Silian Rail has posted one of the more important summations of the 2020 disaster, and ironically it is buried in a a discussion of the religious standards in politics thread.

It is worth singling out here:

Quote:

---

He did not win the 2nd time, as he is not currently in the white house. The election was stolen by making it easier to vote, they didn't have to falsify the votes. Was there fraud? Sure there always is, but using COVID as the reason, they made it extremely easy for millions of people to vote whom normally wouldn't vote.

Republicans are never going to win when there is high turnout, for the simple fact that there are more democrats than republicans in the country; but Republicans have higher turnout. When they mailed ballots to everyone it was over.

and

I have no doubt there was fraud, it just wasn't enough to change the election. There's always fraud. Don't forget that Trump got a **** load of votes more than he got the first time as well. Just like at Vegas, when you rig the game from the start, you don't have to cheat.

---

Whatever one believes about the night of Nov 3 and after, there is no doubt it was "rigged" in just this way going in, and in that sense, may have indeed been just what it looked like--- the MSM -Big Tech promoting a false version to get their candidate installed by a "led by nose" electorate. Maybe there was no grand theft big enough, and there are that many foolish voters capable of choosing open coercive sociialism. Look at the trend even this year.

TxTarpon said:

---

Quote:

---

You do realize... it was CHRISTIANS who set those wrongs straight, right?! They didn't all do the right thing immediately, but they corrected each other's wrongs and are responsible for the moral standard that you currently hold against them.

---

You do realize that Christians were here since day 1 right?
Pay attention: I am asking for when in the US "we did not have degenerate behavior and embraced God" as noted in the OP I am answering.

---

5% of the population owned slaves. Just like everything nowadays, it was an elite issue. Also just like modern times, the elites did not represent the morality of the average person and typically were much more degenerate on the whole.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

If acknowledging God makes us a Theocracy, then we were created as a Theocracy.

<snip>

---

Strawman... That's not my argument.

Quote:

---

..... my answer was that i found it hard to be upset about because let's not pretend we have ever really been a nation that was about honoring God in righteousness.

---

The Spanish showed up with the Catholic church.
The went into New Mexico.
The military component went for territory and treasure and the priests for souls.
Some of it was altruistic.
Economy > Piety in many places and in many eras.

Malibu2 said:

---

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. You're acting like this is some complicated thing and actually the men who founded this country were rabidly abolitionist. I mean good grief man.

---

I love that you continue to quote what you learned from Union approved curriculum.

What President signed legislation abolishing the slave trade and then wrote that he hoped it led to the eventual abolition of slavery itself?

Malibu2 said:

---

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson own slaves. You're acting like this is some complicated thing and actually the men who founded this country were rabidly abolitionist. I mean good grief man.

---

All I will say is this...while slavery is clearly wrong, especially so with our modern luxurious gift of hindsight...I can kind of see how advanced people with complex ships that can cross entire oceans, navigation tools, forged steel and technology might have rolled up on naked indigenous people with bones in their faces and basically zero technology or agricultural skills and assumed they were less than human.

Obviously, they were wrong...but regardless of whether you agree with this or not...what bugs me is modern people (esp white liberals) thinking they would have been the noble allies who would have been more enlightened than everyone else at that time, just because.

Quote:

---

5% of the population owned slaves. Just like everything nowadays, it was an elite issue. Also just like modern times, the elites did not represent the morality of the average person and typically were much more degenerate on the whole.

---

Still does not answer my question.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

I'm sorry what? You just skipped over slavery because it's obviously an evil thing and there's no point in even trying to justify it with appropriate nuance or context. You don't have to go beyond on the surface level of that to say well that's obviously evil bull**** that I am incredibly grateful that society has ended. Hence why I don't look at our forefathers as being paragons a virtue when they ****ed up one of the most obvious moral things with pure evil.

