Shows the difference in perspective I suppose. Because I've seen her posts as being very female in perspective. Not just the questions but the attitude I've felt.
As well as conservative and born again, which how her profile describes her.
Wilso: Well my take on it is that nothing "she" has submitted to this site (including the profile) is true. Could be female though, I've been wrong before! *gasp* But if nothing else, I don't believe this person is being sincere in all of the submitted posts.
I vote based upon what i believe will do the least harm. Without being in the least cynical, i consider that voting for any professional politician is a crap-shoot at best, and so consider my vote to be a action intended to meet the standard of Hippocrates and Galen--"above all, do no harm."
As i have just finished reading this thread for the first time, i take this opportunity to respond to E_Brownp's remark to the effect that slavery was undoubtedly good for this country. That is one of the most specious remarks on our history that i've ever read. Slavery, and its concommitant political power for wealthy Southern whites, enshrined in the "Three-fifths Compromise," worked constant harm on the polity from the very beginning of this republic. It was neither good for the slaves, nor the slave-owners, and was definitely debilitating to the ordinary citizen of the South who owned no slaves. Quite apart from those aspects of the "peculiar institution" which are immediately obvious, it gave rise to a great deal of strife in the polity, and a criminal underground involved in smuggling slaves (due to the constitutional prohibition on the importation of slaves after 1800). Two famous names from American history immediately come to mind as slave-runners, Jean Lafitte (pirate and alleged hero of the battle of New Orleans) and James Bowie (who didn't invent the knife which bore his name, and was dying of typhus in March of 1836, and was anything but heroic at the Alamo). Slavery corrupted the entire nation, and not simply those who participated directly in it. Those who lack sufficient familiarity with history ought not to make such eggregiously false statements.
Set, But the bible says it's okay to have slaves.
nudge, nudge, wink, wink . . .
I'm sure you know my opinion on that topic, c.i. . . .
Hmmm...dusky tarn-girls from Gor......
But seriously, Paul advicates the use of slaves to satisfy lust, thus preventing "righteous" women from being sullied. This theme was continued by Tertullian, Jerome, and Augustine.
To my mind, simply more evidence of the crapulous nature of the religiously motivated . . .
Geesh!
I was really going to leave this thread ... really I was, but I have been criticized twice for opinions I don't hold.
Wilso, First, for the record, I am not against the feeding of starving children (I am trying to remember what I may have said to provoke this charge.)
Second, Setanta. You have taken me out of context. My point is that when a government acts purely in the interest of its own people, it often leads to the repression and mistreatment of others.
I don't presume to argue with you about historical fact, but it seems that having a large amount of very cheap labor available from slaves might have had a beneficial economic impact on our developing society, especially before it became such a political issue.
But whatever the historical facts (which I don't want to argue) I feel it is safe to say that the *purpose* of slavery was to benefit one people, by repressing another.
In the present circumstances, I feel it is very important to consider the effect of our policies, as the sole superpower, on the world around us. It is immoral for the US to do whatever it wants simply because it has the power.
For this reason, I want a president who considers the concerns of the world important.
This is my position, and I will be happy to defend it.
But I am not against feeding children, nor am I in favor of slavery. I don't particularly feel like defending these positions.
I'm not asking you to defend any position, Boss. I will concede that perhaps i've over-reacted. However, with the nonsense of the Noah's about American capitalism being founded upon slavery (nonsense), i've gotten rather irritated when i see that "point" made. Slavery would eventually have ruined the very small minority of Southerners who owned any large number of them. The labor was not cheap, in fact, as they had to be fed, clothed and housed. "Popular history" has this image of the eternally and universally abused slave. Certainly a good deal of that went on, but when, at the time of the foundation of the republic, a healthy "field hand" cost much more than a plow horse, one did not lightly abuse them. At the same time that a handful of slave owners benefited from that labor (but only if there were a continuing market to sell slaves) and the political power of the "three-fifths," the poor whites of the South had little opportunity to make capital and improve their situation. Why go to the local ferrier if you can train one of your slaves to do smithy, and beat it into him if he were not sufficiently quick on the uptake?
Please accept my sincere apology if my response were offensive to you.
Hey, boss, how come you're wasting your time with Noah?
He's a one record 78 rpm with one message.
My apologies. That was one of the other conservatives. I tend to get you mixed up as you all tend to sound the same.
Setanta wrote:To my mind, simply more evidence of the crapulous nature of the religiously motivated . . .
Gee, I thought "crapulous" was a word all made up by Setanta, but low and behold, there it be, right smack dab in my electronic dictionary. And it's even in the Oxford dictionary too! (The definitive source for words in my opinion.
I learned a new word today! And I owe it all to this forum, and Setanta too of course.
Can't find that damn crapulous in any of my dictionaries. I was all excited that I was going to learn the meaning of a new word and I'm devistated that I can't find this famous crapulous :-(
Caprice
Can you post the meaning here, so I won't feel so crapulous ;-)
Montana, go to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary site. It has the definition and even an audio link for correct pronunciation! (You wouldn't want to be caught pronouncing it incorrectly, would you? *heee!*)
Dictionary entry for crapulous!! (Not to be confused with fabulous! *L*)
One entry found for crapulous.
Main Entry: crap·u·lous
Pronunciation: 'kra-py&-l&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Late Latin crapulosus, from Latin crapula intoxication, from Greek kraipalE
1 : marked by intemperance especially in eating or drinking
2 : sick from excessive indulgence in liquor
Get the Top 10 Search Results for "crapulous"
For More Information on "crapulous" go to Britannica.com
