Christianity QA

Question:

On 26 Jan 1998 17:33:39 -0000, Joto <j…@nym.alias.net> wrote: >Millions of Americans revere Jefferson and Washington.  Do you damn a large portion >of the population as being "slavery apologists"?  Or do you save your wrath for >Pro-Life posters who frustrate you by beating you in arguments?

It’s often a question of what one is able to create by transcending one’s circumstance, than what one creates by adhering to moral rules.                         GENOCIDE THE CHOSEN RACE KCUF airmaster – airmas…@KCUF.org <http://www.kcuf.org/shows/hard.html> "Civilization is bullshit…"

Response:

In article <34cbc516.6682…@news.loop.com>, KCUF airmaster <airmas…@KCUF.org> writes >Note that was a conditional; having a job means you support the system that >enslaves a permanent economic underclass in the Untied States.

Yes… the American system does seem to be unravelling rather rapidly at the moment! ) Pat Winstanley http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html

Response:

Joto <j…@nym.alias.net> wrote: >Did he purchase these persons?

I’m pretty sure Oskar did, unlike Jefferson, who inherited most all of his. And Oskar felt it was more like ransom, a thought which Jefferson most assuridly did not apply to his slaves. >Did they work for him?

In a sense, in that they worked for factories and such that Oscar owned, quite unlike Jefferson, who kept all his slaves at home and had most of them engaged in what we would call personal details. >Did they receive wages?

Oskar’s "slaves" got their "freedom" in Oskar’s lifetime, which in a way was "wages," unlike slaves of Jefferson, who received next to nothing during his lifetime. >Did they have any freedom to leave and work for real wages elsewhere?

The people Oskar saved had no such freedom, and none existed in the entire country for them, unlike Jefferson’s slaves, who could have been freed and sent north or west, where real jobs with real wages awaited them without even having to leave the country. ><sarcasm> >Galen, I wish you would stop your apologism for slavery.

I, for one, am glad you put that sarcasm alert in there.  People might think you were trying to make a serious argument. >And they did work for him.  He was constantly remodelling Monticello and raising >quite a variety of experimental plants.  Do you think the slaves sat idly by >while paid laborers did all the work?

I must have gone slightly mad if I suggested that Jefferson’s slaves did not work for him.  Of course they did. >Why do I get the feeling you’re simply being contrarian for the hell of it?

I went back and read this several times.  I read "bought them and put them to work" as being some kind of social program, or at least a noble ransom type of thing like Oskar Schindler is said to have done.  That’s why people would have snickered.  Not because of their origin (bought vs inherited) or who they worked for (idle vs busy at Monticello).  If you take it another way I can seem very contrary.  Of course, I would only get the feeling that I was being contrary for the hell of it if I were so mind numbingly stupid that I was unable to think of anything else.   >Right.  So, attacking people who admire either — people who explicitly denounce >slavery — for the good things they did appears to be a convenient soap box, >albiet one without a solid foundation. >This whole things is an excuse.

For slavery.  Don’t you see?  Don’t you understand?  They were slaves, s-l-a-v-e-s, kept for the sheer convenience and pleasure of their masters. Thomas Jefferson didn’t own slaves for some humanitarian purpose like Schindler.  No, he kept slaves for his own comfort.  Other people of that era got along quite handily without slaves.  Jefferson may have talked a good story, but he sure didn’t act that way around Monticello. >Millions of Americans revere Jefferson and Washington.  Do you damn a large portion >of the population as being "slavery apologists"?  

In a way, yes.  Can’t we have a country founded by people rather than myths? >Or do you save your wrath for >Pro-Life posters who frustrate you by beating you in arguments?

I’ve never had to save anything for that.  It’s just never happened.  I doubt that it ever will.   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

In article <19980125144628.4294.qm…@nym.alias.net>, Joto <j…@nym.alias.net> writes >In article <6aehgr$ce…@gte2.gte.net> >Galen Hekhuis <ghekh…@gte.net> said: >>Joto <j…@nym.alias.net> wrote: >>>Yes, Oskar Schindler was a slave owner.  He did not free his slaves until the >>>Nazis surrendered. >>There is a difference between ransom and buying slaves.  Oskar Schindler no >>more thought he owned other people than he thought other people were say, >>cockroaches.   >Oskar Schindler bought people and put them to work.

Every person I work for buys my time and puts me to work for that time in exchange for thwe money they pay me. Are they all slave owners? Did OS pay his workers a wage? Where they free to leave his employ if they so wished? In what way did he "buy" them, and who did he buy them from? Themselves?? Does your boss (or your clients if you are freelance) own you because they buy a certain amount of your time and energy? Ot perhaps you can’t answer that because you don’t work for a living – I don’t know. Please show in what way OS was a slave owner by comparing/contrasting to a typical slave owner in the southers states of America a couple of hundred years ago. I’m fairly sure that OS *used* his workers, at least initially… just like any business uses its workers. The workers are a resource like a factory building, but people don’t own workers the same as they own a building. Pat Winstanley http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk/index.html

Response:

airmas…@KCUF.org (KCUF airmaster) wrote: >If you buy corporate products, you’re a jerk. >If you vote in these elections, you’re a jerk. >If you use a computer made by a company that exploits slave labor in the third >world, you’re a jerk.

That may be true, but we can clearly see that apologists for slavery such as yourself are jerks. >Pot, kettle, black – get off it and move on.  

You are displaying your ignorance about pots and kettles, besides I doubt if I’ll "get off" or "move on" my position that slavery is unacceptable. >Everyone owned slaves back then >because in that economic model not to was not to have a house or vote.

*Sigh*  Now you’re displaying your ignorance about history. >Now >everyone works and buys products – slowly we hopefully move above it.  Your pure >argumentarianism doesn’t aid that process.

Maybe *your* world works that way. >Not ever.

Really?  Then how do you explain the recruitment posters used by the North in the latter stages of the war? >Yep, and that disagreement was routed in the methods of commerce.  Predictable >how humanity squabbles over food!

While economics played a large part, there was also a fundamental disagreement about the role of a federal government. >Put it in context, and stow the Judeo-Christian judgment system for a while, eh?

It has nothing to do with your "Judeo-Christian judgment system."  I don’t think there is any context which can justify one person owning another, despite pleas from apologists for slavery like you who keep telling me to put it "in context." >Compassion for the imperfect.  

I have plenty of compassion for TJ, it’s just slavery that I can’t abide. >I can find a method where you are as much a >hypocrite.

Challenge accepted.  Find it. >Seems dogma controlling emotion over logic to me.  Your witness.

Don’t go into law, or philosophy or…   As a matter of fact, I wouldn’t recommend any position for you where you had to think.   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

"Paul J. Prinzivalli" <pjpri…@msn.com> wrote: >Oh, Papa Jack, it’s just that Galen is bored.

That’s quite true.  The newsfeed here in beautiful, historic Burgaw sometimes tells me there are as many as 27 new articles in this group overnight. Sometimes it quits altogether, and then starts up again a few days later like nothing had happened, and nothing did, except that all the articles posted during that time are gone.  At other times the phones will be busy for *hours*.  Every end run I try to make winds up with the fact that there is only *one* isp in Burgaw, everything else is a long-distance call.  I look at paths and headers and stuff trying to find out what I can do, but it is always sorta random and different.  Today’s solution might be no help at all tomorrow.  Normally I think slavery is hunky-dory.  It is only when I get frustrated that I start taking it out on apologists like you and your ilk. >He’s talking about your sig, >and minxs having her little fun with the imaginary story of your twelve >profitable abortion clinics (but you get to be the hero, and minxs only your >humble and slanted biographer)

It isn’t exactly a role I’d call "heroic," but it is the "lead." >And Galen has inflexible standards that permit him to look with disdain on >just about anyone!

