Obama died and met our Founding Fathers

[Galileo]

Obama died and met our Founding Fathers

When Obama died, George Washington met him at the Pearly Gates. He slapped him across the face and yelled, "How dare you try to destroy the Nation I helped conceive?"

Patrick Henry approached, punched him in the nose and shouted, "You wanted to end our liberties but you failed."

James Madison followed, kicked him in the groin and said, "This is why I allowed our government to provide for the common defense!"

Thomas Jefferson was next, beat Obama with a long cane and snarled, "It was evil men like you who inspired me to write the Declaration of Independence."

The beatings and thrashings continued as George Mason, James Monroe and 66 other early Americans unleashed their anger on the radical, socialist, leader.

As Obama lay bleeding and in pain, an Angel appeared. Obama wept and Said, "This is not what you promised me." The Angel replied, "I told you there would be 72 VIRGINIANS waiting for you in Heaven. What did you think I said?"....."You really need to listen when someone is trying to tell you something!"

http://www.trapshooters.com/cfpages/thread.cfm?Threadid=216681&ShowDeleted=Yes&SortBy=ASC

:lmao

[The Cougar]

bah there's a reason our pres was supposed to be elected by an elite electoral college

[ChumpDumper]

James Madison said "I owned a bunch of people who looked like you never set them free."

[Winehole23]

At bottom, the joke is a *patriotic* death fantasy about Obama getting an Old Dominion style comeuppance in heaven.

George Washington apparently pacified his outraged honor with a mere face slap. Patrick Henry with a punch in the nose. The next two slave owners in line indulged their taste for violent assault, which soon became the general trend according to the joke, in a (joke) heaven where the angels -- erstwhile Virginians -- ventilate hatred and visit the (funny, ha ha) pains of hell on Obama within spitting distance of (joke, ha ha) heaven. That's telling on a lot of levels...

[Winehole23]

My question is, what happens after the 72 Virginians penalize Obama? Has Obama inadvertently been admitted to heaven? Did the angel say:


72 Virginians will be waiting up on you at the gates of heaven...Or did he say:


...in heaven?

[John Terry]

"see wtf i did, sigh." said Abraham Lincoln, face palmed...

[Galileo]

The sad reality is that we know more about the childhoods, youth, and education of most of our Founding Fathers, than we do about Obama.

[admiralsnackbar]

The sad reality is that we know more about the childhoods, youth, and education of most of our Founding Fathers, than we do about Obama.

:lol

[jack sommerset]

Jefferson put a long hair wig on Obama and fucked him.

[boutons_deux]

"we know more about the childhoods, youth, and education of most of our Founding Fathers, than we do about Obama."

You Lie.

The FFs are obscured in hagiographic myth-making. Like every religion has its creation myths, all tribes and countries have their ancestor/founding myths.

eg, the Boston Tea Party was against the tea-monopolizing East India Company, not against the King, and was agitated for by the wealthy colonialists/merchants. ie, the moneyed merchants and capitalists agitated for the insurrection, just like the corps and capitalists are duping the teabaggers today, to distract from the culpability of the corps and capitalists from fucking up America.

"Even with the Townshend duty in effect, the Tea Act would allow the East India Company to sell tea more cheaply than before, undercutting the prices offered by smugglers."

"The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773."

"Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party

[Galileo]

"we know more about the childhoods, youth, and education of most of our Founding Fathers, than we do about Obama."

You Lie.

The FFs are obscured in hagiographic myth-making. Like every religion has its creation myths, all tribes and countries have their ancestor/founding myths.

eg, the Boston Tea Party was against the tea-monopolizing East India Company, not against the King, and was agitated for by the wealthy colonialists/merchants. ie, the moneyed merchants and capitalists agitated for the insurrection, just like the corps and capitalists are duping the teabaggers today, to distract from the culpability of the corps and capitalists from fucking up America.

"Even with the Townshend duty in effect, the Tea Act would allow the East India Company to sell tea more cheaply than before, undercutting the prices offered by smugglers."

"The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773."

"Colonial merchants, some of them smugglers, played a significant role in the protests. Because the Tea Act made legally imported tea cheaper, it threatened to put smugglers of Dutch tea out of business"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_tea_party

Name even one myth regarding James Madison that occurs in the history books. Just one.

The real NWO agenda is to tear down the Founding Fathers with bullshit.

:ihit

[Duff McCartney]

Name even one myth regarding James Madison that occurs in the history books. Just one.

The real NWO agenda is to tear down the Founding Fathers with bullshit.

:ihit

I can name one of all the founding fathers. They never believed all men are created equal, or maybe they did...they just never saw blacks as real men.

[Galileo]

I can name one of all the founding fathers. They never believed all men are created equal, or maybe they did...they just never saw blacks as real men.

Show me where it says Madison said that, or are you just talking out of your ass. The British and the Dutch started the discrimination, and the Americans ended it.

[admiralsnackbar]

Show me where it says Madison said that, or are you just talking out of your ass. The British and the Dutch started the discrimination, and the Americans ended it.

Americans ended it, but not the founders. Sorry, Charlie -- he got you.

And exactly what is it that you don't know about Obama? We know where he was born, where he went to school, where and how he's lived, worked, worshiped.

If you're a birther, it's because you don't accept the evidence, not because the evidence doesn't exist... in the same way I imagine you don't accept evidence for anything that flies in the face of your assumptions about seemingly every event in modern history... which I guess raises the question: what kind of evidence do you require to convince you that you may be wrong?

[Galileo]

The Founders banned slavery in the Nortwest territory at a time when slavery was legal almost everywhere else in the world. In 1787, the Confederation congress did this.

The NW territory is huge, covering the land of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

You don't know shit about history. Then later, many of the Founders helped get rid of slavery in the northern states when it was still legal all over the world.

You ignored my James Madison challenge as well.

FAIL.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Name even one myth regarding James Madison that occurs in the history books. Just one.

The real NWO agenda is to tear down the Founding Fathers with bullshit.

:ihit


You have no proof it's a myth. Some batshit crazy conspiracy theory you read somewhere can't be interpreted as fact.

One day, someone like Galileo will find himself in control of nuclear weapons. I just hope that day comes after I die.

[Galileo]

You have no proof it's a myth. Some batshit crazy conspiracy theory you read somewhere can't be interpreted as fact.

One day, someone like Galileo will find himself in control of nuclear weapons. I just hope that day comes after I die.

You hate America.

:wow

[Oh, Gee!!]

hey, that a really @!#!* funny joke. ha-ha. guffaw. *spits milk out of his nose*

[admiralsnackbar]

The Founders banned slavery in the Nortwest territory at a time when slavery was legal almost everywhere else in the world. In 1787, the Confederation congress did this.

The NW territory is huge, covering the land of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

You don't know shit about history. Then later, many of the Founders helped get rid of slavery in the northern states when it was still legal all over the world.

You ignored my James Madison challenge as well.

FAIL.

Do you even know how to read? "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." That doesn't apply to the Northwest territories, that applies to everywhere. Unless it doesn't.

And I don't pretend to know much about Madison, but a cursory googleization of the question yields:

MYTH: James Madison said, "We have staked the whole of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
FACT: This quote appears nowhere in the writings of Madison. It was debunked years ago by Madison scholars and even many Religious Right leaders have admitted that the quote can't be substantiated. This inaccurate Madison Ten Commandments quote was circulated among the Religious Right chiefly by David Barton, a Texas man who peddles a revisionist history arguing that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation." In 1996, Barton admitted that the quote is bogus and recommended that people stop using it.

http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/myths.htm


That answered, what exactly is it that you don't know about Obama just so we're all clear.

