Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

[jaeger19]

Ok, so you don’t have an answer to the question I extrapolated from the OP.

Ilhan Omar disagrees with you about analyzing 9-11. It was just some people doing something.

Okay so you can't support your " special pleading" statement
As far as what you " extrapolated from the op"
I am not sure what you are asking?
What culture..? You mean the whole United States? White culture?
Or the culture that owned slaves and killed others to keep that culture of owning slaves?

 

[Master Debator]

I defined my position on the ubiquity of human evil because you didn’t understand it and acted all triggered. That’s the relevance.

Can you prove this? Can you point to one post where I said white people are the only ones to have ever engaged in slavery or horrific behavior? I'm not triggered by your claim white winger, I'm confused by it. So let's see the evidence.

The answer to your jury rigged example is yes.

Good, you acknowledge that kidnap victims sleeping with her captor for food is rape. I was starting to wonder if there was no bottom to your barrel.

Too bad you have no proof that this was the situation between Jefferson and Hemings.

Hemings was his slave. Explain to me the difference between a kidnap victim and a victim of slavery having sex with their captors under duress.

You Mad Libs no more want to rid of what you call “the white wing” than a hellfire preacher wants to get rid of the devil.

Umm... projection? Why wouldn't you want to be rid of your enemies. Also if you didn't understand yet the preachers are in it for the money. I don't do this for money, I actually think progressive policies would be better for America.

If the Right ever did disappear, we’d quickly see how well the members of the Rainbow Coalition got along. I suspect the battles would make North vs South look like a love in.

Again, projection. Why would these people have opposing agendas? Maybe different ones, but the only people with opposing agendas are the white wingers who don't think government should do anything but protect their right to guns and make sure women can't get abortions.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Umm... projection? Why wouldn't you want to be rid of your enemies. Also if you didn't understand yet the preachers are in it for the money. I don't do this for money, I actually think progressive policies would be better for America

If I may interject myself into some thoughts on the questions directed to Oroborus . . .

When the general situation is examined fairly and dispassionately, those that you refer to denigratingly as ‘the white wing’ have made extraordinary efforts in establishing conditions of equality in the United States. If you take for example WF Buckley as a representative of the Conservative establishment as such he came around to accept the general proposition of equal opportunity And justice before the law.

These Conservatives, generally speaking, more or less fully adopted Progressive principles when they did this. And Conservatism today is largely made up of people who support generally progressive values.

We must assume that if there is an *enemy* it would be those who like in Charlottesville chanted “You will not replace us”. What they referred to of course is what they understand to be activism, open or hidden and indirect, that supports the agenda of making of America a non-white nation — a multi-cultural and a multi-ethnic nation. In respect to this question I have posted quotes from Wilmot Robertson (The Dispossessed Majority) that have expressed similar opposition to these *projects*.

However, my position is not that the US should have no other ethnicities but rather that it would be best (and this *best* I can define) not to establish as policy the dilution of the American Caucasian demographic (though this is already on-going). When did this *project* begin and why? That is a question that can be examined and talked about. But let us note one result (among many): the Caucasian demographic, at least some percentage of it, does not desire this outcome and indeed they have good reasons to be concerned.

These are the issues I have brought out here — fairly, reasonably, and without espousing some sort of *racist* doctrine.

I am therefore curious about your use of the term ‘enemy’. You have in a substantial sense, in numerous senses, defined yourself as an *enemy* . That is you have taken the role of enemy. You define yourself as an enemy. If you are perceived as an *enemy*, given your rhetoric, it would not be surprising and it would not be misperception.

I have come to the opinion that when you say you are *progressive* that you are substantially lying — but not as a conscious, malicious choice mind you. You are involved in a lie is how I put it. Today, your brand of *progressivism* has shut down channels of communication for one of the presidents of the United States! And there are dozens of others who have been silenced and hundreds and thousands, literally, of minor actors whose speech you have silenced. The Federal police have now been activated to use the legal system as a way to control, shut out, shut down, and stifle the political activities of those you define as your *enemIes*. This has nothing to do with progressive, liberal American values! It is in fact quite the opposite.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Also if you didn't understand yet the preachers are in it for the money. I don't do this for money, I actually think progressive policies would be better for America.

There are certainly some mega-preachers who run vast businesses. But the typical *preacher* preaches because he or she believes in certain ideas and values and wants to spread them.

If we were to speak about money and economy we’d have to say that one of the reasons many corporations have got on the *woke* wagon is purely for monetary interest. Because they have people who study markets, demography, and they are positioning themselves as they think best for future advantage. It might not be sound cultural policy but it is good economic policy.

(And business interests should not be relied on for sound policy choices as we all know!)

There are value-centered arguments (these correspond to a preacher who shared ideas and values) as to why it is a good idea for all people, including ethnicities, to support the strengthening, not the weakening, of the American demographic. What I mean is the argument can be made. And some so-called minority figures make this argument.

