worldview question for democrats on the board

[TigerHeat 9]

Are black Americans better off because the civil war was fought? Simple question.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Are black Americans better off because the civil war was fought? Simple question.

Nothing like a lighthearted question on a Friday afternoon to start off your weekend !

[TigerHeat 9]

Are black Americans better off because the civil war was fought? Simple question.

Nothing like a lighthearted question on a Friday afternoon to start off your weekend !

I want to know whether democrats think the civil war helped black Americans. Simple enough.

[Tigermike 4,282]

While I am not a democrat and I am not an African American, I will take a shot at the question as if I were.

“Are black Americans better off because the civil war was fought? Simple question.”

No it shouldn’t have been fought, we would be much better off living as slaves.

And no I am not going to use one of these

[arnaldoabru 11]

Are black Americans better off because the civil war was fought? Simple question.

Nothing like a lighthearted question on a Friday afternoon to start off your weekend !

I want to know whether democrats think the civil war helped black Americans. Simple enough.

only if you think slavery is good

[autigeremt 7,550]

The war was not about SLAVERY! Slavery was a part of it, but not the real reason for war. The North had more slaves working in their states than the South did.

Aghhhhh!

Slavery was in place throughout the WORLD (African tribes were notorious for it) for thousands of years prior to the colonization of North America!

[TigerHeat 9]

Are black Americans better off because the civil war was fought? Simple question.

Nothing like a lighthearted question on a Friday afternoon to start off your weekend !

I want to know whether democrats think the civil war helped black Americans. Simple enough.

only if you think slavery is good

better off or not better off?

[Tigermike 4,282]

The war was not about SLAVERY! Slavery was a part of it, but not the real reason for war. The North had more slaves working in their states than the South did.

Aghhhhh!

Slavery was in place throughout the WORLD (African tribes were notorious for it) for thousands of years prior to the colonization of North America!

But he didn't ask what the civil was was about. When he asked "Are black Americans better off because the civil war was fought?" he brought the issue of slavery into the picture. Simple.

[Justin5 20]

The war was not about SLAVERY! Slavery was a part of it, but not the real reason for war. The North had more slaves working in their states than the South did.

Aghhhhh!

Slavery was in place throughout the WORLD (African tribes were notorious for it) for thousands of years prior to the colonization of North America!

Umm, no - the north did not have more slaves when the war started.

And as you said "SLAVERY WAS A PART OF IT".

Are black Americans better off because the civil war was fought? Simple question.

Nothing like a lighthearted question on a Friday afternoon to start off your weekend !

I want to know whether democrats think the civil war helped black Americans. Simple enough.

only if you think slavery is good

better off or not better off?

Regardless of better off, owning someone as property is not something I am okay with.

But to answer you, YES blacks are better off.

Think of it this way, when you were 25 and living with very money you were living a lower standard than you did when you lived with your parents. Does that make you worse off? OF COURSE NOT. You were working on building a good life for yourself.

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me. In short, I find this entire question extremely disappointing and offensive.

[Tigermike 4,282]

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me.

Well since you put it that way,,,,,,,,,,,,,, There is always Lady Heather

[au2004ece 30]

The war was not about SLAVERY! Slavery was a part of it, but not the real reason for war. The North had more slaves working in their states than the South did.

Aghhhhh!

Slavery was in place throughout the WORLD (African tribes were notorious for it) for thousands of years prior to the colonization of North America!

Umm, no - the north did not have more slaves when the war started.

And as you said "SLAVERY WAS A PART OF IT".

Are black Americans better off because the civil war was fought? Simple question.

Nothing like a lighthearted question on a Friday afternoon to start off your weekend !

I want to know whether democrats think the civil war helped black Americans. Simple enough.

only if you think slavery is good

better off or not better off?

Regardless of better off, owning someone as property is not something I am okay with.

But to answer you, YES blacks are better off.

Think of it this way, when you were 25 and living with very money you were living a lower standard than you did when you lived with your parents. Does that make you worse off? OF COURSE NOT. You were working on building a good life for yourself.

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me. In short, I find this entire question extremely disappointing and offensive.

