RSS
Waterboarding = Torture
Christopher Hitchens reports waterboarding is torture.
If it is, it apparently works to elicit the desired information.
To reiterate Spencerblog's position on torture, it can only be justified in the most extreme circumstances, like to prevent an imminent terror attack.
Like abortion. It should be safe, legal (when ordered by the Commander-in-Chief) and rare.
If it is, it apparently works to elicit the desired information.
To reiterate Spencerblog's position on torture, it can only be justified in the most extreme circumstances, like to prevent an imminent terror attack.
Like abortion. It should be safe, legal (when ordered by the Commander-in-Chief) and rare.
posted by Spencerblog at
11:56 AM
63 Comments:
Enough of these silly word games. When Libs don’t like something they always set about changing the rules and definitions. Here they call even frat-esque humiliation “torture” (just to oppose Bush and misplace their sympathies with our enemies). They did the same when they couldn’t contain their giddy to calling the Iraq war a “civil war”. They did the same by removing the "mental illness" tag from homosexuality …and calling druggie losers who are nothing more than vicitims of their own poor choices “victims of a disease”. Any sniff of white pride they call “racism” but blacks get a pass when their expressions clearly cross into reverse racism –then they call it “pride” and "celebration" and “black history”. “Diversity” = more black. On and on…
Lib word games = Libs lying
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gil
Interesting. McCain has said on numerous occasions that waterboarding was torture. He went as far as to say, we prosecuted Japanese for waterboarding Americans. Is waterboarding torture? According to McCain it is.
You Tube has a collection of McCain videos on this subject.
McCain has a unique and personal view of this topic. But this still does not change the fact that Lying Lib word gamers go out of their way to shrilly label things as “torture” that clearly are not, just to sully Bush while sympathizing with our enemies. But an overly emotional someone who would stab their own soldier son in the back might see nothing wrong with such Lib dishonesty so long as it jabbed Bush too.
RR
Stop squeeling like a stuck little pig. What have you ever done for this country? Nothing- because you're a big pussy. You just love to see American soldiers die. Admit it. Doesn't matter to you why they are dying, just as long as they are dying. You think John Wayne and Rambo are the real thing. As long as you can park your fat ass in front of the TV, drink your bud, and watch FOX news, your a happy camper.
Still reading my every word, aren't you RR?
Dear Boring Bob,
You cry like a little girl who got her feelings hurt. And you make silly accusations. Also, just because I may sometimes read your posts in no way means that you or your childish drivel matter. Sorry.
Sincerely,
Me
PS: Get off my leg you whining little crybaby.
PSS: Stop stabbing your brave soldier son in the back just for your petty hurt feelings dislike of Bush.
RR
Randal the chicken hawk. Living up to all of the descriptive R's. You never fail to make my point for me.
And you ever fail to make a point.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Why do you get so upset? Did someone waterboard you? Try to get a hold of your emotions, DD. And why are you weeping so for our enemies anyway? Somehow I doubt that if someone were to waterboard W that you would be so upset and vocal about it. Lol...
We already covered the McCain thing, slowpoke.
I like to think of it more as inconvenient discomfort with water and wood than “torture”. I mean, really, no one actually gets hurt. They just get a little scared, is all. Then they tell us stuff. Next let's talk about all that other "torture", like not getting enough sleep or withholing their favorite magazines or snack treats. Lol...
Let’s be perfectly honest, everyone knows that Bush & America hating Libs like you don’t really want us getting information from our enemies that might help us win the war we’re in. So stop the charade of indignation. Your dishonest words smell a whole lot more like dislike of Bush and sympathy for our enemies than true humanitarianism. I don't think anyone is much buying your act.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave
"buried alive, in a coffin (and not told that there was an air supply)? How about if electrodes strapped to your "privates" with an impressive display of potential sparks (again, fake, but you aren't told that)? How about forced to strip naked with large, ferocious dogs barking madly right in front of you?
Dave, any normal person would get your point, but we're talking Randal here. He's more likely to be getting turned on.
Dave
On this Fourth of July, I finally find myself having to agree with Randal.
His referring to George Bush as King George. I must agree, that this George has much more in common with King George, than with the father of our country.
You have to admit, Dave. Randal wins that argument, hands down.
