Where was the church ...

[Gary K]

18 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

I am not having any "difficulty" at all.

Yeah, you are.  It was very clear to me what Photodude was saying.  He said, both inside and outside the church people were hardening into positions they will not even consider changing no matter what the evidence.  That is paraphrasing him, but it was as clear as day what he meant.  How you got what you did out his post baffles me.

[Margie]

On 8/23/2017 at 1:13 PM, Gary K said:

Margie,

You put forth so many innacuracies its hard to know where to begin.

1.  The Republican part was created in 1854 by a coalition of abolitionists, Free Soilers (The party dedicated to the idea that slavery, if it was to continue, could not expand into newly formed states), ex-Whigs such as Abraham Lincoln, and some other small groups.  These people were all from the North, where slavery was not practiced.  None of them were from the South.

2.  The Democrats had two divisions, the Southern Democrats who were slaveholders, and the Northern Democrats who argued for slavery although quite deceitfully.  Stephen Douglas was a Democrat.  Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates to see how misleading and dishonest Douglas actually was.

3.  Dinesh D'Souza put up a large reward for proving that a single Republican ever owned a slave, and it was never claimed.   I do not remember the exact amount or the reward, but it was large enough to pay for doing the research and then some.  Nobody ever came up with the proof.  One of the things he does is go around giving talks of college campuses.  You might be interested in video at the following link. https://www.youtube.comwatch?v=9UTxBKQXRhE                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

4. Why did the Democrats argue strongly for state's rights?  Because they wanted to keep slavery alive and cooking.  

5.  Why do the Republicans today argue for state's rights?  To combat the unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.

6.  All Jim Crow laws were passed by Democrats.  And for years it was impossible to become a Democratic politician without being in the KKK.  These are the facts.

7.    There has never been the Big Switch as you claim.  Where is the evidence?  Where did the Democats admit and apologize for their behavior?  It's never happened.  

I am not a Republican.  I am a registered independent.  So don't think I am arguing just to protect one party and disparage the other.  I'm just very knowledgable about US history.  And I hate seeing untruths being said over and over again without pushback.     

I have a question for you too.  Why didn't you respond to the analogy I gave you?  Will you ignore this question like you ignored the analogy?

What analogy are you talking about? Is this what you mean?

"At one time in the not so far distant past the only way to get ahead in the Democratic party was to be involved in the KKK.  You don't believe it?  Ask Bill Clinton.  He came out publicly and defended Robert Byrd's involvement in the KKK as a Grand Wizard before Byrd's death by that very logic.  Hillary called Byrd her mentor.  The members of the Democratic party are the only ones of any political party to have ever owned slaves.  No Republican ever owned a slave.  That's historical fact.  Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government in his day.  FDR created concentration camps based purely upon race.  The Democrats have a long history of racism, and no visible pivot point, no public renunciation of their past, but where is the condemnation of that party?  Instead many SDA's vote strictly Democrat even though they are the party of abortion, the legalized murder of unborn children. "

I am not familiar with all of those points, especially with Clinton calling a Grand Wizard her mentor. Now that's interesting, but it's not directly related to the point I was trying to make. I already knew that Woodrow Wilson did keep the Federal government segregated, and FDR did create concentration camps.  I see a National Review article referencing the same points you made: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/383357/setting-record-straight-jim-crow-john-fund

In this article, a reference was made to setting the history straight about Jim Crow laws by ACRU, a conservative entity people may choose to be affiliated with rather than ACLU. ACRU offers a 2-page summary, or a full report on the issue of setting history straight. This can be found at: http://www.theacru.org/jimcrow/

Are you saying that these were the acts of the president alone, and that there was no major public sentiment supporting their decision? I certainly hope not. This was actually a bipartisan movement rather than the act of Democrats alone.  The Supreme Court upheld those Jim Crow laws, so they were enabled by our Federal government for years before Woodrow Wilson. I enjoyed the Hysorical Revisionism article by ACRU's J. Kenneth Blackwell published this month in The Daily Caller: http://www.theacru.org/hystorical-revisionism/

