On 07/09/2015 03:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

Which amendment made slavery legal?


Slavery is alive and well.

Those of us that work are slaves to the wealthy overlords.
We are also a slaves to all lazy democrats we support.
Damn, no wonder I'm so tired.

On 7/9/2015 11:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/9/2015 7:01 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article , Muggles
of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


Which amendment made slavery legal?

who said it was an amendment that made it legal?


You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


It's been a while since I read the Bill of
Rights. Would you please tell the class which
of the first ten mentioned slavery?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/10/2015 5:21 AM, R. P. McMurphy wrote:
On 07/09/2015 03:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

Which amendment made slavery legal?


Slavery is alive and well.

Those of us that work are slaves to the wealthy overlords.
We are also a slaves to all lazy democrats we support.
Damn, no wonder I'm so tired.



Your narrow opinion. Don't want to work for the wealthy overlord? Start
your own business and become one of them. If that does not suit your
lifestyle, live off the land. Hunt, trap, raise some crops. Cut down
some trees and make a cabin. No reason for anyone in the US to be
beholding to anyone else.

Takes some balls to do either of those options.

I work for a business owner. I still don't feel as though I'm a slave.
He needs me as much as I need him. He pays me a good wage for what I
do, enough that I won't just leave. I have that choice though, unlike a
slave.

Muggles writes:

On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/9/2015 7:01 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article , Muggles
wrote:



Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
3About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.2

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping
about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


Which amendment made slavery legal?

who said it was an amendment that made it legal?


You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?

Here is an example (first article section 2d):

€œRepresentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of
years, and including Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other
persons.€œ

A Google search for "constitution slavery" is educational.

The Bill of Rights are where our "rights" come from.
They failed to protect a large segment of our population.
If fact, we are still dealing with various minorities.

--
Dan Espen

On 7/10/2015 4:21 AM, R. P. McMurphy wrote:
On 07/09/2015 03:03 PM, Muggles wrote:

Which amendment made slavery legal?


Slavery is alive and well.

Those of us that work are slaves to the wealthy overlords.
We are also a slaves to all lazy democrats we support.
Damn, no wonder I'm so tired.



Hadn't thought of that. It explains why I'm so exhausted all the time.

--
Maggie

On 7/10/2015 7:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

--
Maggie

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 7:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

--
Maggie


When The Constitution was drafted, it was ambiguous on the subject of slavery even though many of the framers were abolitionists and wanted The Constitution to prohibit slavery. If The Constitution had prohibited slavery, none of the Southern colonies that had large numbers of slaves would have ratified The Constitution and there would have been no United States. The information is easy to find on the Interweb but you'll need to go to several sites in order to filter out the spin different sides will put on history. When a large number of sources present the same information the same way, it's usually much closer to the truth. I found a YouTube video that will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:59:18 -0500, Muggles wrote:

The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

You have to go way back to American colonial law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Slavery_in_American_colonial_la w

See also Slave Codes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

And Black Codes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29

Finally, The 13th and 14th Amendments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:05:01 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:04:14 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:37:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

--
Maggie

+1

I said before what my solution is. Get govt out of this altogether.
You should be able to refuse service today to anyone, for any reason.
I can see the need for outlawing discrimination 50 years ago, when
blacks were denied access to most lodging, had separate counters for
food service, had to ride the back of the (public) bus. It was widespread.
Therefore I can see a valid reason for the govt to step in. Today,
the situation is totally reversed. It's not like 90% of bakers won't
bake you a gay wedding cake. In fact, almost all will, the few that
have moral or religious objections generally have been where they don't
want to help cater at a gay wedding. That is exactly the case in Oregon.
And you have the other 99% of bakers that will do it anyway. So, there
is no widespread problem of unfairness that needs to be fixed and the
heavy handed solution is far worse than the minimal problem.

So, let businesses do what they want. If you want to deny service
to gays, Latinos, blacks, Jews, whatever, I say it's your right.
Expect that most of your other customers would evaluate what you're
doing and most of them would probably be offended and take their
business somewhere else. You could also expect the arrival of
protesters disrupting your business, people calling for boycotts,
lots of negative publicity, etc. In other words, very, very few
businesses are going to do it. And those that do, so what.

