NationStates Jolt Archive

"WASHINGTON -- Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist who managed John McCain's presidential campaign, called upon his party today to move to Barack Obama's left by fully supporting gay marriage."

A movement afoot in the GOP to move to the center on Gay Rights?

"I'm confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it... We should understand that traditions do change over time in society... If you put public-policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party..."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/schmidt_hears_g.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7

So - an argument that conservatism doesn't mean stuck to the past, or to religious right values. Unusual in the mainstream.

Schmidt also says:

"Movement towards a center-left political realignment... Our coalition is shrinking, and losing ground with the segments of the population that are growing".

So - again, cynical ploy? Or new direction for the GOP?

i would LOVE to see them go this way. out liberal the democrats and stick to some kind of fiscal conservatism for the rest of it.

there is no future in pandering to the religious right. they are a dying breed.

Not really either, Steve Schmidt is a libertarian republican i think. They do tend to believe in gay marriage rights though they want in don in the legislature not the courts.

This would be a terrible move. The easiest way to discredit neo-liberal economics is to pin it on the straw man of repressive social values.

Makes sense to me, the longer they pander to the Jesus Freaks, the longer they stay a minority...

I dont think the Teabagging will save them much, lol...

Wow. without social conservatism, the argument comes down to economic and defense policy. Religious fundamentalists would have to form their own insane fringe parties with little or no political power. I like it. Which means it'll probably never happen. :(

Wow. without social conservatism, the argument comes down to economic and defense policy. Religious fundamentalists would have to form their own insane fringe parties with little or no political interest. I like it. Which means it'll probably never happen. :(

There's always abortion. Try not to lose hope just yet... :D

Ssshhh, every single elected republican is openly or secretly gay! :p

Seriously, however, more people support gay marriage each year --fivethirtyeight.com did a study (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) on it, and found that each year a little under 2% more support gay marriage.

Ssshhh, every single elected republican is openly or secretly gay! :p

Seriously, however, more people support gay marriage each year --fivethirtyeight.com did a study (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html) on it, and found that each year a little under 2% more support gay marriage.

Because it's too much of a reasonable proposition to oppose in the long term. People are seeing that the value of the institution of marriage is not in some sort of antiquated religious definition, but in the social benefit and stability it provides.

Oh, yeah, and not to mention, the basic justice argument that is intrinsic.

I wish. It'd destroy them entirely.

It would be a fundamentally stupid electoral move. Lose a large section of your support base, hoping that voter loyalties on the other side are so non-existent that enough of the opposition will run straight to you. More likely, it would weaken them so much, at least initially, that they would be seriously challenged by third parties to be the main opposition

It would be a fundamentally stupid electoral move. Lose a large section of your support base, hoping that voter loyalties on the other side are so non-existent that enough of the opposition will run straight to you. More likely, it would weaken them so much, at least initially, that they would be seriously challenged by third parties to be the main opposition

Or it would level the playing field on some social issues, stopping people being forced into this artifical divide. Then voters could pick their parties on real issues.

"WASHINGTON -- Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist who managed John McCain's presidential campaign, called upon his party today to move to Barack Obama's left by fully supporting gay marriage."

A movement afoot in the GOP to move to the center on Gay Rights?



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/schmidt_hears_g.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7

So - an argument that conservatism doesn't mean stuck to the past, or to religious right values. Unusual in the mainstream.

Schmidt also says:



So - again, cynical ploy? Or new direction for the GOP?

Why the fuck would any self respecting gay man ever vote republican?

Why the fuck would any self respecting gay man ever vote republican?

That answers your question.

Well, the republicans have to do SOMETHING if they want to be relevant -- there's a vicious cycle, as nominating far-right candidates drives away the moderate republicans, and driving away the moderate republcians means they get a candidate even further to the right. If they don't change things, they WILL be reduced to third-party status the way they were in Lieberman vs Lamont vs Schlesinger.

Or it would level the playing field on some social issues, stopping people being forced into this artifical divide. Then voters could pick their parties on real issues.