Dinesh D'Souza's challenge pertained to the very start of the Civil War, was there any Republican slaveowners? There were some examples, but they all conveniently had sold their slaves beforehand.  Here's an article I also enjoyed: https://debmcalister.com/2016/07/20/fact-checking-dsouzas-correlation-causation-confusion/

Although Democrats may have proposed those laws, they were practiced by all.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Jim-Crow-law

This link shows that Jim Crow laws wasn't all South of the Border. I am pretty sure it wasn't only the Democrats who proposed those laws.  I would need to look into this to get the specifics, but I hope that others already have and there are some informative sites out there.  Maybe you already know of a few?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_state

In the states outside of the native Southern Democrats, segregation was still practiced because people inherently thought whites were better than people of color.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/los-angeles-history-jim-crow-916441

I guess it's possible that I wasn't clear enough: the system is unjust, and that's because the people making those laws were bipartisan on this issue. There was also bipartisanship on the Civil Rights Act, and there certainly was equally bipartisan and ugly opposition. I can go on and on, but I need to check myself first, what was your analogy again please? 

 

[CoAspen]

Margie,

Some of the links you posted have been alluded too along with the historical inacuracy of statements that no republican owned slaves. Also ignored was the fact that many of those party affliations were rather hard to determine  or that the Democratic party of the past is not the same today or that many individuals did in fact recant their past behavior, Byrd, but that is conviently forgotten also. Sometimes a rant is just a rant! 

Life is great!!

[CoAspen]

Antifa, you may have read about it here......

Sometimes research will help out..... a lot....

[Gary K]

3 hours ago, Margie said:

What analogy are you talking about? Is this what you mean?

"At one time in the not so far distant past the only way to get ahead in the Democratic party was to be involved in the KKK.  You don't believe it?  Ask Bill Clinton.  He came out publicly and defended Robert Byrd's involvement in the KKK as a Grand Wizard before Byrd's death by that very logic.  Hillary called Byrd her mentor.  The members of the Democratic party are the only ones of any political party to have ever owned slaves.  No Republican ever owned a slave.  That's historical fact.  Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government in his day.  FDR created concentration camps based purely upon race.  The Democrats have a long history of racism, and no visible pivot point, no public renunciation of their past, but where is the condemnation of that party?  Instead many SDA's vote strictly Democrat even though they are the party of abortion, the legalized murder of unborn children. "

I am not familiar with all of those points, especially with Clinton calling a Grand Wizard her mentor. Now that's interesting, but it's not directly related to the point I was trying to make. I already knew that Woodrow Wilson did keep the Federal government segregated, and FDR did create concentration camps.  I see a National Review article referencing the same points you made: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/383357/setting-record-straight-jim-crow-john-fund

In this article, a reference was made to setting the history straight about Jim Crow laws by ACRU, a conservative entity people may choose to be affiliated with rather than ACLU. ACRU offers a 2-page summary, or a full report on the issue of setting history straight. This can be found at: http://www.theacru.org/jimcrow/

Are you saying that these were the acts of the president alone, and that there was no major public sentiment supporting their decision? I certainly hope not. This was actually a bipartisan movement rather than the act of Democrats alone.  The Supreme Court upheld those Jim Crow laws, so they were enabled by our Federal government for years before Woodrow Wilson. I enjoyed the Hysorical Revisionism article by ACRU's J. Kenneth Blackwell published this month in The Daily Caller: http://www.theacru.org/hystorical-revisionism/

Dinesh D'Souza's challenge pertained to the very start of the Civil War, was there any Republican slaveowners? There were some examples, but they all conveniently had sold their slaves beforehand.  Here's an article I also enjoyed: https://debmcalister.com/2016/07/20/fact-checking-dsouzas-correlation-causation-confusion/

Although Democrats may have proposed those laws, they were practiced by all.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Jim-Crow-law