Your *progressivism* has a totalitarian tinge to it. Those who observe what this alarmingly weird regime (Biden/Harris) is not doing, and also what they are setting themselves up for when those that oppose what they do come roaring back on the scene — and they will — notice what *you* are advocating and, with good reasons, oppose it.

I am not sure who has the soundest argument as to *what is best for America*. If we accept what is being said today — that America is beginning a decline (this is talked about internationally) — then it is really hard to say what is ultimately good for the nation.

If what is being enacted in America now, today, is *progressive* I am pretty sure that I cannot support it. While I did not ever like Mr Trump all that much I find that when I hear him now I genuinely get the impression that he is and will be far better for America in so many senses.

I have many many questions for those who so reflexively and in my view unfairly and reactively did everything possible to hinder his presidency.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Your *progressivism* has a totalitarian tinge to it. Those who observe what this alarmingly weird regime (Biden/Harris) is now doing, and also what they are setting themselves up for when those that oppose what they do come roaring back on the scene — and they will — notice what *you* are advocating and, with good reasons, oppose it.

Note correction.

 

[Master Debator]

When the general situation is examined fairly and dispassionately, those that you refer to denigratingly as ‘the white wing’ have made extraordinary efforts in establishing conditions of equality in the United States. If you take for example WF Buckley as a representative of the Conservative establishment as such he came around to accept the general proposition of equal opportunity And justice before the law.

I take Buckley for a racist and the grandfather of the modern white wing.

These Conservatives, generally speaking, more or less fully adopted Progressive principles when they did this. And Conservatism today is largely made up of people who support generally progressive values.

Conservatism is largely made up of cucks.

We must assume that if there is an *enemy* it would be those who like in Charlottesville chanted “You will not replace us”. What they referred to of course is what they understand to be activism, open or hidden and indirect, that supports the agenda of making of America a non-white nation — a multi-cultural and a multi-ethnic nation. In respect to this question I have posted quotes from Wilmot Robertson (The Dispossessed Majority) that have expressed similar opposition to these *projects*.

Yes. Those are the cucks are I'm referring to. If they had popular ideas or could get women to sleep with them and thus produce offspring, they wouldn't be worried so much about being replaced.

However, my position is not that the US should have no other ethnicities but rather that it would be best (and this *best* I can define) not to establish as policy the dilution of the American Caucasian demographic (though this is already on-going). When did this *project* begin and why? That is a question that can be examined and talked about. But let us note one result (among many): the Caucasian demographic, at least some percentage of it, does not desire this outcome and indeed they have good reasons to be concerned.

That depends on whether you find ignorance and racism and small penises to be good reasons.

These are the issues I have brought out here — fairly, reasonably, and without espousing some sort of *racist* doctrine.

You thought you effectively cloaked the racism as you advocated for a permanent white majority? I mean I almost want to feel sorry for you guys for being so bad at this. Almost.

I am therefore curious about your use of the term ‘enemy’. You have in a substantial sense, in numerous senses, defined yourself as an *enemy* . That is you have taken the role of enemy. You define yourself as an enemy. If you are perceived as an *enemy*, given your rhetoric, it would not be surprising and it would not be misperception.

I'm only being honest with you. I see people like you as my enemy. I don't see any need to be ambiguous here.

 

[Master Debator]

I have come to the opinion that when you say you are *progressive* that you are substantially lying — but not as a conscious, malicious choice mind you. You are involved in a lie is how I put it. Today, your brand of *progressivism* has shut down channels of communication for one of the presidents of the United States!

That was a private business that did that. That's not progressivism, that's capitalism. Well, capitalism bowing to progressivism. But who told you folks to rely so heavily on greedy allies that can be bought and sold?

And there are dozens of others who have been silenced and hundreds and thousands, literally, of minor actors whose speech you have silenced.

They still have their vocal chords don't they? Maybe it's time to fire back up those old CB radios. Can't cancel you there.

The Federal police have now been activated to use the legal system as a way to control, shut out, shut down, and stifle the political activities of those you define as your *enemIes*. This has nothing to do with progressive, liberal American values! It is in fact quite the opposite.

Well when my enemies consider kidnapping a governor and storming a Capitol to change a vote as viable political activities, my enemies also become the enemies of the F.B.I.

If we were to speak about money and economy we’d have to say that one of the reasons many corporations have got on the *woke* wagon is purely for monetary interest.

What do you think a corporations purpose is?

Because they have people who study markets, demography, and they are positioning themselves as they think best for future advantage. It might not be sound cultural policy but it is good economic policy.

Maybe if poor white trash wasn't so poor they'd care more about what they thought.

