| |
|  |  |
 |
| Discussion: Jack I do not take umbrage at what you say, I get hot under the collar like everyone else, but more than that I am just bored of the never ending shite that you say, and your inability to answer a single question that is asked >>By BushisaManiac Well I can understand the situation where one of all of us have been disrespectful to you directly, but I apologize - I cannot see why you could be offended by our criticizms of your nation and of your president. Perhaps we can criticize each other's views without being offended ourselves- and just discuss the viewpoint. If I believe that the war on Iraq was illegal and unjust - then challenge my opinion. Criticizm is nothing to fear!! It can only make us better!! Personally I am not against America or any other country. A country - to me anyway, is just the nation. It is the people who affect that nation which I may or may not have a problem with. There are certain types of people who you may disagree on - for instance the entire population of the Bible Belt in America in my opinion - but that does not necessarily make me hate the whole country. Indeed - I'd really quite like to visit San Francisco (SOON!!!) and many other parts of America. It is not the Nation as a whole which I - and maybe others- have a problem with - it is the ideas which some of the population put across. The people in charge more often than not do NOT reflect the views and opinions of the population, unfortunately. Am I making much sense, or am I just rambling?? >>By Tchock Tchock >> Perhaps we should just agree to debate something. Properly. No more meandering around questions, But these are rules too (or guidelines, or whatever you want to call them). In fact it is the same rules. What I propose is just a little clearer about what "properly" actually is. It's just a matter of being clear so we all understand what we believe "properly" actually is. Personally I prefer to call it an agreement rather than "rules". Rules are what some outside power tries to impose, and agreement is something we freely enter into. >>By greenfyre Are we taking one step up and two steps back? We shoud find a way to disagree agreeable, to wit contrasting views without rancor or insult. Greenfyre.... I was beginning to feel good about our exchange of ideas until I read the recent posts this morning. I do not appreciate people here insulting my President. You may take exception to his policies, my views, or anyone elses without belittling comments and personal insults. I have been guilty, along with each of you five, but I think that we can transcend this. BIAM.... I'd hate to see you depart the real debate. Greenfyre has taken it upon himself to establish some civil guidelines and there is much wisdom in that. Let's ALL stop the finger pointing and ready ourselves for a good discussion. Remember, we have no moderator---just our honor system. You can count me in. >>By lv2read Interesting concept the freedom of speech , a real two edged sword, sharp and merciless It allows the ignorant to voice their opinions on discriminating against gays , peacenics, commies or anyone else who does not fit in to their extremely narrow minded way of thinking ( see also The Brokeback Mountain debate ), but does apparently not allow you to critiscise George Bush or indeed the war in Iraq. >>By wreckin krew The ignorant, big boy, is one that you disagree with, right. Do you know how to argue a point without belittling others? Why don't you demonstrate that before you have to go inside and play in your room. We're trying a little consensus building here, and it takes one idiot like yourself to torpedo the whole thing. One our guidelines was that there would be no personal attacks---veiled or otherwise. But it just takes one, and I mean YOU, to mock a sincere attempt to reconcile differing approaches so that we ALL could have a healthy, productive discussion. How challenging is this to understand. >>By lv2read I don't see any recent posts insulting your President, but I may have missed something. I guess I'd note a few things: 1) No one else has actually agreed to the proposed guidelines. I hope they do, but so far they have not: 2) As I said before, the guidelines allow us to critise any action or statement by anyone. As such, if we think this or that person is an idiot, then surely we can find some statement or action by them that illustrates our point. If we can't find such an illustration, then maybe we are wrong in our opinion. 3) There is the cunundrum of opinion. If I may voice the opinion that Emperor Maximillian was a genius, then why can't someone else voice the opinion that he was a twit? I guess we could just recognize that this is sensitive and try to refrain from voicing inflammatory opinions, if for no other reason than to keep the discussion useful. 