This link shows that Jim Crow laws wasn't all South of the Border. I am pretty sure it wasn't only the Democrats who proposed those laws.  I would need to look into this to get the specifics, but I hope that others already have and there are some informative sites out there.  Maybe you already know of a few?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_state

In the states outside of the native Southern Democrats, segregation was still practiced because people inherently thought whites were better than people of color.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/los-angeles-history-jim-crow-916441

I guess it's possible that I wasn't clear enough: the system is unjust, and that's because the people making those laws were bipartisan on this issue. There was also bipartisanship on the Civil Rights Act, and there certainly was equally bipartisan and ugly opposition. I can go on and on, but I need to check myself first, what was your analogy again please? 

 

History tells us the real story.

Here is something Horace Greeley, one of the most influential newspaper men of pre civil war times, wrote about the founding of the Republican party just after it's founding in 1854:

Quote

"We should not care much whether those thus united (against slavery) were designated 'Whig,' 'Free Democrat' or something else; though we think some simple name like 'Republican' would more fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery."

Notice, the party was formed as an anti slavery party, yet you keep trying to tell me that there were slave owners in it.  That's one of the most foolish things I've ever heard.  Slaveholders joining a political party dedicated to limiting slavery and ultimately destroying it.  Yeah, right....  It was formed when the Whig party failed to deal effectively with the Kansas-Nebraska Act and it was passed in Congress.  The Kansas-Nebraska Act did away with the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which limited slavery to below the 36 degree 30 minute parallel.  It led to outright bloodshed in the newly formed states of Kansas and Nebraska.  So, the anti-slavery people of several parties got together and formed a new party, dedicated to stopping the spread of slavery.  Ten thousand people showed up for their first meeting which was held outdoors.

The original political leaders were radical abolitionists:  William Seward,  Charles Sumner (this is the man who was beaten so severely with a cane on the floor of the Senate by a pro-slavery senator that it took him 4 years of recovery before he could return to the Senate), and Benjamin Wade are three of the best known,  Frederick Douglass, the black abolitionist, was also an early member.  Can't you just see a slaveowner joining a political party which had an escaped black slave abolitionist as an influential member?  If you know anything about slaveowners they would have rather killed him than joined anything he was associated with.  They would have liked to kill him just on general principles.

The analogy I referred to was in a post I addressed to you on Monday.  It's on the second page of this thread the way my browser displays the posts.

As to the Jim Crow laws, the Democrats held almost total political sway in the states in the south until into the 20th century.  Every Jim Crow law that I am aware of was passed by Democrat dominated state legislatures and signed into law by Democrat governers.  The Jim Crow laws were not federal laws.  

Woodrow Wilson actually re-segregated all departments of the federal government.   The federal government had been desegregated during Reconstruction after the war so blacks could hold government jobs.  Wilson reversed all that.  He was a "good old boy" from the deep south.  A racist to the core.   Here is a link speaking to this a little more in depth.  https://www.bu.edu/professorvoices/2013/03/04/the-long-forgotten-racial-attitudes-and-policies-of-woodrow-wilson/ 

This brings up a very interesting question.  If the Democrats have actually changed, why haven't they disavowed Woodrow Wilson?  Why is he still referred to in glowing terms by the left?

If there was a "big switch" as you are claiming, where is the evidence?  That politically correct people call what is not racism, racism? This idea that there has been a switch is one of the biggest propoganda coups of all time.  The lie has been repeated so many times almost everyone thinks it is true. Maybe you ought to read the autobiographies of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington to see how they would see what the Democrats have done to the black man through the welfare state.  Here is an excerpt from a speech given by Frederick Douglass in 1865 to an abolitionist society.

