions of those they despise.

 

[peach174]

Many white Christian Families were part of the underground railroad.

 

[Spoonman]

Nor do they consider that it was white, mostly devoutly Christian, people who forced the abolishment of slavery to the forefront and they seem to discount the great price in blood and treasure in a terrible war that ended slavery in this country and ultimately ended segregation as well. To judge past cultures on a modern sense of morality is generally pretty tunnel visioned; most especially when a blind eye is tuned to the immorality and/or injustice of one's own time.

You mean there were not black Americans in the forefront of the Abolition movement?...even tho they ran more risks physically than did white people?

Tunnel vision always focuses on one aspect and ignore the whole. Black people certainly were not at the forefront of the abolition movement in the 1800's. And black people would not have succeeded in the abolition of segregation in the 1900's without a majority of white people joining that cause.

Honest people give credit where credit is due. Ideologues always look for a way to diminish the contributions of those they despise.

Blacks had no power, zero, nada. No one cared what they wanted or said. It was totally a movement pushed by whites. They were the only ones who had a voice. Blaks wanted freedom but most didn't even know what it really entailed. most had never been free. In fact when they first gained their freedom most suffered more initially then when they were slaves. Becasue now they were on their own and there was nothing for them. No education, no skills, no social standing. in reality it was like taking kids and tossing them into an adult world and expected to survive. Only they were also hated.

And it was whites who continued to push for improvement. Yes, when blacks finally started to get a voice of their own and stand up for themselves, they were the ones who physically suffered. But it was whites who again said enough and became the mouthpiece for change.

Wrongs aren't always righted over night. it takes time to make radical change. but it also takes people in a position to make change to move the needle even slightly.

 

[Spoonman]

Many white Christian Families were part of the underground railroad.

Many christian whites risked scorn, persecution and even legal penalty becasue they knew the system was wrong.

 

[bodecea]

Many white Christian Families were part of the underground railroad.

A large number of them being Quakers who had been against slavery long before anyone else. And they CERTAINLY were not members of a church that supported slavery to the point of scisim.

 

[Spoonman]

Many white Christian Families were part of the underground railroad.

A large number of them being Quakers who had been against slavery long before anyone else. And they CERTAINLY were not members of a church that supported slavery to the point of scisim.

and prominant rolls were played by presbyterians, wesleyans, congregationalists, methodists, baptists.

 

[bodecea]

You mean there were not black Americans in the forefront of the Abolition movement?...even tho they ran more risks physically than did white people?

Tunnel vision always focuses on one aspect and ignore the whole. Black people certainly were not at the forefront of the abolition movement in the 1800's. And black people would not have succeeded in the abolition of segregation in the 1900's without a majority of white people joining that cause.

Honest people give credit where credit is due. Ideologues always look for a way to diminish the contributions of those they despise.

Blacks had no power, zero, nada. No one cared what they wanted or said. It was totally a movement pushed by whites. They were the only ones who had a voice. Blaks wanted freedom but most didn't even know what it really entailed. most had never been free. In fact when they first gained their freedom most suffered more initially then when they were slaves. Becasue now they were on their own and there was nothing for them. No education, no skills, no social standing. in reality it was like taking kids and tossing them into an adult world and expected to survive. Only they were also hated.

And it was whites who continued to push for improvement. Yes, when blacks finally started to get a voice of their own and stand up for themselves, they were the ones who physically suffered. But it was whites who again said enough and became the mouthpiece for change.

Wrongs aren't always righted over night. it takes time to make radical change. but it also takes people in a position to make change to move the needle even slightly.

These people had nothing to do with the Abolition movement?

Frederick Douglass
David Walker
Henry Highland Garnet
James Forten
Robert Purvis
Harriet Tubman
Sojourner Truth


I'm sorry, but this was not a case of the poor helpless negro being saved by the gallant white....alone. Free blacks in the North were leading characters within the Abolitionist movement, even before many of the white names we know from history.

 

[bodecea]

Many white Christian Families were part of the underground railroad.

A large number of them being Quakers who had been against slavery long before anyone else. And they CERTAINLY were not members of a church that supported slavery to the point of scisim.

and prominant rolls were played by presbyterians, wesleyans, congregationalists, methodists, baptists.

It split the Methodists and Baptists. But the Quakers were first and foremost...even before the Revolution.

 

[TheBrain]

Well I read the last few pages and realized the new side tangent for yesterday and today is that breaking the law=having no morals.


Almost my entire drive to work this morning I was going 75 mph in a 65 mph zone and on a couple of the country roads by my house I did a rolling stop.

How am I going to sleep tonight ? My self-confidence has plundered with this new realization................

You're missing the point. In the military one is expected to act with honor even if one doesn't get caught doing something wrong, violating the UCMJ is certainly not living by that code. Are gays the only ones who violate that code? Of course not, but a gay can't violate that code and then claim to be honorable. They are not honorable. No matter what their discharge papers say. So the claim that a gay who violated the UCMJ is as honorable as everyone else is bogus.