[Winehole23]

The (joke) heaven in the OP bears a superficial resemblance to that of Tertullian (sic? ES?), which is separated from hell by a low wall where angels loiter, watching the torments of the damned.

Only in this case the angels go over the wall to participate. I guess it wouldn't really be a sweet, sweet heaven if you were forbidden to torture your enemies.

[Winehole23]

One day, someone like Galileo will find himself in control of nuclear weapons.Very, very low on this wino's list of worries.

[Mr. Peabody]

Oh . . . I get it . . . because he's a Muslim . . . Well-played sir, well-played indeed.

[Galileo]

Do you even know how to read? "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." That doesn't apply to the Northwest territories, that applies to everywhere. Unless it doesn't.

And I don't pretend to know much about Madison, but a cursory googleization of the question yields:

MYTH: James Madison said, "We have staked the whole of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
FACT: This quote appears nowhere in the writings of Madison. It was debunked years ago by Madison scholars and even many Religious Right leaders have admitted that the quote can't be substantiated. This inaccurate Madison Ten Commandments quote was circulated among the Religious Right chiefly by David Barton, a Texas man who peddles a revisionist history arguing that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation." In 1996, Barton admitted that the quote is bogus and recommended that people stop using it.

http://www.gainesvillehumanists.org/myths.htm


That answered, what exactly is it that you don't know about Obama just so we're all clear.

No modern, well researched biography on Madison uses that quote.

Show me one that does.

All modern well researched biographies are sourced and that quote has no source.

[admiralsnackbar]

No modern, well researched biography on Madison uses that quote.

Show me one that does.

All modern well researched biographies are sourced and that quote has no source.

Keep shifting the goalposts, buddy. :lol

Meanwhile, you haven't answered my question.

[Galileo]

Keep shifting the goalposts, buddy. :lol

Meanwhile, you haven't answered my question.

All you do is beat the strawman.

[admiralsnackbar]

All you do is beat the strawman.

Please point to the strawman in question. Anyway, I'm losing count... was that your 4th dodge? Just answer the question: what is it you don't know about about Obama?

[Duff McCartney]

This joke should read, Obama met the Founding Fathers and they said "Go get me a sandwich ###### or I'll kill you!"

[Drachen]

This joke was funny the first time I heard it about 6 or 7 years ago about Bin Laden

[coyotes_geek]

Much funnier than 72 virginians...........

BTW9aHf--co

[Stringer_Bell]

I'm glad that shitty joke didn't attribute any bullshit to Thomas Paine. He'd punk you bitches out with his common sense approach to the neccessary evil of government.

Other than that, typical slave owner behavior is to be expected in the after life?

[rjv]

where were all these founding father groupies over the last few decades with all the other crappy ass presidents ?

[Wild Cobra]

I can name one of all the founding fathers. They never believed all men are created equal, or maybe they did...they just never saw blacks as real men.
It was a comprise. The nation would have never had a ratified constitution without allowing slavery to go on. It doesn't mean all the founding fathers liked it.

[TheManFromAcme]

:lol Nonetheless, excellent joke. Nice to see it bothers you Donkey guys. Love it.

[Blake]

:lol Nonetheless, excellent joke. Nice to see it bothers you Donkey guys. Love it.

lame troll of the day :tu

[Duff McCartney]

It was a comprise. The nation would have never had a ratified constitution without allowing slavery to go on. It doesn't mean all the founding fathers liked it.

Considering that our nation is built on all men being created equal, and yet didn't acheive it until nearly 200 years after it was created, and maybe not even then, it must not have been an ideal they held very dear if they were willing to compromise.

I don't know about you, but an ideal I hold to be of the utmost importance, especially one like equality between all, is something that can never be compromised.

[TheManFromAcme]

lame troll of the day :tu

:toast Why thank you Blake but still not as lame as your plastic knowledge of things.

:lol

[spursncowboys]

It was a comprise. The nation would have never had a ratified constitution without allowing slavery to go on. It doesn't mean all the founding fathers liked it.

Don't bring logic into a bed wetting liberals mind. Just let him go around proclaiming america is a down right mean country.

[spursncowboys]

Considering that our nation is built on all men being created equal, and yet didn't acheive it until nearly 200 years after it was created, and maybe not even then, it must not have been an ideal they held very dear if they were willing to compromise.

I don't know about you, but an ideal I hold to be of the utmost importance, especially one like equality between all, is something that can never be compromised.

I am glad there were people who were able to put their ideology to the side for the benefit of 13 colonies. I wonder how the civil rights of all countries of the world would look if it weren't for our founding fathers who were able to compromise.

I guess in your small view point, all slave owners throughout history are below your morals.

Socrates, Alexander the Great, Charles Martel, Queen Elizabeth, G. Washington. None can be looked at all our world's benefits because they were not on the level of our more enlightened society. Our history should be judged on the present day moral norms.

[spursncowboys]

where were all these founding father groupies over the last few decades with all the other crappy ass presidents ?

The democrats thought they could use the over excessive spending by bush politically and when they got into office push it to the side, but they woke a sleeping giant. They are doing worse though by antagonizing these groups.

[jack sommerset]

They are doing worse though by antagonizing these groups.

Leader of the house called them NAZI's.

[Stringer_Bell]

Socrates, Alexander the Great, Charles Martel, Queen Elizabeth, G. Washington. None can be looked at all our world's benefits because they were not on the level of our more enlightened society. Our history should be judged on the present day moral norms.

Can you direct me to where Socrates is portrayed as a slave owner and/or advocate of slavery? I'm pretty sure he wasn't cool with slavery at all, but I'll give you a chance to explain. :king

[admiralsnackbar]

I am glad there were people who were able to put their ideology to the side for the benefit of 13 colonies. I wonder how the civil rights of all countries of the world would look if it weren't for our founding fathers who were able to compromise.

I guess in your small view point, all slave owners throughout history are below your morals.

Socrates, Alexander the Great, Charles Martel, Queen Elizabeth, G. Washington. None can be looked at all our world's benefits because they were not on the level of our more enlightened society. Our history should be judged on the present day moral norms.

We're all glad, but you seem to have entirely missed the point on why the issue was raised in the first place.

[spursncowboys]

I didn't miss anything. My comment was directed towards the dismissals of our founding fathers because they were slave owners.

[admiralsnackbar]

I didn't miss anything. My comment was directed towards the dismissals of our founding fathers because they were slave owners.

You did miss something because the "dismissals" were brought up as an effort to show an example of hypocrisy in the founders' plan, not to categorically condemn them, or suggest it could have been any other way.

[Winehole23]

None can be looked at all our world's benefits because they were not on the level of our more enlightened society.What, literally, does this mean?

[ChumpDumper]

If you don't deify his heroes and instead see them as men, you are an agent of Satan.

[Winehole23]

That was pretty oblique. Semantically and syntactically. But i think I get it now.

[Winehole23]

Thanks for the gloss, CD. What SnC says not always easy to decipher on a sentence by sentence basis. Maybe that was the wrong approach.

[scott]

Oh I get it... because he's a muslim!

[Duff McCartney]

Socrates, Alexander the Great, Charles Martel, Queen Elizabeth, G. Washington. None can be looked at all our world's benefits because they were not on the level of our more enlightened society. Our history should be judged on the present day moral norms.

