Jump to content

Image of US 2004 election results resemble 1860 map on Slavery

Acriku

By Acriku
in Politics, Religion, & Philosophy

 Share

Recommended Posts

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Wow, so is slavery being brought back in under the Bush administration? I'm guessing that is why he is invading Middle East countries is to get slaves?

I hope that was sarcasm. Of course the Bush administration has nothing to do with slavery. What this map shows is a general dividing line between two very different cultural traditions in America. Those regions that supported slavery in 1860 are the most conservative parts of America today - not that this is any kind of surprise, of course.

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

Yah, it was sarcasm.

But I think it was kinda funny when I said that Bush is invading those countries so that they can become US colonies more than a year ago. The fact that they say they will pull out after everything in the country is fixed is absurd. Don't they still have military locations in Germany and Japan(?).

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
Posted

The problem with this idiocy is that the anti-christian forgot to mention that those states voted a Republican president who prayed to Jesus openly in Office and loved GOd, loved the Bible.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Not much coincidences... Actually, Lincoln was a republican.

Of course - but the Republicans and the Democrats have switched sides and reversed their roles numerous times throughout American history. The pre-Roosevelt Democrats and the post-Roosevelt Democrats, for example, are almost two entirely different parties.

Lincoln was a liberal.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

The problem with this idiocy is that the anti-christian forgot to mention that those states voted a Republican president who prayed to Jesus openly in Office and loved GOd, loved the Bible.  He appealed to Jesus, he appealed to public prayer, public endorsement of Christianity.  He really loved God, he loved the Bible.  Did I mention that those free states in 1860 voted for an outspoken Christian Jesus-loving president.

EVERY president and major presidential candidate in American history has been a Christian (or at least claimed to be).

And by the way - what a coincidence! - the KKK also claims to be devoutly Christian.

The slaves states, of course, voted for the amoral democrat.

Amoral? Funny, I seem to remember slogans like "God is white" and many, MANY attempts to justify slavery using the Bible.

Notice that the states who voted Democrat in 1860 were the states who voted Republican in 2004, and vice versa. This gives us two logical possibilities:

1. The cultural, religious and political map of America was somehow completely reversed, with the supporters of Lincoln now living in the south and the former Confederates living in the north.

2. The Democrats and the Republicans flip-flopped, swapping sides.

Choice 1 is clearly absurd. Choice 2 is supported by historical evidence as well as simple observation.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

which is why Acriku has no logical basis whatsover to make a comparison between then and now.  Today, those same states that voted in the bush-like Abraham Lincoln (lincoln was even more outspoken about Christianity)...

Other than the fact that both men are outspoken about Christianity (which is easy - ANYONE can be outspoken about Christianity, no matter what he actually believes), is there any other similarity between Lincoln and Bush? Certainly not! Lincoln was opposed to corporations and the rich; he stood up for the poor and oppressed - he was, by today's terminology, a liberal.

If Lincoln ran for president today, he would lose every one of the states that voted for him in 1860.

So the South would vote for Lincoln? Yeah right...

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

The people that voted for Bush today, were similar to the people that voted for Lincoln in 1860.

Then why are they in precisely the OPPOSITE side of the country? Was there some mass migration that I didn't know about?

As I explained before:

Notice that the states who voted Democrat in 1860 were the states who voted Republican in 2004, and vice versa. This gives us two logical possibilities:

1. The cultural, religious and political map of America was somehow completely reversed, with the supporters of Lincoln now living in the south and the former Confederates living in the north.

2. The Democrats and the Republicans flip-flopped, swapping sides.

Choice 1 is clearly absurd. Choice 2 is supported by historical evidence as well as simple observation.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
Posted

"he was, by today's terminology, a liberal."

GIve me one..just one EUropean liberal who is outspoken about Jesus and talks about praying to God in his political life, and ADVOCATES (as in fights for, not just talks about) Conservative Christian issues such as being pro-life, no gay marriages, etc.

there is NOTHING liberal about someone professing Christianity in public.  It is precisely that, why so many Canadians detest Bush.  They can't stand that he talks about God.

I'm waiting for you to quote me the elected liberal who is an outspoken evangelical born again

Caid Ivik

Caid Ivik

Posted
Posted

Of course - but the Republicans and the Democrats have switched sides and reversed their roles numerous times throughout American history. The pre-Roosevelt Democrats and the post-Roosevelt Democrats, for example, are almost two entirely different parties.