What is far worse, is the "solution". In Oregon a couple owns a
bakery. They have gay customers, have sold them cakes, etc. Along
comes a gay couple that wanted them to help cater their wedding,
actually being at the wedding. They declined for religious reasons.
The govt went after them, hit them with a $130K fine. And if that
isn't bad enough, the court put a gag order on them. They came up
with a list of speech from interviews where they voiced their opinions
that they didn't think being gay was moral, etc. The court actually
*banned* them from saying any similar things in the future.

Folks, it's getting really, really scary......


Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.

Stick to the facts. The case was not about serving blacks.
It was a couple who owned a bakery refusing to be at a gay
wedding reception. They had served the gay customers in the
past, at their bakery location, with no objections.

Now you tell me which is worse. The couple excercising their
religious freedom by not providing, delivering the cake to
the wedding, or what the court did? The "court" in
addition to fining them $130K, applied a gag
order on the couple, telling them that they can't give TV
interviews, talk to the media and say things like "We believe
homosexuality is immoral. The gay couple can find plenty of
other bakers to provide their cake. Where do the bakers find
free speech. This is so horrific, but it is a good example of
where the lib concept of either you're politically correct,
regardless of your religious beliefs, or we will destroy you.

$130K fines and gag orders that are obiously a violation
of the first amendment for two bakers. The San Francisco
lib politicians are violating US immigration law, harboring
illegal felons, resulting in the death of that 32 year old
woman. What's the penalty for them? There is none. That
is the sad state of justice today.

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:03:22 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:37:02 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/8/2015 3:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:51:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic


Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day



2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.



How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

No the race argument isn't moot. You want religious belief to be able
to be able to trump the law. Which is why you are against being
"forced" to bake a gay cake.

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law. I'm against
anyone being forced to bake a cake period. Sounds like Stalin,
Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.


And if the religion says blacks are
inferior, as some do,

Which religion is that?


you would have to also say religious people
could refuse anything having to do with blacks.

I'd be fine with that, for the reasons I previously described.
There is no widespread discrimination today, and the heavy handed
politically correct "enforcement", where you force people to
bake cakes, is worse than any problem with black discrimination.
If discrimination were totally legal, do you think Walmart
is going to put up a sign, "no blacks"? The local hardware
store where you live? A gas station. Sure there would be a few
idiots someplace that would want to screw their businesses and
do it. But, so what? You libs want to pretend that you can
eliminate every wrong, every place, by the most draconian means,
even when it's hardly a problem today.

You would want your
religious beliefs to be able to trump ANY law that you claimed
infringed on your beliefs. So what makes religious bigotry "special",
why can't a non-religious bigot have the same choice to refuse service
for things they don't like, like gays or blacks etc.

I say they should be able to. It's called freedom. Problem solved.

On 7/10/2015 8:48 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/9/2015 7:01 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article , Muggles
wrote:



Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
3About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.2

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping
about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


Which amendment made slavery legal?

who said it was an amendment that made it legal?


You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?

Here is an example (first article section 2d):

€œRepresentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of
years, and including Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other
persons.€œ

A Google search for "constitution slavery" is educational.

The Bill of Rights are where our "rights" come from.
They failed to protect a large segment of our population.
If fact, we are still dealing with various minorities.


I don't see anything there that legalizes slavery.

--
Maggie

On 7/10/2015 10:50 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 7:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

--
Maggie


When The Constitution was drafted, it was ambiguous on the subject of slavery even though many of the framers were abolitionists and wanted The Constitution to prohibit slavery. If The Constitution had prohibited slavery, none of the Southern colonies that had large numbers of slaves would have ratified The Constitution and there would have been no United States. The information is easy to find on the Interweb but you'll need to go to several sites in order to filter out the spin different sides will put on history. When a large number of sources present the same information the same way, it's usually much closer to the truth. I found a YouTube video that will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster


I've read the Constitution more than once and have never seen it say
anything that would come close to legalizing slavery, which, is what Dan
Espen was inferring. I think he means to say that since the
Constitution didn't make slavery illegal that it was by default making
slavery legal, but it doesn't work that way.

--
Maggie

On 7/10/2015 11:09 AM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:59:18 -0500, Muggles wrote:

The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

You have to go way back to American colonial law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Slavery_in_American_colonial_la w

See also Slave Codes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

And Black Codes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29

None of those were written into the Bill of Rights, though, which is
what Dan Espen implied legalized slavery.


