Why do so many people on this board wish to return to the 18th century?

[rightwinger]

I disagree. It didn't duck the issue, it couldn't resolve the issue. With the overwhelming majority of America involved either directly or indirectly in some way with agriculture/slavery, do you think the Constitution would have ever been ratified if it banned slavery?

Now, they DID ban slave trade. You could no longer go down to Charleston and buy a slave fresh off the boat. That ended with the Constitution. This is fairly significant given the importance of slaves to the plantations at the time. The fact they did accomplish this much is a complete refutation of the argument they ducked the issue.

In addition, they worded the Constitution and preamble so that it became a righteous sword for future abolitionists. They knew that the day would come when the people would be ready to end slavery and liberate those in shackles. They gave them the tools to do that when the time came.

Of course, when that time came, justices on the courts ruled slaves were property. It was upon that ruling we had a splitting of opinions across America and suddenly, abolition became a social issue versus a state's rights issue. This is what prompted the war. It was the failure of the courts and congress to find a resolution.

They didn't need the slave trade any more
They had breeding programs to get all the slaves they wanted. Home grown slaves were easier to deal with than Kunta Kinte

There were over 4 million slaves in 1860. Didn't look like banning imports made any impact

But now you are abandoning your argument and changing to another one you like better. I can't let you do that in the middle of a debate. You argued they ducked the issue, now you're admitting they didn't duck the issue but what they did was superficial and didn't matter much. Again, they did what they were able to do at that time. They could not ban slavery! That wasn't going to happen. Had they attempted to do this with the Constitution, it would have never been ratified.

And let me clarify something so you don't go getting the wrong idea. I hate when people twist something I say into something they want to hear and disregard my point. I am not saying that the founders banning slave trade was some glorious achievement they should be commended and praised for. I merely stated that, at that time, it was significantly bold to do that. They didn't HAVE to... there wasn't any real pressure from anyone. It was simply a matter of consciousness. Slavery is an affront to Liberty.

My argument has been that they didn't "duck the issue" as you claimed. They addressed it the best way they could at the time. They couldn't resolve it but they left the tools and language to resolve it for future generations.

OK....lets go back to the original issue then

They not only ducked the issue....they sold out
With key founders owning slaves, what do you expect?
No they didn't address it. They had other priorities and "all men are created equal" was not one of them

By selling out, they set us up for a war four score and seven years later.

Again, that is a purely revisionist idea of what went down. People who grew cotton, tobacco and sugar cane owned slaves because that was how it was harvested. There was no other option. It's not selling out when there isn't another option.

And AGAIN... they DID address it, as I pointed out, which you acknowledged but are now ignoring and pretending it wasn't a point I made. They addressed slavery as best they could at the time. They outlawed slave trade and put the language in the Constitution to enable freedom of slaves when the time came. Even Frederick Douglass recognized their brilliance in that. Why are YOU having a problem?

The War wasn't the fault of the founders, it was the result of the courts and congress FAILING to do the right thing when the time came. They failed and we had war. Furthermore, the war didn't end slavery! It took a Constitutional Amendment to do that. Why couldn't that have been done BEFORE the war? No reason... it just wasn't.

They could have done it easily too. Use eminent domain to purchase and free the slaves. Funded by the sale of land in the west.

Would have been cheaper in money and blood than the war was

The south blew it

After rebelling against America, they were out of the slave business in four years. If they had let it run its course, it would have run 20 years and they would have been compensated for their slaves

 

[gipper]

in answer to your question in the o/p......angry, uneducated, uninformed white Christian trash want to go back to when white Christian males ran the world. they don't like not being able to tell women and people of color what to do. and they certainly don't like people who won't let them enact their religion into legislation.

A perfect example of a perfect bigot.

The irony being that there is nobody more angry and more uninformed with a greater desire to control everyone else's life than jillian. She described herself to a "T" except for the religion.

For so many now, government is their religion. I'm starting to understand why so many ancient rulers believed themselves to be gods.

It used to be that rulers declared themselves a god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that they spoke for god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that there was no God, making themselves the ultimate authority as if they were a god once again.

I reckon with Islam, we will go backwards again, just as the entire culture and religion is backwards.