Please!  The irony is killing me. >Now, me, I figure that if that’s sleazy, Bill Clinton is coming up (okay, I >peeked).

What does Bill Clinton have to do with all this?  Shoot, I don’t even like the guy. >You know, Bill claims he smoked pot but "never inhaled."  On the sex scandal >thing, doncha think the story is ultimately going to be that he was merely >relieving his tensions, and that his idea of a sexual relationship doesn’t >include the kind of tension relief after a hard day, that he is alleged to >have asked Ms. Jones about?  Maybe the kind of relief that Bill likes is >consistent with his views of avoiding pregnancy?  I don’t have any of the >answers, but it makes you think that there’s more than one meaning to "Slick >Willy.";-)

I have to admit that I said even a cheap shot is still a shot.   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

Joto <j…@nym.alias.net> wrote: >Oskar Schindler bought people and put them to work. >He was a slave owner. >But, he was a kind man who used his position to save those slaves from gassing.

Like I say, I got a much different impression from the book.  I think I asked before, but do you have evidence that says otherwise? >Buying people and putting them to work looks a hell of lot like what Jefferson >was involved in.

Maybe it looks like it to you, but it isn’t what Thomas Jefferson did.  Even the most die-hard Jefferson lover at Monticello (and there are a few, quite a few) would laugh at the claim that Jefferson "bought people and put them to work." >Are you trying to find excuses for slavery?  Are you a slavery apologist?

No, the silence is because I had to go into the other room, I was laughing so hard. >Key words : "I don’t think".  It’s your >opinion< without any first-hand knowledge.

True.  I have no first-hand knowledge of Oskar Schindler, or Thomas Jefferson for that matter. >I don’t claim it was the same.  But you have the attitude that anyone who doesn’t >damn everyone who owned slaves with every breath is an apologist for slavery.

Nah.  It started out with a claim that Thomas Jefferson’s actions weren’t in keeping with his fine words.  Specifically, he wrote and spoke at great length about how evil slavery was, while at the same time maintaining slaves for his own benefit.  Then a bunch of people started telling me I needed to look at historical context or accomplishments before I considered anyone a jerk who owned slaves.  Somehow they think that "historical context" or "accomplishments" or what-have-you somehow… well, I don’t know exactly what they think.  But somehow we are to admire Thomas Jefferson the Hypocrite and Thomas Jefferson the Slaveholder because he was also Thomas Jefferson, The Man With The Golden Tongue? >That is a lazy argument.  You’re just using it as a wedge issue, and I doubt you >really believe your accusations against the people in this newsgroup.  Posturing.

Joto.  Dismissed.   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:49:28 GMT, ghekh…@gte.net (Galen Hekhuis) wrote: >Nah.  It started out with a claim that Thomas Jefferson’s actions weren’t in >keeping with his fine words.  Specifically, he wrote and spoke at great length >about how evil slavery was, while at the same time maintaining slaves for his >own benefit.  Then a bunch of people started telling me I needed to look at >historical context or accomplishments before I considered anyone a jerk who >owned slaves.  Somehow they think that "historical context" or >"accomplishments" or what-have-you somehow… well, I don’t know exactly what >they think.  But somehow we are to admire Thomas Jefferson the Hypocrite and >Thomas Jefferson the Slaveholder because he was also Thomas Jefferson, The Man >With The Golden Tongue?

Do you have a job?  Then you’re a slaveowner in today’s system.  If you’re truly hardcore, you live on the street and don’t pay money to the man.  But it’s difficult.  Jefferson made the choice of his day – be landed gentry or be a nothing voice in government – and for that we don’t call him a hypocrite. Have some historical compassion.  Oskar Schindler was great and all, but his humanitarianism is nowhere as far-reaching as Jefferson’s work. KCUF airmaster – airmas…@KCUF.org <http://www.kcuf.org/shows/hard.html> "Civilization is bullshit…"

Response:

airmas…@KCUF.org (KCUF airmaster) wrote: >Do you have a job?

No. >Then you’re a slaveowner in today’s system.  

How so? >If you’re truly >hardcore, you live on the street and don’t pay money to the man.  

Believe me, I’m not truly hardcore, at least not according to your definition. >But it’s >difficult.  Jefferson made the choice of his day – be landed gentry or be a >nothing voice in government – and for that we don’t call him a hypocrite.

*Sigh*  I’ll bet you call yourself "pro-life," too. >Have some historical compassion.  Oskar Schindler was great and all, but his >humanitarianism is nowhere as far-reaching as Jefferson’s work.

Give unto me a break!   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

airmas…@KCUF.org (KCUF airmaster) wrote: >Good!  Fuck jobs.

Not a bad start at all. >Then you’re a slaveowner.

Whoops.   >Pro-life?  Are you kidding?

Here is proof that not all the loonies are on the "pro-life" side.  There are some loonies that don’t seem to subscribe to that belief.  Rare, granted, but they do exist.  And here is an example. >Are you saying you disagree?  (Of course.)  Jefferson wrote the book on what >Schindler only did out of convenience – fuck that.  Also, Jefferson did not >support the World’s Most Racist Religion(tm), nor did he stray into the >ideological anti-humanistic traps of Judeo-Christian religion.

I was listening to the radio the other day about folks who support the UNABOMber (it was 6 chars in the FBI computer, ’cause that’s all the room they had when he started) and his anti-industrial manifesto.  Unlike you, they made some sense.   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:37:41 GMT, ghekh…@gte.net (Galen Hekhuis) wrote: >>        a.  George Washington, 1st president.  Plantation slave owner. >I think he sucked.

Still most progressive leader on earth at the time, and better than most today. >>        b.  James Madison, 4th president.  Plantation slave owner. >Him too.

Lucid speaker and defender of rights; important fellow. >>        c.  Andrew Jackson, 7th president.  Plantation slave owner. >That guy also.

Seems to be a genocidal killer and roughneck to me. >>        d.  John Tyler, 10th president.  AFTER serving as president, >>            he won election to the Confederate House of Representa- >>            tives (but died before he could serve). >If he owned slaves, yup, he’s a jerk also.

Plenty of good people who believed the South would transcend slavery worked for the Confederacy. >>        e.  Zachary Taylor, 12th president. One of the large slave >>            owners of the South.  His daughter, Sarah, married >>            Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy. >Sort of a zero there too, and I don’t care who his daughter married.

Wasn’t he a hero of the "Mexican-American War"? >>        f.  Millard Fillmore, 13th president.  New Yorker who >>            strictly enforced the Fugitive Slave Law, requiring >>            Northerners to help return escaped slaves to their >>            Southern owners. >Did he own slaves to boot?  I don’t know.  Somehow I associated him with the >first bathtub in the White House or something.  But if he owned slaves, yeah, >he was a jerk.

If you buy corporate products, you’re a jerk. If you vote in these elections, you’re a jerk. If you use a computer made by a company that exploits slave labor in the third world, you’re a jerk. Pot, kettle, black – get off it and move on.  Everyone owned slaves back then because in that economic model not to was not to have a house or vote.  Now everyone works and buys products – slowly we hopefully move above it.  Your pure argumentarianism doesn’t aid that process. >OK, I really, really think that "Southerners" are much maligned.  There is a >tendency to think that the War of Northern Aggression was some kind of Holy >War About Slavery.  It wasn’t.  Not initially.

Not ever. >There were slave states that >sided with the North, and Lincoln himself stated that if he could hold the >Union together he would not free so much as one slave.  As a matter of fact, >the famous Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves only in "those territories >in rebellion."  The main schism that precipitated the war was the difference >in ideas about the role of the federal government.  The North wanted a strong >federal government, superior to the individual states.  The South didn’t. >Later on that philosophy was to make things exceedingly difficult for the CSA.