Theoretically...but for a lot of Republicans their major issue is gay rights, so they won't vote. Those for who gay rights is an important issue won't trust the Republicans immediately, so in the short term its likely to lose them votes, which makes it irrational for any leading politician on the Republican side to support if they want to win.

Very interesting.

I wonder if we are seeing a harbinger for some equivalent of the party-flip in the 1960s. For those who don't know the history, prior to the 60s, the Democrats tended to be very socially conservative (segregationist) and financially liberal (such as remain, minus the segregationism, are known as Dixiecrats today. Also called Blue Dog Democrats). The Republicans tended to be financially conservative but socially liberal and permissive (such as survive are known as Rockefeller Republicans these days).

The Democrats ruled the south, whilst the Republicans governed the northeast. And that has flipped, too.

Theoretically...but for a lot of Republicans their major issue is gay rights, so they won't vote. Those for who gay rights is an important issue won't trust the Republicans immediately, so in the short term its likely to lose them votes, which makes it irrational for any leading politician on the Republican side to support if they want to win.

They're already fucked in the short term. I think they have to look at least 8 years ahead if not 12.

Simple LULZ.

They're already fucked in the short term. I think they have to look at least 8 years ahead if not 12.

Do you not think that if the economy doesn't pick up the Republicans might have a chance next time around?

Do you not think that if the economy doesn't pick up the Republicans might have a chance next time around?

Don't be silly. Obama's current (approx.) 55% approval rating is absolutely unassailable. :tongue:

Do you not think that if the economy doesn't pick up the Republicans might have a chance next time around?

I wouldn't rule it out, but I wouldn't want to put money on it, either.

The GOP looks broken and directionless. Moderate conservatives are left without a party and are, in effect, pinning their hopes on conservative elements in the Democratic Party.

This factionalization is somewhat obvious in different ways: the relative power of Democrat conservatives, the polarizing effect of people like Limbaugh, the current success of people like Palin. Moderate conservatism is clinging to the middleground, while the Republican party is drifting towards the extreme.

What it means is - even if the GOP manages to dig out a direction in the next 2 to 4 years, most indicators suggest they'll be picking a direction that will focus on a base, which will alienate the center.

Do you not think that if the economy doesn't pick up the Republicans might have a chance next time around?

I dont think so, although a major issue, I dont think the Economy is the primary reason the Democrats have such a large majority...

The tide is very against Social Conservatism in this country, and they know it too, why do you think theyre having so many teabagging rallies as of late?

Why the fuck would any self respecting gay man ever vote republican?
What's the group called, Log Cabin Republicans? I think they are more concerned with the economic views of the party than the social ones, which seems fine. A gay man voting for a Republican isn't a sign of self-loathing, groups aren't duty-bound to vote for the people who are supposedly for them.

And while it may be unusual for someone to so openly say the party has to change, it's not as if parties haven't changed in the past. I'm guessing at some point in the past one-hundred years, the Democrats realized being pro-slavery wouldn't win you many votes; the Republicans are just coming to a similar revelation.

Wow. Next thing you know, Sarah Palin will claim that she almost had an abortion!:D

"WASHINGTON -- Steve Schmidt, the Republican strategist who managed John McCain's presidential campaign, called upon his party today to move to Barack Obama's left by fully supporting gay marriage."

A movement afoot in the GOP to move to the center on Gay Rights?



http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/schmidt_hears_g.html?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7

So - an argument that conservatism doesn't mean stuck to the past, or to religious right values. Unusual in the mainstream.

Schmidt also says:



So - again, cynical ploy? Or new direction for the GOP?
Cynical ploy, yes. New direction for the GOP, possibly. Gay marriage is a losing issue to oppose in the long run. Leaving aside the probability that the courts will eventually decide against it, those opposed to gay marriage are dying off, while those in favor of gay marriage are growing up.

He probably looked at exit polls carefully and figured out - like Nate Silver at 538 - where the wind is blowing, and realized that the earlier the Republican party repositions itself, the less they will lose for it.

Welp, he's gone.