Obama pretty much considers himself a God and so do his many sycophantic followers. So, not much has changed.

 

[rightwinger]

in answer to your question in the o/p......angry, uneducated, uninformed white Christian trash want to go back to when white Christian males ran the world. they don't like not being able to tell women and people of color what to do. and they certainly don't like people who won't let them enact their religion into legislation.

A perfect example of a perfect bigot.

The irony being that there is nobody more angry and more uninformed with a greater desire to control everyone else's life than jillian. She described herself to a "T" except for the religion.

For so many now, government is their religion. I'm starting to understand why so many ancient rulers believed themselves to be gods.

It used to be that rulers declared themselves a god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that they spoke for god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that there was no God, making themselves the ultimate authority as if they were a god once again.

I reckon with Islam, we will go backwards again, just as the entire culture and religion is backwards.

Obama pretty much considers himself a God and so do his many sycophantic followers. So, not much has changed.

Where did Obama ever said anything that remotely inferred he was a God? He tends to be quite humble

It is Trump who constantly declares how rich he is, how smart he is, how pretty his wife is

 

[gipper]

A perfect example of a perfect bigot.

The irony being that there is nobody more angry and more uninformed with a greater desire to control everyone else's life than jillian. She described herself to a "T" except for the religion.

For so many now, government is their religion. I'm starting to understand why so many ancient rulers believed themselves to be gods.

It used to be that rulers declared themselves a god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that they spoke for god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that there was no God, making themselves the ultimate authority as if they were a god once again.

I reckon with Islam, we will go backwards again, just as the entire culture and religion is backwards.

Obama pretty much considers himself a God and so do his many sycophantic followers. So, not much has changed.

Where did Obama ever said anything that remotely inferred he was a God? He tends to be quite humble

It is Trump who constantly declares how rich he is, how smart he is, how pretty his wife is

Yet you think he walks on water.

 

[rightwinger]

The irony being that there is nobody more angry and more uninformed with a greater desire to control everyone else's life than jillian. She described herself to a "T" except for the religion.

For so many now, government is their religion. I'm starting to understand why so many ancient rulers believed themselves to be gods.

It used to be that rulers declared themselves a god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that they spoke for god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that there was no God, making themselves the ultimate authority as if they were a god once again.

I reckon with Islam, we will go backwards again, just as the entire culture and religion is backwards.

Obama pretty much considers himself a God and so do his many sycophantic followers. So, not much has changed.

Where did Obama ever said anything that remotely inferred he was a God? He tends to be quite humble

It is Trump who constantly declares how rich he is, how smart he is, how pretty his wife is

Yet you think he walks on water.

Trump is afraid of the water

 

[Reasonable]

For so many now, government is their religion. I'm starting to understand why so many ancient rulers believed themselves to be gods.

It used to be that rulers declared themselves a god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that they spoke for god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that there was no God, making themselves the ultimate authority as if they were a god once again.

I reckon with Islam, we will go backwards again, just as the entire culture and religion is backwards.

Obama pretty much considers himself a God and so do his many sycophantic followers. So, not much has changed.

Where did Obama ever said anything that remotely inferred he was a God? He tends to be quite humble

It is Trump who constantly declares how rich he is, how smart he is, how pretty his wife is

Yet you think he walks on water.

Trump is afraid of the water

And stairs. Imagine that!

 

[rightwinger]

It used to be that rulers declared themselves a god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that they spoke for god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that there was no God, making themselves the ultimate authority as if they were a god once again.

I reckon with Islam, we will go backwards again, just as the entire culture and religion is backwards.

Obama pretty much considers himself a God and so do his many sycophantic followers. So, not much has changed.

Where did Obama ever said anything that remotely inferred he was a God? He tends to be quite humble

It is Trump who constantly declares how rich he is, how smart he is, how pretty his wife is

Yet you think he walks on water.

Trump is afraid of the water

And stairs. Imagine that!

