Posted on 04/24/2005 6:08:20 PM PDT by CHARLITE
Southern heritage buffs vow to use the Virginia gubernatorial election as a platform for designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month.
The four candidates have differing views on the Confederacy, an issue that has been debated for years in the commonwealth.
"We're not just a few people making a lot of noise," said Brag Bowling, a spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the oldest hereditary organization for male descendents of Confederate soldiers. "This is not a racial thing; it is good for Virginia. We're going to keep pushing this until we get it."
Each candidate recently shared his thoughts on what Mr. Bowling called a "litmus test for all politicians." Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine would not support a Confederate History and Heritage Month. Former state Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore would support something that recognizes everyone who lived during the Civil War.
Sen. H. Russell Potts Jr. and Warrenton Mayor George B. Fitch would support a Confederate History and Heritage Month. Many past Virginia governors honored the Civil War or the Confederacy.
In 1990, former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, the nation's first black governor, a Democrat and a grandson of slaves, issued a proclamation praising both sides of the war and remembering "those who sacrificed in this great struggle."
Former Govs. George Allen and James S. Gilmore III, both Republicans, issued Confederate History Month proclamations. In 2000, Mr. Gilmore replaced that proclamation with one commemorating both sides of the Civil War -- a move that enraged the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, has refused to issue a gubernatorial decree on either side of the Civil War.
Mr. Kaine, another Democrat, would decline to issue a Confederate History and Heritage Month proclamation if he is elected governor, said his campaign spokeswoman, Delacey Skinner.
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.washingtontimes.com ...
Confusing the word imminent (meaning to project or threaten) and the word eminent (meaning prominent or superior) as it regards property law simply demonstrates the lightness of your grasp on the subject matter.
Playing it off as a joke doesn't change the fact that you're a lightwieght.
Property? Not services? Well, hot damn!
Property:
1.Something owned; a possession.
2.A piece of real estate: has a swimming pool on the property.
3.Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
4.Possessions considered as a group
You own your labor. Following your logic, if your employer refuses to pay you for your labor, you would have no legal recourse since your labor is not property.
Dude, lay Off. I had worked 12 hours yesterday before posting that. I made a mistke. Accept it and move on. I did.
Property involves ownership of one's labor. There are plenty of types of property that are intangible.
"if your employer refuses to pay you for your labor, you would have no legal recourse since your labor is not property."
I went into working for them, I signed with them. If they denied me pay, I would leave. Thus is my agreement with my employer.
Problem: The slaves had accepted in their own tribes that slavery of a losing tribe was acceptable and that inheritance of slaves (and slave families) was common practice. Just because the owner was white and live 5,000 miles away, does not make their "contract" less valid.
Cry me a river you little poser.
"There are plenty of types of property that are intangible."
Yet none of your definitions addressed it in terms of slavery.
So be it. You don't have a right to get whatever price you want for your labor any more than you have the right to force others to work for you for a price that you impose on them.
The first could claim "it's not fair, I need this and I provided a service" while the other can say "the price isn't fair for it's worth"
If they can't agree on a price for labor, they are free to look for a different employer or employee. That is not a freedom that slaves had, however.
Again: define "fair"
Whatever two free people agree to be the fair price for that particular work, absent the use of duress by either party.
I'm not sure why you can't grasp this simple concept.
Bite me, you big twit.
I mispelled something. God forsake me!
Get over yourself. Or at least, get some rest. Sounds like someone's a bit edgy.
So, if your employer refused to pay you for the last two weeks of work, he hasn't actually stolen anything from you? I would bet dollars to donuts that you would be suing his thieving ass in such a situation, just like any other rational person would.
Problem: The slaves had accepted in their own tribes that slavery of a losing tribe was acceptable and that inheritance of slaves (and slave families) was common practice.
Whether or not that was the case is purely irrelevant to the situation of a black person born into slavery in America. That person has not consented to be a slave. Following your logic, a person could sell their kids into slavery and the kids would be bound by such "contract."
Some friendly advice: When you're in a hole, stop digging.
See post 782 and get back to me on what basis you have for the claim that labor is not property.
"Following your logic, a person could sell their kids into slavery and the kids would be bound by such 'contract.' "
This is exactly what is stated in Lev 24:55.
I did see it. You interpreted it as such. The definition itself did not. Nor did I read it as such.
Slavery is the denial of freedom, not possesion. God seperates "freedom" from "possesion" in His Word, and even advocates slavery, while making "Thou Shalt not steal" one of the Big Ten.
And just so we're clear: I have no defense on the "work/time/labor/wages" part.
I'm not dodging that. It was simply my typing at the speed of my emotion, not my thinking.
I humbly retract that part.
(Shrug) Do you agree with that logic?
If you do, then you support slavery. If you don't, then there is no point in you mentioning this Bible passage.
That is one of the arguments that certain "Christians" used to justify slavery. Are you one of them?
while making "Thou Shalt not steal" one of the Big Ten.
Well then, slavery is a sin because it involves stealing someone else's property rights to their labor.
No dimwit, you just loudly demonstrated that you don't even understand the poorly constructed rebuttals you write. You are obviously unfamiliar with the concept of eminent domain, and now you're desperately trying to cover your tracks with jokes and excuses. Maybe that works in whatever Konfederate Kindergarden Klass you just graduated from, but on this forum yer not getting ANY slack. Am I making myself clear poser?
"That is one of the arguments that certain "Christians" used to justify slavery. Are you one of them? "
I have addressed that MANY times, and I KNEW the ONE time I DIDN'T post "note, I'm not a slavery-loving bigot" You'd jump on it. Read the last few posts to you regarding this subject to answer your half-baked question.
"Well then, slavery is a sin because it involves stealing someone else's property rights to their labor."
Again: why did God make a seperate case for each, if slavery and theft are the same? (Hint, pick up that dusty leather-bound book in the corner holding up your coffee table leg. It'll be in there, under a book* called "Leviticus")
*I know, I know, it's weird, but those "chapter titles" in the Bible are actually full "books"
i do NOT disagree about the thread going down the same old road.
we here in VA want (and will get, imVho) a MONTH to OFFICIALLY honor our CSA HERO-MARTYRS!
i'm glad you're back!
free dixie,sw
" but on this forum yer not getting ANY slack."
Loud and clear, Befehlshaber der FreeRepublic.
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.