The fellow is right. If Republicans actually became fiscally responsible, and were in favor of civil rights, I might even consider joining. But I will not touch them while they are the party of theocracy.

Why the fuck would any self respecting gay man ever vote republican?

Because, there is more to an election then voting your orientation.

The fellow is right. If Republicans actually became fiscally responsible, and were in favor of civil rights, I might even consider joining. But I will not touch them while they are the party of theocracy.

I think they came in power in the 90's on the south park conservative ticket.
Some how the hey you don't have to be politically correct message morphed into Vote for the bible. Somewhere between the ballot box and the politician.

Wow. Next thing you know, Sarah Palin will claim that she almost had an abortion!:D

Barbara Bush tried to have one before George W. Bush was born. :tongue:

I think this would be a good move for the Republican if they want to stay in power, but I'm still skeptical that this shift might actually happen. Neo-Cons and the Fundie have been in power in the Republican Party for a long time now, it'll be hard to uproot them.

"...called upon his party today to move to Barack Obama's left by fully supporting gay marriage."

Umm, so I'm pretty sure that Obama does not indeed support Gay Marriage.

Link. (http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm)

[edit] Though of course I wouls support such a good move.

I think they came in power in the 90's on the south park conservative ticket.
Some how the hey you don't have to be politically correct message morphed into Vote for the bible. Somewhere between the ballot box and the politician.

So what exactly is this political correctness thing I keep hearing about, and does it actually exist outside of campfire horror stories?

So what exactly is this political correctness thing I keep hearing about, and does it actually exist outside of campfire horror stories?

PETA and Feminazis (Not REAL feminists)

So what exactly is this political correctness thing I keep hearing about, and does it actually exist outside of campfire horror stories?

Someone objecting to the use of Obama's initials because such use could imply they stand for "Browser Helper Object", which could have something to do with a virus.

so either they're getting smart, or trying to pull their usual fast one, or most likely, someones pulling someone's leg, (hopefully) all in good fun.

i'd be all for that thought if it were real. in a world that's overpopulated, gay isn't a problem, its a damd fine part of the solution. as ancient Greece discovered several millinea ago.

The GOP is effectively shattered. The Obama Campaign's effects may outlast the appeal of President Obama himself. The GOP was able to have a strong voting bloc that consisted of all the old demographics and various groups, but now the new liberal progressive demographics have caught up and are now a voting part of the electorate. Far-Right Figures that they let become the GOP spokespersons like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have destroyed the credibility of the Republican party in the minds of many. All of the upcoming younger generations are more progressive than ever.

In the face of such a huge loss and a new map of the electorate, the GOP has effectively split. Neocons, Evangelicals, Libertarians, and others are all now working mostly at odds. Many Libertarians (example Ron Paul supporters etc.) have fallen off and become Independent, opposed to both parties, and therefore are no longer part of the voting bloc. I have observed even locally that the Libertarians and entrenched GOP leadership are at odds with each other, causing friction within the party as they call the Libertarians "Ron Paul crazies" etc. The right just keeps going further right, and now their in a near state of paranoia that is driving people even further from the party.

Unfortunately it is likely many of the wealthy elite will turncoat with the change of power, and bolster the neo-liberals in the Democratic Party.

Wow. Next thing you know, Sarah Palin will claim that she almost had an abortion!:D
After being almost raped.

Do you not think that if the economy doesn't pick up the Republicans might have a chance next time around?

I think it'll take more to go wrong than just that.

Wow. Next thing you know, Sarah Palin will claim that she almost had an abortion!:D
nooooo a-sd she would NEVER say that. that would imply that she had a choice of whether or not to have a downsyndrome baby.

that would just be wrong.

as wrong as if her daughter had suggested that she had had a choice of whether or not to have her own baby.

prior to the 60s, the Democrats tended to be very socially conservative (segregationist)

Mainly southern Democrats, actually, who were infuriated by civil rights legislation from definite Democrats like Truman.

It's impossible to effectively characterize the pre-1968 Democratic Party without taking into account the geographic differences in political alignment. Southern Democrats were an important part of the conservative grouping in Congress that blocked liberal social reforms proposed by Democratic presidents; that actually extended beyond civil rights. It was not such a huge leap for them and their supporters to move to the Republican Party.

