[Bob Seger]

You are an idiot. That is the most absurd thing i have ever heard.

Next time ,why don't you try taking the time to comprehend what the man writes before you start making yourself look exactly like what you just called him.:eyeroll:

[Wildcatk23]

It wasn't that he was defending it. He Somehow came up with the "MAJORITY" Of slaves wasn't treated bad.

[nky]

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state
will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our
allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he
has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and
he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking
and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States
the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein
because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

the big diffrence between what these people said above is they
did not go to war because if you going to put american men and
women in harm's way you better be 110% right and we was dead
wrong if you want see how you throw a dictator out just watch
what's going over in Libya not the first american man or
woman killed

We went to war in Iraq

[nky]

how short of a memory we got brother HOOT

Invasion of Grenada
Invasion of Panama
Since war IN IRAQ began 3/19/03
us deaths 4474
us wounded 33125
total cost of the Iraq war at $3 trillion This price tag dwarfed
previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003
projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.
THAT'S NOT COUNTING THE INTEREST

? What in the wide wide world of sports do those have to do with anything?

[nky]

how short of a memory we got brother HOOT

Invasion of Grenada
Invasion of Panama
Since war IN IRAQ began 3/19/03
us deaths 4474
us wounded 33125
total cost of the Iraq war at $3 trillion This price tag dwarfed
previous estimates, including the Bush administration's 2003
projections of a $50 billion to $60 billion war.
THAT'S NOT COUNTING THE INTEREST

1. fighting a 21st century war is expensive
2. I would prefer they fight the war "over there" then have it fought on our soil. Take the action to them.
3. Soldiers die in war. It's a sad reality. We have been waging one war for almost ten years and another for almost 7 years. Our loses in soldiers lives being tragic as it is is still a low casualty number

[Hoot Gibson]

? What in the wide wide world of sports do those have to do with anything?

Both occurred under Ronald Reagan, both actions were over quickly, and neither violated the War powers Act. Any more questions?

What do the events mentioned above have to do with Obama's continuing violation of the War Powers Act? Absolutely nothing.

[TheRealThing]

It wasn't that he was defending it. He Somehow came up with the "MAJORITY" Of slaves wasn't treated bad.

I've read my history. Most slaves were treated well. Owned by a family of means usually, and often they were well thought of. The point was in the old days slavery was common place though not acceptable to us and, most owners were not mean to them. I doubt you're qualified to criticize rhe validity of that perspective.

Realville, far as I'm concerned you just siezed on an opportunity you thought Wildcat 23 created for you. One of these days you might come out of that fogbank you're in and start thinking for yourself. Like I said before, when the race card is played the liberal will raise his voice because he knows it's the in thing to do.

Amun-Ra don't take my word for whether or not the NYT is liberal or not, how about Daniel Okrent's opinion? LINK--- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinio...paper.html
A couple of these guys running would do a good job. Whoever gets elected better be strong enough to deal with the runaway spending.

[TheRealThing]

Next time ,why don't you try taking the time to comprehend what the man writes before you start making yourself look exactly like what you just called him.:eyeroll:

He was so excited to think he had me his mouth was already slamming 3rd before his brain engaged.:biggrin:

[Wildcatk23]

I've read my history. Most slaves were treated well. Owned by a family of means usually, and often they were well thought of. The point was in the old days slavery was common place though not acceptable to us and, most owners were not mean to them. I doubt you're qualified to criticize rhe validity of that perspective.

Realville, far as I'm concerned you just siezed on an opportunity you thought Wildcat 23 created for you. One of these days you might come out of that fogbank you're in and start thinking for yourself. Like I said before, when the race card is played the liberal will raise his voice because he knows it's the in thing to do.

Amun-Ra don't take my word for whether or not the NYT is liberal or not, how about Daniel Okrent's opinion? LINK--- http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinio...paper.html
A couple of these guys running would do a good job. Whoever gets elected better be strong enough to deal with the runaway spending.

The Majority of slaves was not treated well. The fact that someone else bought another human being and somehow thought it was ok to work them is in know way treating someone well. Even the slaves that weren't beat and whipped still worked from dusk to dawn in plantation fields, factories, Other jobs that they was not paid or compensated for.

Yes there was some slaves that was released and worked in doors for the "Master".

[TheRealThing]

The Majority of slaves was not treated well. The fact that someone else bought another human being and somehow thought it was ok to work them is in know way treating someone well. Even the slaves that weren't beat and whipped still worked from dusk to dawn in plantation fields, factories, Other jobs that they was not paid or compensated for.

