U.S. Senate Approves Anti-Discrimination Bill Endorsed by Tim Cook

[squeakr]

Can you provide an example?

Not sure what example you want or are looking for, so how about this:

Just read the posts and how some say the bible says marriage is a union between one man and one woman, yet others claim that that is not how is originally started but a way to pass wealth and same sex marriages were allowed. These were 100's of years ago, yet we are using them as the basis for arguments relating to marriage these days and how it should be defined.

We still talk about the Jim Crow laws. They have been over ridden years ago, so therefor shouldn't be relevant in today's times, but they still come up in arguments pertaining how the blacks were persecuted and discriminated against. Since they were years ago and have been overturned their relevance should be diminished as well, correct??

Why is it that anyone is allowed to make a statement on these boards and if you are in support of same sex unions it is taken as the gospel, but if you are thought to be against it, then everyone is always screaming for proof? Earlier in the thread it was stated about one of the posters that they were from Iowa, one for the most repressive and backward thinking states, so we can except the bigotry ideals, as they were not progressive like the West coast. However, Iowa, is one if the 16 states that allows same sex marriages, and the remaining majority is on the east cost, and primarily the north east. Seems that this alone goes against that statement, but no one claimed proof of that statement and just accepted it at value.

----------

Seen from my perspective the major TOXIC mix in US politics, is a certain Herbal Drinks Party.

Confederate flags before the White house, that's TOXIC.

See that judgement is biased, as the Confederate flag is a symbol to lots of native southerners as a representation of their heritage and pride. Most that know nothing about US History only see it as racists and oppressive (and always will), but the Civivl War was not just about slavery, but about economic stimulation and lots of other issues. Free blacks fought alongside their fellow Confederate soldiers just as they did for the Union. If slavery was the only issue at hand, then why would they take up arms to defend it? I was born and raised in the North and the prevailing though was that the Confederate flag was a sign on hatred (never actually taught this way, but it was the prevailing thought), after having been in the south,I find that the majority of the people down here think completely the opposite. In fact most that I know, were like me, never having a family history that involved owning slaves or anything with the slave trade. They are just proud of their family heritage and the involvement and pride their family had in representing their side in the war. This is no more toxic that starting a war based solely on Oil profits (hint hint).

 

[mactastic]

See that judgement is biased, as the Confederate flag is a symbol to lots of native southerners as a representation of their heritage and pride. Most that know nothing about US History only see it as racists and oppressive (and always will), but the Civivl War was not just about slavery, but about economic stimulation and lots of other issues. Free blacks fought alongside their fellow Confederate soldiers just as they did for the Union. If slavery was the only issue at hand, then why would they take up arms to defend it? I was born and raised in the North and the prevailing though was that the Confederate flag was a sign on hatred (never actually taught this way, but it was the prevailing thought), after having been in the south,I find that the majority of the people down here think completely the opposite. In fact most that I know, were like me, never having a family history that involved owning slaves or anything with the slave trade. They are just proud of their family heritage and the involvement and pride their family had in representing their side in the war. This is no more toxic that starting a war based solely on Oil profits (hint hint).

Oh irony... I fear you've been taken behind the woodshed and beaten to a lifeless, bloody pulp.

 

[squeakr]

Oh irony... I fear you've been taken behind the woodshed and beaten to a lifeless, bloody pulp.

Care to explain your comment?

 

[mactastic]

Care to explain your comment?

You started off with "see, that comment is biased", then went to town with your own biased statement with what appears to be absolutely no recognition of the inherent problem behind constructing such an argument.

 

[squeakr]

You started off with "see, that comment is biased", then went to town with your own biased statement with what appears to be absolutely no recognition of the inherent problem behind constructing such an argument.

I said "judgement" and not "comment" for one, so if you are going to quote it at least get it correct. Since you are making the claim against me of a bias, explain how? I presented facts to back my statements and the few things that were not facts, I stipulated were my viewpoints and experiences. Not just outright making bold claims with no basis. Explain the inherent problem you are referring to and while at it explain where my statement was wrong and biased, as I am truly interested in your take on this.

