Free states and slave states before the civil war

[tcnelson 1]

i did it better than you.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[freeryde13 0]

huh? ok. i think they should build a statue of you and write stories and movies about you. your thuch a competitive guy you. but your to inteligent for me. that went way over my head.

_________________________________________

people see me as a challenge to their balance

[miked10270 0]

Quote

I blame myself, and my friend Jim Beam.

I never thought I'd say this to a fellow professional... But... Perhaps you should refine the company you keep! Tom Bulleit is not only tastier, but aalso significantly stronger. "Single Barrel" Jackie D. is also more refined company to keep, but can be a bit "Southern" (By which I mean sweet, NOT inbred).

Regards,

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

> I think he had something to do with getting rid of that little slavery thing.

True; by the 22nd century the republicans may be the party of tolerance and diversity again. It's happened before.

They are now! You just choose not to see or believe it. Believing republicans believe in diversity confounds your belief system.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

but your to inteligent for me.

The more you participate in this conversation the more you prove your point.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Just to clarify, the elitist ultra-liberals in the North East are stereotyping?

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

What religion did you think I was against, BTW?

Honestly, I don't know or care, it doesn't matter to me. You're confusing what I'm saying with my religious beliefs.

Quote

I dislike groups of people who try to deny my friends rights, no matter what their religion.

It comes down to some of those that have religious beliefs that homosexuality is immoral believe that immorality is tearing apart the fabric of our country, thus it is their right to believe that homosexuality is wrong and should not be condoned. They're not trying to deny any of the rights given by the Bill of Rights, just trying to protect their contry from an immoral path. Its their right to believe that.

even when many of the same religions held the same beliefs about slaves and other 'lesser' races?

prejudice and persecution are not rights...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Trent 0]

Quote

***Its their right to believe that.

even when many of the same religions held the same beliefs about slaves and other 'lesser' races?

prejudice and persecution are not rights...


It is absolutely the right of anyone to believe anything they want, be it racist, sexist, homophobic... or whatever! We have the right to beleive whatever we want, don't even try to argue that!

Persecution is not okay. Some people just don't think that denying homosexuals "marriage" is persecution. That's what the whole argument is about.

Oh, hello again!

[Phlip 0]

How does one explain that Washington was 90%(!) for Kerry? Isn't that crazy? Aren't most of the politics, gouvernment agencies, ... the White House located there?



I'm just sayin'

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Aren't most of the politics, gouvernment agencies, ... the White House located there?

Have you been to DC in the last few years? I just returned from my seventh trip there this year. I'm sick of the place. Most government workers do not live in DC. The majority live in Maryland, West Virginia, or Virginia. Mostly Virginia. They don't vote in DC they vote in the surrounding states. So......that is how I would explain the vote.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[skycop 0]

Sorry,
I'm partial to good ole' Kentucky bourbon. For me stronger is not necessarily better. When I have the chance to drink some, it's like eating potato chips. I can't have just one!!!

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

True; by the 22nd century the republicans may be the party of tolerance and diversity again. It's happened before.

That "tolerance and diversity" was achieved through a war that resulted in the largest loss of American life in the history of the US. Do you think the Democratic Party will ever have the intestinal fortitude to fight a war for what they believe in? If they don't change their current leadership I have my doubts.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Just to clarify, the elitist ultra-liberals in the North East are stereotyping?

I'm glad you said something about that, it was my own small attempt at a little humor in my serious posts.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

How does one explain that Washington was 90%(!) for Kerry? Isn't that crazy? Aren't most of the politics, gouvernment agencies, ... the White House located there?

Washington DC is something like 70% black.

Along with that, most government workers do not live there. They commute to DC from outlying areas located in Virgina and Maryland.

. . =(_8^(1)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Do you think the Democratic Party will ever have the intestinal fortitude to fight a war for what they believe in?

I thought soldiers fought wars, and they are both democrats and republicans. Parties nominate politicians, and politicians send people to war. Will the Republican politicians have the intestinal fortitude to do everything possible to avoid sending soldiers to war?

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Do you think the Democratic Party will ever have the intestinal fortitude to fight a war for what they believe in?

I thought soldiers fought wars, and they are both democrats and republicans. Parties nominate politicians, and politicians send people to war. Will the Republican politicians have the intestinal fortitude to do everything possible to avoid sending soldiers to war?