Finally, The 13th and 14th Amendments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion


It took Constitutional amendments to abolish slavery, but nothing in the
Constitution made it legal. It was already legal based on the laws of
the land.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:10:49 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/10/2015 11:09 AM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:59:18 -0500, Muggles wrote:

The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

You have to go way back to American colonial law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Slavery_in_American_colonial_la w

See also Slave Codes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

And Black Codes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29

None of those were written into the Bill of Rights, though, which is
what Dan Espen implied legalized slavery.


Exactly. If you disagree with Dan, he will kill file you.

Finally, The 13th and 14th Amendments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion


It took Constitutional amendments to abolish slavery, but nothing in the
Constitution made it legal. It was already legal based on the laws of
the land.

Correct.

In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:00:29 PM UTC-5, Malcom Malformed
Turdmuncher wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 2:11:57 PM UTC-5, Malcom Goober
Gobbler wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 11:25:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Dick
Licker wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom
Retarded Lib wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom
Moobat wrote:
In article

om,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British
aristocrat) was Governor of Virginia in 1619 and
according to John Rolfe ³About the latter end of
August, a Dutch man of Warr of the burden of a 160
tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors name
Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr
Marmaduke an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing
but 20. and odd Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and
Cape Merchant bought for victuall[s]. The year was
1619, and as an institution slavery did not yet
exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in
America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slave-owner-african-
american /

but you forgot the part where it was your white
ancestors that legalized slavery in the United
States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they
hated slavery and their descendants were
abolitionists. None of my ancestors owned Negro
slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made
slavery legal? you do remember that that's what
happened...Legalized Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you?
Malcom, you're another fine example of The
Dumbassification Of The Western World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was
legal and it was made so by the founding fathers. you
wanted liberals to remember all the wonderful things in the
Constitution, I just reminded you of one you forgot or
didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're
yapping about. o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster [8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that
the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to
vote. live with it

I thought you had to own property to vote in those days?


and strangely enough, women weren't allowed to own property

You can't leave that
one out. There were pole taxes at one time and literacy tests to
keep the uneducated from voting, a test to exclude dumb-asses is
something really needed today. It may have been a mistake to
allow women to vote because most of them vote for the male
politician who's the most hansom and the least attractive woman
because they hate the pretty ones. There is hope due the fact
that more women are starting to pay attention to political party
platforms. Some of my own ancestors were slaves under The
Constitution but THEY GOT OVER IT. My ancestors were treated like
crap when they got to this country but THEY GOT OVER IT. Slavery
was outlawed in The United States 150 years ago by a
Constitutional Amendment, when are Negro Americans going to GET
OVER IT? So Malcontent, when are you going to get over your
inability admit that slavery is illegal under The Constitution
with all its wonderful amendments? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Smart Monster


I never denied that, I just pointed out that if you want liberals
to remember things, you rightards should also remember that the
Constitution legalized slavery. why does that bother you so much?

The Constitution in 1787 was ambiguous when it came to slavery. It
was neither pro nor con because those colonies which utilized large
numbers of slaves would have rejected it if it prohibited slavery and
there would have been no United States. It took an amendment to the
Constitution in 1865 to categorically prohibit slavery. Your claim
that The Constitution legalized slavery is a lie. The Dred Scott
decision affirmed the fact that slaves were property and not persons.
When The Constitution was drafted in 1787 Blacks were not considered
to be citizens and the federal government had no jurisdiction over
slavery. When you refer to me as a "rightard" does that mean you are
a "leftard"?

it's what you call me

To me you are one of the Progressive Liberal
Leftist Commiecrat Freaks and I use the term because I don't want to
leave anyone out and hurt their feelings.

and I don't want to hurt your feelings so you will always be the
conservative rightwing fascist


The fact that you write lies doesn't
bother me because I expect it from your ilk. If you must know, I'm
not a Republican, they disgust me but Democrats are special, they
horrify me. I'm not a member of The Tea Party and I've never met a
member. I'm not a member of any party or a wing that spins either
way. Oh yea, I can post edit too. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Perceptive Monster

Tea Party? Funny thing, last time I looked you couldn't register to
vote as a member of the Tea Party, why is that?