Yes there was some slaves that was released and worked in doors for the "Master".

Ok 23 try try to focus here. You mentioned a CHRISTIAN government contrasted against the idea of slavery. Last I checked the Bible had been written in chief, a couple thousand years ago. Slaves are mentioned in the Bible and culturally thoughout recorded history. Slavery was abolished 150 years ago in this country when the argument regarding the legitimacy of 'owning/using slaves' was settled in what was surely the low point in our natiional history in an event known as the the War Between the States. All governments in those days tolerated slavery but, they smartened up.

Now, if you want to insist that most slaves were treated badly, go for it. However, from what I have read that just was not the case. America knows better now and many good men died for that cause 150 years ago.

At any rate,(and we are just talking about slaves in America now, not back through the dawn of time) back then they didn't have a McDonald's on every other corner, or a car to go there in. No airconditioning, not much heat, many times if one was lucky enough to have any kind of building over their head there was nothing but a dirt floor and a makeshift chimney. Therefore an axe and a shovel were to die for. Windows or the glass from them were passed down like trust funds are today. A lot of people dipped water out of a creek or river so a bucket was like a washing machine on the scale of things to have for us, muckety-mucks had an outside privy with a hole in a bench. No refrigeration, no transportation, no phone, people made their own clothes. Sick and need a doctor? Not likely. People had to farm, to eat, chop wood to cook and stay alive in winter. In short, life was hard at best. On the plantation, many of life's neccessities were part of the deal. So, romanticize it however you choose. The likelihood that you have a clear picture of what you're talking out of your head about is not good.

[Wildcatk23]

Ok 23 try try to focus here. You mentioned a CHRISTIAN government contrasted against the idea of slavery. Last I checked the Bible had been written in chief, a couple thousand years ago. Slaves are mentioned in the Bible and culturally thoughout recorded history. Slavery was abolished 150 years ago in this country when the argument regarding the legitimacy of 'owning/using slaves' was settled in what was surely the low point in our natiional history in an event known as the the War Between the States. All governments in those days tolerated slavery but, they smartened up.

Now, if you want to insist that most slaves were treated badly, go for it. However, from what I have read that just was not the case. America knows better now and many good men died for that cause 150 years ago.

At any rate,(and we are just talking about slaves in America now, not back through the dawn of time) back then they didn't have a McDonald's on every other corner, or a car to go there in. No airconditioning, not much heat, many times if one was lucky enough to have any kind of building over their head there was nothing but a dirt floor and a makeshift chimney. Therefore an axe and a shovel were to die for. Windows or the glass from them were passed down like trust funds are today. A lot of people dipped water out of a creek or river so a bucket was like a washing machine on the scale of things to have for us, muckety-mucks had an outside privy with a hole in a bench. No refrigeration, no transportation, no phone, people made their own clothes. Sick and need a doctor? Not likely. People had to farm, to eat, chop wood to cook and stay alive in winter. In short, life was hard at best. On the plantation, many of life's neccessities were part of the deal. So, romanticize it however you choose. The likelihood that you have a clear picture of what you're talking out of your head about is not good.

Life was so hard that we had to own other humans to do their work?

You really believe this stuff that you say.

They was taken from there homes, There families. Beaten, Murdered, Raped. All slavery was bad. There was no good points to slavery.

[LWC]

As a history major (and Christian Ministries, but for this debate, we will focus on history), I agree and disagree with TRT.

Slavery in America and slavery across the world were not always the same thing. There were slaves that were treated like indentured servants that were never allowed to leave. Yet, they were given shelter, food, clothes, some religious freedom, etc... while that is like comparing a punch to the face to a punch in the groin. Nobody wants either but one is more tolerable than the other.

Just as Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Slavery has the power to make me miserable." I detest the idea and practice of slavery that still goes on today in parts of the world.

Three major drawbacks to "good" slavery: (I could use many from the Bible, but as I said, I am using only history and reason for this debate)
1. Education.
Slaves in all parts of the world were forbidden to be educated. They were not allowed to read, write, travel independently, hold office, vote, etc.... If they were ever allowed to, chances are almost 100% that they would rebel.
2. Something about one human owning another human. I can give no source outside the Bible, but moral fiber just tells us that is wrong. Come on! lol
3. Slaves that chose to leave, were never allowed.
For the instances when a slave would try to run, anywhere in the world, the owners would track them down. This is NOT just a United States idea. Slaves all over the world tried to escape. It was more organized and widely recorded in US history but that happened elsewhere. If slaves had it so "good", why would they ever consider leaving?