I don't want to go back to the 1700s or even the 1920s When America was a "moral place." That doesn't mean that I can't read the writings of the federalist papers or even the US Constitution as being profoundly wise and way ahead of its times as a moral framework of how to run government. It just means looking at history in the rearview mirror and asserting that it was somehow a more moral time in our nations history is just patronizingly stupid.

---

You think our forefathers supported slavery. That's false. Two States, Georgia and South Carolina, blackmailed the other 11 States into accepting slavery. Then, a majority of those 11 States utilized the legislative system to attempt to cripple slavery and abolish its future by choking off supply and other aspects of it.

The fact that you don't know that is, shall we say, not surprising.

---

And unfortunately none of them hit upon something long-thinking and clever as the setup of a 100 year "down the line" arrangement for Hong Kong. No one thinks that far ahead---they should have put in a sunset clause that sounded very far distant and it might have worked.

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

TxTarpon said:

---

Quote:

---

You do realize... it was CHRISTIANS who set those wrongs straight, right?! They didn't all do the right thing immediately, but they corrected each other's wrongs and are responsible for the moral standard that you currently hold against them.

---

You do realize that Christians were here since day 1 right?
Pay attention: I am asking for when in the US "we did not have degenerate behavior and embraced God" as noted in the OP I am answering.

---

5% of the population owned slaves. Just like everything nowadays, it was an elite issue. Also just like modern times, the elites did not represent the morality of the average person and typically were much more degenerate on the whole.

---

One question I've always pondered is why the slave markets were closed on Saturday, when the Christians rest on Sunday

TxTarpon said:

---

Quote:

---

5% of the population owned slaves. Just like everything nowadays, it was an elite issue. Also just like modern times, the elites did not represent the morality of the average person and typically were much more degenerate on the whole.

---

Still does not answer my question.

---

The average population was not degenerate. The other 95% were fine. The regular population suffering from elite degeneracy is a tale as old as time.

Silian Rail said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

TxTarpon said:

---

Quote:

---

You do realize... it was CHRISTIANS who set those wrongs straight, right?! They didn't all do the right thing immediately, but they corrected each other's wrongs and are responsible for the moral standard that you currently hold against them.

---

You do realize that Christians were here since day 1 right?
Pay attention: I am asking for when in the US "we did not have degenerate behavior and embraced God" as noted in the OP I am answering.

---

5% of the population owned slaves. Just like everything nowadays, it was an elite issue. Also just like modern times, the elites did not represent the morality of the average person and typically were much more degenerate on the whole.

---

One question I've always pondered is why the slave markets were closed on Saturday, when the Christians rest on Sunday

---

I believe some denominations celebrated the Sabbath on Saturday back then.

Silian Rail said:

---

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

TxTarpon said:

---

Quote:

---

You do realize... it was CHRISTIANS who set those wrongs straight, right?! They didn't all do the right thing immediately, but they corrected each other's wrongs and are responsible for the moral standard that you currently hold against them.

---

You do realize that Christians were here since day 1 right?
Pay attention: I am asking for when in the US "we did not have degenerate behavior and embraced God" as noted in the OP I am answering.

---

5% of the population owned slaves. Just like everything nowadays, it was an elite issue. Also just like modern times, the elites did not represent the morality of the average person and typically were much more degenerate on the whole.

---

One question I've always pondered is why the slave markets were closed on Saturday, when the Christians rest on Sunday

---

Ask the dems

TexAgs91 said:

---

I know you're seeing Republicans looking strong and like you did when the Tea Party started gaining momentum, you're wanting to hijack our movement again and turn it into some weird monstrosity.

Try and understand... We may be conservatives, but that's not the same thing as social conservatives. Fighting gay marriage is not at the top of our agenda. We're not necessarily for it but it's not at the top of our agenda. If you're against gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved. We have real country crippling problems to deal with and we need to stay focused on that.

Take your theocracy elsewhere and start your own party!

