For instace, the parallels between "state's rights" and slavery?

Off Topic » in reply to I notice nobody's commenting on whether or not the parallels are there.

For instace, the parallels between "state's rights" and slavery?

Fox — 9/7/2006 3:38:18 AM (archived)

Look at the interpretation of the Nast cartoon. It explicitly claims that the "state's rights" portion of the 1864 Democratic Party platform, among others, implied business as usual -- slave business.

A hundred years later, more or less, "state's rights" -- in the manner of perpetuation of slavery by any other name -- lost to a Democratic administration (or two). "Swallow the bait, swallow the hook": When's the last time you supported "state's rights" against Federalism? Were you aware you advocated slavery by doing so? Or are the parallels only relevant when they're convenient to your side of the argument?

Wake up, Tom. Smell the latte (you do live in California, after all). It is neither the 19th or 20th Century any longer. You're grasping at anachronistic straws so desperately that the point you think you're trying to prove is lost in the laughter at the attempt.

The whole thread (27 posts)

Deja vu... - Tom Brosz - 9/4/2006 10:40:05 PM
- He wasn't much of a general, too. (n/t) - alcaray - 9/5/2006 4:58:20 PM
  - The US didn't really win until Grant started spending lives. - Bowser - 9/6/2006 12:56:30 AM
    - If Montgomery had his way, there might only have been an East Berlin (n/t) - alcaray - 9/6/2006 3:22:19 PM
      - That was all decided beforehand. Berlin WAS taken by the Russians. (n/t) - Bowser - 9/6/2006 6:10:26 PM
        
        If we did not hold substantial amounts of Germany... - alcaray - 9/6/2006 6:18:56 PM
        
        Conferences, Malta, Yalta, Potsdam, etc., settled all that. - Bowser - 9/6/2006 6:53:50 PM
        
        You think that it was determined in advance that the USSR... - alcaray - 9/6/2006 8:57:46 PM
        
        Yes. And Patton's gains had nothing to do with anything. - Bowser - 9/6/2006 9:24:44 PM
        
        No. By treaty Poland (to use one example) was to be an independant country. - alcaray - 9/6/2006 10:22:30 PM
        
        Poland was taken by the Russians. And was to have free elections. - Bowser - 9/7/2006 12:51:25 AM
- Programme Change: The role of Condoleeza has been played today by Mr. T. Brosz - Tony - 9/5/2006 1:52:21 PM
  - I hope you weren't holding your breath... - SDAI-Tech1 - 9/7/2006 7:47:39 AM
  - I notice nobody's commenting on whether or not the parallels are there. - Tom Brosz - 9/5/2006 6:00:11 PM
    - You mean the parallel geography? - Mary Anne - 9/7/2006 1:05:16 PM
    - For instace, the parallels between "state's rights" and slavery? - Fox - 9/7/2006 3:38:18 AM
    - Let's see... - dtb - 9/6/2006 5:33:30 PM
      - re: Let's see... - Tom Brosz - 9/7/2006 1:30:58 AM
    - Interesting. As you wish. Let's look at history. EG - Chamberlain was a success. - Bowser - 9/6/2006 12:46:51 AM
    - re: I notice nobody's commenting on whether or not the parallels are there. - azstrummer - 9/5/2006 11:56:26 PM
      - The party names are largely irrelevant. The attitudes are the same. - Tom Brosz - 9/6/2006 1:51:00 AM
        
        re: The party names are largely irrelevant. The attitudes are the same. - azstrummer - 9/7/2006 8:47:42 PM
    - Grrrr! (n/t) - alcaray - 9/5/2006 9:46:32 PM
    - Who's furious? - Tony - 9/5/2006 6:26:45 PM
- I've heard of conservatives being stuck in the past, but this is ridiculous. (n/t) - ER - 9/4/2006 11:57:03 PM
  - She's between a rock and a hard place - Lindy - 9/5/2006 5:25:35 PM
    - More like a the First Maroon and Cheney. (n/t) - Bowser - 9/6/2006 12:47:57 AM

Recent posts

On this day in Off Topic

The whole thread (27 posts)