And germs

 

[francoHFW]

Why do so many people on this board wish to return to the 18th century? That was a time when we as a nation committed very little towards investment within our borders, very little laws or rules to protect the workers, life was far harder then today and I honestly believe the world of the time was so alien to the concepts of modern 20th and 21st century that America would be transformed into a very poor, backwards and violent society if we attempted it. It would be a outright suicide of the most advance nation on earth in many measures and a true lost to all of humanity.

Government expanded because it had too, just like every other modern state due to civilized people wanting infrastructure, wanting education for their children, clean air, water and food and a ever better standard of living. For one to argue that the 18th century was superior is the height of insanity within my mind, but that is exactly what extreme conservatism is bitching for. So you'd rather put your trust in the same corporations that pollute the environment in india then to have the government fine the bastards and give them a good reason to stop??? So you'd rather businesses have the power to refuse payment to work or set up sweat shops while you smile and say get a job. WTF is wrong with you? I say this because it could be you or your children that has little choice for employment! Why make life worse for yourself?


I could keep going on down the list on why the concepts of the 18th century would be a nightmare to the American people but I'll stop here. Lets just say that it isn't preferable and I really wish some people would see the benefits in living within a society that gives a shit about things.

Why do so many people on this board want to return to the 7th century??

So many people on this board buy the Islam religion of peace bullshit. Look at Europe. Pretty soon al of Europe will be Muslim. One has to wonder why looney tunes want the same for America.

You can't cure stupid.

4% of the EU is taking over? Actually, they're learning modernity very quickly. 100 years ago they were 7th century, now they drink alcohol like us. Unfortunately they have fundies like christians do, and Boooosh wrecked their homelands...

 

[P@triot]

Trump is afraid of the water

And stairs. Imagine that!

At least he doesn't need to be helped up and down them....

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why do so many people on this board wish to return to the 18th century? That was a time when we as a nation committed very little towards investment within our borders, very little laws or rules to protect the workers, life was far harder then today and I honestly believe the world of the time was so alien to the concepts of modern 20th and 21st century that America would be transformed into a very poor, backwards and violent society if we attempted it. It would be a outright suicide of the most advance nation on earth in many measures and a true lost to all of humanity.

Government expanded because it had too, just like every other modern state due to civilized people wanting infrastructure, wanting education for their children, clean air, water and food and a ever better standard of living. For one to argue that the 18th century was superior is the height of insanity within my mind, but that is exactly what extreme conservatism is bitching for. So you'd rather put your trust in the same corporations that pollute the environment in india then to have the government fine the bastards and give them a good reason to stop??? So you'd rather businesses have the power to refuse payment to work or set up sweat shops while you smile and say get a job. WTF is wrong with you? I say this because it could be you or your children that has little choice for employment! Why make life worse for yourself?


I could keep going on down the list on why the concepts of the 18th century would be a nightmare to the American people but I'll stop here. Lets just say that it isn't preferable and I really wish some people would see the benefits in living within a society that gives a shit about things.

We always counter that with why does the liberals always want to drag us back into the 1950s? with high taxes, the world in ruins and Jim crowe laws?

 

[Boss]

I disagree. It didn't duck the issue, it couldn't resolve the issue. With the overwhelming majority of America involved either directly or indirectly in some way with agriculture/slavery, do you think the Constitution would have ever been ratified if it banned slavery?

Now, they DID ban slave trade. You could no longer go down to Charleston and buy a slave fresh off the boat. That ended with the Constitution. This is fairly significant given the importance of slaves to the plantations at the time. The fact they did accomplish this much is a complete refutation of the argument they ducked the issue.

In addition, they worded the Constitution and preamble so that it became a righteous sword for future abolitionists. They knew that the day would come when the people would be ready to end slavery and liberate those in shackles. They gave them the tools to do that when the time came.

Of course, when that time came, justices on the courts ruled slaves were property. It was upon that ruling we had a splitting of opinions across America and suddenly, abolition became a social issue versus a state's rights issue. This is what prompted the war. It was the failure of the courts and congress to find a resolution.