ETA: opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you support a theocracy. It's what lengths you want to go to enforce that that makes it a theocracy:

"Silian Rail" said:

---

Conservatism does not mean small government, Conservatism should not support deviant behavior, Conservatism should uphold the idea that all rights are endowed by God and he is the source of all law.

---

---

What Silian rail wrote at the bottom of your Op is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. That idiot isn't a conservative, he wants a theocracy of Christians, and then once he gets that it will only be his brand of Christianity. He's terrible.

Bake that cake.

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson own slaves. You're acting like this is some complicated thing and actually the men who founded this country were rabidly abolitionist. I mean good grief man.

---

All I will say is this...while it is wrong, especially so with our modern luxurious gift of hindsight...I can kind of see how advanced people with complex ships, navigation tools, forged steel and technology might have rolled up on naked indigenous people with bones in their faces and basically zero technology or agricultural skills and assumed they were less than human.

Obviously, they were wrong...but regardless of whether you agree with this or not...what bugs me is modern people (esp white liberals) thinking they would have been the noble allies who would have been more enlightened than everyone else at that time, just because.

---

This is a common problem. The enlightened love to apply 21st century logic, culture, and knowledge to all parts of history.

What will really twist their noodle is try and predict what people 200 years from now will think of abortion, given future advances in medical tech?

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson own slaves. You're acting like this is some complicated thing and actually the men who founded this country were rabidly abolitionist. I mean good grief man.

---

All I will say is this...while slavery is clearly wrong, especially so with our modern luxurious gift of hindsight...I can kind of see how advanced people with complex ships that can cross entire oceans, navigation tools, forged steel and technology might have rolled up on naked indigenous people with bones in their faces and basically zero technology or agricultural skills and assumed they were less than human.

Obviously, they were wrong...but regardless of whether you agree with this or not...what bugs me is modern people (esp white liberals) thinking they would have been the noble allies who would have been more enlightened than everyone else at that time, just because.

---

And, with all of that, libs are still the party of racism and slavery, trying to keep us browns and blacks on the plantation.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I know you're seeing Republicans looking strong and like you did when the Tea Party started gaining momentum, you're wanting to hijack our movement again and turn it into some weird monstrosity.

Try and understand... We may be conservatives, but that's not the same thing as social conservatives. Fighting gay marriage is not at the top of our agenda. We're not necessarily for it but it's not at the top of our agenda. If you're against gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved. We have real country crippling problems to deal with and we need to stay focused on that.

Take your theocracy elsewhere and start your own party!

ETA: opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you support a theocracy. It's what lengths you want to go to enforce that that makes it a theocracy:

Silian Rail said:

---

Conservatism does not mean small government, Conservatism should not support deviant behavior, Conservatism should uphold the idea that all rights are endowed by God and he is the source of all law.

---

---

What Silian rail wrote at the bottom of your Op is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. That idiot isn't a conservative, he wants a theocracy of Christians, and then once he gets that it will only be his brand of Christianity. He's terrible.

---

That highlights that there is a difference between "conservatives" and "social conservatives". That's something that should be kept in mind whenever engaging with the theocratic religious right.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. You're acting like this is some complicated thing and actually the men who founded this country were rabidly abolitionist. I mean good grief man.

---

I love that you continue to quote what you learned from Union approved curriculum.

What President signed legislation abolishing the slave trade and then wrote that he hoped it led to the eventual abolition of slavery itself?

---

The same President that owned slaves? To relate to other threads from today this is just like passing a law outlawing adultery while continuing to hit your side piece. Sorry that you don't get bonus points for being a moral righteous leader when you actually participate in evil.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I know you're seeing Republicans looking strong and like you did when the Tea Party started gaining momentum, you're wanting to hijack our movement again and turn it into some weird monstrosity.

Try and understand... We may be conservatives, but that's not the same thing as social conservatives. Fighting gay marriage is not at the top of our agenda. We're not necessarily for it but it's not at the top of our agenda. If you're against gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved. We have real country crippling problems to deal with and we need to stay focused on that.