I'm not judging them on our present day moral norms, I'm judging them on what their moral norms were. Most notably "We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal."

I didn't write that but I sure as hell believe it. They obviously didn't...or as I said before, they probably did, they just didn't see the black man as a real man.

I don't know about Socrates owning slaves, but I don't hold any of those other people in high regard. They were just men and women, nothing more and nothing less. They had flaws just like everyone else, and it shows in statements like "all men are created equal", yet still own slaves.

[Stringer_Bell]

I don't know about Socrates owning slaves, but I don't hold any of those other people in high regard. They were just men and women, nothing more and nothing less. They had flaws just like everyone else, and it shows in statements like "all men are created equal", yet still own slaves.

I'm not sure SNC will have an explaination for his inclusion of Socrates, perhaps a direct challenge can get you some attention?

[DJ Mbenga]

founding fathers: liberty for all and tyranny sucks. hey darky get back to the plantation!

[Duff McCartney]

I'm not sure SNC will have an explaination for his inclusion of Socrates, perhaps a direct challenge can get you some attention?

I think he was making a point that all the Greeks owned slaves in the house who did numerous tasks like cooking, cleaning, and all that.

[Blake]

:toast Why thank you Blake but still not as lame as your plastic knowledge of things.

:lol

what does "plastic knowledge of things" mean? :lol

sounds like a term you made up on your own. lame. :toast

[jack sommerset]

I'm glad nobody has said USA should put all black people on a boat back to Africa with a few dollars in their pockets so that they can have a better life than the one they have now. That would be racist and wrong. Shows how far this site, our country has come.:toast

[word]

Heard the joke back in 2002 when Osama bin Ladin died and was met by the same group and St. Peter says, 'Oh, I thought you said Vir-GINIANS.'

Doesn't work quite as well in your usage.

[Stringer_Bell]

Well, all I have left to say is if the Founding Fathers treated Obama likes this, I'd hate to see what would happen to GW. :(

[spursncowboys]

I'm not judging them on our present day moral norms, I'm judging them on what their moral norms were. Most notably "We hold these truths to be self evident, all men are created equal."

I didn't write that but I sure as hell believe it. They obviously didn't...or as I said before, they probably did, they just didn't see the black man as a real man.

I don't know about Socrates owning slaves, but I don't hold any of those other people in high regard. They were just men and women, nothing more and nothing less. They had flaws just like everyone else, and it shows in statements like "all men are created equal", yet still own slaves.
don't you think their morals lead them to put that in there?

[spursncowboys]

Socrates would never had become what he is to society if it weren't for Plato, who thought slavery to be a natural part of life.

[spursncowboys]

You did miss something because the "dismissals" were brought up as an effort to show an example of hypocrisy in the founders' plan, not to categorically condemn them, or suggest it could have been any other way.
My comment dealt with the alleged hypocrisy.

[Duff McCartney]

don't you think their morals lead them to put that in there?

Okay, but it probably lead them to put it in there, but not to actually follow that principle.

[Duff McCartney]

Socrates would never had become what he is to society if it weren't for Plato, who thought slavery to be a natural part of life.

So Plato thought slavery was a natural part of life? What does that have to do with what Socrates thought? They are two different people.

[spursncowboys]

Yeah I should have put Plato instead of Socrates.

[SouthernFried]

Interesting how conservatives revere the founders of this country...and leftists despise them.

"Oh...we don't despise them, but they weren't as great as you conservatives think."

Your probably right...they were much greater.

...and so it goes.

[LnGrrrR]

Interesting how conservatives revere the founders of this country...and leftists despise them.

"Oh...we don't despise them, but they weren't as great as you conservatives think."

Your probably right...they were much greater.

...and so it goes.

What's wrong with criticizing certain aspects of a leader? Are you saying it's better to blindly follow your leaders, never acknowledging their weak points?

Lincoln, for instance, was an awesome President. I still don't agree with his abandonment of habeas corpus.

[spursncowboys]

What's wrong with criticizing certain aspects of a leader? Are you saying it's better to blindly follow your leaders, never acknowledging their weak points?

Lincoln, for instance, was an awesome President. I still don't agree with his abandonment of habeas corpus.
It seems so many are completely dismissing our founding fathers, and not just being critical of them.

[LnGrrrR]

It seems so many are completely dismissing our founding fathers, and not just being critical of them.

Perhaps some do that. I personally revere peope like George Washington, and wish others would read more about his political stances.

I don't hold slavery against the Founding Fathers as much as some people do. I'm sure there's a chance that future generations will look at some of the things that OUR generation does, like the way livestock are caged/fed in meat production, that will abhor them.

[admiralsnackbar]

It seems so many are completely dismissing our founding fathers, and not just being critical of them.

So now you're back to saying people were completely dismissing them? I thought you said you understood the criticism was made in the context of the parameters Galileo set and rejected it as such. Which is it?

Does it make you mad when people laud Lincoln for freeing the slaves, but criticize the losses caused by the civil war he began? Or that Sherman was a great general, but he fucked up burning down Georgia? Nobody's perfect.

[ChumpDumper]

Interesting how conservatives revere the founders of this country...and leftists despise them.

"Oh...we don't despise them, but they weren't as great as you conservatives think."

Your probably right...they were much greater.

...and so it goes.Interesting that board conservatives are stupid overgeneralizing hypocritical idiots.



It seems so many are completely dismissing our founding fathers, and not just being critical of them.
It seems board conservatives demand that others worship those men they worship or they completely dismiss them.

...and so it goes.

[Winehole23]

This wino wonders how welcome the Holy Card-ish reverence some self-described conservatives wish to bestow, would've been to the founders .

[Duff McCartney]

Or that Sherman was a great general, but he fucked up burning down Georgia? Nobody's perfect.

Well, Sherman is far and away my favorite Civil War general. But that might be because I simply hate the South and I secretly hope to be as despised as he is in the South today, especially Atlanta.

But after the Civil War I don't look kindly on his actions of annihilating native americans.

[admiralsnackbar]

Yeah I should have put Plato instead of Socrates.

Sorry to keep breaking your balls, but unless you suddenly took up the Classics, I call BS.

Plato didn't write much on the subject for there to be much scholastic consensus on the issue of his opinion of slavery (a few things here and there in the Laws, which are easily his least influential writings) and considering you never took a logic course, I'm guessing you never took a philosophy class, either. All to say I'm almost positive you're referencing Mogrojevo's citation of Aristotle's Politics in a discussion a month or two back, not anything by Plato.

[Winehole23]

Eh, it's much easier to drop names. If challenged, deny, if that doesn't work, just cut 'n' paste. Ding fries are done.

[spursncowboys]

Eh, it's much easier to drop names. If challenged, deny, if that doesn't work, just cut 'n' paste. Ding fries are done.

Or an incoherent rant against someone you don't like instead of disagreeing with an actual position. Then when shown to be a moron, blame alcohol.

[spursncowboys]

Sorry to keep breaking your balls, but unless you suddenly took up the Classics, I call BS.

Plato didn't write much on the subject for there to be much scholastic consensus on the issue of his opinion of slavery (a few things here and there in the Laws, which are easily his least influential writings) and considering you never took a logic course, I'm guessing you never took a philosophy class, either. All to say I'm almost positive you're referencing Mogrojevo's citation of Aristotle's Politics in a discussion a month or two back, not anything by Plato.