There are value-centered arguments (these correspond to a preacher who shared ideas and values) as to why it is a good idea for all people, including ethnicities, to support the strengthening, not the weakening, of the American demographic. What I mean is the argument can be made. And some so-called minority figures make this argument.

So make the argument and see if voters find it a convincing one. I'm not worried.

Your *progressivism* has a totalitarian tinge to it. Those who observe what this alarmingly weird regime (Biden/Harris) is not doing, and also what they are setting themselves up for when those that oppose what they do come roaring back on the scene — and they will — notice what *you* are advocating and, with good reasons, oppose it.

Wake me when they get here.

I am not sure who has the soundest argument as to *what is best for America*. If we accept what is being said today — that America is beginning a decline (this is talked about internationally) — then it is really hard to say what is ultimately good for the nation.

Uncertainty isn't a good look politically, you should figure that shit out first before you make bold proclamations.

If what is being enacted in America now, today, is *progressive* I am pretty sure that I cannot support it. While I did not ever like Mr Trump all that much I find that when I hear him now I genuinely get the impression that he is and will be far better for America in so many senses.

Well, we won't miss your support. Bye.

I have many many questions for those who so reflexively and in my view unfairly and reactively did everything possible to hinder his presidency.

Should ask the orange clown these questions himself then because he steps on his own dick more than anyone.

 

[jdog]

"A Louisiana state rep said earlier this week that schools shouldn’t teach “divisive concepts” but rather give students “the good, the bad, and the ugly” on various topics such as… slavery. Unfortunately, that was the example that immediately sprang to his mind in a recent hearing, and he quickly had to confirm it had no “good” parts.

Rep. Ray Garofolo, the chair of the Louisiana House Education Committee, made the comments during a committee hearing on his own bill that would ban any K-12 school or college that receives public funding from teaching “divisive concepts” such as the United States or Louisiana being “fundamentally, institutionally, or systemically racist or sexist.”

...During the same hearing, Rep. Gary Carter Jr., a Democrat, asked Garofolo point-blank if Louisiana “ever was” systematically racist or sexist. “From my perspective, I’m not a history teacher, so you can’t ask me a history question that I may not have that fact to,” Garofolo said."

Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to Clarify There Was No ‘Good’ in Slavery

Rep. Ray Garofolo was trying to explain his education bill, which is part of a larger trend against “critical race theory.”

www.vice.com

the interesting thing about this is that a state legislator does not know if Louisiana was ever systematically racist. And that he doesn't know, he says, because he isn't a history teacher. Yet, he would pass a bill prohibiting teachers from teaching such a thing.

Perhaps you forget, it was the Republicans that abolished slavery, much to the distain of the Democrats..........

 

[Tigerace117]

Perhaps you forget, it was the Republicans that abolished slavery, much to the distain of the Democrats..........

Perhaps you forget....the Republican Party of 1865 and the Republican Party of today are two VERY different creatures. The Republican Party today throws tantrums over statues of Confederates coming down.

 

[Ouroboros]

This misrepresents historical reality. The slave trade in Africa had existed only for a few centuries, as it was created by Muslims, who did not even exist millennia ago.

Your rhetoric is often used an attempt to excuse USA slavery, as if the white slavers weren't guilty since the slave might have been captured by another black person.

So what? If that absolves me of guilt, then I'll hire a black person to steal your car for me, and you will be unable to find me guity of anything! right?

If one agrees that Arab slavery began in the eighth century, that’s roughly ten centuries, which is more than a few.

 

[Ouroboros]

Nah bud, that title’s collectively held by you and your slaver heroes

I know you are, but what am I?

(Cue the theme to “Peewee’s Playhouse” while you try to rewrite your last post so it’s not a TOTAL repeat.)

 

[Tigerace117]

I know you are, but what am I?

(Cue the theme to “Peewee’s Playhouse” while you try to rewrite your last post so it’s not a TOTAL repeat.)

I hate to break it to you, but there’s nothing wrong with repeatedly pointing out a historical fact, no matter how much you gnash your teeth and sob and wail in dismay because you can’t handle facing the fact that your heroes fought to defend slavery

 

[Ouroboros]

You pissing your Klan robes over BLM can’t change the fact that attempting to equate it to ****ing Al Qaeda is moronic.

You still haven’t looked up the meaning of the word “strategy?” It would take a lot less time than retyping your triggered dreck.

 

[Ouroboros]

We know that you don’t have the spine to face the fact that your heroes went to war to defend slavery, but thanks for confirming it yet again

Creak creak goes the skipping record.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thread Title should be "Louisiana Lawmaker Forced to clarify there was no good in slavery - Right Wing DP members try to walk it back"

Seriously this thread should have ended in two pages with a simple round up of 'Yep, ditto, can't argue with that' from everyone, left or right.

instead we have a hundred pages of with half the posts trying to assert there was apparently some good in slavery. Lotta true colors showing.