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:50:10 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

I found a YouTube video that will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster

Leads to this. Spoken by a Negroid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kry_VfFSh4)

....and he nailed it

Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 8:48 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/9/2015 7:01 PM, Malcom Mal Reynolds wrote:
In article , Muggles
wrote:



Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British aristocrat) was
Governor of Virginia in 1619 and according to John Rolfe
3About the latter end of August, a Dutch man of Warr of the
burden of a 160 tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors
name Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr Marmaduke
an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing but 20. and odd
Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and Cape Merchant bought for
victuall[s]. The year was 1619, and as an institution slavery
did not yet exist in Virginia.2

Which would make him the first slave owner in America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slav...ican-american/

but you forgot the part where it was your white ancestors that
legalized slavery in the United States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they hated slavery
and their descendants were abolitionists. None of my ancestors
owned Negro slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made slavery
legal? you do remember that that's what happened...Legalized
Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you? Malcom,
you're another fine example of The Dumbassification Of The Western
World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was legal and
it was made so by the founding fathers. you wanted liberals to remember
all the wonderful things in the Constitution, I just reminded you of
one you forgot or didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're yapping
about.
o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster
[8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that the
constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still made slavery
legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to vote. live with it


Which amendment made slavery legal?

who said it was an amendment that made it legal?


You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?

Here is an example (first article section 2d):

€œRepresentatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of
years, and including Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other
persons.€œ

A Google search for "constitution slavery" is educational.

The Bill of Rights are where our "rights" come from.
They failed to protect a large segment of our population.
If fact, we are still dealing with various minorities.

I don't see anything there that legalizes slavery.

"free persons" implies non-free persons.
"bound in service" is slavery.

If you had done the searches I recommended, you'd see that there was
an argument about slavery when the constitution was written and those
clauses were meant to keep the institution legal.

That's why they wrote the amendment that freed the slaves.

--
Dan Espen

Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 10:50 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 7:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

--
Maggie


When The Constitution was drafted, it was ambiguous on the subject
of slavery even though many of the framers were abolitionists and
wanted The Constitution to prohibit slavery. If The Constitution had
prohibited slavery, none of the Southern colonies that had large
numbers of slaves would have ratified The Constitution and there
would have been no United States. The information is easy to find on
the Interweb but you'll need to go to several sites in order to
filter out the spin different sides will put on history. When a
large number of sources present the same information the same way,
it's usually much closer to the truth. I found a YouTube video that
will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their
party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster


I've read the Constitution more than once and have never seen it say
anything that would come close to legalizing slavery, which, is what Dan
Espen was inferring. I think he means to say that since the
Constitution didn't make slavery illegal that it was by default making
slavery legal, but it doesn't work that way.

Note that I did not make the original statement which was worded poorly.
But by referring to "free persons", it's very clear that "non-free
persons" are legal.

If you read any of the discussions of what was going on at the time,
there were lots of people that wanted to make slavery illegal. That
did not happen.

--
Dan Espen

On 7/10/2015 12:09 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:59:18 -0500, Muggles wrote:

The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

You have to go way back to American colonial law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery#Slavery_in_American_colonial_la w

See also Slave Codes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_codes

And Black Codes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_%28United_States%29

Finally, The 13th and 14th Amendments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion


Which ones of these are in the Bill of Rights, which
we are discussing?


--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/10/2015 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 8:48 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
The Bill of Rights are where our "rights" come from.
They failed to protect a large segment of our population.
If fact, we are still dealing with various minorities.


I don't see anything there that legalizes slavery.


As I understand it, we are endowed by our creator
with certain inaianable rights. The B of R just
limits government.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:39:29 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Which ones of these are in the Bill of Rights, which
we are discussing?

You already know the first ten amendments.

Is your arm broke?

On 7/10/2015 3:24 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 10:50 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 7:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

--
Maggie


When The Constitution was drafted, it was ambiguous on the subject
of slavery even though many of the framers were abolitionists and
wanted The Constitution to prohibit slavery. If The Constitution had
prohibited slavery, none of the Southern colonies that had large
numbers of slaves would have ratified The Constitution and there
would have been no United States. The information is easy to find on
the Interweb but you'll need to go to several sites in order to
filter out the spin different sides will put on history. When a
large number of sources present the same information the same way,
it's usually much closer to the truth. I found a YouTube video that
will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their
party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster


I've read the Constitution more than once and have never seen it say
anything that would come close to legalizing slavery, which, is what Dan
Espen was inferring. I think he means to say that since the
Constitution didn't make slavery illegal that it was by default making
slavery legal, but it doesn't work that way.