Yep, and that disagreement was routed in the methods of commerce.  Predictable how humanity squabbles over food! >>Explain why you consider Jefferson so much worse than all those >>thousands of other slave owners — particularly the list of >>former presidents outlined above.   >Because he talked and wrote about how nasty and disgusting it was, and then >went right ahead and kept doing it himself — is that a hard concept for you?

Put it in context, and stow the Judeo-Christian judgment system for a while, eh? >Well, it’s just that Thomas Jefferson is such a good example.  Here is a guy >who is revered, yet made his whole life an example of the "Do as I say, not as >I do" philosophy.  What better example could I ask for?

Compassion for the imperfect.  I can find a method where you are as much a hypocrite. >>Do you admire Jefferson’s intellect? >Yes and no.  If any of his intellect allowed him to rationalize slavery, then >no.  

Seems dogma controlling emotion over logic to me.  Your witness.                         ABORT THE DOGMA OF THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN CANINE KCUF airmaster – airmas…@KCUF.org <http://www.kcuf.org/shows/hard.html> "Civilization is bullshit…"

Response:

On Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:39:11 GMT, ghekh…@gte.net (Galen Hekhuis) wrote: >airmas…@KCUF.org (KCUF airmaster) wrote: >>Do you have a job? >No.

Good!  Fuck jobs. >>Then you’re a slaveowner in today’s system.   >How so?

Note that was a conditional; having a job means you support the system that enslaves a permanent economic underclass in the Untied States. >>If you’re truly >>hardcore, you live on the street and don’t pay money to the man.   >Believe me, I’m not truly hardcore, at least not according to your definition.

Then you’re a slaveowner. >>But it’s >>difficult.  Jefferson made the choice of his day – be landed gentry or be a >>nothing voice in government – and for that we don’t call him a hypocrite. >*Sigh*  I’ll bet you call yourself "pro-life," too.

Pro-life?  Are you kidding? >>Have some historical compassion.  Oskar Schindler was great and all, but his >>humanitarianism is nowhere as far-reaching as Jefferson’s work. >Give unto me a break!

Are you saying you disagree?  (Of course.)  Jefferson wrote the book on what Schindler only did out of convenience – fuck that.  Also, Jefferson did not support the World’s Most Racist Religion(tm), nor did he stray into the ideological anti-humanistic traps of Judeo-Christian religion.                   SUPPORT THE WAR AGAINST LIARS ON USENET KCUF airmaster – airmas…@KCUF.org <http://www.kcuf.org/shows/hard.html> "Civilization is bullshit…"

Response:

"Paul J. Prinzivalli" <pjpri…@msn.com> wrote: >I’m already a day and a half behind – the number of posts has skyrocketed in >the past week!

Hmmmmm.  That would be (checks calculator) something like 150%  OK, still not 100% >Anyone want to see if the FBI has been looking to see what Galen does in his >spare time?

Years ago I was on a host of Acronym Agency hit lists.  The FBI may have been one of them and they may still have a file open on me, but I think not. "Sunset" laws, the Freedom of Information Act and others have sort of chilled the atmosphere for that sort of thing.  But I’m not in hiding — rarely have been.  Actually, I’m quite harmless.  But you can see how terrified some folks get when I challenge folks to think for themselves. >Not a hypocrite, a priggish snob is more like it (but I like you all the >same.  Imagine what I would say if I didn’t?)

Like Miss Priggy?  Moi? >So that’s good?

No, "at least" does not mean "good."  They aren’t even spelled the same. >Thanks Galen, for not going forward with that.  Are you a Colonel in the >Confederate Air Force or sonething?

Actually, there is a real Confederate Air Force.  They fly old warplanes and the like.  It has nothing to do with the War of Northern Aggression (aka the Civil War).  And no, I’m not a colonel in it.  I’m not even a member. >These days?  Are you flying out to North Africa to fight slavery today?

Probably not.  Fighting my way out of a wet paper bag is a bit more my speed these days. >We’ll miss you, perhaps you can get a satellite connection and keep in touch >with the ng.

Don’t uncork that champagne bottle too quick.  The doctors think that I’ll be able to type for *years*. >Just like so many people rationalize the right to abortion, usually by >denying any rights to the fetus, like those who would deny any rights to >slaves.  Go ahead, massa.

Boy!  You set up that target and knocked it down real quick.  How’s about I get to pick the next target? >You know where I’m at.  If I was a slave 150 years ago, there wouldn’t be >much I could do except hope for a kind master, and figure how to make >goofing off a specialty.

On the other hand, you could refuse to be a slave.  People have done that, you know.   >Whoa.  I don’t know about Mahatma’s attitude towards women, but do I smell >hypocrisy here? Ah, you divorce the person from his thoughts.  How >interesting.

I must not have made myself clear here.  I DO NOT admire Gandhi.  I said I would "almost" admire him, and that does not imply that I do.   >You would deplore the holocaust, but be willing to use the >results of the medical experiments done by German doctors on their victims >(the hypothermia experiments are merely one example – see how long it took >victims to die in a vat of cold water, under various circumstances. – You >would deplore the killing, but be willing to use the results to make the >world a better place, on the theory that by doing so, the victims will not >have died completely in vain.

See above.   >You must have few, if any, heroes, except for your wonderful and supr-amoral >self.  (Did I hyphenate that right?)

That’s true.  I have few heroes at all.  And I don’t consider myself to be a hero, nor do I think I should be admired (Papa Jack’s opinion notwithstanding), nor do I think anyone should emulate me.   >Galen can’t rest, or pat his back (perhaps Ms.M. will pat him on the head >and say "good doggie!)

Harrumph!  Shows how little you know about lapdogs. >I know nothing about siberian snakes

That too.   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >Now the hypocrite’s mask comes off.  You normally keep a thin veneer >of humor covering your vile virulence.

Darn.  And in public too.  Next thing you know they’ll probably send someone to tape me talking about my ownership of slaves. >Now, come on, Galen, tell us how you are so perfect and how you >have earned a right to judge the giants of history.  

Guess what, Papa Jack?  You don’t have to be perfect to judge the "giants of history" as you put it.   >Galen’s mask slips even further.  Now he seems to believe that if he >uses foul language that will make him more believable.

Actually it was a spill-over from the tantrum I was throwing.  It was awful.   >I have no problem "keeping up" — I have a problem caring what Galen >writes.  Particularly when he gets into such obvious tizzy over a >subject like this.  

Is this post an illustration of how little you care? >Galen deals in pure, unadulterated sleaze — raw >hypocritical propaganda of the lowest sort.

Leave it to Papa Jack to characterize a rant against slavery like that. >Galen, that is pitiful.  Do you really think so little of our readers >intelligence?  I clearly state I deplore slavery — and you follow >that with another assertion that I support slavery.  You are deter- >mined to tar me with this big sloppy brush of yours, and you don’t >intend to let the facts get in your way.

Is that anything like pro-choicers who clearly state they are not "pro-abortion," or do not support "childkilling," or "chop shops"?  See if you can connect the dots. >Galen cares about people admiring Jefferson in the same exact way that >Ray cares about starving children —

That may indeed be true.   >as an opportunity to smear his >opponents.  Ray has never lifted a finger or donated a dollar to help >starving children, but he constantly accuses PLs of not caring about >them.

But this is an illustration that you still don’t understand what Ray is saying. >In the same vein, Galen doesn’t give a damn about Jefferson and >the slavery issue —

You would be quite wrong there. >except as an opportunity to bash me and any other >Pro-Lifers who admit to admiring our Founding Fathers.  

And for his next trick, Papa Jack will pull a rabbit out of his hat. >That’s how >liberals get and keep that warm fuzzy feeling.