Take your theocracy elsewhere and start your own party!

ETA: opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you support a theocracy. It's what lengths you want to go to enforce that that makes it a theocracy:

Silian Rail said:

---

Conservatism does not mean small government, Conservatism should not support deviant behavior, Conservatism should uphold the idea that all rights are endowed by God and he is the source of all law.

---

---

What Silian rail wrote at the bottom of your Op is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. That idiot isn't a conservative, he wants a theocracy of Christians, and then once he gets that it will only be his brand of Christianity. He's terrible.

---

That highlights that there is a difference between "conservatives" and "social conservatives". That's something that should be kept in mind whenever engaging with the theocratic religious right.

---

Yes obviously social liberalism is conservatism and social conservatism is liberalism and classical liberalism is conservatism. That makes the most sense

Malibu2 said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. You're acting like this is some complicated thing and actually the men who founded this country were rabidly abolitionist. I mean good grief man.

---

I love that you continue to quote what you learned from Union approved curriculum.

What President signed legislation abolishing the slave trade and then wrote that he hoped it led to the eventual abolition of slavery itself?

---

The same President that owned slaves? To relate to other threads from today this is just like passing a law outlawing adultery while continuing to hit your side piece. Sorry that you don't get bonus points for being a moral righteous leader when you actually participate in evil.

---

I would trade for the average American's morality of 1776 for todays in a millisecond.

Bonfire1996 said:

---

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson own slaves. You're acting like this is some complicated thing and actually the men who founded this country were rabidly abolitionist. I mean good grief man.

---

All I will say is this...while it is wrong, especially so with our modern luxurious gift of hindsight...I can kind of see how advanced people with complex ships, navigation tools, forged steel and technology might have rolled up on naked indigenous people with bones in their faces and basically zero technology or agricultural skills and assumed they were less than human.

Obviously, they were wrong...but regardless of whether you agree with this or not...what bugs me is modern people (esp white liberals) thinking they would have been the noble allies who would have been more enlightened than everyone else at that time, just because.

---

This is a common problem. The enlightened love to apply 21st century logic, culture, and knowledge to all parts of history.

What will really twist their noodle is try and predict what people 200 years from now will think of abortion, given future advances in medical tech?

---

Let's frame this argument for what it was. Someone made the claim that the past was a more moral place. I cited the most obvious example of that being wrong.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I know you're seeing Republicans looking strong and like you did when the Tea Party started gaining momentum, you're wanting to hijack our movement again and turn it into some weird monstrosity.

Try and understand... We may be conservatives, but that's not the same thing as social conservatives. Fighting gay marriage is not at the top of our agenda. We're not necessarily for it but it's not at the top of our agenda. If you're against gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved. We have real country crippling problems to deal with and we need to stay focused on that.

Take your theocracy elsewhere and start your own party!

ETA: opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you support a theocracy. It's what lengths you want to go to enforce that that makes it a theocracy:

Silian Rail said:

---

Conservatism does not mean small government, Conservatism should not support deviant behavior, Conservatism should uphold the idea that all rights are endowed by God and he is the source of all law.

---

---

What Silian rail wrote at the bottom of your Op is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. That idiot isn't a conservative, he wants a theocracy of Christians, and then once he gets that it will only be his brand of Christianity. He's terrible.

---

That highlights that there is a difference between "conservatives" and "social conservatives". That's something that should be kept in mind whenever engaging with the theocratic religious right.

---

As a Christian, I have no desire to engage with the psychopathic theocratic religious right. Give them enough leeway and we'll be back to stoning adulterers and gays.

What the hell is wrong with you psychos. Raise your family to your beliefs, leave everyone else the hell alone to do the same.

No

TexAgs91 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

If acknowledging God makes us a Theocracy, then we were created as a Theocracy.

<snip>

---

Strawman... That's not my argument.