Note that I did not make the original statement which was worded poorly.
But by referring to "free persons", it's very clear that "non-free
persons" are legal.

If you read any of the discussions of what was going on at the time,
there were lots of people that wanted to make slavery illegal. That
did not happen.


I understand the text you quoted. It's obvious that both free and those
bound in service existed, but that text still doesn't make slavery
legal. Slavery was already legal at the time the document was written.
How can the Constitution make something legal that was already legal at
the time? It does acknowledge both existed, which, isn't the same thing.

--
Maggie

On 7/10/2015 3:41 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 8:48 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
The Bill of Rights are where our "rights" come from.
They failed to protect a large segment of our population.
If fact, we are still dealing with various minorities.


I don't see anything there that legalizes slavery.


As I understand it, we are endowed by our creator
with certain inaianable rights. The B of R just
limits government.


I believe you're right about the Constitution limiting government.

--
Maggie

On 7/10/2015 5:06 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:39:29 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

Which ones of these are in the Bill of Rights, which
we are discussing?

You already know the first ten amendments.

Is your arm broke?


Again, which one gave permission for slavery?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 3:24 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 10:50 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 7:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

--
Maggie


When The Constitution was drafted, it was ambiguous on the subject
of slavery even though many of the framers were abolitionists and
wanted The Constitution to prohibit slavery. If The Constitution had
prohibited slavery, none of the Southern colonies that had large
numbers of slaves would have ratified The Constitution and there
would have been no United States. The information is easy to find on
the Interweb but you'll need to go to several sites in order to
filter out the spin different sides will put on history. When a
large number of sources present the same information the same way,
it's usually much closer to the truth. I found a YouTube video that
will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their
party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster


I've read the Constitution more than once and have never seen it say
anything that would come close to legalizing slavery, which, is what Dan
Espen was inferring. I think he means to say that since the
Constitution didn't make slavery illegal that it was by default making
slavery legal, but it doesn't work that way.

Note that I did not make the original statement which was worded poorly.
But by referring to "free persons", it's very clear that "non-free
persons" are legal.

If you read any of the discussions of what was going on at the time,
there were lots of people that wanted to make slavery illegal. That
did not happen.

I understand the text you quoted. It's obvious that both free and those
bound in service existed, but that text still doesn't make slavery
legal. Slavery was already legal at the time the document was written.
How can the Constitution make something legal that was already legal at
the time? It does acknowledge both existed, which, isn't the same thing.

If that makes you feel better, go with it.

Clearly the founders considered whether slavery should be illegal,
and they decided not to do that. So, they made it legal, or they failed
to make it illegal. Same result.

--
Dan Espen

On 7/10/2015 10:52 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 3:24 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 10:50 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 7:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

--
Maggie


When The Constitution was drafted, it was ambiguous on the subject
of slavery even though many of the framers were abolitionists and
wanted The Constitution to prohibit slavery. If The Constitution had
prohibited slavery, none of the Southern colonies that had large
numbers of slaves would have ratified The Constitution and there
would have been no United States. The information is easy to find on
the Interweb but you'll need to go to several sites in order to
filter out the spin different sides will put on history. When a
large number of sources present the same information the same way,
it's usually much closer to the truth. I found a YouTube video that
will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their
party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster


I've read the Constitution more than once and have never seen it say
anything that would come close to legalizing slavery, which, is what Dan
Espen was inferring. I think he means to say that since the
Constitution didn't make slavery illegal that it was by default making
slavery legal, but it doesn't work that way.

Note that I did not make the original statement which was worded poorly.
But by referring to "free persons", it's very clear that "non-free
persons" are legal.

If you read any of the discussions of what was going on at the time,
there were lots of people that wanted to make slavery illegal. That
did not happen.

I understand the text you quoted. It's obvious that both free and those
bound in service existed, but that text still doesn't make slavery
legal. Slavery was already legal at the time the document was written.
How can the Constitution make something legal that was already legal at
the time? It does acknowledge both existed, which, isn't the same thing.