4) I would suggest we stay on track best by following the guidelines even with other parties who have just swung by. Otherwise they will respond in kind and it will be another train wreck. >>By greenfyre Interesting how the ignorant- interpret wisdom, but then again its only to be expected >>By wreckin krew wreckin krew....your name is appropriate!!! And once again, the ignorabt are those that disagree with you. Right?? Give it up wreckin krew. >>By lv2read OK L2R seeing as I will be so sorely missed.... What do you think should be done re: Irans quest for nuclear power? >>By BushisaManiac Oh and how do you know that it isnt a quest for nuclear power as opposed to a quest for nuclear weapons...sorry two questions in one...is that fair? >>By BushisaManiac Greenfyre I propose that we refrain in totally from insulting and inflammatory remarks. There is nothing that you van show me, or quote to me that Tony Blair or George Bush are stupid. Why can't we agree to banish childish inflammatory remarks?? Your belief re the War are different than mine...you are not strupid, lame or wrong in holding those views. m I require the same consideration. And Sarco and BIAM amd Tchock (sp?) need to sign up accordingly. Haven't we learned anything at all? Your effort is appreciated. >>By lv2read BIAM Have you signed up to the proposed guidelines? But I'll answer you anyway. If you believe their leader, it is neither. Maybe I should ask you if he is to be believed? Now the truth is that no one really has that information. But what do we have? An ex-patriot has attested to such research. Can he be believed? Not 100%. The Iranian leader has made antagonistic statements with respect to Israel.....but that doesn't mean that he's truly intent on building a nuclear weapon. President Bush has said it best of all. Let's watch them carefully and.......... My opinion is that Tony Blair has signed off on this approach. >>By lv2read I'm afraid i dont hang on to Bush's every word or Blair's either so maybe you can enlighten me as to what was said, If there is no threat, except possibly to Israel and they are more than capable of protecting their own interests....why should anything be done at all? >>By BushisaManiac BIAM <<<If there is no threat, except possibly to Israel and they are more than capable of protecting their own interests....why should anything be done at all?>>> Does this concede that there MAY be a threat to Israel? No threat, except possibly to...... Please be clearer. The US and Israe; have a policy of mutual support, i.e. an attack pn either is an attack on both....much the same arrangement England and the US has developed. BIAM in this day and age, war's boundaries spread like wildfire....we cannot ignore Iran with the disclaimer that it is Israel's problem. You notice that I'm not calling you or your cviews' stupid. I am ONLY questioning the wisdom of ignoring the threat in Iran. >>By lv2read Don't patronise me matey, if you would care to re-read the very second post on this board, you will re-discover what my views are on this matter, WE ALL KNOW that the iranian mad mullah has expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map....seeing as your attention span seems to wane every now and then. yes it is only POSSIBLY a threat, if they develop a nuclear warhead then they have to develop a delivery system, the obvious choice is the scud..unless you believe that they are so far advanced that the Titan or cruise tomahawk is within their technological grasp .....and if you re-read my post on page 2 four up from the bottom, or do your self some research and you will find that the scud has a maximum range of circa 700km, the Iraqis had a super scud which would do 13~1500 km.... now i hardly think that the Iraqis are in a position to give scuds to iran, hardly would they want to either....so 700km...that enough to reach Isreal is it? If the Isrealis have a go like they did in 1981, it would be well advised for them to leave the US out of the equation, the US military hasnt got the capability of delivering such a surgical strike, they would only screw things up for the israelis. furthermore if the US openly goes to war alonside Israel then they will lose ALL support from their current arab allies and from the Arab nations sat on the fence >>By BushisaManiac <There is nothing that you van show me, or quote to me that Tony Blair or George Bush are stupid.> Well funny you should say that....... "I don't read what's handed to me..." March 15 2000 "The best way to relieve familes from time to time is to let them keep some of their own money." September 13 2000 "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." January 3 2000 "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" January 11 2000 "If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it." October 18 2000 "It's your money. You paid for it." October 18 2000 "It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." September 25 2000 "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." September 29 2000 "I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership is someone who brings people together." August 18 2000 "If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign." February 16 2000 "This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. it's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." Speaking during Perseverance Month.... January 28 2000 "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." May 5 2000 "I was raised in the West. The West of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways that Washington D.C is close to California." April 7 2000 That's all folks. So - that was just in the year 2000. There is of course the time where he was questioned about various leaders of the world - in which he could not name one. Now, as a President who's main policies surround Global Politics - it WOULD be handy to know at least a few of the people you might be declaring war on within the next few years....... >>By Tchock furthermore if the US openly goes to war alonside Israel then they will lose ALL