[Bob Seger]

Life was so hard that we had to own other humans to do their work?

You really believe this stuff that you say.

They was taken from there homes, There families. Beaten, Murdered, Raped. All slavery was bad. There was no good points to slavery.

See, there you go again, not fully knowing what you are talking about grasshoppa!!! Most slaves were captured and sold to the slave traders by competitive waring factions of their own race and sold to the traders for compensation. The traders didn't just go into the jungles and capture slaves on their own, they were helped from within.

While you are correct that there is nothing good about bondage, as there is no finance so great as what the price of freedom is, you fail to recognize one point. For the average slave owner, the slave was a financial investment. It was to their benefit to keep a slave as healthy and basicly as happy as possible. It would be foolish on their parts to abuse one physically to the point that they could not perform work. Oh, I am sure there are many examples of drunken or mentaly deranged owners being abusive , but for the most part, slaves were thought of in the terms of a piece of equipment or a beast of burden. It was wise for the smart businessman to protect his investment. Keep it well oiled and lubricated, you might say. While the active part of owning another human is despicable, there is still the fact that most were probably treated better and had much better living conditions in colonial America than they had fighting another waring faction from their homelands and enduring capture, torture and death from competing tribes from within their own race. As TRT indicates you are romanticizing it somewhat more than the way it really was.

[Bob Seger]

As a history major (and Christian Ministries, but for this debate, we will focus on history), I agree and disagree with TRT.

Slavery in America and slavery across the world were not always the same thing. There were slaves that were treated like indentured servants that were never allowed to leave. Yet, they were given shelter, food, clothes, some religious freedom, etc... while that is like comparing a punch to the face to a punch in the groin. Nobody wants either but one is more tolerable than the other.

Just as Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Slavery has the power to make me miserable." I detest the idea and practice of slavery that still goes on today in parts of the world.

Three major drawbacks to "good" slavery: (I could use many from the Bible, but as I said, I am using only history and reason for this debate)
1. Education.
Slaves in all parts of the world were forbidden to be educated. They were not allowed to read, write, travel independently, hold office, vote, etc.... If they were ever allowed to, chances are almost 100% that they would rebel.
2. Something about one human owning another human. I can give no source outside the Bible, but moral fiber just tells us that is wrong. Come on! lol
3. Slaves that chose to leave, were never allowed.
For the instances when a slave would try to run, anywhere in the world, the owners would track them down. This is NOT just a United States idea. Slaves all over the world tried to escape. It was more organized and widely recorded in US history but that happened elsewhere. If slaves had it so "good", why would they ever consider leaving?

I think all human beings comprehend that there is nothing too expensive to what one would pay for the freedom of the choice to breathe the air and walk whatever road where ever he may wish, and will do what needed to experience that freedom. Even when treated well by those they are held in bondage by.

[TheRealThing]

Life was so hard that we had to own other humans to do their work?

You really believe this stuff that you say.

They was taken from there homes, There families. Beaten, Murdered, Raped. All slavery was bad. There was no good points to slavery.

Yeah, it's hard to get much out of them once you murder them. Unbelievable. Nobody is defending slavery in any form or in any time. Here you go, I'll pitch in and increase your factual knowledge on the subject by at least 100%

Slavery in the United States was a form of slave labor which existed as a legal institution in North America for more than a century before the founding of the United States in 1776, and continued mostly in the South until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865.[1] The first English colony in North America, Virginia, acquired its first Africans in 1619, after a ship arrived, unsolicited, carrying a cargo of about 20 Africans.[2][3] Thus, a practice established in the Spanish colonies as early as the 1560s was expanded into English North America.[4] Most slaves were black and were held by whites, although some Native Americans and free blacks also held slaves; there were a small number of white slaves as well.[5] Europeans also held some Native Americans as slaves, and African-Native Americans. Slavery spread to the areas where there was good-quality soil for large plantations of high-value cash crops, such as tobacco, cotton, sugar, and coffee. The slaves did the manual labor involved in raising and harvesting these crops. By the early decades of the 19th century, the majority of slaveholders and slaves were in the southern United States, where most slaves were engaged in a work-gang system of agriculture on large plantations, especially devoted to cotton and sugar cane. Such large groups of slaves were thought to work more efficiently if directed by a managerial class called overseers, usually white men.