I didn't read Mogrojevo's post or just don't remember if I am citing it. I read somewhere that by Plato's death, he had 5 slaves. Also, I thought that everything we have of plato is through socrates' writing. That is why I originally put socrates.

I found it funny that there was a college class called logic. You assumption is wrong however, I took philosophy classes, as part of my degree.

[RobinsontoDuncan]

James Madison signed a document that said black men were 3/5ths of a person

[Winehole23]

Or an incoherent rant against someone you don't like instead of disagreeing with an actual position. Then when shown to be a moron, blame alcohol.I was agreeing with AS. I don't blame alcohol for that.

And, believe it or not, I don't really dislike you. It's just what you say that drives me crazy. :toast

[admiralsnackbar]

I didn't read Mogrojevo's post or just don't remember if I am citing it. I read somewhere that by Plato's death, he had 5 slaves. Also, I thought that everything we have of plato is through socrates' writing. That is why I originally put socrates.

I found it funny that there was a college class called logic. You assumption is wrong however, I took philosophy classes, as part of my degree.

Ding!

[Galileo]

James Madison signed a document that said black men were 3/5ths of a person

No, the document says that slaves have 3/5th the economic output of free people.

[ChumpDumper]

No, the document says that slaves have 3/5th the economic output of free people.That isn't what it says at all.

[Galileo]

That isn't what it says at all.

That's where it came from, it was re-copied from the Articles of Confederation.

[ChumpDumper]

Which article?

Quote it.

[Galileo]

The blacks in Africa sold their own into slavery to North and South America. The whites never sold their own into slavery in Aftrica.

[boutons_deux]

It was common for all conquerors to enslave the conquered and rape the women.

Didn't you see Conan the Barbarian? "What doesn't kill you, makes you Mr. Universe"

[ChumpDumper]

The blacks in Africa sold their own into slavery North and South America. The whites never sold their own into slavery in Aftrica.Why did you change the subject?

Quote the Article of Confederation that says slaves have 3/5th the economic output of free people.

[Duff McCartney]

That's where it came from, it was re-copied from the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation make no mention of slavery at all.

[Galileo]

Why did you change the subject?

Quote the Article of Confederation that says slaves have 3/5th the economic output of free people.

They did not have GNP statistics in the 1780s, so they used population instead. The Founders knew slaves were less only about 60% as productive as free people. Hence, the Founders were making an economic argument to free the slaves that some states did not heed, while others did.

[Galileo]

It was common for all conquerors to enslave the conquered and rape the women.

Didn't you see Conan the Barbarian? "What doesn't kill you, makes you Mr. Universe"

That may be true, but the Europeans never sold captured whites to Africans in Africa. But the African kings sold off their own people to Europeans.

In America, we were three step better than the Europeans;

* we added our territory via purchase rather than conquest for the most part

* we did not enslave people we conquered, whether Indians or Mexicans or British.

* we did not add provinces, rather we added States that had full voting privileges. No other nation in history has done this. We can thank James Madison and the other Founding Fathers for this.

[ChumpDumper]

They did not have GNP statistics in the 1780s, so they used population instead. The Founders knew slaves were less only about 60% as productive as free people.How did they know this if they didn't have economic statistics?
Hence, the Founders were making an economic argument to free the slaves that some states did not heed, while others did.So where is it in the Articles of Confederation as you claimed?

Quote it.

[ChumpDumper]

we added our territory via purchase rather than conquest for the most part:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

[Galileo]

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

Louisiana Purchase, Florida Purchase, Gadsen Purchase, Alaska Purchase, etc.

Face.

You hate America.

[Galileo]

:rollin
How did they know this if they didn't have economic statistics?So where is it in the Articles of Confederation as you claimed?

Quote it.

The three-fifths figure was the outgrowth of a debate that had taken place within the Continental Congress in 1783. The Articles of Confederation had apportioned taxes not according to population but according to land values. The states consistently undervalued their land in order to reduce their tax burden. To rectify this situation, a special committee recommended apportioning taxes by population. The Continental Congress debated the ratio of slaves to free persons at great length. Northerners favored a 4-to-3 ratio, while southerners favored a 2-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio. Finally, James Madison suggested a compromise: a 5-to-3 ratio. All but two states--New Hampshire and Rhode Island--approved this recommendation. But because the Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement, the proposal was defeated. When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, it adopted Madison's earlier suggestion.

The taxes that the Three-Fifths Compromise dealt with were "direct" taxes, as opposed to excise or import taxes. It was not until 1798 that Congress imposed the first genuine direct taxes in American history: a tax on dwelling-houses and a tax on slaves aged 12 to 50.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=306

:rollin

[Galileo]

Oops, I forgot to mention that we added Texas without war (Texas simply voted to join us).

We added the Oregon territory via a treaty without war.

We did have a war with Mexico to add territory, but we actually paid Mexico the market value for the land. We paid $18 million for land less valuable than we paid for the Louisiana Purchase, which we paid $15 million for. And the dollar was worth more in 1848than in 1803. The the land added from Mexico was only half the size of the LA purshase and was mostly desert.

The treaty of 1818 also added some British territory.

You hate America.

[ChumpDumper]

So where is it in the Articles of Confederation as you claimed?

Quote it.

[ChumpDumper]

Oops, I forgot to mention that we added Texas without war (Texas simply voted to join us).:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rol lin

[Galileo]

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

:lmao

[Galileo]

I never said it was in the test of the AoC. I said it was from the AoC. It was agreed to by 11 States and the Continental congress.

[Galileo]

You hate America.

[Duff McCartney]

I never said it was in the test of the AoC. I said it was from the AoC.

That makes no freaking sense. If it's not in the text, then there's no way it can be from the Articles of Confederation.

If it was argued at the time, and wasn't written into the Articles of Confederation, then it's not form the Articles of Confederation. If it was written in there, then where is it?

Either way I don't think your argument holds any weight.

[Duff McCartney]

Louisiana Purchase, Florida Purchase, Gadsen Purchase, Alaska Purchase, etc.

Face.

You hate America.

RE: Florida Purchase

"While fighting escaped African-American slaves, outlaws and Native Americans in U.S.-controlled Georgia during the First Seminole War, Andrew Jackson had pursued them into Spanish Florida, but at the same time, he attacked and captured Spanish forts in Florida that he felt were assisting the raids into American territory."

This was in 1819 the same year the U.S. "purchased" the Florida territory from Spain. Hardly a cut and dry case of purchase rather than conquest.

[Galileo]

The AoC created the Confederation congress. The Confederation congress agreed upon the 3/5 rule as a sustitute value for wealth. 11 of the State legislatures then agreed as well by 1787.

That is where the 3/5 rule came from. Deal with it. All it meant was that the Founding Fathers believed that slaves were 60% as productive as free people. This is one reason why the slaves were freed and anti-slavery societies were formed during the Industrial Revolution.

[Duff McCartney]

That may be true, but the Europeans never sold captured whites to Africans in Africa. But the African kings sold off their own people to Europeans.

In America, we were three step better than the Europeans;

* we added our territory via purchase rather than conquest for the most part

* we did not enslave people we conquered, whether Indians or Mexicans or British.

* we did not add provinces, rather we added States that had full voting privileges. No other nation in history has done this. We can thank James Madison and the other Founding Fathers for this.

No they didn't conquer the lands, rather they settled them, forced the people who were on the land originally off of it. Rather than enslave them, the United States constantly marginalized them and rescinded on the treaties and land they gave them.