Quote

I understand the anti-slavery societies of this country to be based on two principles,—first, the freedom of the blacks of this country; and, second, the elevation of them. Let me not be misunderstood here. I am not asking for sympathy at the hands of abolitionists, sympathy at the hands of any. I think the American people are disposed often to be generous rather than just. I look over this country at the present time, and I see Educational Societies, Sanitary Commissions, Freedmen’s Associations, and the like,—all very good: but in regard to the colored people there is always more that is benevolent, I perceive, than just, manifested towards us. What I ask for the Negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. [Applause.] The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us. Gen. Banks was distressed with solicitude as to what he should do with the Negro. Everybody has asked the question, and they learned to ask it early of the abolitionists, “What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! If you see him on his way to school, let him alone, don’t disturb him! If you see him going to the dinner-table at a hotel, let him go! If you see him going to the ballot-box, let him alone, don’t disturb him! [Applause.] If you see him going into a work-shop, just let him alone,—your interference is doing him a positive injury. Gen. Banks’ “preparation” is of a piece with this attempt to prop up the Negro. Let him fall if he cannot stand alone! If the Negro cannot live by the line of eternal justice, so beautifully pictured to you in the illustration used by Mr. Phillips, the fault will not be yours, it will be his who made the Negro, and established that line for his government. [Applause.] Let him live or die by that. If you will only untie his hands, and give him a chance, I think he will live. He will work as readily for himself as the white man. A great many delusions have been swept away by this war. One was, that the Negro would not work; he has proved his ability to work. Another was, that the Negro would not fight; that he possessed only the most sheepish attributes of humanity; was a perfect lamb, or an “Uncle Tom;” disposed to take off his coat whenever required, fold his hands, and be whipped by anybody who wanted to whip him. But the war has proved that there is a great deal of human nature in the Negro, and that “he will fight,” as Mr. Quincy, our President, said, in earlier days than these, “when there is a reasonable probability of his whipping anybody.” [Laughter and applause.]

End of speech.....

What follows are links to autobiographies of Booker T. Washington and Frederick Douglass.  They are fascinating reading, and very instructional on how ex-slaves viewed their lot and how they viewed the black man's needs to lift himself out of poverty and the degradation caused by slavery.  These men had very different ideas than .orgs such as BLM and the NAACP.  And these men made something great out of their lives and contributed a great deal to their race.

https://projectgutenberg.org For some reason linking to Project Gutenberg is throwing errors.  Do a search on their home page for Booker T. Washington and download the ebook "Up From Slavery an Autobiography.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/dougl92/dougl92.html This is Frederick Douglass' third version, and most complete one, that he wrote.   By the time he wrote this one the Civil War was over and he no longer feared to tell the entire story of his escape from slavery and name all who had helped him  Before he feared to name people and say exactly how he escaped due to possible reprisals by slave owners.

[CoAspen]

Quote

I would prefer something that has documented facts and history, ......

Now don't get alarmed...but...." research will help"-Google

[Geoarrge]

Antifa originated as the paramilitary arm of the German Communist Party.
 

[CoAspen]

All you wanted to know and more!!

Antifa origins

[B/W Photodude]

Apparently, one link that was missed early on in this thread was this one:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/28/documents-tie-berkeley-riot-organizers-to-pro-pedophilia-group-nambla/

The above link shows the relationship of BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) to NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assoc), a notorious pedophile group! You can read more about BAMN in the link below:

http://www.bamn.com

And the relationship between Antifa and BAMN:

https://emsnews.wordpress.com/2017/04/22/antifa-is-part-of-bamn/

 

[phkrause]

Hot air or not! Personally I wouldn't waste my time with either group!! Neither is worthy of any kind of praise! What you see with groups of this kind, is how quickly they band together and how quick violence can happen!! Even if the plan was to be peaceful.

[Gary K]

6 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

and you believe this stuff why??  Because its on the internet??

I have a simple question for you, Wanderer, but it takes a little set up to ask.

Let's say you are the leader of Nation A.  You have so organized your nation that it stands for a single ideology.  Now, Nation B is a nation that stands in opposition to both your ideology and hopes of leading the world.  You know you do not have the military nor economic power to defeat Nation B but you are dedicated to its eradication.  How do you go about eradicating Nation B? 

[B/W Photodude]

22 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

and you believe this stuff why??  Because its on the internet??