The GOP is effectively shattered. The Obama Campaign's effects may outlast the appeal of President Obama himself.

They were shattered well before the Obama Campaign. John Dean had it spot on in Conservatives Without Conscience - the post-Goldwater GOP has been completely and totally subverted co-opted by pseudo-Christofascist rightwing authoritarians.

The party faithful have either slowly been waking up to that fact or swallowing the Reagan/Rush/FoxNews/Tom DeLay/Dubya/Sarah Palin/"Joe the Plumber"/et al fairy tale hook line and sinker.

OTOH, the donkeys are broken as well. Derangment rules the US and most (all?) of the rest of the world...

Ive heard this guy talking about this before. His logic behind it is sound. Most people in the country really dont care anymore. Its just a fringe that really wants to stop gay from happening. The younger Americans, even young Republicans, tend to not see it as the wedge issue their older counterparts do. So, by giving up on this arguement, they can focus more on tax policy and try to draw in younger blood.

Its good logic. Dont know how it will work in practice.

Ive heard this guy talking about this before. His logic behind it is sound. Most people in the country really dont care anymore. Its just a fringe that really wants to stop gay from happening. The younger Americans, even young Republicans, tend to not see it as the wedge issue their older counterparts do. So, by giving up on this arguement, they can focus more on tax policy and try to draw in younger blood.

Its good logic. Dont know how it will work in practice.

It would at least make the Republicans "the opposition" to the Democrats; right now, Republicans are just: "HAHA! You mean the party that insults us by saying we are acting like them?"

So what exactly is this political correctness thing I keep hearing about, and does it actually exist outside of campfire horror stories?

In the 1990's many and felt it was reaching a point where lets not insult people was going to far.
I am about to go bar tend a private party so i don't have time to get links.
The most famous one had to do with a college student who yelled at some sorority girls who were making noise out side the window. Shut up you water buffalo. The girl being black took it as Racist, they complained and the school booted him from campus housing. Of course once the media got a hold of it and mention calling a rude person a water Buffalo is common Yiddish slang the university had to apologize and pay for his off campus housing the rest of the time he was in school.

The other incident that comes to mind involves the use of the word niggardly by an aid to the mayor of DC. He was forced to resign, until the gay community found out.

That was one of their selling points in the 1990's being interpreted as insulting should not be grounds for disciplinary action by an organization.

The Future Of The GOP Is.... Gay?

The future of everything is gay.

In the 1990's many and felt it was reaching a point where lets not insult people was going to far.
I am about to go bar tend a private party so i don't have time to get links.
The most famous one had to do with a college student who yelled at some sorority girls who were making noise out side the window. Shut up you water buffalo. The girl being black took it as Racist, they complained and the school booted him from campus housing. Of course once the media got a hold of it and mention calling a rude person a water Buffalo is common Yiddish slang the university had to apologize and pay for his off campus housing the rest of the time he was in school.



The full story involves him also calling her a ******. So, yeah, it was racist.

The Future Of The GOP Is.... Gay?

The future of everything is gay.

How so? :confused:

How so? :confused:

Survival of the most pleasant.

Sounds good to me. With liberal freedoms and fiscal conservatism we could have *gasp* a libertarian state. Maybe the founders will stop spinning in their graves.

How so? :confused:

Like this:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_zbccWJYAORo/SH7gWBDxjFI/AAAAAAAAAPU/eUQXHjv_Yaw/s200/neutral+planet+people-+futurama.bmp

Survival of the most pleasant.

Does it work that way?

Does it work that way?

Yeah, the Greeks were much more pleasant than those Trojans...And who could argue that Rome is not more pleasant than that Greece?

Does it work that way?

If not, the agenda will make it work that way in the end, anyway, so just enjoy the ride. Heaven knows we are.

Does it work that way?

Not last time I checked.

If not, the agenda will make it work that way in the end, anyway, so just enjoy the ride. Heaven knows we are.