I hope he means the question in a different way than you assume. I think he means it as a question to determine if democrats think that war is ever for the better.

[TigerHeat 9]

Regardless of better off, owning someone as property is not something I am okay with.

But to answer you, YES blacks are better off.

Think of it this way, when you were 25 and living with very money you were living a lower standard than you did when you lived with your parents. Does that make you worse off? OF COURSE NOT. You were working on building a good life for yourself.

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me. In short, I find this entire question extremely disappointing and offensive.

Wow. Simple question hurt your feelings? Nothing implied or stated. Just a simple question.

Now, would you have condoned the civil war if the black slaves were across the border in Mexico instead of south of the Mason-Dixon line? Would stopping the rape, whipping, lynching, and dehumanization of blacks be worthy of democrat ideals? Would Obama have waged that war?

[Justin5 20]

Regardless of better off, owning someone as property is not something I am okay with.

But to answer you, YES blacks are better off.

Think of it this way, when you were 25 and living with very money you were living a lower standard than you did when you lived with your parents. Does that make you worse off? OF COURSE NOT. You were working on building a good life for yourself.

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me. In short, I find this entire question extremely disappointing and offensive.

Wow. Simple question hurt your feelings? Nothing implied or stated. Just a simple question.

Now, would you have condoned the civil war if the black slaves were across the border in Mexico instead of south of the Mason-Dixon line? Would stopping the rape, whipping, lynching, and dehumanization of blacks be worthy of democrat ideals? Would Obama have waged that war?

REALLY? Simple question? Um, you asked if blacks were better off not being slaves. I'd say you've earned any anger you receive.

And to answer your question - if you are asking if we would have gone to war with Mexico to stop them from having slaves - NO, we would be wrong in doing so. It wouldn't be our country or our business in how that country is run. Slavery still exists in several African countries - we aren't declaring war on them.

[Justin5 20]

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me.

Well since you put it that way,,,,,,,,,,,,,, There is always Lady Heather

I said 'too many'. I left a little wiggle room for the extremes (thats what she said)

[au2004ece 30]

Regardless of better off, owning someone as property is not something I am okay with.

But to answer you, YES blacks are better off.

Think of it this way, when you were 25 and living with very money you were living a lower standard than you did when you lived with your parents. Does that make you worse off? OF COURSE NOT. You were working on building a good life for yourself.

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me. In short, I find this entire question extremely disappointing and offensive.

Wow. Simple question hurt your feelings? Nothing implied or stated. Just a simple question.

Now, would you have condoned the civil war if the black slaves were across the border in Mexico instead of south of the Mason-Dixon line? Would stopping the rape, whipping, lynching, and dehumanization of blacks be worthy of democrat ideals? Would Obama have waged that war?

REALLY? Simple question? Um, you asked if blacks were better off not being slaves. I'd say you've earned any anger you receive.

And to answer your question - if you are asking if we would have gone to war with Mexico to stop them from having slaves - NO, we would be wrong in doing so. It wouldn't be our country or our business in how that country is run. Slavery still exists in several African countries - we aren't declaring war on them.

I'm suprised you think it wouldn't be any of our business if large scale slavery in Mexico existed now.

You believe it would be OK for them because they decided that's what worked for them?????

That is what is weird about liberals. They have all these high ideals and yet believe that it is OK for others to do things that are not OK to do here. That's called moral relativism and people that believe in it are really morally bankrupt.

[TigerHeat 9]

Regardless of better off, owning someone as property is not something I am okay with.

But to answer you, YES blacks are better off.

Think of it this way, when you were 25 and living with very money you were living a lower standard than you did when you lived with your parents. Does that make you worse off? OF COURSE NOT. You were working on building a good life for yourself.

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me. In short, I find this entire question extremely disappointing and offensive.

Wow. Simple question hurt your feelings? Nothing implied or stated. Just a simple question.

Now, would you have condoned the civil war if the black slaves were across the border in Mexico instead of south of the Mason-Dixon line? Would stopping the rape, whipping, lynching, and dehumanization of blacks be worthy of democrat ideals? Would Obama have waged that war?