Spare me about holding us up like some champion of freedom for slavery. We may not have enslaved Africans, but it's not like we freed them either. We didn't buy them to give them their freedom, we bought them, treated them like shit, held them as unequal to the white man, freed them, continued to treat them like shit and try to revert them back to a position that resembled slavery, then gave them equal rights, they still aren't equal in many ways.

[Duff McCartney]

The AoC created the Confederation congress. The Confederation congress agreed upon the 3/5 rule as a sustitute value for wealth. 11 of the State legislatures then agreed as well by 1787.

That is where the 3/5 rule came from. Deal with it. All it meant was that the Founding Fathers believed that slaves were 60% as productive as free people. This is one reason why the slaves were freed and anti-slavery societies were formed during the Industrial Revolution.

Bullshit. You didn't say it was created from the Confederation Congress. You said it was copied from the Articles of Confederation which it clearly, by your own admission is not. The AoC make no mention of slavery nor of 3/5ths of people. The Congress might have made that rule, but the AoC does not.

[Galileo]

No they didn't conquer the lands, rather they settled them, forced the people who were on the land originally off of it. Rather than enslave them, the United States constantly marginalized them and rescinded on the treaties and land they gave them.

Spare me about holding us up like some champion of freedom for slavery. We may not have enslaved Africans, but it's not like we freed them either. We didn't buy them to give them their freedom, we bought them, treated them like shit, held them as unequal to the white man, freed them, continued to treat them like shit and try to revert them back to a position that resembled slavery, then gave them equal rights, they still aren't equal in many ways.

You are moving the goalposts. In Eurpoe, Asia and Africa, all new land was added by military conquest, not by "settling".

Most of the land settled in the US didn't have anyone living there anyway. It was vacant land. So stop bitching about it.

[ChumpDumper]

:rollin

The three-fifths figure was the outgrowth of a debate that had taken place within the Continental Congress in 1783. The Articles of Confederation had apportioned taxes not according to population but according to land values. The states consistently undervalued their land in order to reduce their tax burden. To rectify this situation, a special committee recommended apportioning taxes by population. The Continental Congress debated the ratio of slaves to free persons at great length. Northerners favored a 4-to-3 ratio, while southerners favored a 2-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio. Finally, James Madison suggested a compromise: a 5-to-3 ratio. All but two states--New Hampshire and Rhode Island--approved this recommendation. But because the Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement, the proposal was defeated. When the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, it adopted Madison's earlier suggestion.

The taxes that the Three-Fifths Compromise dealt with were "direct" taxes, as opposed to excise or import taxes. It was not until 1798 that Congress imposed the first genuine direct taxes in American history: a tax on dwelling-houses and a tax on slaves aged 12 to 50.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=306

:rollinThis has nothing at all to do with relative economic production.

And it proves there is nothing about it in the Articles of Confederation since it was based on land values.

That's a double fail for you.

Good work. :tu

[Duff McCartney]

You are moving the goalposts. In Eurpoe, Asia and Africa, all new land was added by military conquest, not by "settling".

Most of the land settled in the US didn't have anyone living there anyway. It was vacant land. So stop bitching about it.

Vacant land? Where was it vacant land? You're saying half the United States was vacant?

I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm simply stating that nowhere was the U.S. acquisition of land any kind of peaceful purchase like you so claim and that our founding fathers were altruistic men, when their record indicates otherwise.

[Galileo]

RE: Florida Purchase

"While fighting escaped African-American slaves, outlaws and Native Americans in U.S.-controlled Georgia during the First Seminole War, Andrew Jackson had pursued them into Spanish Florida, but at the same time, he attacked and captured Spanish forts in Florida that he felt were assisting the raids into American territory."

This was in 1819 the same year the U.S. "purchased" the Florida territory from Spain. Hardly a cut and dry case of purchase rather than conquest.

You do know that in 1819, people were in the process of breaking free of the Spanish Empire. We bought Florida from Spain. Mexico just said fuck you to Spain and became free in 1821.

You also make a big deal about some forts, but forget to mention that hardly anyone lived in Florida in 1819. It did not become a state until 1845, long after all the surrounding states.

The fact is, most of the people in Florida in 1819 wanted nothing to do with the Spansh Empire. So fuck you and your fucked up history, you don't know shit. The people there wanted to be part of the world's only democratic republic.

[Galileo]

This has nothing at all to do with relative economic production.

And it proves there is nothing about it in the Articles of Confederation since it was based on land values.

That's a double fail for you.

Good work. :tu

FAIL. You just hate the Founding Fathers of our nation.

[Galileo]

Vacant land? Where was it vacant land? You're saying half the United States was vacant?

I'm not moving the goal posts, I'm simply stating that nowhere was the U.S. acquisition of land any kind of peaceful purchase like you so claim and that our founding fathers were altruistic men, when their record indicates otherwise.

Look at the earth from a satellite. Most land in the US today is still vacant. Your claim is false, most US land was gained by purchase or peaceful treaty unlike in Europe, Africa, or Asia. And the people in the added land were given voting rights. Everywhere else in history, people were put into non-voting provinces. You just hate the Framers of the US Constitution.

[Duff McCartney]

You do know that in 1819, people were in the process of breaking free of the Spanish Empire. We bought Florida from Spain. Mexico just said fuck you to Spain and became free in 1821.

You also make a big deal about some forts, but forget to mention that hardly anyone lived in Florida in 1819. It did not become a state until 1845, long after all the surrounding states.

The fact is, most of the people in Florida in 1819 wanted nothing to do with the Spansh Empire. So fuck you and your fucked up history, you don't know shit. The people there wanted to be part of the world's only democratic republic.

Democratic republic...that at the time only offered democracy to white land owning men.

There was a significant Seminole population during that time. I'm pretty sure they didn't exclusively want to be part of the United States, they just wanted to break from Spain.

[Duff McCartney]

And the people in the added land were given voting rights.

Except the Mexicans, Indians, Blacks, Asians, and Mormons.

[Galileo]

Except the Mexicans, Indians, Blacks, Asians, and Mormons.

So you are saying provinces get to vote? Provinces in the British, French, and Spanish empire did not get to vote. Provinces in the Roman empire did not vote. Nor provinces in the USSR or the Assyrian Empire or the Babylonian empire or the Persian empire or the empre of Alexander the Great.

Only in the US did new STATES get to vote.

If you do not understand this, then you are stupid.

[Galileo]

Democratic republic...that at the time only offered democracy to white land owning men.

There was a significant Seminole population during that time. I'm pretty sure they didn't exclusively want to be part of the United States, they just wanted to break from Spain.

A lot of Indians assimulated into American society. The ones who didn't are the same people who refused to learn modern techniques of agriculture and how to read and write. These are the Indians that the liberal media focuses on.

There is nothing in the Constitution that denies anyone from voting.

[ChumpDumper]

FAIL. You just hate the Founding Fathers of our nation.Nah, I just know that the 3/5 clause wasn't based on economic productivity and nothing even close to a 3/5 clause appears in the Articles of Confederation.

You proved both.

:tu

[Blake]

So fuck you and your fucked up history, you don't know shit.

:rollin

that's funny coming from one of the bigger conspiracy hacks around here.

[Galileo]

Nah, I just know that the 3/5 clause wasn't based on economic productivity and nothing even close to a 3/5 clause appears in the Articles of Confederation.

You proved both.