This comment has been removed by the author.
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to ... remain silent.
Jefferson
I see Rush Limbaugh the so called "Conservative" drug addict got a 400 million contract for his talk show. Anyone who listens to his B.S. ought to be sent to Mosul with nothing but a bible in one hand and a tablet of cyanide in the other.
I'm back from the seashore. You guys really need to get out more. How did you Lib boys celebrate the 4th? By damning America and our President?
r said...
I'm back from the seashore. You guys really need to get out more. How did you Lib boys celebrate the 4th? By damning America and our President?
No, I just had my cooler full of Budweiser and other thirst quenchers stolen out front of our home. I'll think I'll call Homeland Security on this.
I would call homeland security if it was a microbrew...
R
Thats right. We torched your King George in effigy, and roasted our burgers and dogs over the burning corpse. I figured if it was good enough for our founding fathers, it was good enough for me.
R
Mccain's wife supplied the beer.
thats hot
Did you traitors also sing "God Damn America" as you raised your finger to the Flag?
Hey, I just had an idea... If you Libs so hate America why then don't you just pack up and leave? Everyone is free to go ...although none ever do.
RR
Yep. All of the above.
And how did you spend your fourth? Spitting in the faces of parents who's kids are fighting or dying in raq and Afghanistan? Did you sit on the beach and write poison letters to Cindy Sheehen and Pat Tillmans mother?
I don't hate this country RR. I just hate what the Bush administration has done to it's own people and to the people of Iraq.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave
Well Dave, if the year was 1776, the Gils and the Randals of this country would be doing the same thing they are doing right now. Supporting King George. They would have cursed Jefferson as a traitor iberal.
ok, the sandcastle line made me laugh, I immediately congured up an image with sea-shells and a bucket over his head as a crown.
Sure, every single one of our boys playing in the sand over there are there because they signed up for it. That’s the thing about volunteering, it’s volunteer. Kinda hard to spin that into some cheap attack on Bush. (snicker) And spare us the dishonesty about backdoor drafts, DD, that BS manufactured grasping weep has already been refuted here. Our Military is made up of volunteers. It’s not drafty. Period.
And of course American blacks today have it much better than they would had their ancestors never been brought here. Of course. Wipe them guilt-ridden tears from your Lib eyes.
Actually, BB, our Founding Daddies were all Righties. They hated filthy Libs like you guys.
With domestic traitors like Liberals who needs foreign enemies?
Oops, forgot this for Boring Bob…
Once the colonies decided to revolt, the traitors were the Libs who stayed loyal to our enemy.
RR
Wow. That was brilliant. Again making my point. If the people of this country decided they had enough of your King George, and revolted, you'd be on the side of King George. Just as you would have been in 1776. You would have wrapped yourself in the British Jack. Although I'm sure you would have been a colonial chicken hawk.
Jefferson not a liberal? LOL.
When have you ever made a “point” here, BB, really? Ever? I mean, other than just making up silly stuff about me as you have here.
Well, let’s see… Jefferson was a Christian who attended church and believed in God… he was a Repub… he was also a big advocate for individual gun rights… he owned slaves (That was cool back then. He was just being trendy for his day.)… he favored states rights… he was for a limited role of government and for personal responsiblity… a warist strong on Military… he understood that soldiers must die for the good of the country… for the death penalty… he was against judges legislating from the bench… somehow I doubt that he would have entertained modern fabricated homo “rights”… he would undoubtedly be sick at how the Left has contorted and corrupted the intention of his words… he would spit in the face of the defeatist Libs today…
Hmm. He sure sounds like he was a Rightie to me.
You wanna try to make another onea them “points”, BB? Lol… <- at you
RR
You Bozo. First of all, what would you know about Chritianity. Calling for the bombing of the NY Times building? Nice Christian thoughts your having there RR. Jefferson was one of the founders of the Democratic-Republican party. An opposition party to the Federalists. Do your homework son.
He also penned into the Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal" Hmmm. Your comment about "homo rights" would lead one to believe that you would be in disagreement with Jefferson. And then there's "the Right of Revolution" Oh yea. Now there's a conservative idea for you RR. The conservatives of the day were the supporters of King George. Just as they are today.