They didn't need the slave trade any more
They had breeding programs to get all the slaves they wanted. Home grown slaves were easier to deal with than Kunta Kinte

There were over 4 million slaves in 1860. Didn't look like banning imports made any impact

But now you are abandoning your argument and changing to another one you like better. I can't let you do that in the middle of a debate. You argued they ducked the issue, now you're admitting they didn't duck the issue but what they did was superficial and didn't matter much. Again, they did what they were able to do at that time. They could not ban slavery! That wasn't going to happen. Had they attempted to do this with the Constitution, it would have never been ratified.

And let me clarify something so you don't go getting the wrong idea. I hate when people twist something I say into something they want to hear and disregard my point. I am not saying that the founders banning slave trade was some glorious achievement they should be commended and praised for. I merely stated that, at that time, it was significantly bold to do that. They didn't HAVE to... there wasn't any real pressure from anyone. It was simply a matter of consciousness. Slavery is an affront to Liberty.

My argument has been that they didn't "duck the issue" as you claimed. They addressed it the best way they could at the time. They couldn't resolve it but they left the tools and language to resolve it for future generations.

OK....lets go back to the original issue then

They not only ducked the issue....they sold out
With key founders owning slaves, what do you expect?
No they didn't address it. They had other priorities and "all men are created equal" was not one of them

By selling out, they set us up for a war four score and seven years later.

Again, that is a purely revisionist idea of what went down. People who grew cotton, tobacco and sugar cane owned slaves because that was how it was harvested. There was no other option. It's not selling out when there isn't another option.

And AGAIN... they DID address it, as I pointed out, which you acknowledged but are now ignoring and pretending it wasn't a point I made. They addressed slavery as best they could at the time. They outlawed slave trade and put the language in the Constitution to enable freedom of slaves when the time came. Even Frederick Douglass recognized their brilliance in that. Why are YOU having a problem?

The War wasn't the fault of the founders, it was the result of the courts and congress FAILING to do the right thing when the time came. They failed and we had war. Furthermore, the war didn't end slavery! It took a Constitutional Amendment to do that. Why couldn't that have been done BEFORE the war? No reason... it just wasn't.

They could have done it easily too. Use eminent domain to purchase and free the slaves. Funded by the sale of land in the west.

Would have been cheaper in money and blood than the war was

They actually DID this in Maryland and Delaware! They entirely eliminated slaves there with a program that bought the slaves. Of course, a bunch of them were shipped off to Central America and ended up dying there in a failed colonization... but that's another story. They never offered this to the slave owners in the deep South. There is lots of speculation on why. The colonization attempts failing was one factor, I'm sure. It would've been a very expensive venture and I'm not sure they could've replaced the labor.

The south blew it

After rebelling against America, they were out of the slave business in four years. If they had let it run its course, it would have run 20 years and they would have been compensated for their slaves

Compensation for their slaves was the issue. No offer was made or proposed. They certainly weren't going to be compensated for their slaves. What was happening was, states were being added in the West under the condition of being "free states" and the idea was to use the power of these states to outnumber slave states and legislate slavery away.

The South didn't "rebel against America", they declared independence from America. The term "Civil War" is a misnomer. It implies there were two factions fighting for control of a country. The South never had intentions of controlling the North.

But hey... IF they had all been in possession of magic crystal balls, I think most of them North or South would've come up with some other idea than war. Everyone blew it! As historian Shelby Foote said, the real failure was that we didn't do what Americans are known for, we didn't compromise.

 

[P@triot]

Where did Obama ever said anything that remotely inferred he was a God? He tends to be quite humble

Bwahahahahaha! You are the biggest Obama tool ever...

How about when he gave the Queen of England an iPod with his speeches on them? Not of Winston Churchill. Not of Margaret Thatcher. Not of Nelson Mandela. Nope! Of himself.

How about when he said that "Republican's can come along and sit in the back, but they aren't getting the keys" during his analogy on the economy? Astounding arrogance.

“I’m the African American son of a single mother, and I live here, in this house,” Obama told Netanyahu. “I live in the White House. I managed to get elected president of the United States. You think I don’t understand what you’re talking about, but I do.”

That admission came during a sit-down Obama did with HBO's Bill Simmons for a spread in GQ magazine, which named the two its men of the year. Obama acknowledged to Simmons that in the first few years of his presidency, "a certain arrogance crept in..."

And lets not even get into his concern over his own "legacy".