No, no.  Liberal get their warm fuzzy feeling from slaughtering millions of innocent children.  Haven’t you been reading yourself? >Okay, "Big-Talker-Oh-So-Perfect-In-Everything,"

I don’t recall claiming to be perfect, although I can see why I might look like it to you. >now give us a specific >statement about how you personally judge each of the following >former presidents.  Tell us what you think about these men who owned >slaves or openly supported those who did: >    a.  George Washington, 1st president.  Plantation slave owner.

I think he sucked. >    b.  James Madison, 4th president.  Plantation slave owner.

Him too. >    c.  Andrew Jackson, 7th president.  Plantation slave owner.

That guy also. >    d.  John Tyler, 10th president.  AFTER serving as president, >        he won election to the Confederate House of Representa- >        tives (but died before he could serve).

If he owned slaves, yup, he’s a jerk also. >    e.  Zachary Taylor, 12th president. One of the large slave >        owners of the South.  His daughter, Sarah, married >            Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy.

Sort of a zero there too, and I don’t care who his daughter married. >    f.  Millard Fillmore, 13th president.  New Yorker who >        strictly enforced the Fugitive Slave Law, requiring >        Northerners to help return escaped slaves to their >        Southern owners.

Did he own slaves to boot?  I don’t know.  Somehow I associated him with the first bathtub in the White House or something.  But if he owned slaves, yeah, he was a jerk. Notice a trend here? >Betcha Galen makes some cutesy remark and ducks.

So how’d I do? >Well, come on rant out and get it off your chest, "Ol Buddy."  Tell >us what you REALLY think about all those millions who lived in the >Southern states.  Explain to us what you really think of Southerners.

OK, I really, really think that "Southerners" are much maligned.  There is a tendency to think that the War of Northern Aggression was some kind of Holy War About Slavery.  It wasn’t.  Not initially.  There were slave states that sided with the North, and Lincoln himself stated that if he could hold the Union together he would not free so much as one slave.  As a matter of fact, the famous Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves only in "those territories in rebellion."  The main schism that precipitated the war was the difference in ideas about the role of the federal government.  The North wanted a strong federal government, superior to the individual states.  The South didn’t. Later on that philosophy was to make things exceedingly difficult for the CSA. The same sort of schism developed in the northeast (aka New England) long about the War of 1812.  They wanted to leave the United States of America. Who knows?  If it had happened then I might could call it the War of Southern Aggression. >Explain why you consider Jefferson so much worse than all those >thousands of other slave owners — particularly the list of >former presidents outlined above.  

Because he talked and wrote about how nasty and disgusting it was, and then went right ahead and kept doing it himself — is that a hard concept for you? >I’ve stated from the beginning >that Jefferson owned slaves and that slavery was an evil thing.  But, >you haven’t been satisfied with that — you somehow wanted more, and >more, and more.  Tell us why you have this fixation on Jefferson  – >or, perhaps it isn’t Jefferson at all — perhaps it is…

Well, it’s just that Thomas Jefferson is such a good example.  Here is a guy who is revered, yet made his whole life an example of the "Do as I say, not as I do" philosophy.  What better example could I ask for? >So, why don’t you give us YOUR theory?  Why do you believe Jefferson >could rationalize slavery?

I don’t have any theory at all.  I find it to be a complete puzzlement. >Do you admire Jefferson’s intellect?

Yes and no.  If any of his intellect allowed him to rationalize slavery, then no.   >Galen, why do you show your ass this way?  I talk about what the >history books report and you turn that into "what in your mind justi- >fies slavery?"  There is absolutely nothing that justifies slavery. >I’ve repeated that over and over in one way or another.  But, you >refused to acknowledge my words.  You are determined to smear me >with your silly little accusations that I justify or apologize slavery. >That is NOT TRUE.  I ABHOR SLAVERY.  I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE >COULD HAVE OWNED AND USED SLAVES.  

You left out your historical context excuse. >This brings us to the question of how so many of the most prominent >men and women in our country’s youth could have owned or supported >the institution of slavery.  It was an issue that tore our country >apart.  Bur, to listen to you, if we examine the issue in a calm >and hopefully scholarly manner, we are some sort of racist monsters.

Hey, you could be called something really nasty, like "child killers." >That only shows you are some sort of an embittered old nut-case.

There was some proverb about a shoe fitting, and then putting it on or something, but I’m having a really bad acid flashback right now and can’t quite remember it. >Is Clinton a clown in YOUR opinion.

Pretty much.  Except aren’t clowns usually pretty smart? >Let’s see you put your money >where your mouth is.  It’s easy to criticize a man for what he did >200 years ago.  Now, let’s transfer that to the reality of TODAY. >Do you, Galen Hekhuis, support President Clinton?

No. >Let’s see if your >standards are as strong as you claim they are.

OK.  I have my #2 pencil sharpened and I’m ready to go. >Give us a few examples of historical figures who you DO admire.  

The stories I’ve heard about Jesus make him seem pretty neat.  Buddha (or whatever he’s called) seems kinda neat too, though I have to say I don’t know much about him. Then there a bunch of people whose names I don’t know, who’s names I will probably never know.  Those are the people who displayed the courage of their convictions, actually acted according to their beliefs.  Some of them died for their beliefs, so great was their courage.  Those are folks I really admire.  Unlike people who talk one way but do another.   >You said you almost admired Gandhi, but then you backed off and >said you didn’t admire his person.  

That’s right, he’s a pretty good example of one who says some real good stuff on some topics, but is a real cretin when it comes to others.   >So, is there anyone in the >whole history of personkind who you admire — except that ugly >fellow in the mirror?  

Do you make reference to moi?  He said, blinking his baby blues. >Or, you perhaps, are one of those unfortunate >people who can only tear down and criticize others.  One of those >who run away from the give-and-take of the arena, so they can lift >up their voices in chastisement of who are giants.  

You left out impudent snob.  I’ve been told I’m one of those too. >Galen, you are a Lilliputian trying to tie giants with tiny threads.

Hey, at least I’m trying, unlike those that just sit around and do nothing but spout rhetoric. >Well, since all humans have faults (except Galen., of course) then it >is impossible to admire anyone (except Galen, of course).  

I’m not claiming to be perfect, but you can admire me if you want. >Isn’t that >a totally sad and pathetic point of view?

Yes, I think admiring me is.  But Papa Jack admires the strangest things. >As a boy: I admired Joe Dimagio.

Why?  Because he could play ball really well?  Or could you tell even then that he would go on to have a relationship with Mr. … read more »

Response:

Joto <j…@nym.alias.net> wrote: >Yes, Oskar Schindler was a slave owner.  He did not free his slaves until the >Nazis surrendered.

There is a difference between ransom and buying slaves.  Oskar Schindler no more thought he owned other people than he thought other people were say, cockroaches.   >Oh, but if that’s all we say about him, how easy it is to damn him.

If he were involved in slavery at all resembling that which Jefferson was involved in, yes, he should be damned.  But he wasn’t.  Least he wasn’t in the book.  Do you have other sources? >Let me make it clear that I do not equate Schindler to Jefferson.  Their circumstances >were different.

That’s putting it mildly. >But it is a fly in your "any slave owner was absolutely evil and admiring them in any >way is evil" ointment, n’est ce pas?

Ce n’est pas.  No fly, no ointment, no nothing.  To sum up:  If Schlinder thought he "owned" anyone, he sucks.  But I don’t think he did.  That’s not at all what I got from the book.  However Jefferson spoke and wrote at great length about how wrong slavery was.  Yet he himself owned (and relied on daily when he was at Monticello) slaves.  It isn’t the same at all.   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

Joto wrote: > In article <6abjpd$cm…@gte1.gte.net> > Galen Hekhuis <ghekh…@gte.net> said:

  ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >>> You’ve been around far too long for this sort of crap, Galen.  