REALLY? Simple question? Um, you asked if blacks were better off not being slaves. I'd say you've earned any anger you receive.

And to answer your question - if you are asking if we would have gone to war with Mexico to stop them from having slaves - NO, we would be wrong in doing so. It wouldn't be our country or our business in how that country is run. Slavery still exists in several African countries - we aren't declaring war on them.

I'm suprised you think it wouldn't be any of our business if large scale slavery in Mexico existed now.

You believe it would be OK for them because they decided that's what worked for them?????

That is what is weird about liberals. They have all these high ideals and yet believe that it is OK for others to do things that are not OK to do here. That's called moral relativism and people that believe in it are really morally bankrupt.

This is where Bush Derangement Syndrome has left the dhimmis. They wouldn't go to war to end slavery in the country next door or to take out a hostile psychopathic and genocidal dictator in the Middle East, but they will gladly bomb people to save white Muslims in Europe.

It's sad to me. I asked a no-brainer, softball question and it brought anger.

The POINT of my question was that the left did not support the civil war for the very reasons the left didn't support the Iraq War. The modern left has the stomach for a fight only against republicans.

We can read what will happen in Obama's adminsitration by reading the Washington Post from 1977. Change a few names...it's all the same.

The President talks down the economy, tells the citizenry they'll have to sacrifice for the environment, taxes must go up, new social programs are vital to our survival, and dialogue with our enemies is vital. He holds the only solution to our problems, and opposition will lead to national disaster.

Obama has never run any type of organization (don't mention his education flimflam). He is not a genius, nor a genius politician. He barely voted on anything during his short time in the senate, and he authored nothing of import. He got elected by the media and guilty white liberals while spending more money than ever in history (never mind the broken pledge regarding public campaign financing). He knows nothing of economics or business that he didn't learn from his radical red friends. He has shown a remarkably thin skin early in his Presidency. He can reach across the world in friendship to strangers that would skin him alive if given the chance, but to the republicans elected to represent fellow Americans he has nothing to say other than, "I won". He has absolutely bungled his first two weeks with opposition from his own party. He will continue to self-destruct as Carter did.

It's a shame, too. We are in deep crap.

[arnaldoabru 11]

Regardless of better off, owning someone as property is not something I am okay with.

But to answer you, YES blacks are better off.

Think of it this way, when you were 25 and living with very money you were living a lower standard than you did when you lived with your parents. Does that make you worse off? OF COURSE NOT. You were working on building a good life for yourself.

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me. In short, I find this entire question extremely disappointing and offensive.

Wow. Simple question hurt your feelings? Nothing implied or stated. Just a simple question.

Now, would you have condoned the civil war if the black slaves were across the border in Mexico instead of south of the Mason-Dixon line? Would stopping the rape, whipping, lynching, and dehumanization of blacks be worthy of democrat ideals? Would Obama have waged that war?

REALLY? Simple question? Um, you asked if blacks were better off not being slaves. I'd say you've earned any anger you receive.

And to answer your question - if you are asking if we would have gone to war with Mexico to stop them from having slaves - NO, we would be wrong in doing so. It wouldn't be our country or our business in how that country is run. Slavery still exists in several African countries - we aren't declaring war on them.

I'm suprised you think it wouldn't be any of our business if large scale slavery in Mexico existed now.

You believe it would be OK for them because they decided that's what worked for them?????

That is what is weird about liberals. They have all these high ideals and yet believe that it is OK for others to do things that are not OK to do here. That's called moral relativism and people that believe in it are really morally bankrupt.

This is where Bush Derangement Syndrome has left the dhimmis. They wouldn't go to war to end slavery in the country next door or to take out a hostile psychopathic and genocidal dictator in the Middle East, but they will gladly bomb people to save white Muslims in Europe.

It's sad to me. I asked a no-brainer, softball question and it brought anger.

The POINT of my question was that the left did not support the civil war for the very reasons the left didn't support the Iraq War. The modern left has the stomach for a fight only against republicans.

We can read what will happen in Obama's adminsitration by reading the Washington Post from 1977. Change a few names...it's all the same.