support from their current arab allies and from the Arab nations sat on the fence>>>> My opinion is that ALL Arab countries know that the US and Israel are 'one' as far as defense goes. Our alignment with Israel is out there, up front, and in your face (if I may). No, BIAM, that is not new news to any Arab country. While they distrust Israel, they (evidently) believe that our friendship and leadership (however flawed) is worth it. Sure they would like us to split with Israel, but my opiniom is that none of those (Arab) countries believe that that will happen. May I suggest another delivery system overlooked in our discussion, the airplane!! The delivery of the atomic and hydrogen bombs in WWII were by airplane......the enola gay. Do you know for sure that the Iranians aren't looking in that direction?? Well, I don't know EITHER. I want to politely caution you about your inflammatory language. See below: <<<....seeing as your attention span seems to wane every now and then.>>> Cut it out.....now. We can do better than this. Let's police ourselves. >>By lv2read lv2read................... A serious question - which I would like you to answer as fully as you possibly can. WHAT makes George Walker Bush such a great politician/leader? Now - there is no way this can be interpreted as being disrespectful or insulting to your president. It is a question which I would very much like answering. >>By Tchock Tchock.... I don't know where to start, so I'll be arbitrary. 1. His two appointments to our US Supreme Court were/are terrific. The justices are not supposed to 'legislate' from the bench, ams in prior years Democrats appointed 'activist' judges...and the country was divided on many issues. He also appoints judges to the Circuit and Federal courts....and again rulings are now consistent and make sense. I believe the Congress has to ratify his judicial appointments. 2. His reaching out to Germany and France (non supporters of the War in Iraq) was very impressive as well as their willingness to put differences aside. Both great allies of the US. 3. His leadership in the world community is impressive. And the discissions and mutual exchange of ideas with Tony Blair have only help the President and our country. 4. The conservative agends has come into its own in America. Through most of my adult life I cannot remember the Republican Party controlling both houses....with Reagan, the Republicans may have...but I am not sure. President Bush'es leadership (coat tails as we call it) is responsible for these gains. 5. He is credible...squeaky clean. Some of his appointees have/are being investigated for sure. When you consider how many appointments a President makes, you can expect that some will stray. 6. I am proud of his record in Iraq. Every dollar spent there (or anywhere else) has to be approved by the Congress. And there have been 'special' appropriation bills due to the extremely high cost, and the Congress have authorized those---not always at the amount requested. 7. Military tribunals...or Court trials. The President has requested Military Tribunals and the US Supreme Court just ruled against that. My opinion is that people should not be held for indefinite periods (or even long periods of time) without charges being preferred and a trial date set. At the same time I would not return any to combat to suit up again and shoot Americans. And the President has taken that Supreme Court ruling gracefully. My opinion is that most will be deported to their countries of origin--but that does not make up for their lengthy period of confinement. I can think of other things, but I am fatigued at this time. The more that I observe the President, the more I respect him. Now I've said this before, but isn't it amazing how we respect and admire those that we agree with?? I'm sure that all understand that. >>By lv2read "He is credible...squeaky clean" he avoided draft to go to vietnam, and went AWOL from the air national guard did he not? "The delivery of the atomic and hydrogen bombs in WWII were by airplane......the enola gay. Do you know for sure that the Iranians aren't looking in that direction?? Well, I don't know EITHER" So you reckon that the Iranians can fly over Iraq and Syria or Jordan unnoticed to drop nuclear weapons, or maybe they'd go north via turkey then down the coast through Syria and lebanon.... dont you think the Israelis are not monitoring airspace as far outside their own borders as is technologically capable I wasnt actually aware that the Iranians have air to air refuelling capabilities or stealth aircraft to evade US radar in both Iraq and Turkey... . Guess i'll have to go google for that.. And although the Arab nations are well aware of the friendship between the US and Isreal... are they really 'one' as far as defence goes...I doubt it.. .the US couldn't afford that level of complicity with the Israelis.. during Gulf war part 1 the US had to beg Israel not to strike back when Iraq chucked scuds at Israel... had Israel entered the conflict against Iraq then the Arab coalition members such as the Egyptians would have withdrawn all troops and support...and there would have been a massive backlash within saudi arabia, dont forget apart from the Saudis who have a vested interest in the US financially etc. the other arab nations in that war were only there because one arab nation (Iraq) had invaded a brother arab nation (Kuwait).... that catalyst for arab support doesnt exist anymore >>By BushisaManiac he avoided draft to go to vietnam, and went AWOL from the air national guard did he not?