 

[mactastic]

I said "judgement" and not "comment" for one, so if you are going to quote it at least get it correct. Since you are making the claim against me of a bias, explain how? I presented facts to back my statements and the few things that were not facts, I stipulated were my viewpoints and experiences. Not just outright making bold claims with no basis. Explain the inherent problem you are referring to and while at it explain where my statement was wrong and biased, as I am truly interested in your take on this.

First, my sincere apology for the misquote. Now, let me bold the biased judgements, if you will, in your post that I quoted:

See that judgement is biased, as the Confederate flag is a symbol to lots of native southerners as a representation of their heritage and pride.

This observation is as biased as the statement that the flag of treason (yes, that's a biased statement too) flown in front of the WH is toxic.

Most that know nothing about US History only see it as racists and oppressive (and always will), but the Civivl War was not just about slavery, but about economic stimulation and lots of other issues.

Here you are expressing bias against those "that know nothing about US History", belittling anyone who doesn't agree with you as ignorant.

Free blacks fought alongside their fellow Confederate soldiers just as they did for the Union. If slavery was the only issue at hand, then why would they take up arms to defend it? I was born and raised in the North and the prevailing though was that the Confederate flag was a sign on hatred (never actually taught this way, but it was the prevailing thought), after having been in the south,I find that the majority of the people down here think completely the opposite. In fact most that I know, were like me, never having a family history that involved owning slaves or anything with the slave trade. They are just proud of their family heritage and the involvement and pride their family had in representing their side in the war. This is no more toxic that starting a war based solely on Oil profits (hint hint).

This whole passage is biased. Look, I don't care if your biased. I'm biased. Just don't go around pretending that everyone else's arguments are biased while yours aren't.

 

[localoid]

... See that judgement is biased, as the Confederate flag is a symbol to lots of native southerners as a representation of their heritage and pride. Most that know nothing about US History only see it as racists and oppressive (and always will), but the Civivl War was not just about slavery, but about economic stimulation and lots of other issues. Free blacks fought alongside their fellow Confederate soldiers just as they did for the Union. If slavery was the only issue at hand, then why would they take up arms to defend it? I was born and raised in the North and the prevailing though was that the Confederate flag was a sign on hatred (never actually taught this way, but it was the prevailing thought), after having been in the south,I find that the majority of the people down here think completely the opposite. In fact most that I know, were like me, never having a family history that involved owning slaves or anything with the slave trade. They are just proud of their family heritage and the involvement and pride their family had in representing their side in the war. This is no more toxic that starting a war based solely on Oil profits (hint hint).

Wow. You're remembering the Civil War in a way that's rather difference from the way the historical record recalls it. In general, you seem to have embraced a Southern revisionists' version of Civil War history.

Almost all historians reject the notion that any sufficient number of black slaves fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. There's just no historical evidence that it ever happened on any large scale.

But this really isn't the thread to debate that (off topic) issue. However, there is an existing thread that is well suited for addressing some of your misconceptions about the Civil War. It's the Still think the Civil War was about state's rights? thread. If you want to debate the war, please consider posting your thoughts regarding the war (from the Southern POV) in that thread.

 

[squeakr]

First, my sincere apology for the misquote. Now, let me bold the biased judgements, if you will, in your post that I quoted:


This observation is as biased as the statement that the flag of treason (yes, that's a biased statement too) flown in front of the WH is toxic.




Here you are expressing bias against those "that know nothing about US History", belittling anyone who doesn't agree with you as ignorant.



This whole passage is biased. Look, I don't care if your biased. I'm biased. Just don't go around pretending that everyone else's arguments are biased while yours aren't.

Ok. Think what you want. I am biased, but how is the statement that the flag is seen as a representation of their heritage and pride, biased?? That is a fact.

Never was it stated as a treasonous flag anywhere, you just threw that in there. Just that flying it in from of the WH is toxic. The judgment there is biased as why is flying a flag toxic, if for other than ill intent (which is implied if it is to be toxic).

