Posted on 04/12/2005 1:11:23 PM PDT by gopwinsin04
In the immortal words of Rodney King: can't we all just get along?
Who cares who skewers who? Its all in the spirit of good debate...over a topic that can't be that important to any of us
Gee whiz...if I couldn't take being insulted and criticized...I wouldn't be married
The Big Lie. So much of the citizenry doesn't think for themselves at all - they just absorb whatever the mass media spews out, and after a certain amount of absorption, they take on the color of the spew. Whether there's any truth in or not is irrelevant.
Documented here: Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
That would be nice, as would civil discourse, however the two posters in question have a pattern of highly abusive behavior on this forum. One of them, as noted, was explicitly enjoined from posting to me back in January following a harassment incident in which several of his posts were removed for content in violation of FR policies. That poster has been fibbing about the incident ever since, and in the course of the last week resumed making posts to me with the explicit purpose of igniting a flamewar. That's why I called the mods - to put an end to this before it advanced any further.
It's called "defining deviancy down" (for them) and "defining deviancy up" (for "normal" people). It's a really serious game, and some serious essays have been written about it in The New Republic e.g., a few years ago.
Documentation here: An excerpt from "The radical homosexual agenda and the destruction of standards"
I don't care who started what, but stop it now.
Thank you.
LOL ... I just want to go on record now, before my demise, to say that I am not now nor have I ever been a homosexual and do not plan to ever be a homosexual at any future point. [Whew, that was sure a load off my heart. /sarcasm]
They'll spin that after your demise - something similar to: "Because MHGinTN was so adamant in regards to not being homosexual, that means he had repressed homosexual tendencies. He really was a homosexual."
That certainly fits their standard operating procedures...
Darn it, you just couldn't let my mind rest!
Hopefully you have a lot of time left to let it settle again. :-)
I stand by my post #55 ...
I almost always receive one or two comments such as yours that confirm the authors' observations whenever I post that link.
When one sin (especially a grievous one) is made to seem "okay" or twisted into "virtue", then it opens the door to all other sins. If black is white and white is black in one situation, the whole spectrum shifts.
But slaves were a huge capital investment in the south, only after land in value, and they were appreciating in value throughout 19th Century. The average price of a slave in the late 1850s was over $1500. That doesn't seem like a dying institution. It seems like a booming one.
Then there's the fact that southern agriculture was dependent on cheap manual labor. Practical cotton harvesting machinery didn't come along until the 1940s, along with the chemicals that eliminated the need for chopping cotton by hand.
Finally, the agricultural labor system that replaced slavery, sharecropping, was essentially the same thing, only differing in that it was debt slavery or peonage instead of bond slavery and that it could trap poor whites as well. Is it a coincidence that it faded away at the same time that the above-mentioned agricultural mechanization occurred?
Now, there were areas in the Confederate states where slavery was fading--Virginia, for example, was slowly transforming into an industrial/market state. There's some evidence that the south's eagerness to see the expansion of slavery into new territories wasn't just seen as a way to maintain a balance in congress, but a place to sell off their slaves as they transformed their economies. But to say that slavery would have "most assuredly" ended within 40 years of secession seems clearly false in economic terms, and that's not even getting into the purely racial and social aspects of the situation.
Not this again. Everybody's gay. Sheesh.
Other than the fact that the homo-lobby members are doing this to try to justify themselves, I don't really care. If proof were found today that Lincoln was a closet gay, it wouldn't change anything he did, good or bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.