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> Yeah, I’ve been around a long time and I get tired of assholes >> like you every now and then.  It spills over into my posts.

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Now the hypocrite’s mask comes off.  You normally keep a thin veneer of humor covering your vile virulence. Now, come on, Galen, tell us how you are so perfect and how you have earned a right to judge the giants of history.     ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack wrote: >>> When you start a NEW SUBJECT and make oblique references to some >>> previous message, you invite being ignored.  Then, you want to >>> bitch because I didn’t reply promptly to some sleazy comment you >>> apparently made about Thomas Jefferson and slavery.  I still >>> haven’t found what you’re carping about.

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> I don’t give a flying fuck what problems you have keeping up.

  ===================================================================== > Joto wrote: > Sad.  Some people have so little self-esteem. > It is common courtesy to provide references in such cases — not for > the people who have "problems … keeping up" but as a matter of > thoroughness. > It’s rather arrogant (and stupid) to assume that other people see > everything you post.

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Galen’s mask slips even further.  Now he seems to believe that if he uses foul language that will make him more believable. I have no problem "keeping up" — I have a problem caring what Galen writes.  Particularly when he gets into such obvious tizzy over a subject like this.  Galen deals in pure, unadulterated sleaze — raw hypocritical propaganda of the lowest sort.   ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack wrote: >>> You fault me for holding Thomas Jefferson in high esteem — one of >>> the most admired historical figures in America.  You would pretend >>> I endorse slavery (despite several previous statements that I >>> deplore slavery) because I understand the historical perspective of >>> America during TJ’s lifetime.

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> Yes.  I fault you for it and damn you for it.  I don’t think much >> of slave owners, even if they were famous.  I also think very >> little of those who would try to offer up excuses for slavery.   >> You know,  things like "historical perspective" and all that.

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Galen, that is pitiful.  Do you really think so little of our readers intelligence?  I clearly state I deplore slavery — and you follow that with another assertion that I support slavery.  You are deter- mined to tar me with this big sloppy brush of yours, and you don’t intend to let the facts get in your way.   ===================================================================== > Joto wrote: > Something I though of while reading these exchanges : didn’t Oskar > Schindler have hundreds of slaves? > Context — what a concept!

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Galen cares about people admiring Jefferson in the same exact way that Ray cares about starving children — as an opportunity to smear his opponents.  Ray has never lifted a finger or donated a dollar to help starving children, but he constantly accuses PLs of not caring about them.  In the same vein, Galen doesn’t give a damn about Jefferson and the slavery issue — except as an opportunity to bash me and any other Pro-Lifers who admit to admiring our Founding Fathers.  That’s how liberals get and keep that warm fuzzy feeling.   ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack wrote: >>> I also know that George Washington, Madison, Monroe, Andrew >>> Jackson and many other Founding Fathers were  slave owners.  

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> At least they were less vocal about their supposed opposition to it.

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: IMNSHO, this is the KEY statement in this entire thread.  It shows Galen cares far less about damning all slave owners than he cares about smearing Papa Jack and any who agree with me.   Okay, "Big-Talker-Oh-So-Perfect-In-Everything," now give us a specific statement about how you personally judge each of the following former presidents.  Tell us what you think about these men who owned slaves or openly supported those who did:         a.  George Washington, 1st president.  Plantation slave owner.         b.  James Madison, 4th president.  Plantation slave owner.         c.  Andrew Jackson, 7th president.  Plantation slave owner.         d.  John Tyler, 10th president.  AFTER serving as president,             he won election to the Confederate House of Representa-             tives (but died before he could serve).         e.  Zachary Taylor, 12th president. One of the large slave             owners of the South.  His daughter, Sarah, married             Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy.         f.  Millard Fillmore, 13th president.  New Yorker who             strictly enforced the Fugitive Slave Law, requiring             Northerners to help return escaped slaves to their             Southern owners. Betcha Galen makes some cutesy remark and ducks.   ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack wrote: >>> That doesn’t make them right, it’s just a historical >>> fact.  I know my country had a civil war in which many thousands >>> were killed over this very issue.

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> I feel a War of Northern Aggression rant coming on.  *Whew*   >> Held it back.

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Well, come on rant out and get it off your chest, "Ol Buddy."  Tell us what you REALLY think about all those millions who lived in the Southern states.  Explain to us what you really think of Southerners.   ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack wrote: >>> Yet, you would have us treat this issue with Jefferson like we >>> would a peculiar personal vice.  

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> Er, no, I think slavery is rather more important than a "peculiar >> personal vice."

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Explain why you consider Jefferson so much worse than all those thousands of other slave owners — particularly the list of former presidents outlined above.  I’ve stated from the beginning that Jefferson owned slaves and that slavery was an evil thing.  But, you haven’t been satisfied with that — you somehow wanted more, and more, and more.  Tell us why you have this fixation on Jefferson  – or, perhaps it isn’t Jefferson at all — perhaps it is…   ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack wrote: >>> I have quoted several excerpts from Jefferson’s own writing which >>> showed he abhorred slavery throughout his life.  He took public >>> stances against slavery in Virginia — despite the fact his family >>> and neighbors strongly disagreed with him.  That is unusual for a >>> politician.  

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> It does make you wonder how a great intellect (by most reports) >> could rationalize slavery.

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: So, why don’t you give us YOUR theory?  Why do you believe Jefferson could rationalize slavery?  Do you admire Jefferson’s intellect?   ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack wrote: >>> As to why he continued to hold large numbers of slaves all of >>> his adult life, we can only speculate.  When I report the his- >>> tory books indicate his large inherited debts over most of his >>> life were probably one of the main factors, you hop on that >>> like a frog on a bug — trying to dishonestly claim that proves >>> I am an apologist for slavery.  That is pure sleaze, Galen, and >>> you know it.

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> "…we can only speculate."  Just speculating now, you understand, >> but what in your mind justifies slavery?  Is it sleazy to believe >> that there is no possible excuse for slavery?  I asked John Savard >> this, and now I’ll ask you too.  What would you find justified >> owning *you*?  Historical perspective?

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Galen, why do you show your ass this way?  I talk about what the history books report and you turn that into "what in your mind justi- fies slavery?"  There is absolutely nothing that justifies slavery. I’ve repeated that over and over in one way or another.  But, you refused to acknowledge my words.  You are determined to smear me with your silly little accusations that I justify or apologize slavery. That is NOT TRUE.  I ABHOR SLAVERY.  I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE COULD HAVE OWNED … read more »

Response:

Joto wrote: > In article <6abjpd$cm…@gte1.gte.net> > Galen Hekhuis <ghekh…@gte.net> said:

  ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >>> You’ve been around far too long for this sort of crap, Galen.  

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> Yeah, I’ve been around a long time and I get tired of assholes >> like you every now and then.  It spills over into my posts.

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Now the hypocrite’s mask comes off.  You normally keep a thin veneer of humor covering your vile virulence. Now, come on, Galen, tell us how you are so perfect and how you have earned a right to judge the giants of history.     ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack wrote: >>> When you start a NEW SUBJECT and make oblique references to some >>> previous message, you invite being ignored.  Then, you want to >>> bitch because I didn’t reply promptly to some sleazy comment you >>> apparently made about Thomas Jefferson and slavery.  I still >>> haven’t found what you’re carping about.

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> I don’t give a flying fuck what problems you have keeping up.

  ===================================================================== > Joto wrote: > Sad.  Some people have so little self-esteem. > It is common courtesy to provide references in such cases — not for > the people who have "problems … keeping up" but as a matter of > thoroughness. > It’s rather arrogant (and stupid) to assume that other people see > everything you post.

