Well stated! Those involved hid behind a mask since the coward in them prevents admitting the truth of their disgraceful beliefs.
Those in question also prefer another flag other than the American.
Posted on 06/13/2005 4:41:07 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
You do not set the moral standards for any man but yourself.
To which you reply:
The very definition of Moral Relativism.
That is another point, I made about you, in another earlier post. You, not those you attack are the "Moral Relativists." You seek to impose your ephemeral judgment, based upon the prejudices of your time and place, on all of humanity. But that is relative only to your subjectivity. It does not alter reality one whit. Again, it is something relative to your thinking, not reality.
As for the bigoted refusal to admit that those whom you attack had a rational point of view, based upon the pursuit of truth and reason? Discourse with such a fanatic is nearly impossible. I do not want to sink to your level and hurl nasty conclusions back and forth, but you make it very difficult to treat your "thought" processes with much courtesy.
William Flax
Such a comment further illustrates the fact that you think that the ex cathedra pronouncement somehow trumps reason. There is nothing in Webster's speech, that has even the slightest bearing on the War on Terror or on Islamic societies. You are totally delusional.
For the convenience of anyone who wants to assess your thought processes, I repost the link: Daniel Webster Speech.
All of this silliness is motivated by something. Why do you hate your fellow Americans so much?
William Flax
"Peripheral applications!" They have revolutionized American society, my friend. As for the "core intent of the Fourteenth Amendment?" You had better believe I oppose the Fourteenth Amendment. It was intended for one purpose only, to punish the South. It disenfranchises the Southern leadership, and seeks to Federalize just about everything. It was also, not validly ratified. See the commentary on same in Chapter Last from the online version of my Conservative Debate Handbook.
I also oppose the writings of Karl Marx, Thad Stevens German admirer.
William Flax
Webster's "the slaveholders were radicalized by the abolitionists" argument is precisely the same sort of defeatist twaddle as the modern "the Muslim world is radicalized by the War on Terror" argument.
Do you, or do you not, oppose the core intent of the Fourteenth Amendment -- i.e. the granting of citizenship to the freedmen?
Asserting that there is a universal moral standard applicable to all times and places is "Moral Relativism".
War is "Peace".
Freedom is "Slavery"
And -- particularly apropos to your commentary --
Ignorance is "Strength".
Neither the slavery issue, nor the War on Terror, are the simplistic issues you want to pretend. Other than offending your own apparent need to address complex subjects with your own subjective ex cathedra pronouncements, the two have nothing whatever in common.
You will note that Webster gave reasons for his view. He cited almost twenty years of empirical evidence. You offer not one shred of evidence or any rational thought to reject his opinion. Pathetic stuff to assail a brilliant an honorable patriot--a Senator whose character absolutely towers over those of the tawdry and petty little men, who strut around Washington today. Your disrespect for Webster tells a lot about you. Nothing about Webster. Fully on a par with your disgusting hateful ranting against the Old South.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
They must hate blacks. Where is Jesse?
Putting whites in a barrel is offensive. Hillary needs to address this insanity.
I oppose the 14th Amendment. It was Thad Stevens intended revenge on the South. It was a despicable thing, completely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It has done little but make mischief, but that was what it was intended to do. Had Lincoln lived, it would not have been adopted, as it was completely contrary to his promise to bind up the wounds, "With Malice Towards None and Charity Towards All."
As for "citizenship?" If by "citizenship," you mean the suffrage, that was specifically left to the States in Article I, Section 2. The effort to redefine it, via the 14th Amendment, was part of Thad Stevens and company's effort to punish the South, and control its future, by enfranchising the uneducated while disenfranchising the traditional leadership. This was the start of promising voters "pie in the sky" inducements to vote for demagogues in America. Doubtless, you find the idea virtuous. I do not.
Assserting that you have some sort of mandate to redefine thousands of years of moral standards, into your views of the moment, is moral relativism. Others have pursued Truth, and sought to analyze what was true and what flowed from Truth and the Laws of Nature. Others have looked to the Bible--in the West--and other sacred books in other regions, to define Moral Standards. It has been a subject for serious thought and discussion, at all times.
Your morality is purely subjective, relative to yourself. Please understand that many of us reject it. We agree with other, older, more carefully thought out moral codes. We do not need you telling us that we are evil. If you do not see how silly your approach is, I am sorry.
How about protections provided citizens under the Constitution? In Scott v Sandford, Taney wrote that blacks were not and could never be considered citizens entitled to protections under federal law. The 14th Amendment overturned that decision.
Bills of Attainder are STILL prohibited. Due process was NOT respected, the right to trial, face accusers etc. The Reconstruction Congress was a farce.
Additionally the 14th has been used to force California to pay welfare benefits to those that never even worked in the state (simply moved in to reap the rewards).
I oppose the 14th Amendment. It was Thad Stevens intended revenge on the South. It was a despicable thing, completely contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It has done little but make mischief, but that was what it was intended to do.
Bump for honesty.
Is segregation of your fellow Americans an 'American tradition?' It's becoming abundantly clear you firmly believe so and most likely continue to hold these beliefs being a neo-confederate sell out. You fire eating hate for all abolitionists indicates you were in agreement with maintaining the curse on this nation which they where and did finally dismantle.
"As for the "Civil Rights" movement? It was and is a Leftist movement, premised upon socialist assumptions--launched by known Socialists, later joined by Communists, as well as a lot of very naive "Liberals."
There were indeed self serving red as red commies and socialist subversives which attached themselves to the civil rights movement. You label everyone a commie who was determined to abolish the continuation of the Old South system of terrorizing certain Americans, but since you have once again not addressed the real issue of Southern state mandated racial segregation, you show your true colours, which are not conservative when it comes to the civil rights of all Americans, but those of a despicable segregationist, and you're not even ashamed, which is worse.
Well stated! Those involved hid behind a mask since the coward in them prevents admitting the truth of their disgraceful beliefs.
Those in question also prefer another flag other than the American.
Maybe you should try your ranting in peek rush hour traffic.
An incredibly merciful penalty for treason against America.
More of your moral-relativist twaddle.
Slavery is evil. Terrorism is evil. It's that simple.
Since you've just said (again -- see Msg#454 for your earlier embrace of the concept) that you're a moral relativist, your attempts to accuse others of that failing come across as even more preposterous than ever.
And their existence does not in and of itself discredit the concept of civil rights, any more than the existence of slavery apologists on FR discredits conservative/libertarian political concepts.
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.