:tu

It was in an amendment to the Articles of Confederation that was awaiting two more states approval when the Constitutional Convention happened. I already posted a source for this.

Here is another source:


The three-fifths ratio was not a new concept. It originated with a 1783 amendment proposed to the Articles of Confederation. The amendment was to have changed the basis for determining the wealth of each state, and hence its tax obligations, from real estate to population, as a measure of ability to produce wealth. The proposal by a committee of the Congress had suggested that taxes "shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, except Indians not paying taxes."[1][2] The South immediately objected to this formula since it would include slaves, who were viewed primarily as property, in calculating the amount of taxes to be paid. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his notes on the debates, the southern states would be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the northern would be taxed on numbers only."[3]

After proposed compromises of 1⁄2 by Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and 3⁄4 by several New Englanders failed to gain sufficient support, Congress finally settled on the 3⁄5 ratio proposed by James Madison.[4] But this amendment ultimately failed, falling two states short of the unanimous approval required for amending the Articles of Confederation (only New Hampshire and New York were opposed).

The proposed ratio was, however, a ready solution to the impasse that arose during the Constitutional Convention. In that situation, the alignment of the contending forces was the reverse of what had obtained under the Articles of Confederation. In amending the Articles, the North wanted slaves to count for more than the South did, because the objective was to determine taxes paid by the states to the federal government. In the Constitutional Convention, the more important issue was representation in Congress, so the South wanted slaves to count for more than the North did

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise

[Galileo]

:rollin

that's funny coming from one of the bigger conspiracy hacks around here.

Strange, since you think the Founding Fathers hatched a giant left wing conspiracy.

[ChumpDumper]

It was in an amendment to the Articles of Confederation that was awaiting two more states approval when the Constitutional Convention happened. I already posted a source for this.

Here is another source:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-fifths_compromiseSo once again you proved it wasn't in the Articles of Confederation and it had nothing to do with the economic productivity of slaves compared to free men.

:tu again

[Galileo]

So once again you proved it wasn't in the Articles of Confederation and it had nothing to do with the economic productivity of slaves compared to free men.

:tu again

I just proved it and you are too stupid to understand it.

[Duff McCartney]

Only in the US did new STATES get to vote.

Except if you were a mexican, indian, black, asian, or mormon living in these states.

[Blake]

Strange, since you think the Founding Fathers hatched a giant left wing conspiracy.

I never said or inferred such a thing.

More lies.

[Winehole23]

It amazes me the way some posters will flail around in a frenzy, sometimes for days on end, rather than admit some obvious mistake or misstatement.

[Galileo]

Except if you were a mexican, indian, black, asian, or mormon living in these states.

Each State enjoyed self-government. I am not talking about people, I am talking about States being represented in the central government.

The British Empire did not allow provinces to vote no matter what color the people there were.

You are a total idiot of you don't understand this, and even a bigger idiot if you think people had it better under an empire.

[Galileo]

It amazes me the way some posters will flail around in a frenzy, sometimes for days on end, rather than admit some obvious mistake or misstatement.

Arguing with the Chumper is like arguing with someone that has only 60% of a brain.

:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

James Madison never freed any of the human beings he owned.

He never gave them the vote either.

[Galileo]

James Madison never freed any of the human beings he owned.

He never gave them the vote either.

The Constitution allows blacks to vote. You are a liar.

[Blake]

The Constitution allows blacks to vote. You are a liar.

Thanks to the 15th amendment.

[Galileo]

Thanks to the 15th amendment.

No, the Constitution allowed them to vote from the very beginning.

[Blake]

No, the Constitution allowed them to vote from the very beginning.

Then why the need for the 15th amendment?

[Galileo]

Then why the need for the 15th amendment?

Because some of the States didn't allow them to vote.

[ChumpDumper]

The Constitution allows blacks to vote. You are a liar.Then why weren't Madison's slaves allowed to vote?

[Galileo]

Then why weren't Madison's slaves allowed to vote?

James Madison didn't own the slaves. His mother and father owned them. You'd have to ask them.

[Blake]

Because some of the States didn't allow them to vote.

Does the Constitution specifically say 'Blacks are allowed to vote', or are you trying to play a semantics game?

[Duff McCartney]

Even the federal government didn't allow certain people the right to vote and it had nothing to do with states rights. It's laughable that Galileo claims the Constitution gave blacks the right to vote when it's obvious it didn't.

The Edmunds-Tucker Act barred any Mormon that practiced polygamy from voting. Disenfranchising Mormons. Nothing to do with states rights because Utah was not a state.

And James Madison absolutely owned slaves. They were his not his parents. His plantation

[Duff McCartney]

James Madison didn't own the slaves. His mother and father owned them. You'd have to ask them.

Madison owned 100 slaves inherited from his parents along with the plantation in Montpelier. Which he didn't free either.

[Galileo]

Does the Constitution specifically say 'Blacks are allowed to vote', or are you trying to play a semantics game?

You are playing games. The States created the Constitution. The Constitution can only do what it says it can do. It doesn't say the Constitution can ban blacks from voting, so they can't do it.

[Galileo]

Madison owned 100 slaves inherited from his parents along with the plantation in Montpelier. Which he didn't free either.

His wife was supposed to free them when she died. When Madison died, he didn't own the slaves, his wife Dolley Madison owned them.

[Blake]

You are playing games. The States created the Constitution. The Constitution can only do what it says it can do. It doesn't say the Constitution can ban blacks from voting, so they can't do it.

So you are saying that because the Constitution didn't specifically ban Blacks from voting that, in effect, it allowed them too.

You are the one playing the game, and losing miserably at it.

[Blake]

His wife was supposed to free them when she died. When Madison died, he didn't own the slaves, his wife Dolley Madison owned them.

so when he asked one of his wife's slaves for a glass of water, they said that the constitution allowed them to say no.

[Galileo]

Madison owned 100 slaves inherited from his parents along with the plantation in Montpelier. Which he didn't free either.

Madison's mom did not die until 1829, at which time James Madison was 80 years old and widely believed to be senile, and his much younger wife ran the household.

[Galileo]

So you are saying that because the Constitution didn't specifically ban Blacks from voting that, in effect, it allowed them too.

You are the one playing the game, and losing miserably at it.

So you are saying the Constitution doesn't allow whites to vote? Show me where it says that whites can vote in the Constitution.

You are playing mumbo-jumbo word games.

[Galileo]

so when he asked one of his wife's slaves for a glass of water, they said that the constitution allowed them to say no.

Democracy is what allowed slavery. In the beginning they voted, the whites voted to enslave the blacks and the blacks voted against this. Since the whites won the election, they enslaved the blacks. So if you support democracy, then you support slavery.

[Blake]

So you are saying the Constitution doesn't allow whites to vote? Show me where it says that whites can vote in the Constitution.

You are playing mumbo-jumbo word games.

Next, show me where it doesn't allow dogs to vote.

You are playing word games, trying to be clever but instead you are failing.

You are stupid on many different levels.

[Blake]

Democracy is what allowed slavery. In the beginning they voted, the whites voted to enslave the blacks and the blacks voted against this. Since the whites won the election, they enslaved the blacks. So if you support democracy, then you support slavery.

you are a student of logical fallacies. :tu

[Galileo]

Next, show me where it doesn't allow dogs to vote.

You are playing word games, trying to be clever but instead you are failing.

You are stupid on many different levels.

No, you are too stupid to understand them basic concept of delegated powers behind the US Constitution. You probably went to a public school.