Lincoln was a liberal.

Every changing force in the state is automatically liberal. It's the dualism of gevura and chesed, one tries to preserve, another to change. However Lincoln wasn't liberal because he was forced by modernity, like present liberal parties, but because of his religious opinion, which was that God made us all equal. To understand that age is better to see priorities: in 19th century was USA in middle of industrialization, and sufficient production was the primary value (which spawned not only Lincoln, but also ideas of Marx' communism or Ludendorf's fascism). Democrats wanted to preserve less oppressive laws (like slavery) to maintain this production. If we would be able to make an overview of present political situation, we would find same pattern.

Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

I am Canadian and I don't dislike him because he likes God or talks about him. It is when he uses it as an excuse to not have abortions, stem cell research, gay marriage and other issues.

I'm pretty sure it is because he lets religion dictate what he does, and not politics. Maybe there are Canadians who dislike him solely because he believes and talks about God. Dunno.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
Posted

I don't know how they define "liberal" in Romania, but here in the US, someone that says:

""Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right""

is an ultra-ultra fundamental conservative.

BTW, that was a quote from Abraham LIncoln.

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

GIve me one..just one EUropean liberal who is outspoken about Jesus and talks about praying to God in his political life, and ADVOCATES (as in fights for, not just talks about) Conservative Christian issues such as being pro-life, no gay marriages, etc.

This wasn't directed to me, however, in the Netherlands we have a party that calls itself the Christian Union that is clearly left of centre on things such as fighting poverty, yet has very moralistic ideas on things like gay emancipation and abortion.

And like mentioned before, today's American parties aren't like what they used to be. The democratic party used to be the party that looks after the interests of anti abolitionists, while today they rely heavily on votes from ethnic minorities. The Republican party used to be a party that tries to reduce federal interference, promote isolationism and quote the constitution as often as a Chinese would quote Mao's red handbook. Today we see that the past 3 republican presidents have in fact raised the federal budget to enormous hights, isn't scared of intervening internationally or even treading over other nations' sovereighnty and who never even heard of the separation of church and state, apparently.

Anathema

Anathema

Posted
Posted

Whe don't use the term "liberal" in the same sense you do. Over here liberal means someone who opposes government regulation of the financial sector. We simply use the terms "leftist" or "progressive" to refer to those who support strong government interference in the economy. That said, the Christian Union is staunchly moralistic and leftist.

emprworm

emprworm

Posted
Posted

well that may be- there is a difference in the term liberal.  Abraham Lincoln would be extremely conservative today.  There simply are not people in Canada or the US in high elected positions who routinely quote the Bible in their political life.  We call that being "liberal".  Lincoln, if he ran in 2004, would be a fringe ultra-conservative.  Most certainly, he would NOT be embraced by the left.  I looked in Europe.  I could not find one single Bible-quoting elected political figure.  Are there any?

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

I don't know how they define "liberal" in Romania...

Now that you reminded me, I have to mention that you should be careful not to get confused in political terminology.

The American term "liberal" (like I used it for Lincoln, for example) is the equivalent of the European term "social democrat".

The European term "liberal" (as it is used in Romania, for example) is the equivalent of the American term "libertarian".

So what you're looking for is a social democrat who is an outspoken Christian and who holds conservative social views. Anathema showed you an entire party of that sort. There are many others. I'll go find some specific examples and quotes for you.

Edric O

Edric O

Posted
Posted

Abraham Lincoln would be extremely conservative today.

He would be extremely conservative on SOCIAL ISSUES (though not as conservative as the KKK, for example). But he would also be moderately leftist on ECONOMIC ISSUES. Unlike Bush, who is an extremely right-wing ultra-capitalist on economic issues.

nemafakei

nemafakei

Posted
Posted

Over here, no-one, not liberals, conservatives, left or right, uses religion as an argument for politics. The only exceptions are racist parties like the BNP and Northern Ireland, which is a rather different kettle of fish.

That's not to say politicians across the political spectrum won't talk freely about god and their beleifs, they just won't impose their religion on others by saying 'my religion says this so this is right'.

Remember that wherever you are: Liberal simply means 'believing in freedom'. Conservative means 'believing in retaining existing values'. If what you call a liberal or conservative isn't that, then you're giving the word a connotation it doesn't really have, like using 'white' as synonymous with 'christian'.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.