I see, it's a Conspiracy! The Illuminati are actually Gay Rights activists! :eek2:

If not, the agenda will make it work that way.

Make everything pleasant? That goes against nature.

Yeah, the Greeks were much more pleasant than those Trojans...And who could argue that Rome is not more pleasant than that Greece?

Rome killed unfit children at birth.

I see, it's a Conspiracy! The Illuminati are actually Gay Rights activists! :eek2:

If you have played the expansions to the game, then you will know that they have their own card.

Make everything pleasant? That goes against nature.

When has that ever stopped us?

Rome killed unfit children at birth.

...And Sparta?

Rome killed unfit children at birth.

And would you tell that person they were unpleasant? :p

Rome killed unfit children at birth.

Yeah, so, yes, so that was it. There was a spirit of ex-empire, this thing of “things can't be done," whereas in America, I thought there was a spirit of "can be done!" The pioneer thing.

"Go do it, what do you want to do?"

“I want to put babies on spikes."

"Go then! Go!”

It's the American Dream! "Hi! I'm Crazy Eddie! I put babies on spikes. Do you want a rack of babies? We've got babies on racks! Mmm, they taste of chicken!" They do! Babies taste of chicken! Cannibals say that human flesh tastes of chicken, so babies must taste of chicken. And chicken tastes of humans. ( nervous laughter from audience ) Good, I'm glad you're coming with me on that.

Sounds good to me. With liberal freedoms and fiscal conservatism we could have *gasp* a libertarian state. Maybe the founders will stop spinning in their graves.

No, I'm pretty sure we'd have to remove the right to vote from the poor, the blacks, and the people with two X chromosomes for them to stop that.

...And Sparta?
But not ALL of Greece.
And would you tell that person they were unpleasant? :p
Since I would most likely have been killed... *runs*
Yeah, so, yes, so that was it. There was a spirit of ex-empire, this thing of “things can't be done," whereas in America, I thought there was a spirit of "can be done!" The pioneer thing.

"Go do it, what do you want to do?"

“I want to put babies on spikes."

"Go then! Go!”

It's the American Dream! "Hi! I'm Crazy Eddie! I put babies on spikes. Do you want a rack of babies? We've got babies on racks! Mmm, they taste of chicken!" They do! Babies taste of chicken! Cannibals say that human flesh tastes of chicken, so babies must taste of chicken. And chicken tastes of humans. ( nervous laughter from audience ) Good, I'm glad you're coming with me on that.
:tongue:
No, I'm pretty sure we'd have to remove the right to vote from the poor, the blacks, and the people with two X chromosomes for them to stop that.
What the hell are you smoking?

When has that ever stopped us?

Something will...I keep my faith in my Father, who will see to it that the world is unpleasant. You took away our burning of witches, our stoning of adulteresses--you shoved evil science and medicine down our throats, but we will only take so much.

What the hell are you smoking?

Nothing. Are you honestly unaware that the founding fathers only wanted suffrage extended to white male landowners?

But not ALL of Greece.

No, the rest of Greece just put infants to death if the parents did not want them.

No, I'm pretty sure we'd have to remove the right to vote from the poor, the blacks, and the people with two X chromosomes for them to stop that.

Hush, now. Exposing the founders of the USA (I presume) as the horrible, wretched people that they were is not comme il faut, old chap. Beatify them!

I said: Beatify, boy! *shakes fist in a Homeric fashion*

Nothing. Are you honestly unaware that the founding fathers only wanted suffrage extended to white male landowners?
I thought you were making a comment on the Libertarian State comment, as that was the main point of the post, and the rest was emrely a misguided statement.
No, the rest of Greece just put infants to death if the parents did not want them.
Which is slightly more pleasant, although not much.

Something will...I keep my faith in my Father, who will see to it that the world is unpleasant. You took away our burning of witches, our stoning of adulteresses--you shoved evil science and medicine down our throats, but we will only take so much.

Oh, you'll take anything we want you to take, granted our proficiency in applying the proper kind and amount of lube to our iron fists, to paraphrase myself.