:lmao

[Galileo]

you are a student of logical fallacies. :tu

You are defender of democratic slavery.

[Blake]

No, you are too stupid to understand them basic concept of delegated powers behind the US Constitution. You probably went to a public school.

:lmao

More logical fallacy. :tu

[Blake]

You are defender of democratic slavery.

Poor conclusion, more fail. :tu

[Galileo]

More logical fallacy. :tu

Show me in the Constitution where it says black people can't vote.

You are a liar.

[Galileo]

Poor conclusion, more fail. :tu

You are a racist that hates America. And you know nothing about the US Constitution. You're probably a democratic socialist.

[Blake]

Show me in the Constitution where it says black people can't vote.

You are a liar.

I never said the Constitution stated that Blacks can't vote.

You are the liar, liar.


The Constitution allows blacks to vote.

Where?

[Blake]

You are a racist that hates America. And you know nothing about the US Constitution. You're probably a democratic socialist.

more logical fail. :tu

you probably believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

[Galileo]

Where?

You still don't get it, do you?

[Galileo]

more logical fail. :tu

you probably believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy.

9/11 was not a conspiracy, it was an inside job.

[Winehole23]

Arguing with the Chumper is like arguing with someone that has only 60% of a brain.

:lmaoI was talking about you.

[spursncowboys]

No, the Constitution allowed them to vote from the very beginning.

good point.

[Blake]

You still don't get it, do you?

The color of a person's skin is not mentioned when it comes to voting in the Constitution before the 15th Amendment.

Since it's not strictly prohibited, you are saying it has been allowed all along.

I've gotten it for a while now, but since you asked me to point out where it states that Blacks can't vote, I figured I would do the same since it's you that's actually making a claim.

You are trying to play with semantics and you are coming across as a huge fail, liar. :tu

[Blake]

9/11 was not a conspiracy, it was an inside job.

cool story. :tu

[LnGrrrR]

The Constitution allows me to rape people, since it doesn't explicitly deny it.

[ChumpDumper]

The Constitution allows me to rape people, since it doesn't explicitly deny it.
good point.

[Galileo]

The Constitution allows me to rape people, since it doesn't explicitly deny it.

Now you are catching on. Yes, you correct, rape is a crime under state law. The Constitution does not force the States to pass these laws.

[ChumpDumper]

The Constitution allowed James Madison to own his 100 slaves and never free them or let them vote.

[Blake]

Now you are catching on. Yes, you correct, rape is a crime under state law. The Constitution does not force the States to pass these laws.

but it does not mean it allows for it. It simply doesn't address it.

It's why you fail and are a liar.

[Galileo]

but it does not mean it allows for it. It simply doesn't address it.

It's why you fail and are a liar.

No, it does allow it. In fact, there is a long history of laws which state that a husband can not legally rape his wife.

[Blake]

No, it does allow it.

absence =/= allowance

you're an idiot.

[Galileo]

absence =/= allowance

you're an idiot.

depends on the context, too complicated for you to understand.

Basically, the Constitution alows the States to do anything that is not prohibited by the text of the Constitution.

[Blake]

depends on the context, too complicated for you to understand.

Basically, the Constitution alows the States to do anything that is not prohibited by the text of the Constitution.

You are still trying to play a semantics game and you continue to fail.

Pretty simple.

[Galileo]

You are still trying to play a semantics game and you continue to fail.

Pretty simple.

You're the one playing semantics. Either that or you have trouble understanding the English language.

[TheProfessor]

I'm not certain how your line of reasoning accounts for Marbury v. Madison, Hunter's Lessee, and Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution sublimating state interpretations. The states do not have carte blanche to do as they will when the Constitution does not explicitly deny something.

[Duff McCartney]

I'm not certain how your line of reasoning accounts for Marbury v. Madison, Hunter's Lessee, and Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution sublimating state interpretations. The states do not have carte blanche to do as they will when the Constitution does not explicitly deny something.

Don't try to use logic and reason, because as we all know, everyone except Galileo hates the founding fathers.

[Galileo]

I'm not certain how your line of reasoning accounts for Marbury v. Madison, Hunter's Lessee, and Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution sublimating state interpretations. The states do not have carte blanche to do as they will when the Constitution does not explicitly deny something.

The States can let black people vote if they want to. The Constitution allows them to do it. It has been this way since 1788.

I already said the States can do anything unless they are prohibited from doing so by the Constitution, so citing court cases just makes my argument.

[Blake]

The Constitution allows blacks to vote. You are a liar.


The States can let black people vote if they want to. The Constitution allows them to do it.

If a state prohibits Blacks from voting, then it is because the Constitution did not make a specific allowance for Blacks to vote as you clearly suggested.

You are the liar and you are losing at whatever semantics game you are trying to play.

Liar.

[Galileo]

More facts about the 3/5th rule:

* the rule was cut in conjunction with the continental congress outlawing slavery in the Northwest territory. This vast territory includes present day Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and most of Minnesota. In 1787, slavery was outlawed here. This was at a time when slavery was all over the world for thousands of years.

* the deal also gave each state 2 votes in the Senate.

Since the northern states tended to be smaller, this gave the northern states more clout in congress and in the Electoral College.

Small states like New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and Connecticut got two Senators. Massachusetts was considered a big state at the time, but was landlocked and would eventually become small. Vermont and Maine were not yet states, but had their own local governments that had been pushing for inevitable statehood for years. New York at the time of the Constitution was only of average population. Mid-states like Delaware and Maryland, although they had slavery, were very small and had a weaker slavery component (and they are quite northern). Georgia, a southern slave state, although low in population had huge room to grow and would eventually become a large state. Virginia, the largest state, had a western group of anti-slavers and West Virginia eventually became a new state as well with 2 Senators. North Carolina was not a big state but had huge expansion possibilities in the West. South Carolina was a large state at the time, one of the biggest by population.

Other areas that were being settled at the time were Kentucky (which was too far north to ever have many slaves), Tennessee (which only had moderate slavery), and the NW territories, especially Ohio which never had slavery.

Everything about the 2 votes per state rule went against the slave holders.

The Founding Fathers stacked the deck against slavery in the Senate and in the NW territory.

The Senate also had many powers not found in the House, including ratifying treaties, and confirming cabinet positions, ambassadors, and federal judges (including the Suprem Court).

And on top of it all, the 3/5 rule provided an incentive to free slaves as each state got more clout in congress and in the Electoral College if they freed them.

Yet the nutjob leftist racists do not see this.

[TheProfessor]

I already said the States can do anything unless they are prohibited from doing so by the Constitution, so citing court cases just makes my argument.
I believe you are conflating the text of the Constitution with its interpretation by the Supreme Court.

[Galileo]

If a state prohibits Blacks from voting, then it is because the Constitution did not make a specific allowance for Blacks to vote as you clearly suggested.

You are the liar and you are losing at whatever semantics game you are trying to play.

Liar.

If that happens, it is not the fault of the Constitution, it is the fault of the State. The Constitution allows blacks to vote. You are a lying sack of shit.

:blah

[Galileo]

I believe you are conflating the text of the Constitution with its interpretation by the Supreme Court.

That's a fair statement, but the Supreme court is supposed to follow the text of the Constitution. If they don't, it is the fault of the Court, not of the Constitution.

[ChumpDumper]

So the Constitution allowed and codified slavery, which James Madison liked this since he never freed even one of the hundred slaves he owned and his state only had to pay 3/5 of the taxes on them they did for free men.