>>> Dan Rather, the anchor (of 20 years) of CBS News broadcast 2 weeks prior to the Novenber 2004 General Election 'oeiginal documents' that alleged what you said above. Those documents were proven false, Dan Rather was sibsequently relieved of his position, and that erroneous story could have cost a great President re-election. And, Yes, there are folks like you that will believe that because they want to. And, Yes, the word is squeaky clean--and be careful not to choke on that. Now the web site is tied into CBSnews.com and the links to that 'story' of the erroneous story are very available. The front pages of all the major newspapers covered the releases. <<<So you reckon that the Iranians can fly over Iraq and Syria or Jordan unnoticed to drop nuclear weapons, or maybe they'd go north via turkey then down the coast through Syria and lebanon.... dont you think the Israelis are not monitoring airspace as far outside their own borders as is technologically capable>>> Challenge!!!! Please dsocument that the Iranians do NOT have a cargo plane capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Israel. Are you postulating that Syria would ferverently deny the Iranians usage of airspace and fueling?? <<<....as the Egyptians would have withdrawn all troops and support...and there would have been a massive backlash within saudi arabia,>>>>> My memory was that Saudia Arabia specifically did NOT want Iraq to aim missles or anything else in Israel's direction. Please clarify. I don't think that the Arab nations wanted Israel involved. I believe that President Bush had requested that the Israeli's use restraint and not fire back. What I know for sure is that Israel did not obliterate Iraq and, for whatever reason, exercised restraint. >>By lv2read L2R >> I would not return any to combat to suit up again and shoot Americans Same old catch 22 though, until someone has had some sort of fair judicial process we cannot know whether they were a combatant or not. I won't pretend that the US has had it easy with this one. When combatants dress as civies it is hell for the side that wears uniforms - the Brits had the same problem with the Yanks in the War of Indepedance. So, I will frame my question this way : IF the roles were reveresed and the US was occupied by the Taliban, AND the US was resisting using irregulars - how would you want/expect US citizens captured on suspicion to be handled? I will not argue your answer, I am actually just curious. Generally all I ask is that we be consistent, that we treat them as we would wish they treat us. Historical curiousity and total tangent: One of the difficulties in WWII was that the Japanese were consistet. They treated Allied prisoners exactly as they expected the Allies to treat treat Japanese POWs, which is to say appallingly. It does not justify the inhumane treatment, but they weren't hypocrits. But with consistency in mind, re: attacks on the leader. (here again I am just curious. I will attack Bush's actions if I feel it is appropriate, I feel no need to attack is character). Not so long ago the President was Clinton. Would you have asked the same policy with respect to him as the US President? Did you object or feel outraged when he was vilified by Coulter, Limbaugh, Liddy, etc? If you accepted or even applauded those attacks on Clinton's character (and they were viscious), then I do not see how you can ask that Bush be held above such treatment. Here again, you don't actually even have to answer - I just hope that your behaviour has been consistent and that if you are concerned with preserving the dignity of the President, that you do so regardless of who is in office. >>By greenfyre In American politics, one of the most effective campaign ploys is to quote the words of the contestants vieing for the party's nomination. The label for that here is 'negative campaigning' and very little that Bush said about Kerry could top what his fellow Democrats said in the Democratic primaries. Seldom does a sitting President face a challenge within the party--so Bush was subjected to very lite (if any) Repyblican opposition. was on the phone <<<If you accepted or even applauded those attacks on Clinton's character (and they were viscious),....>>> Clinton's character WAS the issue...for Republicans AND some Democrats. When Monica Lewinsky testified that she was giving the President head while he was in a room adjacent his office AND on the phone talking with the majority leader of HIS party, many Americans were shocked at that---I'm being polite here. Since his Governor of Arkansas days he has been plagued by assrtions of 'womanizing.' Hillary's statement that the Monica Lewinsky thing was a 'right wing conspiracy' haunts her to this day. How will it all play out?? I don't know. Don't hold your breath awaiting Hillary's inauguration. An unrepentant (sp??) liberal (as in Hillary) has not won the American Presidency since John Kennedy. As far as Clinton's behavior and dishonesty I am not as judgemental as some. Had I been in his shoes....I think that it would have been easier on me had I told the truth...but??? What amazes me more than anything is that Clinton---knowing that he was the most observed man in America, to think that he could escape scrutiny and was willing to jeopardize his Presidency and his standing far a fling with a 'lame' 21 year old 'girl.' To risk it all in that manner is puzzling to me. <<<<But with consistency in mind, re: attacks on the leader. (here again I am just curious. I will attack Bush's actions if I feel it is appropriate, I feel no need to attack is character).