The usual simplistic reduction.

 

[Ouroboros]

I hate to break it to you, but there’s nothing wrong with repeatedly pointing out a historical fact, no matter how much you gnash your teeth and sob and wail in dismay because you can’t handle facing the fact that your heroes fought to defend slavery

Your regard for historical fact was on display when you were unable to respond to my post on the Tariff of Abomination. What a laugh riot!

 

[Ouroboros]

Okay so you can't support your " special pleading" statement
As far as what you " extrapolated from the op"
I am not sure what you are asking?
What culture..? You mean the whole United States? White culture?
Or the culture that owned slaves and killed others to keep that culture of owning slaves?

I spoke of the ubiquity of slavery throughout human history. Do you condemn as utterly evil every culture that used slavery, and find all their works worthless? That’s the criticism of Garofalo taken to its logical extreme, and so far none of my opponents has been able to answer yes or no.

 

[Ouroboros]

Can you prove this? Can you point to one post where I said white people are the only ones to have ever engaged in slavery or horrific behavior? I'm not triggered by your claim white winger, I'm confused by it. So let's see the evidence.

Good, you acknowledge that kidnap victims sleeping with her captor for food is rape. I was starting to wonder if there was no bottom to your barrel.

Hemings was his slave. Explain to me the difference between a kidnap victim and a victim of slavery having sex with their captors under duress.

Umm... projection? Why wouldn't you want to be rid of your enemies. Also if you didn't understand yet the preachers are in it for the money. I don't do this for money, I actually think progressive policies would be better for America.

Again, projection. Why would these people have opposing agendas? Maybe different ones, but the only people with opposing agendas are the white wingers who don't think government should do anything but protect their right to guns and make sure women can't get abortions.

The mere fact that you continually use the term “white wing” demonstrates that you are indifferent to any evil but white evil (as you choose to define it, not as it is). I judge you by the same terms you have judged me and Tyler— the difference being that you propound your interpretations with the false claim that they are “facts.”

I’ve already cited an alternative scenario to your contrived and unprovable situation. I stated that a black female slave might sleep with her master to gain favor. That’s not the same as giving in to keep yourself alive.

Power is the answer to both of your last questions. Though some people have made a lot of money through stirring up racial unrest— Ben Crump through ambulance chasing, Khan-Cullors through celebrity that led to book deals et al— the primary motive of most activists is power, the power to make the majority component of the population kowtow to the will of the minorities.

Now if the resistance of the majority ever did disappear, I can foresee various POC turning on one another for power. Given that there are more Hispanics in the US than Black Americans, some of the former group might ask, “why are THEY getting the biggest slice of the white guilt pie?”

This won’t happen, but similar fighting over slices goes back to Ancient Rome.

 

[Tigerace117]

You still haven’t looked up the meaning of the word “strategy?” It would take a lot less time than retyping your triggered dreck.

Again, being a decentralized organization does not make one akin to ****ing Al Qaeda, and the fact that you think it does is pathetic.

 

[Tigerace117]

Creak creak goes the skipping record.

Sob sob sob goes the Confederate wannabe.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your regard for historical fact was on display when you were unable to respond to my post on the Tariff of Abomination. What a laugh riot!

The Southerners pissing their pants over Jackson threatened to “secede their heads from their bodies” was rather funny

Almost as funny as your inability to handle the fact that your heroes were fighting to defend slavery.

 

[Ouroboros]

I take Buckley for a racist and the grandfather of the modern white wing.

Conservatism is largely made up of cucks.

Yes. Those are the cucks are I'm referring to. If they had popular ideas or could get women to sleep with them and thus produce offspring, they wouldn't be worried so much about being replaced.

That depends on whether you find ignorance and racism and small penises to be good reasons.

You thought you effectively cloaked the racism as you advocated for a permanent white majority? I mean I almost want to feel sorry for you guys for being so bad at this. Almost.

I'm only being honest with you. I see people like you as my enemy. I don't see any need to be ambiguous here.

I laugh when you call yourself honest. Your so called honesty is that of the kid who gets “shot” in a cap-pistol game, and then claims, “you didn’t get me cause this is a dumb game!” A person says “I believe ABC,” and you reply, “no, saying ABC is really saying XYZ, and that’s a FACT!”

Utter dishonesty.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sob sob sob goes the Confederate wannabe.

So you are capable of some degree of shame, since you’ve abandoned the poop and pee metaphors. Not that it makes you less of a broken record.

 

[Ouroboros]

The Southerners pissing their pants over Jackson threatened to “secede their heads from their bodies” was rather funny

Almost as funny as your inability to handle the fact that your heroes were fighting to defend slavery.

But you couldn’t refute the tariff post, so your repeated claim means nothing.

 

[uptower]

The usual simplistic reduction.

It's a simple proposition - there was no good in slavery