Bob,
I'm sorry, but your comments about Jefferson and "All Men are Created Equal" is just laughable. You mean those men that he owned that he wouldn't let vote were equal to him? Yeah, they had "equal" rights alright.
Where was his reference to females?
Since he was very Christian, one would assume he would be against homosexual acts. As such, he would equate a homosexual to the same "man" as that of a slave and hot himself.
There's absolutely nothing to back up your claim "every" man was equal to Jefferson. That "man" was very contextual to the times (1776 era, not 2008) and definitely did not include Indians or African Americans.
And Bob, the Democratic-Republican party had views which span both Dems and Repubs today. You couldn't make a Democratic-Republican of those days priorities choose to become a modern day Dem or Repub. They'd probably choose to be Independent.
The Dem-Repub party was against a National Bank. Wouldn't they look "dumb" in todays society with that viewpoint? Where was their foresightedness of the day?
Please do your research into what the parties then stood for. So much has changed from those days that the political lines cross and aren't distinguishable in todays two major parties. You can't say which way Jefferson would be registered today with his views during his days and there's nothing wrong with that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think it funny how traitorous America-hating Libs today try to lay claim to our Founders as if that would give their warped views more credability.
No, for the reasons I listed above but you wishful liars dismissed, TJ was definitely much more of a Rightie than a Leftie. Clearly. Unquestionably. All of our Founders were. They would hate the Modern Liberal as much as the rest of us do.
Once again you are grasping, DDD. Most in the service today have enlisted since the wars began. And just the other day we had the most voluntary reenlistments ever in history. Yeah, some backdoor draft that is, DDD. You lying idiot.
Screw the few Lib cowards who want out now. Some of them signed up just wanting the benefits the Military has to offer without having to actually do the duty they signed up for. They knew what they were getting into. Who gets to pick and choose their job assignments like that? I say put them p****** on the front line so they can get shot from the front or the back, whichever.
Better to be an armshair warrior than an armchair treasonous coward, I always say, DDD. ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jonas
It was Randal that claimed Jefferson was a Republican. I didnt claim that he was a Dem. I understand the contradictions of Jefferson, and the times that he lived in. My point is, that Jefferson was a tollerant and progressive man, who layed the groundwork for a society that is supposed to respect and tollerate individuality and differences. Something that the Randals of this world have a problem with. No?
As for your claim that Jefferson was very Christian, I would have to disagree. Your own observation that Jefferson was a slave owner makes my point. Owning a slave would obviously not be Christ like. Would it? Jefferson was a scientist who believed in a creator, but he was more of a deist than anything else.
RR
Jefferson was a "Warist"?
Some quotes for your miasma filled cranium.
"If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest." --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1791.
"We did not raise armies for glory or for conquest." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration on Taking Up Arms, 1775. Papers 1:203
"Conquest is not in our principles. It is inconsistent with our government." --Thomas Jefferson: Instructions to William Carmichael, 1790.
"If ever I was gratified with the possession of power, and of the confidence of those who had entrusted me with it, it was on that occasion when I was enabled to use both for the prevention of war, towards which the torrent of passion here was directed almost irresistibly, and when not another person in the United States, less supported by authority and favor, could have resisted it." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1812. ME 13:148
Jonas
and Jonas, you wrote- "There's absolutely nothing to back up your claim "every" man was equal to Jefferson." I don't recall making that claim. Correct me if I'm wrong.
No Bob. You said,
"He also penned into the Declaration of Independence that "All men are created equal" Hmmm. Your comment about "homo rights" would lead one to believe that you would be in disagreement with Jefferson."
The purpose of that comment was to show Jefferson as an open individual who felt "everyone" should have rights (as the Dems of today do and some Repubs don't with gays, etc.).
Jefferson's penning that quote and not allowing certain people to vote shows how much more Jefferson was biased towards people. On that stance, he was very Republican. What you posted, didn't show any Democrat beliefs. Instead, that quote shows how similar Jefferson is to R and neo-cons of today. If anything you helped R's argument.
Bob/Anon,
You used the "every man is created equal" claim to show how Jefferson was tolerant of everyone.
You missed the whole contextual meaning of "man." You can't say Jefferson was tolerant of everyone because he wrote that with the 1776 definition of "man." As you are trying to show Dem qualities in Jefferson; all you did was display agreement with R.