You said the Christian government, what ever that is, "allowed slaves", I believe was how you put it. The same government allowed duelling too, and that has about as much to do with this thread as your slavery comment does though, at least guns were used in both. Since you brought it up I was just pointing out that all governments of that era allowed it and that slavery was nothing unusual all the way back to when Christ was on earth. But, and again I would point this out to you, IT'S OVER as of 150 years ago! Not only is your concern pointless but, it sure doesn't have a thing to do with an invaision in Iraq.

[TheRealThing]

As a history major (and Christian Ministries, but for this debate, we will focus on history), I agree and disagree with TRT.

Slavery in America and slavery across the world were not always the same thing. There were slaves that were treated like indentured servants that were never allowed to leave. Yet, they were given shelter, food, clothes, some religious freedom, etc... while that is like comparing a punch to the face to a punch in the groin. Nobody wants either but one is more tolerable than the other.

Just as Abraham Lincoln famously said, "Slavery has the power to make me miserable." I detest the idea and practice of slavery that still goes on today in parts of the world.

Three major drawbacks to "good" slavery: (I could use many from the Bible, but as I said, I am using only history and reason for this debate)
1. Education.
Slaves in all parts of the world were forbidden to be educated. They were not allowed to read, write, travel independently, hold office, vote, etc.... If they were ever allowed to, chances are almost 100% that they would rebel.
2. Something about one human owning another human. I can give no source outside the Bible, but moral fiber just tells us that is wrong. Come on! lol
3. Slaves that chose to leave, were never allowed.
For the instances when a slave would try to run, anywhere in the world, the owners would track them down. This is NOT just a United States idea. Slaves all over the world tried to escape. It was more organized and widely recorded in US history but that happened elsewhere. If slaves had it so "good", why would they ever consider leaving?

I don't disagree with any of this

[TheRealThing]

I think all human beings comprehend that there is nothing too expensive to what one would pay for the freedom of the choice to breathe the air and walk whatever road where ever he may wish, and will do what needed to experience that freedom. Even when treated well by those they are held in bondage by.

Agree

[nky]

Rick Perry wants to bring Slavery back? Man I missed that one on MSNBC

[Wildcatk23]

Yeah, it's hard to get much out of them once you murder them. Unbelievable. Nobody is defending slavery in any form or in any time. Here you go, I'll pitch in and increase your factual knowledge on the subject by at least 100%

Slavery in the United States was a form of slave labor which existed as a legal institution in North America for more than a century before the founding of the United States in 1776, and continued mostly in the South until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865.[1] The first English colony in North America, Virginia, acquired its first Africans in 1619, after a ship arrived, unsolicited, carrying a cargo of about 20 Africans.[2][3] Thus, a practice established in the Spanish colonies as early as the 1560s was expanded into English North America.[4] Most slaves were black and were held by whites, although some Native Americans and free blacks also held slaves; there were a small number of white slaves as well.[5] Europeans also held some Native Americans as slaves, and African-Native Americans. Slavery spread to the areas where there was good-quality soil for large plantations of high-value cash crops, such as tobacco, cotton, sugar, and coffee. The slaves did the manual labor involved in raising and harvesting these crops. By the early decades of the 19th century, the majority of slaveholders and slaves were in the southern United States, where most slaves were engaged in a work-gang system of agriculture on large plantations, especially devoted to cotton and sugar cane. Such large groups of slaves were thought to work more efficiently if directed by a managerial class called overseers, usually white men.

You said the Christian government, what ever that is, "allowed slaves", I believe was how you put it. The same government allowed duelling too, and that has about as much to do with this thread as your slavery comment does though, at least guns were used in both. Since you brought it up I was just pointing out that all governments of that era allowed it and that slavery was nothing unusual all the way back to when Christ was on earth. But, and again I would point this out to you, IT'S OVER as of 150 years ago! Not only is your concern pointless but, it sure doesn't have a thing to do with an invaision in Iraq.

I believe you said that our Government was founded on Christian principles.. Which is how this got started i believe. And i said its hard to believe that a Christian government could allow slavery.

Your Copy and paste from Wiki is nothing any 5th grader hasn't seen in a history book. It's a little sugar coated to say the least.

[Stardust]

I believe you said that our Government was founded on Christian principles.. Which is how this got started i believe. And i said its hard to believe that a Christian government could allow slavery.

Your Copy and paste from Wiki is nothing any 5th grader hasn't seen in a history book. It's a little sugar coated to say the least.