 

[Spoonman]

Tunnel vision always focuses on one aspect and ignore the whole. Black people certainly were not at the forefront of the abolition movement in the 1800's. And black people would not have succeeded in the abolition of segregation in the 1900's without a majority of white people joining that cause.

Honest people give credit where credit is due. Ideologues always look for a way to diminish the contributions of those they despise.

Blacks had no power, zero, nada. No one cared what they wanted or said. It was totally a movement pushed by whites. They were the only ones who had a voice. Blaks wanted freedom but most didn't even know what it really entailed. most had never been free. In fact when they first gained their freedom most suffered more initially then when they were slaves. Becasue now they were on their own and there was nothing for them. No education, no skills, no social standing. in reality it was like taking kids and tossing them into an adult world and expected to survive. Only they were also hated.

And it was whites who continued to push for improvement. Yes, when blacks finally started to get a voice of their own and stand up for themselves, they were the ones who physically suffered. But it was whites who again said enough and became the mouthpiece for change.

Wrongs aren't always righted over night. it takes time to make radical change. but it also takes people in a position to make change to move the needle even slightly.

These people had nothing to do with the Abolition movement?

Frederick Douglass
David Walker
Henry Highland Garnet
James Forten
Robert Purvis
Harriet Tubman
Sojourner Truth


I'm sorry, but this was not a case of the poor helpless negro being saved by the gallant white....alone. Free blacks in the North were leading characters within the Abolitionist movement, even before many of the white names we know from history.

oh please. they had no representation. blacks were revolting against slavery from the beginging and it fell on deaf ears, until whites. Yes Whites, started to champion the casue it went no where

 

[Spoonman]

A large number of them being Quakers who had been against slavery long before anyone else. And they CERTAINLY were not members of a church that supported slavery to the point of scisim.

and prominant rolls were played by presbyterians, wesleyans, congregationalists, methodists, baptists.

It split the Methodists and Baptists. But the Quakers were first and foremost...even before the Revolution.

the quakers were sure not the majority. but btw, the quakers are still white christians the primary stops along the railroad were white christian churches.

 

[bodecea]

Blacks had no power, zero, nada. No one cared what they wanted or said. It was totally a movement pushed by whites. They were the only ones who had a voice. Blaks wanted freedom but most didn't even know what it really entailed. most had never been free. In fact when they first gained their freedom most suffered more initially then when they were slaves. Becasue now they were on their own and there was nothing for them. No education, no skills, no social standing. in reality it was like taking kids and tossing them into an adult world and expected to survive. Only they were also hated.

And it was whites who continued to push for improvement. Yes, when blacks finally started to get a voice of their own and stand up for themselves, they were the ones who physically suffered. But it was whites who again said enough and became the mouthpiece for change.

Wrongs aren't always righted over night. it takes time to make radical change. but it also takes people in a position to make change to move the needle even slightly.

These people had nothing to do with the Abolition movement?

Frederick Douglass
David Walker
Henry Highland Garnet
James Forten
Robert Purvis
Harriet Tubman
Sojourner Truth


I'm sorry, but this was not a case of the poor helpless negro being saved by the gallant white....alone. Free blacks in the North were leading characters within the Abolitionist movement, even before many of the white names we know from history.

oh please. they had no representation. blacks were revolting against slavery from the beginging and it fell on deaf ears, until whites. Yes Whites, started to champion the casue it went no where

Look up David Walker.....he was so effective, he was silenced by the South.

http://www.cerritos.edu/soliver/American Identities/Black abolitionists/black_abolitionists.htm

Just one source.....google "black abolitionists"

 

[Dr.Drock]

Well I read the last few pages and realized the new side tangent for yesterday and today is that breaking the law=having no morals.


Almost my entire drive to work this morning I was going 75 mph in a 65 mph zone and on a couple of the country roads by my house I did a rolling stop.

How am I going to sleep tonight ? My self-confidence has plundered with this new realization................

You're missing the point. In the military one is expected to act with honor even if one doesn't get caught doing something wrong, violating the UCMJ is certainly not living by that code. Are gays the only ones who violate that code? Of course not, but a gay can't violate that code and then claim to be honorable. They are not honorable. No matter what their discharge papers say. So the claim that a gay who violated the UCMJ is as honorable as everyone else is bogus.

I just did a quick look through and I didn't see anything in the UCMJ that says a gay can't serve, I thought DADT wasn't that a gay couldn't serve, but the law said you couldn't talk about it?

If I'm wrong let me know, but as a sidebar laws can be immoral and violating them could be viewed as a moral action.

The biggest issue you have from what I've read isn't that she violated any law, it's that you're prejudiced.