I never called anyone ignorant nor implied that (once again your added little twist to try and create bias), just stated the truth, as that "is" how it is viewed by most that know nothing of the flag and it's heritage (and this has been proven time and again by the statements and opinions of demonstrators against this flag and it's flying/ display. If people state that the flag represents racism and oppression to them, then how is me stating that is how it is viewed showing any bias? It is merely repeating/ relaying their sentiments.)

As for the final paragraph (which you prefer to call a statement), is filled with verifiable facts, so how can they be biased. The only thing that I see that could remotely be seen as biased is the final, tongue in cheek reference to the oil wars.

A bias is a prejudice either for or against something. When you are merely stating facts, how is that biasing. I have not presented a position either way that flying this flag is toxic, just presented facts to prove that the flag itself is rich in heritage and pride for many and have not insulted other in the process.

 

[squeakr]

Wow. You're remembering the Civil War in a way that's rather difference from the way the historical record recalls it. In general, you seem to have embraced a Southern revisionists' version of Civil War history.

Almost all historians reject the notion that any sufficient number of black slaves fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. There's just no historical evidence that it ever happened on any large scale.

But this really isn't the thread to debate that (off topic) issue. However, there is an existing thread that is well suited for addressing some of your misconceptions about the Civil War. It's the Still think the Civil War was about state's rights? thread. If you want to debate the war, please consider posting your thoughts regarding the war (from the Southern POV) in that thread.

For one, it is a well known fact that to the victors goes the spoils. One of which is the fact that they generally get to write the history as it pertains to them and things left out that they might not have agreed with nor thought a major point.

Also, I would like to know how I am also rewriting the history. I just stated that it wasn't all about slavery, and that is the truth. There were several other factors involved. I agree that the main point of issue was slavery (many in the south will not agree), but that was not the only issue and that is all I claimed nothing more and nothing less.

Also, I never said nor implied that large numbers of slaves fought alongside. I never even mentioned slaves, yet simply stated that "free blacks fought alongside" (that number could be 12 or 1000, but I never implied any amount large or small). I never stated any number, size, or amount, that is something you added, stop trying to make this part of my statement and change my point to make it false. As stated it is a fact and truth, nothing more.

You may be debating the war, I am not. I only offered up factual statements to back the thoughts about the flag and its representation to some. Also don't try and place a side on me as well. I never said anything that related to a side other than that most native southerners feel pride and heritage from the flag. Where were you telling others to take their discussion into another thread when what was a discussion started as a thread on worker's rights and protections afforded, branched off into Marriage and Religious freedoms/ persecutions that have little to do with worker's rights??



Some of you people need to open your mind and be less quick to jump on anyone that doesn't agree with your point of view. You are so blinded that you don't see things for what they are but instead see things that are not present and read into them claims and statements that don't exist or were never said. The facts that I have stated/ presented about the war and its participants can be found within the history texts that exist and are verifiable and not just opinion based. Call it biased if you will, but they are the facts.

 

[localoid]

For one, it is a well known fact that to the victors goes the spoils. One of which is the fact that they generally get to write the history as it pertains to them and things left out that they might not have agreed with nor thought a major point....

If you believe you know that "unwritten history" well, then please, join the discussion in the thread I posted previously and present those misplaced "facts" of history. I, for one, will be glad to offer you a lively, but civilized debate regarding any long ignored "facts" you'd care to share.

In general, I find it hard to understand how anyone, after "studying" the war in any detail, could avoid the realization than the South's cause was primarily to preserve and protect the institution of slavery.

 

[skottichan]

Oh lordy, I'm still laughing at the comment that we live in a matriarchy, yet women choose to be paid less.

I work in graphic design, I make $.76 per dollar a man in my field makes. I also work harder (I'm the one the project managers turn to when the men they hired can't make their deadline), than most of my peers. I've had my project managers stand up for me, and management still say "Oh, she makes enough".

But yeah, I chose this.


Also love that men being taught to be human beings and sharing their feelings and having empathy, is somehow The Woman keeping men down.

We live in a country where women have had the right to vote for less than 100 years.


Also, Social Security is solvent, it's not a "something for nothing" program. The average employee gets back less than what they put into it. But hey, anything to make your argument that evil women are taking everything from poor innocent men, right?