Nitpicking and spitting hairs… Ho-hum.
Dishonest Dave is just over the top. Sure, it is understandable that some Lib cowards would want to get out of the military. But turning against their President and country is not an accceptable way to exercise their cowardice.
Sure, I said TJ was a Repub and he reluctanly kept slaves. He felt bad about it. And who eventually freed the slaves? Why, Repubs, of course! Against great protest from the LibDems, btw. I think there may have even been a war fought over this.
T-shirt: “Democrats, caring about blacks since about 1964.”
Who else here thinks we should murder company executives just and only because Dave Diano personally doesn’t like their legal products? Anyone? Anyone at all? (snicker)
Who here (other than shrill Bush-hating Lib dopes) thinks the President of the United States is more of a problem than terrorists? Anyone?
(snicker again)
In glancing at Boring Bob’s weeping I saw the word “conquest” several times as he attempted (and failed pathetically) to contradict my contention that TJ was a warist. Sure, TJ wasn’t for America “conquering” other lands. But he very much was in support of war and a strong Military. Very much. And he was a strog advocate of the 2nd Amendment and against gun-grabbing laws. These are hardly Modern Lib stances. Lol…
Jefferson was a Rightie. Period. You grasping filthy traitorous Libs can lay NO claim to the man or any of our Founding Daddies. End of story.
he was very Republican. What you posted, didn't show any Democrat beliefs. Instead, that quote shows how similar Jefferson is to R and neo-cons of today. If anything you helped R's argument.
Thank you, J.
All roads that follow Jefferson's religion go towards Unitarian as an adult. Unitarians openly trace their roots to Protestants which are part of the catholic church.
There's many readings on Jefferson where it's discussed his a Catholic Deist. As he believed JC was a great moral leader. There's absolutely nothing that states Jefferson didn't have Catholic ties during his adult life.
And I'm not even going to go into how can any Christian own a slave. That argument is so faulty on so many levels it doesn't even merit a response.
How Muslim is it to blow yourself up in the name of your god? How Jewish is it to steal money? How "insert religion" is it for them to own slaves?
Then again, during those days, slaves weren't seen as people. So I guess you'd have to use a little context in your reasoning, which you can't seem to do.
You find me the religion that's never had a member ever sin (or w/e they call it) and I'll pay you a million dollars. I'll be waiting for your response.
Clearly I know more about the man that you Libs do. Maybe you skipped that week during all that there “education” you done got, DDD? Or maybe you’re just grasping and lying again. (Lib colleges should really start teaching things like honesty and fair play and focus more on debating skills. Lol…)
Here’s a cool quote from TJ showing his VERY Rightie stance on gun-grabbing laws. Sounds, well, pretty much EXACTLY like the common sense argument of the gun advocate Righties of today and it murders the Left weep about the intention of the 2nd Amendment. Here you have it, right from the author himself!:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
~Thomas Jefferson
Not the slightest whiff of Lib in that.
Jonas
Thanks Jonas. I didn't think I said all men were equal to Jefferson. What I said, and what you accused me of saying, are two very different things.
This quote from Kennedy at a White House function - "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."
Again- the contradictions of the man. His actions vs. his ideas. Jonas- I can't believe that you refer to Jeffersons use of the word "Man" as an argument to show the he was prejudiced towards women, blacks and gays. Are there gay "men"? Black "men"? Come on Jonas. I think you are a little smarter than to believe that Jeffersons use of the word "man" was meant only to apply to white men. It has been documented that he struggled with, and understood the imorality of slave ownership. Don't you think that Jefferson expeted his ideas to progress and evolve? I think Jefferson was a hell of alot smarter than you give him credit for.
RR - Nice. Kissing Jonas's a**
Why did Jefferson have slaves if he was completely against slavery? Isn't it true, Jefferson was only willing to give up his slaves when they got him out of debt? Now that's a true belief system right there. That's like a person on fixed income arguing minimum wages should be raised, but paying their cleaning lady minimum wage. I'll increase it when my income goes up (knows it never will) and the house doesn't have a chance of getting dirty again (what house doesn't get dirty). Your against it as being wrong, but use it to help yourself? That shows how little you believe in it.