Not willing to answer my question huh. Sometimes "everything possible" isn't enough.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[GravityGirl 0]

Quote

Actually the GOP was created in part as an anti-slavery platform. There were other key issues, but that's one of the major ones.

And it's funny how this country was born out of a desire for separation of church and state....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[sundevil777 102]

Quote

What is the probability that a correlation like that is a coincidence? Do a chi-squared or use Bayes Theorem to work it out.

I did work it out, but the super poly-razmatazz theorem states that gratuitous hurling of obscure mathematical references will not impress anyone, except for yourself.

Quote

Then draw your own conclusion.

My conclusion is that the county-red/blue map shows your assertion to be false, but it is easy to conclude that liberals are desparate.

I understand how irritating it is for Libs to be out of power, but try not to let it get to you too much. Repubs had to deal with it for a long time, it wasn't easy.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[sundevil777 102]

Separation of church and state: It certainly did not mean to the founders what libs want to make it mean now. Not even close.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

Separation of church and state: It certainly did not mean to the founders what libs want to make it mean now. Not even close.

I always took it as meaning that religion should have no bearings on state matters, and that the state should have no bearing on religious matters. Am I wrong?

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[Phlip 0]

Quote

I always took it as meaning that religion should have no bearings on state matters, and that the state should have no bearing on religious matters. Am I wrong?

That's because you're French (are you? Frenchy68...mmm)...
I noticed it's very obvious to French people to think that way but really not obvious to American. (no offense just a very strong cultural difference).

I believe that if you have to represent everybody in your country then you have to be neutral on the subject of religion.

IMO

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

I always took it as meaning that religion should have no bearings on state matters, and that the state should have no bearing on religious matters. Am I wrong?

Kind of. Too many people throw around the phrase "separation of church and state" without realizing that the phrase is not in the constitution. The constitution states:

Quote

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That is all it says. It says nothing about the church having no influence on state matters only that congress will not pass a law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise of a religion. Some judges have interpreted it that way but it seems a stretch to me.

BTW, some religious practices are prohibited. Some religions practice ritual sacrifice of humans. That is illegal in the US. The right to exercise religion is not absolute. The supreme court has ruled that no rights in the constitution are absolute.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin

[billvon 3,072]

>Separation of church and state: It certainly did not mean to the
>founders what libs want to make it mean now. Not even close.

The separation of church and state came from a desire to not repeat the mistakes of the British Empire, where the Anglican Church had a great deal of control over the government. That's why the founders of the US made it clear that government shall not get involved with religion at all, and vice versa. That's why the very first sentence in the bill of rights reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[ChileRelleno 0]

My thoughts and opinions,

Quite a few of the first and later colonist/settlers came over here fleeing religious persecution, such as The Church of England which practically was the government according to some. Freedom to worship how they wished without the state coming after them for not following the State Religion.

The Church should not be the Government and the Government should not dictate the religion.

Our Founding Fathers gave great importance to the influence of religion when setting the foundation cornerstones and raising the framework of the country they desired to see come forth and were guided by the precepts of the bible...
You can dang well bet that they probably thought that the Ten Commandments would've had a rightful place in a courthouse and so forth.

This so called "Constitutional Separation of Church and State" doesn't even actually exist in the context that its taken today.

The founding fathers would've tar'd-n-feathered the ACLU and rode them out of town on a rail, for many, but not all, of the "Liberties" they attack...

Pardon me, I start to ramble and I digress so I'll stop here... Its late and I'm tired.

ChileRelleno-Rodriguez Bro#414
Hellfish#511,MuffBro#3532,AnvilBro#9, D24868

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

That's because you're French (are you? Frenchy68...mmm)...

Born and raised there...

Quote

I noticed it's very obvious to French people to think that way but really not obvious to American. (no offense just a very strong cultural difference).

It's actually also an historical difference. The founding fathers felt very strongly about freedom of religion. It was what motivated the Pilgrim Fathers to move to the new world in the first place, and the US constitution reflects it. The French Republic was founded on the separation of religion and state, as the church was associated with the evils of the old regime. I think that's a very important difference between the 2 countries

Quote

I believe that if you have to represent everybody in your country then you have to be neutral on the subject of religion.

I personally agree with this statement, but in the context of US politics, i think it is quite another ballpark...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."