---

I suppose then that it is fitting for a strawman to be posed in response to a strawman.

The implication that those who oppose gay marriage want a theocracy is a strawman argument.

Holy crap. Reading some of this guys other OPs is terrifying. He's two weeks away from lining up us "fake Christians" against the wall.

Malibu2 said:

---

Bonfire1996 said:

---

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson own slaves. You're acting like this is some complicated thing and actually the men who founded this country were rabidly abolitionist. I mean good grief man.

---

All I will say is this...while it is wrong, especially so with our modern luxurious gift of hindsight...I can kind of see how advanced people with complex ships, navigation tools, forged steel and technology might have rolled up on naked indigenous people with bones in their faces and basically zero technology or agricultural skills and assumed they were less than human.

Obviously, they were wrong...but regardless of whether you agree with this or not...what bugs me is modern people (esp white liberals) thinking they would have been the noble allies who would have been more enlightened than everyone else at that time, just because.

---

This is a common problem. The enlightened love to apply 21st century logic, culture, and knowledge to all parts of history.

What will really twist their noodle is try and predict what people 200 years from now will think of abortion, given future advances in medical tech?

---

Let's frame this argument for what it was. Someone made the claim that the past was a more moral place. I cited the most obvious example of that being wrong.

---

Let's frame the entire discussion, are you a moral relativist or a moral objectivist?

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

If acknowledging God makes us a Theocracy, then we were created as a Theocracy.

<snip>

---

Strawman... That's not my argument.

---

I suppose then that it is fitting for a strawman to be posed in response to a strawman.

The implication that those who oppose gay marriage want a theocracy is a strawman argument.

---

I will say any Catholic that does not want a theocracy has misplaced loyalties, but any Catholic that expects it to actually happen in the USA is a nutcase. Most of us want to inject Christ into the country, that is the true basis of Christian Nationalism. Integralism is a bridge too far, but a Christ centered nation shouldn't be

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

If acknowledging God makes us a Theocracy, then we were created as a Theocracy.

<snip>

---

Strawman... That's not my argument.

---

I suppose then that it is fitting for a strawman to be posed in response to a strawman.

The implication that those who oppose gay marriage want a theocracy is a strawman argument.

---

It's not just the religious right who oppose gay marriage. The OP was written for the Religious Right. It says so in the title. So it's a strawman argument to say that it's fitting for a strawman to be posed in response to a strawman.

BigRobSA said:

---

Wycliffe_03 said:

---

Malibu2 said:

---

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson own slaves. You're acting like this is some complicated thing and actually the men who founded this country were rabidly abolitionist. I mean good grief man.

---

All I will say is this...while slavery is clearly wrong, especially so with our modern luxurious gift of hindsight...I can kind of see how advanced people with complex ships that can cross entire oceans, navigation tools, forged steel and technology might have rolled up on naked indigenous people with bones in their faces and basically zero technology or agricultural skills and assumed they were less than human.

Obviously, they were wrong...but regardless of whether you agree with this or not...what bugs me is modern people (esp white liberals) thinking they would have been the noble allies who would have been more enlightened than everyone else at that time, just because.

---

And, with all of that, libs are still the party of racism and slavery, trying to keep us browns and blacks on the plantation.

---

Please let us to the talking. You are brown and therefore do not even know how to get an ID, much less grasp concepts on an internet forum designed for political debate. Just trust that we are fighting for your best interests.

Finding examples of wicked acts by wicked people doesn't represent the society as a whole. Let's take a look at our current situation.

Record suicides.
Record depression.
Record metal health problems
Record drug addiction.
Life expectancy declining.
Birth rates declining.
Record Autism cases.

I'd say things aren't going too well. Maybe that's just me.

And I can't add the photos of our wicked generations. The abortion pictures are too graphic.

Moral universalist

What if advanced (for that time) people didn't know slavery was egregiously wrong, because they mistakenly thought that primitive naked people in Central and South America and Africa who communicated with tongue clicks and had bones in their face and zero tools or technology were less than human? In between ape and man?