It helps if some reason why it should not be considered is given. How can the main web page for a violent organization not be something to be considered.

The first link carried photographs of NAMBLA publications and discussed people deeply involved in their organization and in radical left wing organizations behind BAMN. There have been many reports of radical left wing groups actively promoting sex with children.

[Gary K]

Well, Wanderer, that is one way to avoid answering a question.  I pretty much understand why you want to avoid it.

[Gary K]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

It helps if some reason why it should not be considered is given. How can the main web page for a violent organization not be something to be considered.

The first link carried photographs of NAMBLA publications and discussed people deeply involved in their organization and in radical left wing organizations behind BAMN. There have been many reports of radical left wing groups actively promoting sex with children.

I've  done some research into what you posted, and there is a lot of evidence for what you say.  Took me two or three hours of research, but the evidence is there.  It's not surpising either as these are all Marxists, and Marxism, as described by Max Eastman a one time leading socialist activist in the early 20th century, first editor of "The Masses", and someone given free access by Lenin to all revolutionary documents from the Russian Revolution because he was so trusted in that world, is, and I quote, "the religion of immorality".  That phrase is the name of a chapter in his book titled "Reflections on The Failure of Socialism" which was published in 1955.  

If you haven't read it it's worth the time to read.  It's available for free online in pdf format.

[Gary K]

Photodude,

There's another book you might be interested in too.  It was written by William Montgomery Brown, a one time Bishop in the Episcopal church.  It's titled " Communism and Christianism: Analyzed and Contrasted from the Marxian and Darwinian Point of View".  In it he explains why a person cannot be a Christian and a Marxist as they are thoroughly antagonistic to each other.  He was known as "Bad Bishop" Brown after his conversion to Marxism and his refusal to leave his position in the church.  He was the first Episcopal bishop to be tried for heresy since the days of Martin Luther. 

In the book he paints his stand on Marxism as being the same kind of radical that Jesus was, as he painted Jesus as being out to destroy the church and organized religion.

The book is available through the Gutenberg Project. 

[JoeMo]

On 8/27/2017 at 4:18 AM, The Wanderer said:

My wife is dying of cancer

Wanderer,

My prayers go out to you and your wife.  Both my parents died of cancer; my sister, my daughter, and I are all cancer survivors.  I pray that your wife will also be a survivor.  But even if she doesn't survive in her temporary tent, if she is anything like you, you will see her again - in perfect health, beauty, vitality, and eternal life in the Kingdom.  May God give you peace, comfort, and unconditional love; and give your wife freedom from pain and distress.

[Gregory Matthews]

JoMo:  Beautiful!

[JoeMo]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

The Scripture says of Christ that grace was poured into His lips that He might "know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary." Psalm 45:2; Isaiah 50:4. And the Lord bids us, "Let your speech be alway with grace" (Colossians 4:6) "that it may minister grace unto the hearers" (Ephesians 4:29). {COL 336.4}

Now that's a EGW quote I can truly appreciate!

[Gary K]

Wanderer,

I'm truly sorry to hear about your wife.  I seem to remember you saying something a few months back about having to take care of her, but at the time I thought it was that she was disabled.  I've had a half dozen or so people I was pretty close to die miserable deaths too.  It's not easy to watch them disintegrate before your eyes. 

The husband and wife of a family that taught me more about family than I ever learned at home, and that I considered to be more of parents than I did my biological parents both died from long term illnesses.  It was very difficult to watch.  So I can really empathise with your pain.  At least you have the comfort of knowing you will see your wife again, as I am assuming she is a Christian also.  The two people I just mentioned were not Christians so I know I'll never see them again. To me, and my attitude toward death may be a lot different than most people's, is that death is a blessing to those who are suffering.  At least their suffering is over.  They are at peace and rest once death comes.  It's another story for those left behind with a large hole in their hearts though.  I'm sorry for your pain of knowing your wife will be soon be gone, and for your wife for her suffering.  I will put you both on my prayer list. 

