About time!

The world is full of evil.  There is probably a liberal living on your street.  These purveyors of evil have been working hard to destroy the traditional family consisting of a married man and woman.  The TRADITIONAL family was the bedrock of this country for many generations until the progressive liberals began their war on America.

What are some of the signs that these EVIL progressive liberals are winning their war to destroy America?  Well when we reach a point where a poor innocent little child's biggest threat is MOMMY'S BOYFRIEND, you know we are well down the path of destruction laid out by EVIL progressive liberals.

http://projects.statesman.com/news/cps-missed-signs/paramours.html

Jammer wrote:

A really dumbass liberal wrote: I would love to see these reams of information on how non-traditional families have a poor record on raising children.  

And I ask WHY?  Facts and data mean NOTHING to a liberal.  It is all about how you dumbasses FEEL.

Fancy that. A conversation about marriage having to do with feelings. I realize that to a conservative marriage is more about control, but try to follow along...

Jammer wrote:  These purveyors of evil have been working hard to destroy the traditional family consisting of a married man and woman.  The TRADITIONAL family was the bedrock of this country for many generations until the progressive liberals began their war on America.

C'mon now, non-traditional marriages don't need traditional marriages any more than lesbians married to each other actually need men.  As an expert on the homosexual lifestyle so proclaimed, "love is all about mutual respect"

After all, as expressed on this forum by another poster, homosexual relationships are preferred by nature in order to preserve and continue the human race.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:

A really dumbass liberal wrote: I would love to see these reams of information on how non-traditional families have a poor record on raising children.  

And I ask WHY?  Facts and data mean NOTHING to a liberal.  It is all about how you dumbasses FEEL.

Fancy that.  A conversation about marriage having to do with feelings.  I realize that to a conservative marriage is more about control, but try to follow along...

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by the whims of individual government officials or the sorry ass FEELINGS of dumbass liberals.  You people are pure evil.

Harold Covington wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:The Cornerstone address is considered by many Civil War historians as a insignificant event prior to hostilities. President Jefferson Davis even disavowed it which might help explain some of the animosity felt between Davis and Vide-President Stephens. That and the fact that Stephens was not even pro-secession. Still even a complete reading of the address finds the part you left out talking about the Tariff of Abomination and the Whig party's obsession with internal improvements:

"The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another, under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old Constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged in ...."

There's no doubt that Southern slave owners felt that slavery was important to their economy. But the movement globally towards Capitalism had already doomed the inefficient slave economy in the South and it was only a matter of time before the slave economy would collapse. Ironically it was Lincoln and the Republican (reborn Whigs) party that gave the secessionist movement a boost with the imposition of punishing tariffs. In fact if Lincoln had offered to buy the slaves from the slave owners as he did in his Second Address to Congress in December of 1862 prior to the war the whole bloody mess may have been avoided. But Lincoln desired a strong central government and the Whig policy of the American System and come hell or high water he was bound to have it.

It took you two days to come up with a weak response like that?

Ok, throw out the Cornerstone speech because "jeffy didn't like him" but you'd have to ignore the "Declarations of the Immediate Causes" from the states that say the same thing along with countless other contemporary sources that all state that their main issue was protecting and expanding slavery. In fact, that was jeffy's main focus while he was in the US congress.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"

"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

"the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

"She (Texas) was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?"

"It took you two days to come up with a weak response like that?"

I wasn't aware there was a game clock that needed punching.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:"It took you two days to come up with a weak response like that?"

I wasn't aware there was a game clock that needed punching.

Another 'quick' response with no content. Not that I can blame you, it's impossible to make that revisionist claim that the war wasn't about slavery without omitting virtually all of the contemporary writings. You can claim it was about states' rights if you ignore the fact that it was about the states' rights to preserve and expand slavery westward and even into Central America and the West Indies. You can try to claim it was about tariffs if you ignore the fact that those tariffs were in response to slavery.

I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it. If the worm-eaten throne of Spain is willing to give it for a fair equivalent, well—if not, we must take it. I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican Stats; and I want them all for the same reason—for the planting and spreading of slavery.

   And a footing in Central America will powerfully aid us in acquiring those other states. It will render them less valuable to the other powers of the earth, and thereby diminish competition with us. Yes, I want these countries for the spread of slavery. I would spread the blessings of slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth, and rebellious and wicked as the Yankees have been, I would even extend it to them.

   At the South, and with our People of course, slavery is the element of all value, and a destruction of that destroys all that is property. This party, now soon to take possession of the powers of the Government, is sectional, irresponsible to us, and driven on by an infuriated fanatical madness that defies all opposition, must inevitably destroy every vestige or right growing out of property in slaves.