I do believe that the country was built around Christianity. That does not mean that Christianity believes that slavery is a christian theme belief! I believe in the right to bear arms, that is until someone shoots me because they want my wallet! I believe in the right to freedom of speech, until someone says "I" am not allowed to talk!

Don't confuse that those whose intent in the words that they wrote, abided by them! Police officers enforce the speed limit, but do they always drive it?

[TheRealThing]

I believe you said that our Government was founded on Christian principles.. Which is how this got started i believe. And i said its hard to believe that a Christian government could allow slavery.

Your Copy and paste from Wiki is nothing any 5th grader hasn't seen in a history book. It's a little sugar coated to say the least.

You've had 3 or 4 people on here try to explain to you that you're uniformed and you have a tendency to answer before you think about what you're responding to. Why don't you just let it die? As far as the Wiki thing goes I thought I would keep my references at a level you had at least an outside chance of comprehending.

In the meantime, if you ever want any respect out of me you're gonna have to work on those communication skills, learn how to layoff the childish and liberalesque habit of name calling, and stick to quotes, facts, articles, links etc. to develope a point. I have made comment before that the liberal mentality was largely elementary school playground like by nature. And, you fit the profile to a T.

[Bob Seger]

I believe you said that our Government was founded on Christian principles.. Which is how this got started i believe. And i said its hard to believe that a Christian government could allow slavery.

Your Copy and paste from Wiki is nothing any 5th grader hasn't seen in a history book. It's a little sugar coated to say the least.

Whoa here now liberal squirt in training.......And nothing that you are not the expert at doing, yourself ?.... I'm thinking you patented the technique.nicker:

[Wildcatk23]

You've had 3 or 4 people on here try to explain to you that you're uniformed and you have a tendency to answer before you think about what you're responding to. Why don't you just let it die? As far as the Wiki thing goes I thought I would keep my references at a level you had at least an outside chance of comprehending.

In the meantime, if you ever want any respect out of me you're gonna have to work on those communication skills, learn how to layoff the childish and liberalesque habit of name calling, and stick to quotes, facts, articles, links etc. to develope a point. I have made comment before that the liberal mentality was largely elementary school playground like by nature. And, you fit the profile to a T.

I would never want respect from someone that claims slaves for the majority was treated good.

3-4 people that i could care less what there opinion is. Offering your respect to someone who doesn't want or need it from a "the left ruined the world conservative" means nothing to me. I respect your opinion but disagree with your statement that a Majority of slaves was treated good.

[Wildcatk23]

Whoa here now liberal squirt in training.......And nothing that you are not the expert at doing, yourself ?.... I'm thinking you patented the technique.nicker:

Just like a conservative

"Hey when you do it its wrong" "But when we do it its perfectly ok and different"

:lmao:

[Bob Seger]

Just like a conservative

"Hey when you do it its wrong" "But when we do it its perfectly ok and different"

:lmao:

Just thought it ironic...no wait hypocritical... that you would even attempt to pin something like that on someone else.

[Bob Seger]

I would never want respect from someone that claims slaves for the majority was treated good.

3-4 people that i could care less what there opinion is. Offering your respect to someone who doesn't want or need it from a "the left ruined the world conservative" means nothing to me. I respect your opinion but disagree with your statement that a Majority of slaves was treated good.

Then you're not remotely interested in hearing the truth. I think you would rather twist the context around and try to misrepresent what he said than to admit that "I aint smart enough to even figure out what he's saying". That how you do it in the liberal camp. Right?:flame:

[Wildcatk23]

Just thought it ironic...no wait hypocritical... that you would even attempt to pin something like that on someone else.

Just thought you should know how u set double standards.

[Wildcatk23]

Then you're not remotely interested in hearing the truth. I think you would rather twist the context around and try to misrepresent what he said than to admit that "I aint smart enough to even figure out what he's saying". That how you do it in the liberal camp. Right?:flame:

How exactly is there a smart way to comprehend, "MOST Slaves was treated well".

[nky]

by the way many slaves of the 19th Century in America were treated no better than most poor whites of the same period. Similar standard of living,working conditions, and food intake.

Thought I'd though that out there.

[nky]

I believe you said that our Government was founded on Christian principles.. Which is how this got started i believe. And i said its hard to believe that a Christian government could allow slavery.

Your Copy and paste from Wiki is nothing any 5th grader hasn't seen in a history book. It's a little sugar coated to say the least.

Slave owners in the South used their Christain belief to justify slavery.
many passages in Bible dealing with treatment of Slaves

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.