How can you say him putting, "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." into the constitution shows he accepted everybody. Why weren't women or blacks or Indians able to vote then? Why couldn't they pursue liberty (education) or happiness (not being whipped by 'owners')?
At that point in time, African Americans were not considered human beings. As ridiculous and wrong as it was, that's how it was. Jefferson did not pen "men" to include blacks as he did not consider anyone black to be a "man."
Under your terms, anyone can write here "I love gays" and then go and commit crimes against them and he's still a "gay supporter" because he wrote it somewhere where it is documented.
Under your terms, anyone can write here "I love gays" and then go and commit crimes against them and he's still a "gay supporter" because he wrote it somewhere where it is documented.
Hey! This is just what Dishonest Dave does when he defends and apologizes for gays here and then turns around and uses “gay” as a slur and an insult!
Isn’t exposing Lib hypocrites fun, J?
What’s all this weeping about slaves 200+ years ago anyway? Time to get over that. Libs have been clinging to that guilt for far too long. Back then they were property, no different than a cow or a chicken. That's just how it was then. No need to cry about it today.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well R, I'm going to have to disagree with you here. My comment was directed towards Bob on this topic. I'm pretty much with Dave on the whole torture topic. Although I disagree that our civilians are beheaded with a knife and somehow water boarding is the worst thing to happen the past 5 years regarding "prisoners" rights and treatment.
There's something like 50 prisoners that we've released from Guantanamo that we've recaptured fighting in the middle east. Somewhere our intelligence was correct on these people.
I don't think we should torture unless it's performed against our civilians/soldiers. Alls fair in love and war! If I can go on youtube and see an American's head cut off, we shouldn't be faking sparks on the electrodes put on somebodies privates. We should be using live electricity. I don't hear France, Germany, Iran, or Brazil crying out in outrage for what's happened to our citizens (not even soldiers).
I just see no correlation between "All men are equal" on the DofI and that meaning Jefferson actually included females, gays, indians, and blacks. There's absolutely no factual basis there.
It's almost like if Dave and the Pope wrote "all men can be married" on a document. Dave would include gays (please note, I'm not giving my opinion as to which way I stand on this topic) and the Pope wouldn't. I'm not saying anyone is right, but the Pope isn't including gay men as the Pope would say "we don't recognize" a 'man and man' marriage; therefore, they cannot be married.
You can't go back 200+ years and now say, "Look! The catholic church always accepted gay marriage!" There's a context of the writing at that point in time and Bob isn't understanding the history of our country in regards to peoples rights.
Jonas
That's fine. You believe that Jefferson used the literal interpretation of man. If your contention is true, then why didn't he specify white man in the DofI? Were there no free men of color in colonial America? No gays?I honestly believe that Jefferson was a visionary. I guess you disagree with that.
As for the 50 released prisoners that were recaptured, you stated
"There's something like 50 prisoners that we've released from Guantanamo that we've recaptured fighting in the middle east. Somewhere our intelligence was correct on these people." Not necessarily. Common sense tells us that if you snatch someone up, and lock them away for 7 years, they might be pissed off enough, when released to join the war against you. I know I would. Wouldn't you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
internment might make them a little less friendly to the US.
Of course, somehow it's Bush's fault!
But, that's 50 out of several hundred that have been released.
50 out of 420 is nothing to dismiss, Traitor Dave.
Dave,
I fully agree with you regarding Jefferson and his acceptance of people into todays culture. I'm just saying, that at that point in time, that quote didn't include everyone like Bob was trying to say. At that point in time, that comment followed the neo-con thoughts of today and not todays Dem thoughts.
And no Bob, who would write "all white males, black males, latino males, middle eastern males, white females, black females, gay males, gay females, tansexual males, transexual females, etc" for that quote?
You still haven't answered if Jefferson was for equal rights of everyone, why'd he have slaves? There was no requirement for him to have a slave. He openly admitted he'd let his slaves go, on the term that he wasn't in debt anymore. Wow, real slave rights activist right there. Man, can I cage up a gay and tell him that when my beach house is paid for I can let him go? It would be the same thing and it's utterly ridiculous.
And how many open gays were there at that time Bob?