Hush, now. Exposing the founders of the USA (I presume) as the horrible, wretched people that they were is not comme il faut, old chap. Beatify them!

I said: Beatify, boy! *shakes fist in a Homeric fashion*

Find someone in power who wasnt at the time, and ill eat my shoe...

Find someone in power who wasnt at the time, and ill eat my shoe...

Rendering them less wretched... how, exactly?

Rendering them less wretched... how, exactly?

Like This (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/context)

Like This (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/context)

Ah. The old "if someone else was wretched, then it makes it okay" "logic" making a rare appearance outside the nursery school sandbox.

Ah. The old "if someone else was wretched, then it makes it okay" "logic" making a rare appearance outside the nursery school sandbox.

Nah, the old, "the surroundings, circumstances, environment, background or settings which determine, specify, or clarify the meaning of an event"

The fact is, they were some of the least wretched of the time...

Giving all White Male Landowners the right to decide for themselves who is in charge, was quite Revolutionary at the time...

The fact is, they were some of the least wretched of the time...

I chuckled at that. Until I realised you were probably serious. Then I chuckled even more. Not that it makes them less wretched than they were, in any way.

I chuckled at that. Until I realised you were probably serious. Then I chuckled even more. Not that it makes them less wretched than they were, in any way.

Compared to current society, no...Compared to Contemporary Society, yes....yes they were...

Oh, you'll take anything we want you to take, granted our proficiency in applying the proper kind and amount of lube to our iron fists, to paraphrase myself.

Sick: You and your perverted enjoyment of pleasure.

Compared to Contemporary Society, yes....yes they were...

Uhm, no, not even when compared to contemporary society, you know. For instance, that whole slavery thing they supported, that even in contemporary society was démodé. And you know what? That's not a small, sweep-under-the-rug sort of thing.

Sick: You and your perverted enjoyment of pleasure.

Is there any other kind of enjoyment than the perverted one? The case can rest, methinks.

Uhm, no, not even when compared to contemporary society, you know. For instance, that whole slavery thing they supported, that even in contemporary society was démodé. And you know what? That's not a small, sweep-under-the-rug sort of thing.

Only because Wage Slavery became so much more profitable, ask them Indians, theyll tell ya, ;)

Only because Wage Slavery became so much more profitable, ask them Indians, theyll tell ya, ;)

Oh, why ask Native Americans alone, when I could ask many other current day persons in the USA?

Oh, why ask Native Americans alone, when I could ask many other current day persons in the USA?

Idk why you would ask Native Americans about Wage Slavery in India...Boggles the mind, honestly...

(may I remind you of Context, friend)

Uhm, no, not even when compared to contemporary society, you know. For instance, that whole slavery thing they supported, that even in contemporary society was démodé. And you know what? That's not a small, sweep-under-the-rug sort of thing.

Which governments had outlawed slavery by the time the United States was created?

(may I remind you of Context, friend)

And I you of chronology. Also, to kindly adjust the register of your language. It is much too unabashedly familiar.

And I you of chronology. Also, to kindly adjust the register of your language. It is much too unabashedly familiar.

Um, to who? Do I remind you of someone?

And, chronology? Immediately after the American Revolution, Lord Cornwallis was made Governor of India, I merely posit that the treatment of the Indians is comparable to our treatment of African-Americans...

Um, to who? Do I remind you of someone?

I do not believe that is what he meant by "familiar".



3. Of established friendship; intimate

4. Natural and unstudied; informal

5. Taking undue liberties; presumptuous

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/familiar

I do not believe that is what he meant by "familiar".





http://www.thefreedictionary.com/familiar

no, probably not, but, but, I dont care really what my language, or register thereof reminds him of....

Which governments had outlawed slavery by the time the United States was created?

Oh... *throws a dart at the atlas*... Portugal. And that's not exactly a country known for progressivism.

Oh... *throws a dart at the atlas*... Portugal. And that's not exactly a country knows for progressivism.

Need I point you towards Brazil? the Portuguese Colony until 1822? the one that Practiced Slavery until the Twentieth Century?