   Gentlemen, the State of Florida is now a member of the Union under the power of the Government, so to go into the hands of this party.

   As we stand our doom is decreed.

The revisionist effort started even as the war continued, simply because they knew that they could never win any international support for a war to preserve slavery. They couldn't fool anyone then but they seem to be fooling  some people now.

‘The people of the South, are not fighting for slavery but for independence.’ Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy — a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork.

Even after the war people made no bones about what they were fighting for.

“I’ve never heard of any other cause than slavery,”
Confederate commander John S. Mosby

The kindliest relation that ever existed between the two races in this country, or that ever will, was the ante-bellum relation of master and slave—a relation of confidence and responsibility on the part of the master and of dependence and fidelity on the part of the slave.

The African, com­ing from a barbarous state and from a tropical climate, could not meet the demands for skilled labor in the factories of the Northern States; neither could he endure the severe cold of the Northern winter. For these reasons it was both mer­ciful and “business” to sell him to the Southern planter, where the climate was more favorable and skilled labor not so important. In the South the climate, civilization, and other influences ameliorated the African’s condition, and that of almost the entire race of slaves, which numbered into the millions before their emancipation. It should be noted that their evangelization was the most fruitful missionary work of any modern Christian endeavor. The thoughtful and considerate negro of to-day realizes his indebtedness to the in­stitution of African slavery for advantages which he would not have received had he remained in his semi-barbarism wait­ing in his native jungles for the delayed missionary.

The South fought to preserve race integrity. Did we lose that? We fought to maintain free white dominion. Did we lose that? The States are in control of the people. Local self-government, democratic government, obtains. That was not lost. The rights of the sovereign States, under the Constitution, are recognized. We did not lose that. I submit that what is called “The Lost Cause” was not so much “lost” as is sometimes supposed.

You want more? Scour the newspaper archives, congressional records and the writings of anyone in the confederacy and you'll find the same thing. The civil war was entirely about the 'right' to preserve and expand slavery.

I rarely pay attention to comments by dumbass liberals because they are filled with lies and offer no value.  It is a waste of time to argue with a progressive liberal.  However, for some stupid reason I did glance at the combat going on above between a reasonable person and a really dumbass liberal.

While slavery was the most emotional issue of the day back in the 1860’s, there were a lot of other problems between the northern and southern states.  The northern states were growing rapidly in population and the southern states not so much.  As a result, the northern states were gaining a wider margin in Congress and thus controlling the policies of the countries.

One of the more significant and irritable laws put in place was the tariffs passed by the northern states.  The southern states were somewhat cash rich from the sales of all their cotton and other products.  The northern states wanted to put tariffs in place that would push the cash rich southern states to buy northern manufactured products rather than to import them from Europe.  That was an issue that touched MANY more southerners than did the issue of slavery.

It was the elitist liberal plantation owners who owned slaves.  They were actually a fairly small percentage of the total population that owned slaves.  And yes, of the non-slave owners there were a few that were in favor of slavery.  You had a few slave traders, some non-slave owners who aspired to be slave owners and there were a few at the lowest rungs of society who were somewhat accepting of slavery because it kept them from being at the rock bottom of society and at least they were above being “slaves”.  However, overall it was only a fraction of southerners who were strongly pro-slavery.

So while the hot emotional issue of slavery directly touched only a fraction of the southern population, things like the tariffs being rammed down their throats by the northern states touched almost every single southerner.

And just like today, the liberals controlled the narrative.  All the newspapers were for the most part strongly pro-slavery.  A southerner was prohibited from speaking against slavery as they had strong local laws prohibiting free speech that was abolitionist in nature.  Anyone thought to be anti-slavery in the south had a very difficult time finding employment.  And all of this existed even though it was only a minority of the population who were strongly pro-slavery.

Sounds an awful lot like today with the way the progressive liberals control the press and use political correctness and any other means to inhibit free speech.  Just look at what they are trying to do to Donald Trump, the Dukes of Hazard or anything else that is not 100% supportive of their cause.  And if you think it is easy to find employment if you are openly in opposition to any of the progressive liberal agenda, just ask Brendan Eich who the last I heard was still unemployed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozilla-ceo-resignation-free-speech/7328759/


Progressive liberals are evil people plain and simple.  I urge every conservative to do their children and grandchildren the biggest service you can render them by standing strong against this evil invading our land.  Please don’t play footsie with these evil people, drive a stake through the heart of their evil ideology.  Your children and grandchildren will thank you someday for saving their country for them.  Because just like in 1860, the LIBERALS have driven this country to a point of “irreconcilable differences” that may end up just like it did over 150 years ago.

LIBERALISM is EVIL and the people who support liberalism are purveyors of evil.