He is unquestionably the most arrogant president in U.S. history and he was a complete embarrassment to office of the presidency. The fact you even attempt to make a case for him being "humble" is why you are the joke of USMB.

 

[P@triot]

We always counter that with why does the liberals always want to drag us back into the 1950s? with high taxes, the world in ruins and Jim crowe laws?

Because progressives are truly regressives. They want to take us back to the 1800's economically with their marxist policies. They want to take us back to the 1700's politically with their love of a single king ruling all (ala King George III). And they want to take us back to the 1600's for their energy policy - allowing only fire for cooking and candlelight for seeing.

 

[Wyatt earp]

We always counter that with why does the liberals always want to drag us back into the 1950s? with high taxes, the world in ruins and Jim crowe laws?

Because progressives are truly regressives. They want to take us back to the 1800's economically with their marxist policies. They want to take us back to the 1700's politically with their love of a single king ruling all (ala King George III). And they want to take us back to the 1600's for their energy policy - allowing only fire for cooking and candlelight for seeing.

Or even to the 1400s with their idiot AGW cult who wants us all to run around half naked and hunt buffalo to prevent climate change.



.

 

[P@triot]

Or even to the 1400s with their idiot AGW cult who wants us all to run around half naked and hunt buffalo to prevent climate change.

Doh! I forgot returning us to 8,000 B.C. with their sexual policies. We should all just pee and bathe together in one open cave and everyone should fornicate together regardless of gender, sexual preference, or age. They literally have an uncivilized caveman approach to sexuality.

 

[yiostheoy]

Or even to the 1400s with their idiot AGW cult who wants us all to run around half naked and hunt buffalo to prevent climate change.

Doh! I forgot returning us to 8,000 B.C. with their sexual policies. We should all just pee and bathe together in one open cave and everyone should fornicate together regardless of gender, sexual preference, or age. They literally have an uncivilized caveman approach to sexuality.

Why not ??

 

[yiostheoy]

We always counter that with why does the liberals always want to drag us back into the 1950s? with high taxes, the world in ruins and Jim crowe laws?

Because progressives are truly regressives. They want to take us back to the 1800's economically with their marxist policies. They want to take us back to the 1700's politically with their love of a single king ruling all (ala King George III). And they want to take us back to the 1600's for their energy policy - allowing only fire for cooking and candlelight for seeing.

Or even to the 1400s with their idiot AGW cult who wants us all to run around half naked and hunt buffalo to prevent climate change.



.

That would be the Native North Americans.

But they only had Stone Age weapons.

That was a mo fo against European steel and gunpowerder (from China).

 

[yiostheoy]

Obama pretty much considers himself a God and so do his many sycophantic followers. So, not much has changed.

Where did Obama ever said anything that remotely inferred he was a God? He tends to be quite humble

It is Trump who constantly declares how rich he is, how smart he is, how pretty his wife is

Yet you think he walks on water.

Trump is afraid of the water

And stairs. Imagine that!

And germs

Smallpox mostly.

 

[yiostheoy]

in answer to your question in the o/p......angry, uneducated, uninformed white Christian trash want to go back to when white Christian males ran the world. they don't like not being able to tell women and people of color what to do. and they certainly don't like people who won't let them enact their religion into legislation.

A perfect example of a perfect bigot.

The irony being that there is nobody more angry and more uninformed with a greater desire to control everyone else's life than jillian. She described herself to a "T" except for the religion.

For so many now, government is their religion. I'm starting to understand why so many ancient rulers believed themselves to be gods.

It used to be that rulers declared themselves a god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that they spoke for god. Then when that no longer worked, they declared that there was no God, making themselves the ultimate authority as if they were a god once again.

I reckon with Islam, we will go backwards again, just as the entire culture and religion is backwards.

Obama pretty much considers himself a God and so do his many sycophantic followers. So, not much has changed.

I would not say a God.

I would say a Negro Archangel.

 

[P@triot]

Why not ??

Because it is barbaric, uncivilized, and something that only an animal would do. Now for you, I realize that all of those things are about on your level. But for the rest of us who have evolved into a sophisticated human race, it's gross as fuck and beneath us.