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Galen’s mask slips even further.  Now he seems to believe that if he uses foul language that will make him more believable. I have no problem "keeping up" — I have a problem caring what Galen writes.  Particularly when he gets into such obvious tizzy over a subject like this.  Galen deals in pure, unadulterated sleaze — raw h ypocritical propaganda of the worst sort.   ===================================================================== >>> Papa Jack wrote: >>> You fault me for holding Thomas Jefferson in high esteem — one of >>> the most admired historical figures in America.  You would pretend >>> I endorse slavery (despite several previous statements that I >>> deplore slavery) because I understand the historical perspective of >>> America during TJ’s lifetime.

  ===================================================================== >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> Yes.  I fault you for it and damn you for it.  I don’t think much >> of slave owners, even if they were famous.  I also think very >> little of those who would try to offer up excuses for slavery.   >> You know,  things like "historical perspective" and all that.

  ===================================================================== > Joto wrote: > Something I though of while reading these exchanges : didn’t Oskar > Schindler have hundreds of slaves? > Context — what a concept!

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack comments: Galen cares about people admiring Jefferson in the same exact way that Ray cares about starving children — as an opportunity to smear his opponents.  Ray has never lifted a finger or donated a dollar to help starving children, but he constantly accuses PLs of not caring about them.  In the same vein, Galen does’t give a damn about Jefferson and the slavery issue — except as an opportunity to bash me and any other Pro-Lifers who admit to admiring our Founding Fathers.   ===================================================================== – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>> I also know that George Washington, Madison, Monroe, Andrew >>> Jackson and many other Founding Fathers were  slave owners.   >> At least they were less vocal about their supposed opposition to it. >>> That doesn’t make them right, it’s just a historical >>> fact.  I know my country had a civil war in which many thousands >>> were killed over this very issue. >> I feel a War of Northern Aggression rant coming on.  *Whew*  Held it back. >>> Yet, you would have us treat this issue with Jefferson like we >>> would a peculiar personal vice.   >> Er, no, I think slavery is rather more important than a "peculiar >> personal vice." >>> I have quoted several excerpts from Jefferson’s own writing which >>> showed he abhorred slavery throughout his life.  He took public >>> stances against slavery in Virginia — despite the fact his family >>> and neighbors strongly disagreed with him.  That is unusual for a >>> politician.   >> It does make you wonder how a great intellect (by most reports) could >> rationalize slavery. >>> As to why he continued to hold large numbers of slaves all of his >>> adult life, we can only speculate.  When I report the history books >>> indicate his large inherited debts over most of his life were >>> probably one of the main factors, you hop on that like a frog on >>> a bug — trying to dishonestly claim that proves I am an apologist >for slavery.  That is pure sleaze, Galen, and you know it.

"…we can only speculate."  Just speculating now, you understand, but what in your mind justifies slavery?  Is it sleazy to believe that there is no possible excuse for slavery?  I asked John Savard this, and now I’ll ask you too.  What would you find justified owning *you*?  Historical perspective? — {               Papa Jack { {               http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/         "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."          –Thomas Jefferson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Galen Hekhuis wrote in message <6abjpd$cm…@gte1.gte.net>… >Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >>You’ve been around far too long for this sort of crap, Galen. >Yeah, I’ve been around a long time and I get tired of assholes like you every >now and then.  It spills over into my posts. >>When >>you start a NEW SUBJECT and make oblique references to some previous >>message, you invite being ignored.  Then, you want to bitch because >>I didn’t reply promptly to some sleazy comment you apparently made >>about Thomas Jefferson and slavery.  I still haven’t found what >>you’re carping about. >I don’t give a flying fuck what problems you have keeping up.

I’m already a day and a half behind – the number of posts has skyrocketed in the past week! >>I am really getting bored with your hypocrisy, Galen.  You love to >>pretend no one in history can live up to your personal exulted >>standards. >To be a hypocrite I would have to speak against something, and then do the >opposite.  Sort of like what Thomas Jefferson did about slavery.  And "bored"? >If this posting is much indication you’re anything but.

Anyone want to see if the FBI has been looking to see what Galen does in his spare time? >>You fault me for holding Thomas Jefferson in high esteem — one of >>the most admired historical figures in America.  You would pretend >>I endorse slavery (despite several previous statements that I >>deplore slavery) because I understand the historical perspective of >>America during TJ’s lifetime. >Yes.  I fault you for it and damn you for it.  I don’t think much of slave >owners, even if they were famous.  I also think very little of those who would >try to offer up excuses for slavery.  You know, things like "historical >perspective" and all that.

Not a hypocrite, a priggish snob is more like it (but I like you all the same.  Imagine what I would say if I didn’t?) >>I also know that George Washington, >>Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson and many other Founding Fathers were >>slave owners. >At least they were less vocal about their supposed opposition to it.

So that’s good? >>That doesn’t make them right, it’s just a historical >>fact.  I know my country had a civil war in which many thousands >>were killed over this very issue. >I feel a War of Northern Aggression rant coming on.  *Whew*  Held it back.

Thanks Galen, for not going forward with that.  Are you a Colonel in the Confederate Air Force or sonething? >>Yet, you would have us treat >>this issue with Jefferson like we would a peculiar personal vice. >Er, no, I think slavery is rather more important than a "peculiar personal >vice."

These days?  Are you flying out to North Africa to fight slavery today? We’ll miss you, perhaps you can get a satellite connection and keep in touch with the ng. >>I have quoted several excerpts from Jefferson’s own writing which >>showed he abhorred slavery throughout his life.  He took public >>stances against slavery in Virginia — despite the fact his family >>and neighbors strongly disagreed with him.  That is unusual for a >>politician. >It does make you wonder how a great intellect (by most reports) could >rationalize slavery.

Just like so many people rationalize the right to abortion, usually by denying any rights to the fetus, like those who would deny any rights to slaves.  Go ahead, massa. >>As to why he continued to hold large numbers of slaves all of his >>adult life, we can only speculate.  When I report the history books >>indicate his large inherited debts over most of his life were >>probably one of the main factors, you hop on that like a frog on >>a bug — trying to dishonestly claim that proves I am an apologist >>for slavery.  That is pure sleaze, Galen, and you know it. >"…we can only speculate."  Just speculating now, you understand, but what in >your mind justifies slavery?  Is it sleazy to believe that there is no >possible excuse for slavery?  I asked John Savard this, and now I’ll ask you >too.  What would you find justified owning *you*?  Historical perspective?

You know where I’m at.  If I was a slave 150 years ago, there wouldn’t be much I could do except hope for a kind master, and figure how to make goofing off a specialty. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Now let me ask you, Galen.  If you told me you admired Bill Clinton, >>would that mean you admired his womanizing, lying, and general cor- >>ruption?  Does anyone who votes for Clinton now have to admire his >>sexual adventures in the White House with a 22 year old intern? >What is this, some kind of political commercial?  You never miss a chance, do >you?  But anyway, if I said that I admired some clown, yes, that would imply >warts and all.  I would say I admire Gandhi, but some of his attitudes towards >women were pretty pathetic.  I admire much of what he said, but hardly the >person.  In much the same way I can admire what TJ said, but I don’t admire >the person hardly at all.  As a matter of fact, saying one thing while doing >another gets kind of minus points in my book.

Whoa.  I don’t know about Mahatma’s attitude towards women, but do I smell hypocrisy here? Ah, you divorce the person from his thoughts.  How interesting.  You would deplore the holocaust, but be willing to use the results of the medical experiments done by German doctors on their victims (the hypothermia experiments are merely one example – see how long it took victims to die in a vat of cold water, under various circumstances. – You would deplore the killing, but be willing to use the results to make the world a better place, on the theory that by doing so, the victims will not have died completely in vain. >>Is it possible to admire a person DESPITE her/his faults? >No.