[Galileo]

So the Constitution allowed and codified slavery, which James Madison liked this since he never freed even one of the hundred slaves he owned and his state only had to pay 3/5 of the taxes on them they did for free men.

No, the Constitution allowed the slave states to free their slaves. All of the northern states did it, and most slaves were freed in the border states. James Madison was stuck in Virginia which wouldn't free their slaves.

Madison treid to get it done, they had a big debate over it in 1829/1830 at the Virginia Constitutional convention over Madison's objections, and then in the Virginia legislature in 1832 over the objections of Madison's followers.

[TheProfessor]

That's a fair statement, but the Supreme court is supposed to follow the text of the Constitution. If they don't, it is the fault of the Court, not of the Constitution.
Perhaps. You'd get very different descriptions from Thomas or Scalia versus O'Connor or Stephens on what that text actually means, or how widely interpretive penumbras emanate. The Constitution is subject to the whims of any 5-4 decision at any time. Just look at Citizens United - decades of precedent reversed for seemingly no reason, other than transparent political machinations. And this current Court is supposed to be the non-activist, textually committed one.

[Galileo]

Perhaps. You'd get very different descriptions from Thomas or Scalia versus O'Connor or Stephens on what that text actually means, or how widely interpretive penumbras emanate. The Constitution is subject to the whims of any 5-4 decision at any time. Just look at Citizens United - decades of precedent reversed for seemingly no reason, other than transparent political machinations. And this current Court is supposed to be the non-activist, textually committed one.

Galileo follows this method:

Read the plain language of the text and consult the Founding Fathers for gray areas.

[ChumpDumper]

No, the Constitution allowed the slave states to free their slaves. All of the northern states did it, and most slaves were freed in the border states. James Madison was stuck in Virginia which wouldn't free their slaves.

Madison treid to get it done, they had a big debate over it in 1829/1830 at the Virginia Constitutional convention over Madison's objections, and then in the Virginia legislature in 1832 over the objections of Madison's followers.He could have sold all his slaves to a person in a state which allowed the freeing of slaves.

He didn't.

James Madison kept about 100 slaves to his death, never freeing any of them.

[Galileo]

He could have sold all his slaves to a person in a state which allowed the freeing of slaves.

He didn't.

James Madison kept about 100 slaves to his death, never freeing any of them.

That's what eventually happened. His wife Dolley Madison left slaves for her kid, who left them for Daniel Webster, who freed them. It wasn't easy to free slaves in Virginia back in those days leading up to the Civl War, because of the anti-slave crack-down after the Nat Turner revolt.

[ChumpDumper]

That's what eventually happened. His wife Dolley Madison left slaves for her kid, who left them for Daniel Webster, who freed them. It wasn't easy to free slaves in Virginia back in those days leading up to the Civl War, because of the anti-slave crack-down after the Nat Turner revolt.So thanks for confirming that James Madison kept 100 slaves and chose not to free them.

[Blake]

The Constitution allows blacks to vote. You are a lying sack of shit.

:blah

In that respect, until the 15th amendment, it also allowed for laws against Blacks voting. To throw it out there in this manner is misleading and a terrible play at a semantics game.

You are the lying sack of shit, lying sack of shit.

:blah :blah

[Galileo]

In that respect, until the 15th amendment, it also allowed for laws against Blacks voting. To throw it out there in this manner is misleading and a terrible play at a semantics game.

You are the lying sack of shit, lying sack of shit.

:blah :blah

You still don't understand the concept of delegation of powers. Blacks were voting for years in northern states before the 15th amendment because the Constitution allows them to vote.

You simply can't understand the difference between the word "allow" and require".

I can't tell if you are a liberal or a neocon, but whatever you are, you are an idiot.

:lol

[Blake]

James Madison didn't own the slaves.


James Madison kept about 100 slaves to his death, never freeing any of them.


That's what eventually happened.

you are a lying sack of shit, lying sack of shit.

:blah :blah

[Blake]

You still don't understand the concept of delegation of powers. Blacks were voting for years in northern states before the 15th amendment because the Constitution allows them to vote.

Wrong. The states allowed them to vote.


You simply can't understand the difference between the word "allow" and require".

You are simply misusing the the word "allow" in this context.

The Constitution does not explicitly ensure the right to vote.

It's a misleading statement on your part and a stupid play with words that ends in nothing but fail.


I can't tell if you are a liberal or a neocon, but whatever you are, you are an idiot.

:lol

I don't care if you are a liberal, neocon or a twoofer. There is no doubt that you are the idiot in this thread and it started with a horrible joke with racial overtures.

:lol :lol

[Galileo]

Wrong. The states allowed them to vote.



You are simply misusing the the word "allow" in this context.

The Constitution does not explicitly ensure the right to vote.

It's a misleading statement on your part and a stupid play with words that ends in nothing but fail.



I don't care if you are a liberal, neocon or a twoofer. There is no doubt that you are the idiot in this thread and it started with a horrible joke with racial overtures.

:lol :lol

If smoking is allowed at a restaurant, it is not ensured. I said the Constitution allows blacks to vote.

If a state allows smoking in bars, that does not mean every bar will permit smoking.

Face, you hate America, you hate the Founding Fathers, you hate George Washington & James Madison, you hate the Constitution; you love big brother and you love Obama.

If you were offended by the joke, that makes you an easily offended liberal.

:downspin:

[Winehole23]

I guess it wouldn't really be a sweet, sweet heaven if you were forbidden to torture your enemies.

[Winehole23]

Wouldn't be as funny either. Ha ha.

[Winehole23]

Good one.

[Winehole23]

Even heaven cannot contain the risen Patriots. They burst its bounds and roam to wreak havoc from the gates of heaven down to earth, to persecute their enemies again.

[Winehole23]

Tribal motif of fierceness, modulated by wounded honor (outrage). Expressed as just (or otherwise expedient) (or otherwise *sportive (http://dictionary.die.net/sportive)* and facetious) sadism.

Perh. related to the cult of the heroic grimace, only much more demonstratively. Holding your mouth just right isn't as important as making the poor bastard suffer.

[Winehole23]

Haw haw haw.

[Winehole23]

If we're not good, our angel ancestors may trample us underfoot at the gates of paradise just like they did Obama.

[Winehole23]

It's a stern lesson for the youngsters too. Don't forget the propaedeutic (http://dictionary.die.net/propaedeutic)angle, G.

[Winehole23]

Serious teaching opportunity, dude.

[Winehole23]

A sadistically-tinged death fantasy about the sitting President, funny?

The question should be: what's not funny about that? :rollin

[Winehole23]

Hee hee hee, haw haw haw.

[Winehole23]

Against all odds, you bombed. With material like that I can't really grasp how you failed, Galileo. Your effort here was not worthy of the greats, though it mentioned many of them.

[Winehole23]

It certainly wasn't for any lack of namedropping that you crashed and burned.

[Winehole23]

For me the *merry/facetious* malice seems more real than pretended. Just saying. It kinda blows up the joke, for everyone who's not already in on it -- but maybe the OP intended all along to create the division, like a shibboleth (http://dictionary.die.net/shibboleth), or a dog whistle.

[Winehole23]

Too bad nobody cared and there wasn't really any controversy. None that I could detect anyway. Mostly a bunch of huffy throat clearing and hand waving.

[Winehole23]

For me the funniest thing about it was George Washington contented himself with a face slap.