The President talks down the economy, tells the citizenry they'll have to sacrifice for the environment, taxes must go up, new social programs are vital to our survival, and dialogue with our enemies is vital. He holds the only solution to our problems, and opposition will lead to national disaster.

Obama has never run any type of organization (don't mention his education flimflam). He is not a genius, nor a genius politician. He barely voted on anything during his short time in the senate, and he authored nothing of import. He got elected by the media and guilty white liberals while spending more money than ever in history (never mind the broken pledge regarding public campaign financing). He knows nothing of economics or business that he didn't learn from his radical red friends. He has shown a remarkably thin skin early in his Presidency. He can reach across the world in friendship to strangers that would skin him alive if given the chance, but to the republicans elected to represent fellow Americans he has nothing to say other than, "I won". He has absolutely bungled his first two weeks with opposition from his own party. He will continue to self-destruct as Carter did.

It's a shame, too. We are in deep crap.

I would support the invasion, only if my President lied to me about why we invaded.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I want to know whether democrats think the civil war helped black Americans. Simple enough.

Yeah, I got that. Gonna sit this one out.

[TigerHeat 9]

Regardless of better off, owning someone as property is not something I am okay with.

But to answer you, YES blacks are better off.

Think of it this way, when you were 25 and living with very money you were living a lower standard than you did when you lived with your parents. Does that make you worse off? OF COURSE NOT. You were working on building a good life for yourself.

Then again, I don't know too many people that enjoyed being raped and whipped, but thats just me. In short, I find this entire question extremely disappointing and offensive.

Wow. Simple question hurt your feelings? Nothing implied or stated. Just a simple question.

Now, would you have condoned the civil war if the black slaves were across the border in Mexico instead of south of the Mason-Dixon line? Would stopping the rape, whipping, lynching, and dehumanization of blacks be worthy of democrat ideals? Would Obama have waged that war?

REALLY? Simple question? Um, you asked if blacks were better off not being slaves. I'd say you've earned any anger you receive.

And to answer your question - if you are asking if we would have gone to war with Mexico to stop them from having slaves - NO, we would be wrong in doing so. It wouldn't be our country or our business in how that country is run. Slavery still exists in several African countries - we aren't declaring war on them.

I'm suprised you think it wouldn't be any of our business if large scale slavery in Mexico existed now.

You believe it would be OK for them because they decided that's what worked for them?????

That is what is weird about liberals. They have all these high ideals and yet believe that it is OK for others to do things that are not OK to do here. That's called moral relativism and people that believe in it are really morally bankrupt.

This is where Bush Derangement Syndrome has left the dhimmis. They wouldn't go to war to end slavery in the country next door or to take out a hostile psychopathic and genocidal dictator in the Middle East, but they will gladly bomb people to save white Muslims in Europe.

It's sad to me. I asked a no-brainer, softball question and it brought anger.

The POINT of my question was that the left did not support the civil war for the very reasons the left didn't support the Iraq War. The modern left has the stomach for a fight only against republicans.

We can read what will happen in Obama's adminsitration by reading the Washington Post from 1977. Change a few names...it's all the same.

The President talks down the economy, tells the citizenry they'll have to sacrifice for the environment, taxes must go up, new social programs are vital to our survival, and dialogue with our enemies is vital. He holds the only solution to our problems, and opposition will lead to national disaster.

Obama has never run any type of organization (don't mention his education flimflam). He is not a genius, nor a genius politician. He barely voted on anything during his short time in the senate, and he authored nothing of import. He got elected by the media and guilty white liberals while spending more money than ever in history (never mind the broken pledge regarding public campaign financing). He knows nothing of economics or business that he didn't learn from his radical red friends. He has shown a remarkably thin skin early in his Presidency. He can reach across the world in friendship to strangers that would skin him alive if given the chance, but to the republicans elected to represent fellow Americans he has nothing to say other than, "I won". He has absolutely bungled his first two weeks with opposition from his own party. He will continue to self-destruct as Carter did.

It's a shame, too. We are in deep crap.

I would support the invasion, only if my President lied to me about why we invaded.

You could save yourself a lot of time if you just started using numbers for your posts: #5 means "Bush lied".