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I know you're seeing Republicans looking strong and like you did when the Tea Party started gaining momentum, you're wanting to hijack our movement again and turn it into some weird monstrosity.

Try and understand... We may be conservatives, but that's not the same thing as social conservatives. Fighting gay marriage is not at the top of our agenda. We're not necessarily for it but it's not at the top of our agenda. If you're against gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved. We have real country crippling problems to deal with and we need to stay focused on that.

Take your theocracy elsewhere and start your own party!

ETA: opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you support a theocracy. It's what lengths you want to go to enforce that that makes it a theocracy:

Silian Rail said:

---

Conservatism does not mean small government, Conservatism should not support deviant behavior, Conservatism should uphold the idea that all rights are endowed by God and he is the source of all law.

---

---

What Silian rail wrote at the bottom of your Op is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. That idiot isn't a conservative, he wants a theocracy of Christians, and then once he gets that it will only be his brand of Christianity. He's terrible.

---

That highlights that there is a difference between "conservatives" and "social conservatives". That's something that should be kept in mind whenever engaging with the theocratic religious right.

---

As a Christian, I have no desire to engage with the psychopathic theocratic religious right. Give them enough leeway and we'll be back to stoning adulterers and gays.

What the hell is wrong with you psychos. Raise your family to your beliefs, leave everyone else the hell alone to do the same.

---

We tried this, it didn't work. The left decided to reproduce by corrupting our kids. So no we won't do that.

BAP Enthusiast said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

I know you're seeing Republicans looking strong and like you did when the Tea Party started gaining momentum, you're wanting to hijack our movement again and turn it into some weird monstrosity.

Try and understand... We may be conservatives, but that's not the same thing as social conservatives. Fighting gay marriage is not at the top of our agenda. We're not necessarily for it but it's not at the top of our agenda. If you're against gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved. We have real country crippling problems to deal with and we need to stay focused on that.

Take your theocracy elsewhere and start your own party!

ETA: opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you support a theocracy. It's what lengths you want to go to enforce that that makes it a theocracy:

Silian Rail said:

---

Conservatism does not mean small government, Conservatism should not support deviant behavior, Conservatism should uphold the idea that all rights are endowed by God and he is the source of all law.

---

---

What Silian rail wrote at the bottom of your Op is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. That idiot isn't a conservative, he wants a theocracy of Christians, and then once he gets that it will only be his brand of Christianity. He's terrible.

---

That highlights that there is a difference between "conservatives" and "social conservatives". That's something that should be kept in mind whenever engaging with the theocratic religious right.

---

As a Christian, I have no desire to engage with the psychopathic theocratic religious right. Give them enough leeway and we'll be back to stoning adulterers and gays.

What the hell is wrong with you psychos. Raise your family to your beliefs, leave everyone else the hell alone to do the same.

---

We tried this, it didn't work. The left decided to reproduce by corrupting our kids. So no we won't do that.

---

Try this. Stay the hell away from me and my family and I'll stay the hell away from yours.

Otherwise, **** off.

The primary point you're making to me is no different than separating the art from the artist. One can acknowledge the political brilliance of the Federalist Papers and US Constitution while acknowledging that the writers were products of their time and influenced by the people and culture of their generation. I can do the same thing when I read the Stoic works and know that the way Roman Emperor handled his affairs does not negate some of his brilliant takes on how to live a meaningful life.

But to the point of this thread, acknowledging that our forefathers had useful ideas that are directly applicable to modern living does not mean that I wish to live in that time in place, nor make excuses for its moral shortfalls as merely indulgences of a 21st-century liberal. That's the whole point of learning from the past, you get to fix the immoral mistakes of your ancestors and try to build a better world. I do think that the world that we're building right now is better than the one that our ancestors lived in, and I hope that our great-great-grand children continue.