>>>> Bush has a record and there is plenty to discuss and to take issue with. His political choices may be different than you would make or like to see, but his character is sterling. He has constantly reached out to the opposition here. Democrats are regularly briefed on issues and not just Democratic leadership. If you mention Limbaugh, Coulter and Liddy their statements pale in comparison to those made leaders of the Congressional Black Caucas. Both fringes mentioned here are intemperate in their speech and have no desire to bridge the gap of (mis) understanding. Don't know if you are satisfied with my answer, but I've tried to touch on your major points. <<<So, I will frame my question this way : IF the roles were reveresed and the US was occupied by the Taliban, AND the US was resisting using irregulars - how would you want/expect US citizens captured on suspicion to be handled?>>>> This can be answered historically....right here. The North (the Union) defeated the South (the Confederacy) om America's Civil War....and the South was occupied for 11 years by the North (historically referred to as Reconstruction). And today....some 140 years later....the feelings are still very strong, hurt, many labels are appropriate. But, regardless how combatants are dressed, the captured are POWs period. And, as stated earlier, I do not condone holdimg people indefinitely without a trial---I believe that is unjust. >>By lv2read Greemfyre re your statement "I will attack Bush's actions if I feel it is appropriate, I feel no need to attack his character" L2R stated that Bush's character was squeaky clean, I am responding to that... L2R Bush joined the national guard from Yale...requesting that he not be posted overseas, i have seen a copy of the request online (Its a tick in a box rather than a written request) and i'm trying to find it again for you ...have patience i will get it eventually. many saw the harvard and yale boys joining the nationaal guard as a sure fire way of avoiding being sent overseas, whether that be to Nato bases in europe or combat bases in SE Asia.... as for his being AWOL for nearly a year...that is clearly documented for all to see, after the Texas air national guard started testing for drugs during the air medical Bush asked for transfer to Alabama...read into that what you want..His commanding officer at Alabama does not recall any texan officer in his unit let alone GW Bush, Bush was grounded in august 1972 for missing the mandatory annual medical, and didnt even report for duty, when he returned to Houston in november 1972.... Bush went AWOL for about a year fine upstanding young officer I am a pilot myself I love flying..... Bush wasnt in any mortal danger whilst in the national guard except the dangers inherent with flying...but he couldnt even manage his duty whilst on non-combat status.....flying fighter jets and getting paid for it, no commie missile about to blow you into little pieces... jesus that sounds like heaven to me..honestly it does..i would love to be in that position.... squeaky clean..yep he sure is. "Challenge!!!! Please dsocument that the Iranians do NOT have a cargo plane capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Israel. Are you postulating that Syria would ferverently deny the Iranians usage of airspace and fueling??" like i said they would have to get through the US radars in raq and turkey first, of course a regular Iranian airlines jet can carry any cargo.... but thats a bit too "Tom Clancy" for me.. "My memory was that Saudia Arabia specifically did NOT want Iraq to aim missles or anything else in Israel's direction. Please clarify." er can you clarify for me where i said that Saudi DID want Iraq to aim missiles in Israels direction, i have re-read my post and cant find anything there where i said that !! >>By BushisaManiac <<But, regardless how combatants are dressed, the captured are POWs period. >> The US administration has refused to recognise them as POWs, Thus they are consistently referred to as 'enemy combatants'. By doing so, they can argue that the 'detainees' (they won't even refer to them as 'prisoners') are not entitled to treatment within the terms of the Geneva convention. They placed them in a camp on foreign soil so they could claim they were outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (and they did argue that in an earlier hearing) and by implication that they aren't entitled to criminal trials. The miliary commissions were set up in such a way that evidence - which would be disallowed under Courts Martial or Criminal trials - may be used. Given that the administration is now scrambling to find another way of legitimizing the military commissions, I very much doubt that they have any intention of allowing them to be repatriated back to their home countries (not without another legal battle anyway). <<And the President has taken that Supreme Court ruling gracefully.