Um, to who? Do I remind you of someone?

I suppose of someone who hasn't quite mastered English, yet, but the register of your language is much too familiar when you refer to me as a "friend". Kindly, adjust it to a more suitable level, if you know how.

And, chronology? Immediately after the American Revolution, Lord Cornwallis was made Governor of India, I merely posit that the treatment of the Indians is comparable to our treatment of African-Americans...

And yet you think it somehow makes any of the two less wretched.

I suppose of someone who hasn't quite mastered English, yet, but the register of your language is much too familiar when you refer to me as a "friend". Kindly, adjust it to a more suitable level, it you know how.
Ill call anyone I want, Friend, buddy, guy, whatever, lol :p

as for the multitude of errors involved in that statement, making it entirely difficult to read to begin with, Ill leave that to you, friend...



And yet you think it somehow makes any of the two less wretched.

I dont, merely that they are equally as wretched, but, being that unlike the British Empire, the United States gave all white males the right to vote, the largest contingent up unto that time, merely makes it slightly less, as a whole, wretched than the majority of places on earth at the time...

Oh... *throws a dart at the atlas*... Portugal. And that's not exactly a country known for progressivism.

I thought the first nation to outlaw slavery was Revolutionary France. :confused:

I thought the first nation to outlaw slavery was Revolutionary France. :confused:

It certainly was not the Portuguese Empire, thats just laughable, lol...

Need I point you towards Brazil?

No, because I didn't mention Brazil (which, by the way, abolished slavery in 1888 and when I was taught to count, decades ago, I learnt that wasn't the 20th century). I mentioned Portugal. More irrelevancies you like to introduce me to? Sort of like if I were to mention England, and you'd somehow mention the British Empire? Or how I'd mention The Netherlands and you'd mention The Kingdom of the Netherlands? Or I'd mention Öland and you'd mention Östergötland?

no, probably not, but, but, I dont care really what my language, or register thereof reminds him of....

Did you read what I put-up? He meant "familiar" in the sense that you were speaking to him as if you were on good terms with him--in a familiar tone.

I thought the first nation to outlaw slavery was Revolutionary France. :confused:

You thought wrong. Scotland, for instance, was before France.

No, because I didn't mention Brazil (which, by the way, abolish slavery in 1888 and when I was taught to count, decades ago, I learnt that wasn't the 20th century). I mentioned Portugal. More irrelevancies you like to introduce me to?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil

Brazil was a colony of Portugal from the landing of Pedro Álvares Cabral in 1500 until its independence in 1822

I was unaware that you consider the possessions of a Country Irrelevant...

So, I dont suppose youll consider it a Human Rights Violation if, say, the United States all the sudden started buying up slaves in Puerto Rico...

Ill call anyone I want, Friend, buddy, guy, whatever, lol :p

And through that debase and render yourself not worthy of further conversation. Good day.

Did you read what I put-up? He meant "familiar" in the sense that you were speaking to him as if you were on good terms with him--in a familiar tone.

My response would still the same....

And through that debase and render yourself not worthy of further conversation. Good day.

Good day to yourself sir, I accept your defeat...

You thought wrong. Scotland, for instance, was before France.

Learn something new every day.

Did Scotland ever even have laws that recognized slavery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil

I was unaware that you consider the possessions of a Country Irrelevant...

If I had wanted to mention the Empire I would have. I did not. He asked for a country, he got one. Someone said something of context, previously... ah, I believe it was the person I had said good day to. *recalls, departs*

If I had wanted to mention the Empire I would have. I did not. He asked for a country, he got one. Someone said something of context, previously... ah, I believe it was the person I had said good day to. *recalls, departs*

Ah, but do not Colonies represent how a Country conducts itself? The fact that a Country would supposedly abolish Slavery, and at the same time practice it in its territories, would seem to be the utmost Wretched Hypocrisy...

The full story involves him also calling her a ******. So, yeah, it was racist.

http://www.shadowuniv.com/excerpts-wb1.html#9


I showed you mine now show me yours.