Obama died and met our Founding Fathers

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/...Yes&SortBy=ASC

:lmao

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

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

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...

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

Quote:

---

72 Virginians will be waiting up on you at the gates of heaven...

---

Or did he say:

Quote:

---

...in heaven?

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

:lol

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

"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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DUNCANownsKOBE

One day, someone like Galileo will find himself in control of nuclear weapons.

---

Very, very low on this wino's list of worries.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

Keep shifting the goalposts, buddy. :lol

Meanwhile, you haven't answered my question.

---

All you do is beat the strawman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheManFromAcme

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

---

lame troll of the day :tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

lame troll of the day :tu

---

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

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjv

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

They are doing worse though by antagonizing these groups.

---

Leader of the house called them NAZI's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

Quote:

---

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?

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

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stringer_Bell

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheManFromAcme

: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

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

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.

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. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duff McCartney

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Yeah I should have put Plato instead of Socrates.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Interesting that board conservatives are stupid overgeneralizing hypocritical idiots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by admiralsnackbar

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobinsontoDuncan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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

---

That isn't what it says at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That isn't what it says at all.

---

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

Which article?

Quote it.

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

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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"

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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

---

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

Face.

You hate America.

:rollin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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/doc...p2.cfm?doc=306

:rollin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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

Quote it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

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

---

:lmao

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.

You hate America.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

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.