MEMBER & GUEST INTERACTION SECTION > THE COFFEE HOUSE ((( SOCIAL - ROOM )))

Big Lies

<< < (2/139) > >>

beecanbee:
Though there is still time to do this....   :smile:


--- Quote ---Start winning again. "We're going to win so much -- win after win after win -- that you're going to be begging me: 'Please, Mr. President, let us lose once or twice. We can't stand it any more.' And I'm going to say: 'No way. We're going to keep winning. We're never going to lose. We're never, ever going to lose."
--- End quote ---

eltalia:

--- Quote from: little john on September 03, 2017, 05:22:42 am ---Lies ?  Does it get any bigger than this ?


--- Quote ---We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence, 1776)
--- End quote ---

(list edited)

But all the above signatories owned one or more slaves, in some cases several hundred.
LJ

--- End quote ---

..check the fine print LJ "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, "
Thus one of "their" rights is the permission under "their" g0d to determine whom it is qualifies
as "men".
Of course the theme was universal amongst many of those expanionist nations in occupying
other lands, judging the indigenous as "savages".

Cheers.

Bill

salvo:

Sometimes "lies" are necessary to achieve a greater good. Sometimes lies unintentionally bring about a greater good. Sometimes lies are not about what we are, but what we want to be. An "ancient" society should not be judged by today's standards. Founding Fathers were men of their time. They espoused to something greater than they had, but the timing was all wrong. They created a document to get us there.

[size=12pt]"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears."

?I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races?that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.?

Abraham Lincoln[/size]

I don't forget that Lincoln freed ONLY the slaves of the rebel states. The northern states got to keep their slaves,... for a while.

My opinion only.

Sal

little john:

--- Quote from: eltalia on September 03, 2017, 07:17:34 am ---
--- Quote from: little john on September 03, 2017, 05:22:42 am ---Lies ?  Does it get any bigger than this ?


--- Quote ---We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. (Declaration of Independence, 1776)
--- End quote ---

(list edited)

But all the above signatories owned one or more slaves, in some cases several hundred.
LJ

--- End quote ---

..check the fine print LJ "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, "
Thus one of "their" rights is the permission under "their" g0d to determine whom it is qualifies
as "men".
Of course the theme was universal amongst many of those expanionist nations in occupying
other lands, judging the indigenous as "savages".

Cheers.

Bill

--- End quote ---

Naaah - not buying that - it clearly says, "We hold these truths  ... ALL men ..." - not men our god approves of, or qualified in any other way - "just white men" etc., as is often proposed.

And "We" - as in 'the undersigned'.  The document went through several drafts before it was finally agreed upon - so they knew exactly what they were saying - or ought to have done.

In a very real sense, America (as an independent country) was actually founded upon this issue of Race and Colour - an issue which still exists to this very day.  It hasn't gone away - it still hasn't been reconciled.

So the F-F were lying. Just like politicians do.  That's their stock-in-trade. Don't get me started on our lot - they're probably the worst of all.  Britain got rich on Slavery, on peddling narcotics to China, and subjugating India.   Britain's working classes weren't treated very well either. It took a World War to begin the process of change over here, and there's still a helluva long way to go.

Come the revolution ....
LJ

little john:
Just in case anyone should think I'm being anti-American - here's another example concerning the same issue, during the same period of history, only now on this side of the Atlantic ...

The BIG name associated with the Abolition of Slavery over here in Britain was a guy named William Wilberforce, who was the major driving force behind the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, 1807.
Following the passing of that Act, the Royal Navy began intercepting Slave Ships on the high seas but, rather than transporting their pressed cargo back to their countries of origin and releasing them there, instead carried those unfortunates to Sierra Leone where they were purchased by Wilberforce who had set up that Colony in 1808 on the premise that former slaves and white men could live and work together there as equals. Indeed, they were no longer termed 'Slaves', but were made 'Apprentices' - without their consent - for 14 years instead, and duly held in irons should they attempt escape. Wilberforce kept some 'Apprentices' for work in the colony, but sold others to neighbouring landowners, where they were returned to their former slave labour. Insodoing, the great abolitionist had himself become a slave-trader.

It was only after the first Crown Governor of Sierra Leone was appointed, one 25 year-old Lt. Thomas Perronet Thompson, that this extraordinary practice began to be exposed to the Colonial Office, as Wilberforce had refused to discuss it with him. However, that disclosure was to result in Thompson's dismissal ... at Wilberforce's request.  The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 followed in due course, which finally eliminated such 'irregularities'.

So - was Wilberforce 'lying' ?  I guess it all depends on what one means by the word 'lying'.  We often talk of a person "living a lie" when they deceive others for any length of time, so I'd suggest "Yes, he was".

LJ

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version