According to Jim Quinn, slaves didn’t have it so bad-see, they had free room and board, they got rewarded for having kids, free food. Just like those on welfare-they just had to work for it, see.
Criticizing the current state of welfare is one thing. Comparing it to slavery, and saying that slaves were better off, is entirely another. Because it’s much better to be, literally, someone property, to have to worry about being sold and having your family split up-to be forced to be someone concubine, whippings, beatings, downright torture and murder. Forced to work from sun-up to sundown, non stop, dying of disease and very little food. But hey-you got free room and board!
Right, and a life of slavery didn’t last that long, anyway. (See the life expectancy figures on slaves.)
But most of these welfare queens sit around and collect money for years and years!!!
Its stupidity all right, but I’d suggest you missed the point.
If you read further down Captain Carrot’s link you’ll get a fuller text of his statement giving a completely different context.
Quinn is merely suggesting that it is Republicans that have been the party responsible for the abolition of slavery and the push for civil rights while the Democrats are responsible for the four Ss, slavery and socialism included.
His claim is that welfare looks a lot like slavery with a twist, both being characteristic of Democratic Party policy.
Stupid yes, but I don’t see any serious attempt to paint slavery as anything better than it was
The Republican Party and the Democrat Party of the 1860s were NOT the same as they are today, Flying Douchebag.
And I DID read the whole statement, and I still say it’s just as offensive.
I remember Jim Quinn used to do a local radio show around here in the late 80s, early 90s. It was cancelled when he was sued for sexual harassment, after making on-air remarks about a coworker’s skills at oral sex.
I know you all will love the opportunity to jump all over me again, but I am not reading this as his saying that slaves were better off than those on welfare. What I am seeing is that those on welfare are living in the same sort of poverty (supported by either the government or the owner) as slaves, but at least the slaves worked. I am reading this as him just saying that the slaves were a better bargain for the money. Which is gross, but totally different than slaves were better off than welfare people are now.
And he credits the “eye-opening” he got about the evil liberal feminists who have made it impossible for a man to say on the radio to an audience of tens of thousands that his co-worker had things tattooed on her scalp about her oral sex preferences for his current political beliefs.
Jim Quinn is a douchebag. He was one when he hung out with an idiot called Banana, and he’s still one today.
Right-wingers are still beating up on welfare queens? Didn’t they go out of style about a decade ago, to be replaced by leprosy-carrying illegal immigrants?
This isn’t the thread for it, but I think the argument can be made that both parties appeal to the same sort of constituants now as they did in the 1860s, and while there have obviously been big changes in both parties, their underlying values are still similar to their 1860 versions.
And the argument can be made ( and I’ll make it ) that the parties have switched sides. If slavery were legal now, it’s the modern Republicans who would be fighting to keep it, and the Democrats to eliminate it.
That seems to be one of those statements that you really can’t support, I don’t think. Certainly neither modern party wants to reinstate slavery, and if slavery had been legal all this time, the parties would have developed differently than they did.
But in terms of coalitions, the Democrats are still the party of the urban poor, Catholics, and immigrants, while the Republicans are still the party of farmers, evangelicals, and business owners.