Yeah, ’cause you just know we’re all raaaaaacist. — Slublog

…ooo!…oooo!…OOOO!

Can I be a raaaaaacist Jooooooooo?

…the whole “puritan” thing isn’t making ‘em sweat enough….

Puritan1648 on November 17, 2006 at 4:15 PM

Think I’ll whistle “Dixie” with the Puritan, here, grebok since you find that really, really, annoying, too… — thebookkeeper

…no, man…the dots…he’s jonesin’ for the dots….

…I….

…wish….

…was….

…in….

…wait for it….

…DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIXIEEEEEE….

…hooray, hooray….

Puritan1648 on November 17, 2006 at 4:25 PM

…please tell all of us uneducated Yankees about how the South wasn’t fighting because they were afraid the Union would eventually outlaw slavery. No, no, no. It was all about FREEDOM! It was about the Yankee man oppressing the poor Southerner. — Da Greebster

…actually, slavery was an excuse for folks of one frame of mind to dump all over folks they saw as being of an opposing frame of mind…sort of like abortion and homosexuality are today.

Along with slavery, there were 30 years of some rather nasty doings on the abolition side of things, as well, which included conditional loyalty to the very Union which they claimed to support.

Lincoln worked for union. He nearly lost it when he published the Proclamation — which was a stratagem in support of efforts in Kentucky and Missouri and an effort to placate the radical fringes of his own party at least as much as it was any altruistic effort freeing *ANYBODY* — because entire regiments went AWOL rather than fight to free blacks.

The US had, until 1863, a long, tortured history with slavery — legal in *ALL* 13 states in 1787 — and a club used on the South — nearly as stubborn as New England and having none of it — and ultimately paid for in full by the loss of over half a million lives, millions in treasure, and the a *worsening* of the conditions of blacks in America for a hundred years.

…but I won’t blind you with facts.

The South got a raw deal, the blacks got a raw deal, at the hands of a few in the North, which was ultimately fighting to prevent 11, and as many as 13, states or parts of states from leaving the federal union. Tariffs, money collected on largely Southern commerce, went to pay for “internal improvements” like roads, railroads and canals…largely in the North. The South was made to feel hemmed in by not being able to take their “property” to places like New Mexico, where the cotton culture feasible, let alone profitable, until relatively recently.

Slavery was a factor. It was just not *THE* factor.

*THE* factor was as Mary Chesnut said: the North and the South just couldn’t stand eachother.

…had the South done as Lee was doing well before the war started and freed their slaves, they’d've still fought. Just like today, each side wanted to win the argument at all costs….

Puritan1648 on November 17, 2006 at 4:41 PM

You DON’T think it’s hypocritical for a closeted gay person to persecute people for being openly gay? Do you know what the word “hypocritical” means? — Constantine

…more than hypocritical — a *VASTLY* overused word — it’s objectively wrong for someone themselves sinning to stand there and wag a finger at someone in sin.

What was being discussed earlier, however, is that Laura Ingraham was being called a “piece of trash” for outing folks, when it’s one of the tactics used by the activist homosexual community to either shut up those living in unrepentant (or even repentant and recurrent) sin, or to just plain ruin them.

Sin is sin. Homosexuality is sin, per most of the religions and most of the cultures of the world. It may be desensitized, but sin is still sin.

This doesn’t make a sinner worthy of special opprobrium. We’re all sinners, after all. We just don’t have to be OK with it.

I’ve been saying it for years: the homosexual community doesn’t deserve to win their little culture war by virtue of the means they’re willing to use to win it. All may be fair in love and war, but this isn’t *THAT* kind of war.

If folks want to be homosexual, nobody should stop ‘em. I don’t think that, outside of families, any really does nowadays. You can’t legislate morality. In fact, it’s best not to.

It’s about being tolerant. Freedom is being able to sin, to make self-destrucive or just plain stupid decisions. Tolerance is living with the sins of others.

On the other hand, you can’t expect that tolerance means that you have to like, celebrate, or promote the sins of others. Being tolerant means that you let ‘em go…not that they’re going with your blessing.

…so, let’s give the whole “hypocritical” thing a rest, eh?

When all of life is turned into a cypher, an idea devoid of life, which can be tweaked and argued beyond all usefulness…when you’ve reduced live to nothing more than a concept, a hypocrite is the worst sort of traitor. He betrays ideas.

…life is more than ideas. I hope.

Puritan1648 on November 17, 2006 at 4:52 PM