 

[squeakr]

If you believe you know that "unwritten history" well, then please, join the discussion in the thread I posted previously and present those misplaced "facts" of history. I, for one, will be glad to offer you a lively, but civilized debate regarding any long ignored "facts" you'd care to share.

In general, I find it hard to understand how anyone, after "studying" the war in any detail, could avoid the realization than the South's cause was primarily to preserve and protect the institution of slavery.

My statement was for relating to any war throughout history and not just the Civil War. There are several things about the most recent wars we are involved in that have been withheld from the public, and will probably never be told as the victors write the history.

I also find it hard to believe that slavery was not at the forefront of the issues for the the war, but it still doesn't mean it was the ONLY issue, of which my original claim was exactly that. Some of the biggest slave owners in history fought for the Union, so it shows that there was more than meets the eye regarding this war and its issues.

 

[localoid]

My statement was for relating to any war throughout history and not just the Civil War. There are several things about the most recent wars we are involved in that have been withheld from the public, and will probably never be told as the victors write the history.

I would disagree. It's easier now, than ever before, thanks to the digital revolution, to research, compile, brainstorm, present, and preserve "alternate versions of history".

But it's been relatively easy to do so since the advent of the printing press. It certainly has been easy since the end of the Civil War, as numerous Confederate alternate-history books have been printed, starting just after war's end through today. For that matter, I've read several textbook used in Virginia schools, some of them in use as late as the 1960s, that presented (nonfactual) versions of "Southern alternative history".

I also find it hard to believe that slavery was not at the forefront of the issues for the the war, but it still doesn't mean it was the ONLY issue, of which my original claim was exactly that. Some of the biggest slave owners in history fought for the Union, so it shows that there was more than meets the eye regarding this war and its issues.

After realizing that slavery was the forefront of the issues, I can't understand how anyone could hold any great amount of pride (in the traditional sense) regarding the South's efforts in war. I really can't.

Yes, I can understand how someone could possibly admire the courage of the soldiers of the Confederacy on the battlefields, admire the resourcefulness and military military prowess of some of the South's leaders, and so on, but I cannot see how anyone could feel a sense of "pride" (as that term is normally defined) regarding the icons of the Southern Cause, such as the "battle flag". It's just too difficult to ignore the elephant in the room sized issue that the slavery was during the war.

 

[squeakr]

After realizing that slavery was the forefront of the issues, I can't understand how anyone could hold any great amount of pride (in the traditional sense) regarding the South's efforts in war. I really can't.

Yes, I can understand how someone could possibly admire the courage of the soldiers of the Confederacy on the battlefields, admire the resourcefulness and military military prowess of some of the South's leaders, and so on, but I cannot see how anyone could feel a sense of "pride" (as that term is normally defined) regarding the icons of the Southern Cause, such as the "battle flag". It's just too difficult to ignore the elephant in the room sized issue that the slavery was during the war.

Having lived all over this "great" country of ours, I have learned to overlook these peculiarities. I have found that no matter where I have lived, the people within that region all hold a sense of superiority or pride when it comes to something or some time in history that they feel no one else in the rest of the country can understand or comprehend as they are not "native" to that region or it is not in their blood. Travel enough and you will see this where ever you go.

You can even see it on issues, such as the rights issues presented here. The prevailing feeling is that if one is not a member of said group, they have never experienced, won't experience, nor ca they comprehend and understand truly what it feels to be treated a certain way. I don't believe this is the case, though.

 

[mactastic]

Some of you people need to open your mind and be less quick to jump on anyone that doesn't agree with your point of view. You are so blinded that you don't see things for what they are but instead see things that are not present and read into them claims and statements that don't exist or were never said.

You're really trying to destroy my irony meter today, aren't you?

 

[squeakr]

You're really trying to destroy my irony meter today, aren't you?

Nope. I guess just keep it even with your smart-ass meter, right?

 

[mactastic]

Nope. I guess just keep it even with your smart-ass meter, right?

Perhaps you need to open your mind, and not be so quick to jump on others who don't agree with you?