>> I heard him speaking just after the decision of the Supreme Court was announced and he sounded more stunned than anything else to me He later followed up with a statement "that we will not let these killers free". That implies an assumption of guilt - what happened to the presumtion of innocence? >>By Sarcophilus L2R >> very little that Bush said about Kerry could top what his fellow Democrats I am not asking you to be answerable for the behaviour of others, that would be totally unfair. I am asking you to be answerable for your own behaviour only. I'd have to agree that some of Clinton's choices vis a vis the whole Lewinsky thing were baffling, like boinking her in the first place, and then lying about it when obviously caught. No question that these showed an appalling lack of judgement. For myself I could care less about acts between consenting adults, but such an appalling lack of judgement in such a powerful office is clearly an issue. However, this illustrates my point at two levels: 1) We need never have talked about Clinton's character; his actions were sufficient. 2) If a President's character is potentially a legitimet issue for discussion, criticism and debate, then who decides which President may be attacked? Surely you are not suggesting it be his/her supporters? Even if you were, that doesn't work. Clinton's supporters said his character was not an issue, and Republicans did not respect that. Why should Bush's opponent's respect Republicans saying that Bush's character is not an issue? Equally the assertion that Bush is "squeaky clean" does not work. That is like verdict before trial, until the issue has been discussed in the court of democratic discourse the verdict is unknown. What I am asking for is a statement of principle that is in the best American tradition, ie it applies to all equally without regard to who someone is. Either a sitting President's character is open to discussion or it is not, regardless of their name, party affiliation or other. And if your answer is "it depends", then what does it depend on? Here again, I wish a statement that makes no reference to name, party or any such partisan critieria. In the interest of justice it has to be, must be fiar, open, and without prejudice. As before, I don't much care whether your answer allows or disallows criticism of character. However, in the interests of the very foundations of the principles which the USA was founded on, it must be something that can be applied equally to all persons who hold office without reference to anything other than the fact that they hold office. >> the captured are POWs period. But that begs the question of the context of capture. We know some of the Gitmo inmates are/were innocent civilians (eg the Tipton Three), and many were NOT captured on the battlefield. There is quite obviously the all too common of phenomenon of "guilt by arrest/capture" ie we would not have arrested you if you weren't guilty. I do not mean to trivialize a very difficult issue. I recognize that in many conflicts through history the resolution was simply tha anyone suspected of being an irregular was executed, often on the spot. The truth is that war is brutality. Just about every conflict has involved war crimes committed by the forces of every nationality, including executing POWs, brutalization and murder of civilians, rape, ethnic cleansing, etc. The frequency and scale vary, but these are common features of war. I do not expect Iraq to be any different, the exceptions have been so rare as to be mere curiosities (eg the Desert War in WWII). But in a democracy I do expect us to have full and informed debate about the realities of war, and to have policies that are consistently applied. I accept that it is necessary to detain suspected combatants in a war. You have been clear about disapproving indefinite detention without some form of due process. There is some common ground for us. Thank you. >> And today....some 140 years later....the feelings are still very strong, Yes, Booth's legacy is a terrible one. Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address is one of the great speechs of history ("With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.") and it was a national tragedy that he did not live to see it implemented. >>By greenfyre lv2read!! Tell me, with the American Freedom being so wonderful............... When exactly was Slavery completley made illegal in the U.S as a whole - every single state agreeing to make it completely illegal that is. When was that? >>By Tchock Tell me, with the American Freedom being so wonderful............... When exactly was Slavery completley made illegal in the U.S as a whole - every single state agreeing to make it completely illegal that is. When was that?>>> What was the Emancipation Proclamation?? The outlawing of slavery was a federal--not state--action. However, and this is a big however, Civil Rights were not conferred upon blacks until 1964....and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was VERY controversial. It would take many hours to explain to you the concerns that many Americans had---myself included. Will be responding to Greenfyre next...but a bit later. >>By lv2read You did not answer my question. WHEN was slavery totally abolished in the Great & Honourably Free America? & WHY will it take hours to explain to me? Because - as a female & my age - I am too stupid to understand it? Go on - take a chance: I might surprise you. And exactly why exactly did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 scare the Bejeezus out of you? (Est-ce qu'était-il tout trop effrayant pour que vous soyez dans la même salle qu'une personne colorée et pour traitez des femmes également ?) >>By Tchock |