That said, I haven't accused you of anything nefarious.  I simply meant by what I said that I could see from the things you've said why the question would be a difficult one for you to answer.  And most people will avoid things like that.  That's not accusing you of wrongdoing.  At least not in my book anyway.  And had you not left the emoticon you did to that question I wouldn't even have said that, as the emoticon implied, to me, that you thought the question to be ridiculous.  Had you not left that I would have simply let your silence go without comment.

[Gregory Matthews]

Gary, just to be clear:  Neither The Wanderer or I implied that you would be outside of the  Kingdome with those who were lost.

 

[debbym]

Wanderer,

i just read you are walking in the shadows of death with your beloved.  May the presence of the Sweet Holy Spirit and powerful angels bring comfort and warmth and light to this season of your lives.

[Gary K]

17 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

No, you DO NOT know this...

Well, actually, yes I do.  The entire family had rejected anything to do with God.  They had nothing good to say about Him whatsoever.  The husband smoked himself to death intentionally.  Before I met them his doctor had told him if he didn't quit smoking he was going to die of emphasema.  He told me that after 2 years of not smoking he craved a cigarette as badly as he did the day he quit, so he decided he would smoke until he died.  In other words, he murdered himself by choosing to do what he knew without a doubt would kill him.  Hey, I love the man, but he made a terrible choice.   And he will be held accountable for his choice.  We will all be held accountable for the choices we make.

His wife did the same with her diabetes.  She ate exactly as she had before she was diagnosed.  White bread, tons of cookies, doughnuts, candy, etc....  Their diet was, meat, mashed potatoes, gravy, and desserts.  That's poison to a diabetic.   And she said she was going to continue it until the day she died.  She did, after she went blind in one eye, and then a year or so later the other one, then had her left leg amputated just above the ankle, and finally her right leg amputed just above the knee.  She never considered changing what she ate.  She knew what she should do.  She just refused to do it. 

They both chose to do what they knew would kill them.  And neither one repented before they died. 

I don't like these facts.  They make me really sad because I really liked that entire family.  They did a lot for me.  But it is a sin to willfully kill yourself, whether it be with a weapon or with your own choices, and neither ever considered choosing any other option.   Had they repented of their choices before they died I would have hope, but they did not. 

[Gary K]

18 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Gary, just to be clear:  Neither The Wanderer or I implied that you would be outside of the  Kingdome with those who were lost.

 

I really wouldn't care if you had, Greg.  After all the games you've played I would just consider it to be another one of your games.

[JoeMo]

3 hours ago, Gary K said:

But it is a sin to willfully kill yourself, whether it be with a weapon or with your own choices, and neither ever considered choosing any other option.   Had they repented of their choices before they died I would have hope, but they did not. 

We have no way of knowing what was in God's heart or their hearts.  God judges the heart - not the outward appearance.  I'm glad you're not God, Gary.  If you knew me, you probably would have written me off long ago.  Have you ever heard the saying that "the spirit is willing; but the flesh is weak"?  That's how it is with addictions like smoking and sugar.  They don't think of it as "killing themselves".  They see it as satisfying a persistent craving.  Just because all of us aren't as strong-willed, disciplined, and righteous as you seem to be doesn't mean we're lost.  We are saved by grace; not by effective, consistent behavior management.  Jesus didn't die to make bad people good; He died to make dead people alive.  God doesn't save us because we are good; He saves us because HE is good.  There is nothing we can do to make God love us any more or less than He loves us right now.  God alone writes names in the Book of Life or blots them out.  I would rather err in my judgement of others on the side of mercy, not retribution.  I believe that's how God looks at things.  I could be wrong.

[B/W Photodude]

More antics from the group that was left out of the original article that was linked to:

http://www.gopusa.com/end-of-freedom-of-speech-black-clad-antifa-storms-berkeley-peace-rally/

This article looks at the social justice issue:

http://houseofcass.com/balls/why-i-will-never-be-an-sjw