And yes R, recapturing 50 out of 420 is a huge percentage. How many people are fighting against us? What percentage of those do we catch? Somehow we randomly have a 13% recapture rate of ex-Guantanamo. Why can't there be the slimmest chance our intelligence was right on those 50? Why is the only possibly theory in your mind that they are fighting because we held them captive? Weren't there circumstances prior to Guantanamo that would be considered or don't those count now?
Classic Lib misplaced sympathies blame shifting.
Lib Dave prolly thinks that all incarcerated violent criminals only go on to commit more crimes because they were locked up too. Lol...
That Libism sure can play tricks on a weak mind.
Jonas
Exactly my point. He wouldn't have written "white men" into the DofI. because he intended it to encompass more than just white males. There were in fact free men of color in Colonial America. Given Jeffersons progressive thinking, I beleive that he understood that someday, it would also include women, blacks, Indians etc. Therefore he used the term "all men are created equal" as a non-specific term. He could have used the term "all humans", and it would have meant the same thing. If I'm understanding you right, you think that he was just referring to white males? As for gays at that time, maybe they weren't open, but I'm sure they existed. Jefferson wasn't stupid. I'm sure he was aware of homosexuality, and I don't think Jefferson intended to exclude them from basic rights.
As for Jefferson owning slaves, I did address that.
"Again- the contradictions of the man. His actions vs. his ideas".
He obviously struggled with his contradiction. He knew it was wrong, but continued to own slaves. I'm well aware of his claim that he would free them when he was debt free. Obviously he wasn't perfect. None of our heroes are. Well, except for maybe Randal.
Libs, always trying to rewrite history and project their modern wants and guilt onto the intentions of our Founders with their contortionist interpretations.
What shred of evidence is there that TJ was gay tolerant? Nothing whatsoever. And at that time “men” of course referred only to white men. There was no need to differentiate or specify “white”. It was understood. Slaves were seen as property like farm animals and did not require mention. They weren’t gonna write “…all men and cows and chickens are created equal…”
It was a long time ago. Get over it. If you really still feel assumed guilt about that which you took no part in, it is time to speak with a therapist because your feelings are out of control.
Jonas
More to the point, I believe that the use of the word "men" in the DofI is used in the same context that one would use the word mankind.
This comment has been removed by the author.
No need to speculate when debunking Lying Lib lies with facts. As I clearly showed with TJ’s words about gun-grabbing laws, there is ZERO room for grasping Lib revisionist interpretations about “militias”. ZERO. He was clearly for individual gun rights and against Libs attempting to undermine that. Period. The author said so himself. Kinda hard to spin that. So if Libs continue on this dishonest grasping path, they are, well, lying.
Bob,
You can't be serious. He personally struggled with it knowing it was wrong but kept doing it, but its okay because he did struggle?
Well okay, I guess why we know why the rich think they should be taxed less. They "struggle" with the issue, but they can't formally figure it out yet.
Gitmo is okay as Bush personally "struggled" with that decision. At days end, he decided it was best. Maybe when he's dead he would have changed his mind.
Neo-cons personally struggle with the thought of gay marriage. Nothing wrong with that as its a personal struggle.
Under your rules, you can't disagree with any conservative policy as its all a personal "struggle."
Now what's this about Atlanta (prob the entire state) chaning all the "men working" signs as it doesn't account for women in the workforce? Apparently everyone in that area can understand the old terms of "men."Under your thinking, there's nothing wrong with those signs, so why are they being changed out with very little defense?
Jonas
You said "You can't be serious. He personally struggled with it knowing it was wrong but kept doing it, but its okay because he did struggle?" Jonas- never once did I say it was "OK". From what I've read (I wasn't there) about Jefferson, he was politicaly timid on the issue of slavery, but did struggle wth the issue. Do you disagree with that? Now- I never said or insinuated that "it's ok" Don't try to put words in my mouth. Either you are not following the debate, or you are trying to redirect the direction of the debate because your argument that "all men" was specific to white men is unfounded.
For some reason, Jonas, you are drifting off course. The question that we are debating is, what did Jefferson mean by "all men". I believe he was referring to mankind in general, but it seems as though you and Randal think Jefferson was referring to white males only.
So try to stay focused here, and address the question at hand. Was Jefferson a visionary, who was referring to "Mankind" when he wrote "all men are created equal"
(my argument)or was he referring just to white men (Randals, and possibly your argument).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home