Is this site Racist?

freetown fred wrote:I know for a fact they did Sugarbush & Killington back in the 70's but not Mad-River Glen which was just a Ma & Pa resort--and the rich continue to get richer--surpraaaase, surpraaaase as Gomer would say

Wait, there was Global Warming back in the 70's?

No not yet - Al Gore was still in college eating the brown acid.



On the "racist" theme - check out this MORON on MSNBC. Where do they find these people??? Now I know why I never watch mainstream news ... if this qualifies as mainstream - I think MSNBC is too far left to be. Funny how nothing was mentioned of the New Black Panther audio saying to "Kill cracker babies ... then dig them up and kill them again" -- funny how it's not racism when said by the left.

Thank God S.E.Cupp interjects some sense into this whole moronic conversation:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/08/17/se- ... cy-theory/

Remember Smitty, if you're a Leftist you can't be racist....I think they changed the rules when Grandwizard Byrd was trying to filibuster the Civil Rights Act. Them racist Democrats not only suceeded in driving Blacks to Government sponsored Ghettos they also made them believe it was for their own good.

Got to hand it to the Leftists (no matter what country) they sure are good a manipulating people into Statism and then on to Totalitarianism.

Ed, the way you talk you think that because there was what was called the Southern Democrats in the party that all Democrats are therefore racists, am I correct in making that statement? Or is it that there just happened to be an element of racism, which I agree was more so in the Democratic Party, that there is now nor ever was a racist in the Republican Party or has there been a history of racism in both?

The Republican Party was only in existence for about 4 years before it freed the slaves (after over 600,000 fatalities were incurred in total from both sides of the argument). I'm baffled at why there is not both praise and recognition of this fact to the benefit of the Republican Party. Though I find fault in the Republican Party for many other things, I believe it is accurate to say that there simply would not have been a Civil War which ultimately freed the slaves if there had not been a Republican Party. The Democrats had no intention of freeing the slaves. Neither did the Whigs.

The slave would have been released eventually, and likely peacefully, as they were in most other countries.

The war wasn't about freeing the slaves though. Freeing the slaves was a tactic Lincoln used to hurt the South. Recall that he didn't free the northern slaves, the ones he had jurisdiction over.

That he gets credit for freeing slaves in what amounts to a different country is something I find highly amusing.

The question of slavery was debated when union was first proposed. There was no shortage of Southern planters who favored some sort of gradual emancipation, including I believe Washington and Jefferson. Jefferson could not even free his own children without them being forced to leave the state. Instead a sort of make believe runaway was resorted to where everybody looked the other way. To accomplish union slavery was left alone.

After the war there was only one party a Southerner could belong to so obviously it had to include the statesmen as well as the crazies. There was also a great deal of abuse by Northern carpetbaggers to help the situation along.

Win or lose the South would have abandoned slavery. There was too much pressure including economic to do otherwise.

It is true that Lincoln never ran on a platform of freeing the slaves, and he even talked otherwise during the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates. But the fact that the South seceded the moment he was declared the winner is a clear indicator that something serious was amiss. Many see it as being that the Republican party wanted to do away with the rights of the States and vest far more power than ever into the Federal Government, and it is certainly true that Lincoln and the Republicans accomplished just that. I will grant that the freeing of the slaves ultimately was a political ploy concocted perhaps 2/3 to 3/4 of the way into the war. That said, it is still a fact that the Republicans freed the slaves.

No the slaves were freed by the sacrifices of the Army & happened to be during the term of a Republican President that took advantage of it.

samhill wrote:No the slaves were freed by the sacrifices of the Army & happened to be during the term of a Republican President that took advantage of it.

I was not aware that the army made the decision to free the slaves and that both the President and the Republicans were somehow caught up in a "catch 22 situation" whereby they had to go along for the ride after the fact in order to save face. This clearly sounds like drawing straws rather than boning up to the fact that the Republicans came up with the idea and the Army instituted and enforced it by following orders.

OK I'll accept that since it would be the same for Obama giving the order to kill Bin Laden & the other terrorists that the cons seem to want to deny.

But Larry, wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation similar to Congress passing a law regarding something in Canada?

The Confederacy was it's own country with a president and a congress of it's own.

Lincoln even stated that releasing the northern slaves would require an act of Congress, not the POTUS.

The war started over excessive taxation of the south by the north in 1861. The Proclamation was delivered in 1863 to force the south to fight an internal war while also fighting the north.

We had unlimited men coming in from overseas through NYC while the south was facing a manpower shortage. Lincoln had to deprive the south of using the slaves to extend the war.

If it had gone on much longer, it was possible that France would come to the Confederacy's aid and we might be two countries today.

samhill wrote:OK I'll accept that since it would be the same for Obama giving the order to kill Bin Laden & the other terrorists that the cons seem to want to deny.

You just don't miss a chance to pump up Obama do you?

Tell me again how you aren't rigidly partisan?

samhill wrote:OK I'll accept that since it would be the same for Obama giving the order to kill Bin Laden & the other terrorists that the cons seem to want to deny.

I'm a Libertarian, but I couldn't imagine anyone begrudging any President for giving the OK for the kill in this instance. On the flip side of this, I've heard Democrats boast that only President Obama (being a Democrat) had the guts and gumption to give this command, and I find that assertion to be ludicrous. I'm confident that any standing President would have given the same order without wavering, even if he was Ron Paul.

jpete wrote:But Larry, wasn't the Emancipation Proclamation similar to Congress passing a law regarding something in Canada?

The Confederacy was it's own country with a president and a congress of it's own.

Lincoln even stated that releasing the northern slaves would require an act of Congress, not the POTUS.

The war started over excessive taxation of the south by the north in 1861. The Proclamation was delivered in 1863 to force the south to fight an internal war while also fighting the north.

We had unlimited men coming in from overseas through NYC while the south was facing a manpower shortage. Lincoln had to deprive the south of using the slaves to extend the war.

If it had gone on much longer, it was possible that France would come to the Confederacy's aid and we might be two countries today.

All true, but since the North never recognized the secessions of any of the Southern States, and since such an event as Civil War stood without precedent, from the Northern perspective they were within their rights.

Where the problem in this view arises is that the Constitution itself clearly granted the States the right to secede. Therefore from the very moment the Southern States seceded, the North was in the wrong to pursue bringing them back into the Union through force.

So ultimately you are right jpete. The North (be it under the auspicies of Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, or otherwise) could not legally free the slaves in the South since they were within the boundaries of a foreign nation that was not under the law of either the North or the Constitution of the United States, but had its own Constitution and laws. If the Supreme Court would have ever reviewed the actions of the North, it would have been interesting to see if they would have boned up and told Lincoln to remove his troops from the South and let them alone.