Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Crabtownboy, Apr 8, 2011.
Do you agree or disagree?
I don't think it should be banned.
When I see nonsense like this I understand why the founders feared a democracy.
Years ago I went to a meeting where people were to be nominated to be school board members. It was democracy at its worst ... at least I hope it was its worst. I have never been in a meeting as nasty as that one. You would have thought that the fate of the entire world depended on who was nominated. As I left the meeting I thought, "If a person from a Communist country had been here tonight they would have said, 'I want no part of democracy.' "
Well, there is more to this story than meets the eye. (As is with most all news reports and polling "results".)
This was a poll done by telephone. Only 400 people were contacted. This means that 46% of those 400 people, or 184 people, allegedly are racist. That was the intent of the news report and the poll - to "prove" that Republicans are racists.
I don't think that 184 people speak for the entire Mississippi Republican membership.
The same poll was taken of NON-Republicans, but those finding were not released - so claimed the article. Why not?
Also, we are not told the exact nature of the questions that were asked. Were the questions leading ones? Like this one reported in the same report -
The "right side"? What does that mean? It HEAVILY implies a continued division. It REEKS of forcing someone to divide the nation in his or her mind still. And how is a Southern person supposed to answer that leading question? It's a stupid question meant to make a Southern person LOOK stupid no matter which answer they give. Questions like that can't be answered with a "yes" or "no".
Cynicism runs in my DNA and I would just like to hear the exact, verbatim questions, that was asked of these 184 people over the phone.
Thank you, Scarlett. As always.
It's very telling of the intent of this study in that they did not reveal the findings of the attitudes of the more liberal folks who were surveyed. I've know plenty of yellow dog democrats who were clearly racist and would not support interracial marriage. I'm sure there are a good number still kicking in Mississippi who share the same sentiment. I've also known blacks who were opposed to interracial marriage. The only people who would take this article seriously are either extremely ignorant or have an insidious agenda. Most likely both would apply.
We are supposed to politely say that we would rather the Northern Aggressors had not won. :laugh:
I think that the republicans should be banned.
I am sure these idiots are the democratic side as well and I don't doubt the numbers are just as high.
It still points out why a representative government works best
No matter what the basis of the story is, I know "Christians" who stand up against interracial marriage period. A church staff member where I used to attend did not want to assist a couple who were interracially mixed. Ugh.
As someone has said just because a mouse is in the cookie jar it does not make him a cookie.
How is Southerner supposed to answer? Truthfully and with good sense.
There was a "right side" in the Civil War, the one not wanting to continue to allow white people to own black people or keep counting them as 3/5 of a person. That is a super-duper over simplification of the matters for which people went to war I understand, but it can't be left up to the people of a particular state to decide if a black person is a person or property. Slavery is wrong on all levels and since it is wrong you don't get to vote if someone of a different color of skin is a person or not.
Let the crazy it's not about hate but about heritage crowd begin to roar.
Absolutely! The "intent" is an all too common and dishonest rhetorical devise called "poisoning the well". If one goes around gleefully repeat it, or even act as if this fallacy is true while putting on a show disgust, it says a lot about the credibility of their argument as well as the character of those who would use such a dishonest ploy to support their position.
When your world is falling apart as bad as the liberal's have been, you have no choice. Instead of addressing the failures of this foolish idealogical path, you have to point to others supposed shortcomings. Even if you have to lie a little, or a lot, as we see in this O/P.
And that "slavery" includes the govt taxes which makes me a slave
Oh, if, and thats a big if, inter-racial marriage was outlawed, that would not necessary prohibit someone from voting.
In addition, I would like to have seen the gender racial, age and religious breakdown of those polled.
I believe a minister should have the right to refuse to marry an inter-racial or any inter-whatever couple that he deems inappropriate.
I don't think anyone is forcing anyone to do a marriage ceremony for anyone. The question was about if inter-racial marriage should be outlawed. Short answer, no it should not be outlawed. If a minister wants to be act ignorantly and bigoted and not marry someone based only on the color of their skin, then that is up to them. I'm sure the Lord will hold them to account.
If you think that all the white people in the South who were fighting in the Civil War were fighting because they wanted to buy and sell black people then I can't help you with any genuine facts. I'll bet you aren't even aware of the huge volume of people who fought who didn't even own ONE slave.
If you think that my statement, "how is a Southerner supposed to answer that question" means that I am talking about slavery and whether it was right or not means that you must think I am an idiot.
I am not an idiot. I am not defending slavery. I wasn't even talking about it. I have no qualms about interracial marriages as it is not a sin nor an issue with me. I wasn't talking about RACE at all.
And yes, I do have a Southern heritage that includes mostly white people, but also Hispanic and black. I have a Southern heritage of hard-working agriculturalists. I have a Southern heritage of the good and the decent mixed in with the bad and the ugly.
It is what it is. And it's mine.
....and while I am hot under the collar and on a roll here, let me educate you on this. Yes, the North did want slavery abolished. But NOT for philanthropic reasons at all. The average white people of the North had no more compassion in their hearts for the welfare of black people than did the average white person in the South. There had been once been a long tradtion of slaves in the North, freed BLACKS who owned slaves, and the long standing tradtion of plantation owners in the South buying their slaves from slave trade ships from the North.
The former slaves did not flee in waves to the North and find meccas of racial harmony and peace. They did not find it. They were slaves in chains no more, but not the equal of a white person in ANY Northerner's eye.
Here's what Abraham Lincoln said about the black people that he "freed". He look upon them as racial inferiors - blamed the for the war - and wanted them OUT of the United States. How's that for Union love and compassion for the black man and black woman.
How is that the "right side"?
I told you - the question isn't that easy to answer.
and don't forget all those Yankees who owned slaves! And in case you forgot the Emaciation Proclamation only freed slaves in the South - the North was allowed to keep their slaves - Why - because Lincoln did not want to loose any political support.