You must have few, if any, heroes, except for your wonderful and supr-amoral self.  (Did I hyphenate that right?) >>I sure >>hope so — otherwise I’m not sure how to explain my wife tolerating >>me for 41 years.   #8^) >You’re talking love there, or being able to put up with something/someone. >’Tain’t quite the same.

Oh, well. >>Now, give it a rest, Galen.  You’re gonna break your arms patting >>yourself on the back so hard. >Do you really think that’s what I’m doing?  "Practicing what you preach" is >not really all that high a standard.  Well, maybe it is for you.

Galen can’t rest, or pat his back (perhaps Ms.M. will pat him on the head and say "good doggie!) >>All you’ve accomplished is to show >>one more time that the quality of your personal integrity is lower >>than a Siberian snake’s belly. >Harrumph!  Shows how little you know about Siberian snakes.

I know nothing about siberian snakes, except that they are alliterative creatures.  Do they slither?  Siberian snakes slithering stealthily, sometimes softly sibilant, soothingly silent sounds.

Response:

> Galen Hekhuis wrote: > It seems that Papa Jack is quite content to let Paul (not 100% > wrong) and John Savard take the heat about supporting slavery, > while it is actually Papa Jack who holds a slaveholder as his hero.   > This is yet another way in which Papa Jack displays the courage of > his convictions.

  ===================================================================== Papa Jack shakes his head in total disgust: You’ve been around far too long for this sort of crap, Galen.  When you start a NEW SUBJECT and make oblique references to some previous message, you invite being ignored.  Then, you want to bitch because I didn’t reply promptly to some sleazy comment you apparently made about Thomas Jefferson and slavery.  I still haven’t found what you’re carping about. I am really getting bored with your hypocrisy, Galen.  You love to pretend no one in history can live up to your personal exulted standards.   You fault me for holding Thomas Jefferson in high esteem — one of the most admired historical figures in America.  You would pretend I endorse slavery (despite several previous statements that I deplore slavery) because I understand the historical perspective of America during TJ’s lifetime.  I also know that George Washington, Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson and many other Founding Fathers were slave owners.  That doesn’t make them right, it’s just a historical fact.  I know my country had a civil war in which many thousands were killed over this very issue.  Yet, you would have us treat this issue with Jefferson like we would a peculiar personal vice.   I have quoted several excerpts from Jefferson’s own writing which showed he abhorred slavery throughout his life.  He took public stances against slavery in Virginia — despite the fact his family and neighbors strongly disagreed with him.  That is unusual for a politician.   As to why he continued to hold large numbers of slaves all of his adult life, we can only speculate.  When I report the history books indicate his large inherited debts over most of his life were probably one of the main factors, you hop on that like a frog on a bug — trying to dishonestly claim that proves I am an apologist for slavery.  That is pure sleaze, Galen, and you know it. Now let me ask you, Galen.  If you told me you admired Bill Clinton, would that mean you admired his womanizing, lying, and general cor- ruption?  Does anyone who votes for Clinton now have to admire his sexual adventures in the White House with a 22 year old intern?   Is it possible to admire a person DESPITE her/his faults?  I sure hope so — otherwise I’m not sure how to explain my wife tolerating me for 41 years.   #8^) Now, give it a rest, Galen.  You’re gonna break your arms patting yourself on the back so hard.  All you’ve accomplished is to show one more time that the quality of your personal integrity is lower than a Siberian snake’s belly. Be sure and give MINXS a big hug from us. Have a great weekend. — {               Papa Jack { {               http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/         "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."          –Thomas Jefferson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Papa Jack wrote in message <34C93E26.1F0B4…@geocities.com>… >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> It seems that Papa Jack is quite content to let Paul (not 100% >> wrong) and John Savard take the heat about supporting slavery, >> while it is actually Papa Jack who holds a slaveholder as his hero. >> This is yet another way in which Papa Jack displays the courage of >> his convictions. >  ===================================================================== >Papa Jack shakes his head in total disgust: >You’ve been around far too long for this sort of crap, Galen.  When >you start a NEW SUBJECT and make oblique references to some previous >message, you invite being ignored.  Then, you want to bitch because >I didn’t reply promptly to some sleazy comment you apparently made >about Thomas Jefferson and slavery.  I still haven’t found what >you’re carping about.

Oh, Papa Jack, it’s just that Galen is bored. He’s talking about your sig, and minxs having her little fun with the imaginary story of your twelve profitable abortion clinics (but you get to be the hero, and minxs only your humble and slanted biographer) >I am really getting bored with your hypocrisy, Galen.  You love to >pretend no one in history can live up to your personal exulted >standards.

And Galen has inflexible standards that permit him to look with disdain on just about anyone! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->You fault me for holding Thomas Jefferson in high esteem — one of >the most admired historical figures in America.  You would pretend >I endorse slavery (despite several previous statements that I >deplore slavery) because I understand the historical perspective of >America during TJ’s lifetime.  I also know that George Washington, >Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson and many other Founding Fathers were >slave owners.  That doesn’t make them right, it’s just a historical >fact.  I know my country had a civil war in which many thousands >were killed over this very issue.  Yet, you would have us treat >this issue with Jefferson like we would a peculiar personal vice. >I have quoted several excerpts from Jefferson’s own writing which >showed he abhorred slavery throughout his life.  He took public >stances against slavery in Virginia — despite the fact his family >and neighbors strongly disagreed with him.  That is unusual for a >politician. >As to why he continued to hold large numbers of slaves all of his >adult life, we can only speculate.  When I report the history books >indicate his large inherited debts over most of his life were >probably one of the main factors, you hop on that like a frog on >a bug — trying to dishonestly claim that proves I am an apologist >for slavery.  That is pure sleaze, Galen, and you know it.

Now, me, I figure that if that’s sleazy, Bill Clinton is coming up (okay, I peeked). >Now let me ask you, Galen.  If you told me you admired Bill Clinton, >would that mean you admired his womanizing, lying, and general cor- >ruption?  Does anyone who votes for Clinton now have to admire his >sexual adventures in the White House with a 22 year old intern?

You know, Bill claims he smoked pot but "never inhaled."  On the sex scandal thing, doncha think the story is ultimately going to be that he was merely relieving his tensions, and that his idea of a sexual relationship doesn’t include the kind of tension relief after a hard day, that he is alleged to have asked Ms. Jones about?  Maybe the kind of relief that Bill likes is consistent with his views of avoiding pregnancy?  I don’t have any of the answers, but it makes you think that there’s more than one meaning to "Slick Willy.";-) >Is it possible to admire a person DESPITE her/his faults?  I sure >hope so — otherwise I’m not sure how to explain my wife tolerating >me for 41 years.   #8^) >Now, give it a rest, Galen.  You’re gonna break your arms patting >yourself on the back so hard.  All you’ve accomplished is to show >one more time that the quality of your personal integrity is lower >than a Siberian snake’s belly. >Be sure and give MINXS a big hug from us.

from me too, especially since I’m in her *killfile*.

Response:

Galen Hekhuis (ghekh…@gte.net) wrote:

: Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: : >All you’ve accomplished is to show : >one more time that the quality of your personal integrity is lower : >than a Siberian snake’s belly. : Harrumph!  Shows how little you know about Siberian snakes. Since snakes are reptiles, and therefore usually found in warm or temperate climates, I figure PJ was consciously making a little joke; presumably a ficticious snake’s belly is even lower than a real one’s. But maybe there are snakes in Siberia, since we do have snakes in Canada. Are you trying to tell us they have legs? John Savard http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~jsavard/

Response:

Joto <j…@nym.alias.net> wrote: >It is common courtesy to provide references in such cases — not for >the people who have "problems … keeping up" but as a matter of >thoroughness.

