Red States = Slave States

Slave States? I thought slavery was abolished in the 1860's? You mean I can go out and buy me a negro? Yee haw!!! Also notice that Bush took more states and thus earned more elctoral votes thus allowing him to remain in the white house? Conspiracy anyone? Surprised?

So how many people during the Civil War from Union states went and fought for the Confederacy and vice versa? Anyone, anyone? Bueller, Bueller, Bueller...

Only a visually and cognitively impaired racist could see a correlation between those two maps. Was Alaska a slave state? Could of been. I think it still belonged to Russia during the War of Northern Aggression.

The originator of this thread must have been in an alterted state when she posted.


[edit on 04/11/25 by GradyPhilpott]

I believe the altered state is called, "Bush Bash Syndrome"
The symptoms are known to cause delusional halucinations and other symptoms that lead those aflicted to make the wildest, baseless, allegations whenever the idea of President Bush comes up.

I was thinking more along the lines of Intracranial Fecalistic Pseudo-psychosis.

Originally posted by bios
As I recall the Republicans were the party of Lincoln.
Just more spin from the left - who cares.

While I agreethis is just spin fro the left, I would like to point out that at the time Lincoln joined the republicans it was full of whiney liberals, and was not the conservative bastion it is today. The republicans used to have liberals in them until like the 60's or 70's and then they slowly went more and more to the right. today you don't find liberals in the republicans.

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
I ran across this article today while checking out the website "The Democratic Underground" -- it seems this idea has inspired others...

www.democraticunderground.com...

Good Lord... This is the kinda crap libs read? I better move south before i get strung up from a tree!!!

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I was thinking more along the lines of Intracranial Fecalistic Pseudo-psychosis.

I would consider this a personal attack if I was the original poster. I think you need to appologize to him/her Grady.

edited to add: By the way Caz...the only time I see you post is when the words gay, homosexual, queer etc. are mentioned. I see a patern and maybe you would be wise to look deep inside yourself to see what your obsession with gayness is.

[edit on 16-12-2004 by MacMerdin]

CAZMEDIA.....Explain thy self!!! Why must you trouble us with your incessant questions and posturing? LMAO!!!


Macmerdin,
While i might admit to a large portion of my posts are involved with gay issues....just run a search for cazmedia, and youll see im on the ATSNN, RATS, WAR, CURRENT EVENTS, and other topics in the now new board. (where ive raised the spector of intellectual elietism involving issues of speech and its continued restrictions here, care to try that one out? and yes i have "related" or more acuratly compared it to a gay issue LOL!)

Just look at the level of traffic that these "gay issue" threads generate compared to some of the other threads in the same forums. This is obviously a hot issue.

As to why im involved?
1. tired of the lies being used to prop up the issue and have to point them out. (LIES= "no effects of gay marriage", "equating gays to slaves", (im sure weve discussed others that currently escape me at 3am)
2. in support of cultural identity issues. Meaning a society has the right to adopt/reject values it wants to define itself with, especially thru democratic means. Also in support of (and awareness of) 1rst amendment rights to freedom of assembly which cuts both ways on this issue.
3. really tired of the reverse discrimination against those that disagree with the gay issues, including the gererally accepted cultural vaules/definitions, christians, the boy scouts, and being called nasty names not for actual hatred or assaults on gays, but for just saying "no thanks" to their proposed social restructuring effort. (for whatever reason). I dont care that people are gay, just stop trying to force the rest of us to have to institutionalize your sexual preferance/lifestyle.
4. to try and strip away the emotional content and focus on the real issues concerning gay issues. Meaning why arent we talking about all the affects and changes to laws, company policies, social interactions etc etc
Help discuss this in context without inflamitory statements.
5. NOTE i didnt say religion as ANY basis for my stance.


But you should already know these things from me, macmerdin.
After all we've talked very reasonably about these issues on many threads.
I find that you are very moderate comming from your standpoint, and hope you see moderation from me. an unwavering point of view, but a more moderate one than MANY ive seen here on ATS...and far less inflamitory at all times.

Originally posted by MacMerdin
edited to add: By the way Caz...the only time I see you post is when the words gay, homosexual, queer etc. are mentioned. I see a patern and maybe you would be wise to look deep inside yourself to see what your obsession with gayness is.

I see what your saying here mac... funny you just scolded grady for personal attacks... Sorry but I had to say something here.

Caz...yes we have had many great conversations. Although we don't agree on a few things, I still vallue your input. As far as other threads you have been involved....I have read a few and probably didn't get to read many. If you felt an attack from me with my post...I apologize as it was more a joke than an attack. Still friends?

Originally posted by LostSailor
I see what your saying here mac... funny you just scolded grady for personal attacks... Sorry but I had to say something here.

And why would hinting to someone that they might deep down have homosexual tendencies be a personal attack? It's not like I called him a queer or a fag. Furtheremore.....it was more a joke than an attack.

As someone that stands for free speech, even hateful or devicive speech, i say call me whatever you'd like Mac, it doesnt bother me in the least, and in this case, i found it kinda amusing, but can see where it was at least a "challenge" of my character which COULD be construed as an insult.

Who cares?
Just look at the charged title of this thread, which implies that anyone in a "red" state would condone slavery
total biased hogwash which is clearly evident.

Ill get you back later Mac....

Originally posted by CazMedia

Ill get you back later Mac....

Ok...and I would probably deserve it.

But seriously...yes, the thread title and the leftwing spin is definately involved in this thread. All I'm going to say about the topic, but it is a little interesting the corrolation is it not. Not that I'm saying that the red states would ever consider slavery again, unless they're gay.... (joke people...lighten up).

Uh.... if anyone here thinks that the 1860 Republican and the 2004 Republican is the same..... sorry. In the 1860s, Republican didn't mean right wing, it meant Republican. There wasn't even a democrat party, you had free soilers, Republican, and racist slave owners, aka the south. Sorry, so all you "Republicans are holier cause Lincoln was a Republican" can be quiet now, he was a republican, but the republican party has changed. But the fact that the slave states vote republican doesn't have to do with slavery and racism, it deals with that republicans believe in state power and taking things back to the times where the churched controlled the world.