 

[squeakr]

Perhaps you need to open your mind, and not be so quick to jump on others who don't agree with you?

I am not jumping on anyone that doesn't "agree" with me, but I am confronting a person that is actually stating claims and quotes about what I have said that in fact didn't ever occur or take place. There is the difference.

 

[mactastic]

I am not jumping on anyone that doesn't "agree" with me, but I am confronting a person that is actually stating claims and quotes about what I have said that in fact didn't ever occur or take place. There is the difference.

You've done the very same, claiming that because a handful of free blacks fought for the south, that slavery couldn't have been the cause of the war. No difference whatsoever.

 

[squeakr]

You've done the very same, claiming that because a handful of free blacks fought for the south, that slavery couldn't have been the cause of the war. No difference whatsoever.

Once again your selective reading is the issue here as the following is what I said (directly quoted from the previous statement made and I am even leaving in the typo):

"Civivl War was not just about slavery, but about economic stimulation and lots of other issues."

How does this in any way say, imply, or otherwise claim that I stated "slavery couldn't have been the cause of the war"? Epic fail in reading and comprehension again. I only stated it was not JUST about slavery. Which is once again entirely different than what you claim as this states slavery is not the only reason. Completely different than your claim about what I said. This is why I take offense as you are telling me and others what I said which just is not the truth and changing it in the process.

 

[mactastic]

Once again your selective reading as here is what I said directly Quoted from the previous statement made (and I am even leaving in the typo):

"Civivl War was not just about slavery, but about economic stimulation and lots of other issues."

How does this in any way say, imply, or otherwise claim what you say, that I stated "slavery couldn't have been the cause of the war"? Epic fail in reading and comprehension again. I only stated it was not JUST about slavery. Which is once again entirely different than what you claim as this states slavery is not the only reason. Completely different than your claim about what I said. This is why I take offense as you are telling me and others what I said which just is not the truth.

But your contention is utter rubbish. It would be like me claiming 9/11 wasn't the reason we went to war with Afghanistan and the Taliban, that it was a whole host of economic and lots of other issues. Sure I can say it, but it's demonstrably untrue.

 

[squeakr]

But your contention is utter rubbish. It would be like me claiming 9/11 wasn't the reason we went to war with Afghanistan and the Taliban, that it was a whole host of economic and lots of other issues. Sure I can say it, but it's demonstrably untrue.

No it is not the same your above statement says it wasn't the reason (which means 9/11 is NOT a reason) now if you said it "wasn't the only reason" that is an entirely different statement. Think what you want but they are two totally different statements. One says it is not a reason the other says it wasn't the sole reason. Two totally different statements.

My claim on the civil war never excluded slavery as you contend it did, so you are wrong, just admit it.

 

[mactastic]

No your above statement says it wasn't the reason (which means 9/11 is NOT a reason) now if you said it "wasn't the only reason" that is an entirely different statement. Think what you want but they are two totally different statements. One says it is not a reason the other says it wasn't the sole reason. Two totally different statements.

Sorry, I meant not the primary reason. You may revise your response, if you wish.

Let's try this... Do you believe slavery was, if not the sole reason, the primary reason behind the Civil War? Or do you feel the economic and "other issues" were the primary driver?

 

[localoid]

"Civivl War was not just about slavery, but about economic stimulation and lots of other issues."

But once you really research and examine the "economic stimulation" and the "other issues", they all were part of the South's slavery conundrum.

 

[squeakr]

Sorry, I meant not the primary reason. You may revise your response, if you wish.

Let's try this... Do you believe slavery was, if not the sole reason, the primary reason behind the Civil War? Or do you feel the economic and "other issues" were the primary driver?

What I believe is irrelevant as my statement still stands and is true whether I believe it to be the primary or not. Whether I believe it to be primary, secondary, or otherwise does not change the truth my statement conveys as it was stated. You read your own interpretations into it. As nothing to either way is conveyed in the statement itself.

Having said that, since you asked (and this is the first time you have rather than just assume my position), I believe that it was the primary reason behind it (note I said primary and not only reason as other reasons existed as well), but I do know several that believe otherwise.