I hardly need a lecture on courtesy from you. >It’s rather arrogant (and stupid) to assume that other people see >everything you post.

Look, if Papa Jack cares about my rants he can keep up.  I get tired of his constant whining.  If it’s not about his bruised tough (?) hide then it is about quoting (you share his needlebutt tendencies in that regard) or something. >Something I though of while reading these exchanges : didn’t Oskar Schindler >have hundreds of slaves? >Context — what a concept!

Either you don’t know much about Schindler or you don’t know much about slavery.  Fooling the NAZIs — what a concept!   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

In article <34C93E26.1F0B4…@geocities.com>, papa_j…@geocities.com says… >> Galen Hekhuis wrote: >> It seems that Papa Jack is quite content to let Paul (not 100% >> wrong) and John Savard take the heat about supporting slavery, >> while it is actually Papa Jack who holds a slaveholder as his hero. >> This is yet another way in which Papa Jack displays the courage of >> his convictions.

===================================================================== – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Papa Jack shakes his head in total disgust: >You’ve been around far too long for this sort of crap, Galen.  When >you start a NEW SUBJECT and make oblique references to some previous >message, you invite being ignored.  Then, you want to bitch because >I didn’t reply promptly to some sleazy comment you apparently made >about Thomas Jefferson and slavery.  I still haven’t found what >you’re carping about. >I am really getting bored with your hypocrisy, Galen.  You love to >pretend no one in history can live up to your personal exulted >standards.   >You fault me for holding Thomas Jefferson in high esteem — one of >the most admired historical figures in America.  You would pretend >I endorse slavery (despite several previous statements that I >deplore slavery) because I understand the historical perspective of >America during TJ’s lifetime.  I also know that George Washington, >Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson and many other Founding Fathers were >slave owners.  That doesn’t make them right, it’s just a historical >fact.  I know my country had a civil war in which many thousands >were killed over this very issue.  Yet, you would have us treat >this issue with Jefferson like we would a peculiar personal vice.   >I have quoted several excerpts from Jefferson’s own writing which >showed he abhorred slavery throughout his life.  He took public >stances against slavery in Virginia — despite the fact his family >and neighbors strongly disagreed with him.  That is unusual for a >politician.   >As to why he continued to hold large numbers of slaves all of his >adult life, we can only speculate.  When I report the history books >indicate his large inherited debts over most of his life were >probably one of the main factors, you hop on that like a frog on >a bug — trying to dishonestly claim that proves I am an apologist >for slavery.  That is pure sleaze, Galen, and you know it. >Now let me ask you, Galen.  If you told me you admired Bill Clinton, >would that mean you admired his womanizing, lying, and general cor- >ruption?  Does anyone who votes for Clinton now have to admire his >sexual adventures in the White House with a 22 year old intern?   >Is it possible to admire a person DESPITE her/his faults?  I sure >hope so — otherwise I’m not sure how to explain my wife tolerating >me for 41 years.   #8^) >Now, give it a rest, Galen.  You’re gonna break your arms patting >yourself on the back so hard.  All you’ve accomplished is to show >one more time that the quality of your personal integrity is lower >than a Siberian snake’s belly.

I wonder if PJ would have made this same nice speech if Jefferson was an abortionist instead of a slave holder. Sunny >Be sure and give MINXS a big hug from us. >Have a great weekend. >– >{               Papa Jack >{ >{               http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ >        "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."          –Thomas Jefferson

– Sunshine for Women (and Men Who Love Women) http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/main.html remove antispam. from e-mail address to reply or just enter sunsh…@pinn.net

Response:

Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >You’ve been around far too long for this sort of crap, Galen.  

Yeah, I’ve been around a long time and I get tired of assholes like you every now and then.  It spills over into my posts. >When >you start a NEW SUBJECT and make oblique references to some previous >message, you invite being ignored.  Then, you want to bitch because >I didn’t reply promptly to some sleazy comment you apparently made >about Thomas Jefferson and slavery.  I still haven’t found what >you’re carping about.

I don’t give a flying fuck what problems you have keeping up. >I am really getting bored with your hypocrisy, Galen.  You love to >pretend no one in history can live up to your personal exulted >standards.  

To be a hypocrite I would have to speak against something, and then do the opposite.  Sort of like what Thomas Jefferson did about slavery.  And "bored"? If this posting is much indication you’re anything but. >You fault me for holding Thomas Jefferson in high esteem — one of >the most admired historical figures in America.  You would pretend >I endorse slavery (despite several previous statements that I >deplore slavery) because I understand the historical perspective of >America during TJ’s lifetime.  

Yes.  I fault you for it and damn you for it.  I don’t think much of slave owners, even if they were famous.  I also think very little of those who would try to offer up excuses for slavery.  You know, things like "historical perspective" and all that. >I also know that George Washington, >Madison, Monroe, Andrew Jackson and many other Founding Fathers were >slave owners.  

At least they were less vocal about their supposed opposition to it. >That doesn’t make them right, it’s just a historical >fact.  I know my country had a civil war in which many thousands >were killed over this very issue.

I feel a War of Northern Aggression rant coming on.  *Whew*  Held it back. >Yet, you would have us treat >this issue with Jefferson like we would a peculiar personal vice.  

Er, no, I think slavery is rather more important than a "peculiar personal vice." >I have quoted several excerpts from Jefferson’s own writing which >showed he abhorred slavery throughout his life.  He took public >stances against slavery in Virginia — despite the fact his family >and neighbors strongly disagreed with him.  That is unusual for a >politician.  

It does make you wonder how a great intellect (by most reports) could rationalize slavery. >As to why he continued to hold large numbers of slaves all of his >adult life, we can only speculate.  When I report the history books >indicate his large inherited debts over most of his life were >probably one of the main factors, you hop on that like a frog on >a bug — trying to dishonestly claim that proves I am an apologist >for slavery.  That is pure sleaze, Galen, and you know it.

"…we can only speculate."  Just speculating now, you understand, but what in your mind justifies slavery?  Is it sleazy to believe that there is no possible excuse for slavery?  I asked John Savard this, and now I’ll ask you too.  What would you find justified owning *you*?  Historical perspective? >Now let me ask you, Galen.  If you told me you admired Bill Clinton, >would that mean you admired his womanizing, lying, and general cor- >ruption?  Does anyone who votes for Clinton now have to admire his >sexual adventures in the White House with a 22 year old intern?  

What is this, some kind of political commercial?  You never miss a chance, do you?  But anyway, if I said that I admired some clown, yes, that would imply warts and all.  I would say I admire Gandhi, but some of his attitudes towards women were pretty pathetic.  I admire much of what he said, but hardly the person.  In much the same way I can admire what TJ said, but I don’t admire the person hardly at all.  As a matter of fact, saying one thing while doing another gets kind of minus points in my book.   >Is it possible to admire a person DESPITE her/his faults?  

No. >I sure >hope so — otherwise I’m not sure how to explain my wife tolerating >me for 41 years.   #8^)

You’re talking love there, or being able to put up with something/someone. ‘Tain’t quite the same.   >Now, give it a rest, Galen.  You’re gonna break your arms patting >yourself on the back so hard.

Do you really think that’s what I’m doing?  "Practicing what you preach" is not really all that high a standard.  Well, maybe it is for you. >All you’ve accomplished is to show >one more time that the quality of your personal integrity is lower >than a Siberian snake’s belly.

Harrumph!  Shows how little you know about Siberian snakes.   Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR                ghekh…@gte.net                We are the Cro-Magnon of the future.

Response:

Related Posts