If that makes you feel better, go with it.

Go with what exactly? It's not about what makes me feel better. If I
wanted to feel better I'd talk about puppies and kittens, not slavery.

Clearly the founders considered whether slavery should be illegal,
and they decided not to do that. So, they made it legal,

It was already legal before the founding fathers wrote the Constitution
and Bill of Rights. What they did do was create a document that put
limits on the government, and made it so we could legislate amendments
in the future and bring about the changes the nation needed as it grew up.

I wasn't there, but if I had been there, I'd have been against slavery.
It's a horrible thing, imo, but it's still a part of the history of not
only America, but also nations all over the world.

or they failed to make it illegal. Same result.

It was eventually made illegal. It takes time to legislate change and
make it happen in a nation that was in its infancy.

I'm not really sure what you expected from the founding fathers when
they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

--
Maggie

On 07/10/2015 09:06 PM, Muggles wrote:
I understand the text you quoted. It's obvious that both free and those
bound in service existed, but that text still doesn't make slavery
legal. Slavery was already legal at the time the document was written.
How can the Constitution make something legal that was already legal at
the time? It does acknowledge both existed, which, isn't the same thing.

Then there is the question of how the Constitution makes it illegal. Or
makes alcohol distribution illegal and then makes it legal again.
Positive law is a wondrous thing; whatever the powers that be say is
legal is legal and vice versa.

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 2:08:15 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 08:50:10 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
wrote:

I found a YouTube video that will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster

Leads to this. Spoken by a Negroid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kry_VfFSh4)

...and he nailed it

But, but he be talkin racist an he Black! Why he do dat? Dem dam pubicans be dun braynewash hiz ass sum how!

Here's a block of cheese and a check, follow me and I'll give you more. Yea sir Massa Sir I be commin. The young fellow was much too eloquent and straight talking for ghetto Blacks to comprehend thanks to the destruction of the educational systems of the country by Democrat policies promulgating Political Correctness and leading to "The Dumbassification of America." Can you imagine what would happen if some teacher in a government school showed that video to students? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Honky Monster

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 10:08:00 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 3:41 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 8:48 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
The Bill of Rights are where our "rights" come from.
They failed to protect a large segment of our population.
If fact, we are still dealing with various minorities.


I don't see anything there that legalizes slavery.


As I understand it, we are endowed by our creator
with certain inaianable rights. The B of R just
limits government.


I believe you're right about the Constitution limiting government.

--
Maggie

The purpose of The Constitution is not to give rights to the people, it's meant to instruct the government as to what it can't do. The people already have rights. Unfortunately, the meaning of The Constitution has been lost due to the destruction of the educational system by the Progressive Liberal Leftists Commiecrat Freaks who have infested it for decades leading to The Dumbassification of America. I wonder if we can ever get the country back on the correct course? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Saddened Monster

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 1:53:35 PM UTC-5, Maladjusted Reynolds wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 7:00:29 PM UTC-5, Malcom Malformed
Turdmuncher wrote:
In article ,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 2:11:57 PM UTC-5, Malcom Goober
Gobbler wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 11:25:39 PM UTC-5, Malcom Dick
Licker wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 2:18:30 PM UTC-5, Malcom
Retarded Lib wrote:
In article
,
Uncle Monster wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 2:01:52 PM UTC-5, Malcom
Moobat wrote:
In article

om,
Uncle Monster wrote:


Technically Sir George Yeardley (White British
aristocrat) was Governor of Virginia in 1619 and
according to John Rolfe ³About the latter end of
August, a Dutch man of Warr of the burden of a 160
tunes arrived at Point-Comfort, the Comandors name
Capt Jope, his Pilott for the West Indies one Mr
Marmaduke an Englishman. ? He brought not any thing
but 20. and odd Negroes, w[hich] the Governo[r] and
Cape Merchant bought for victuall[s]. The year was
1619, and as an institution slavery did not yet
exist in Virginia.²

Which would make him the first slave owner in
America.
http://www.mythdebunk.com/first-slave-owner-african-
american /

but you forgot the part where it was your white
ancestors that legalized slavery in the United
States

My paternal ancestors were slaves which is why they
hated slavery and their descendants were
abolitionists. None of my ancestors owned Negro
slaves. Of course that's something a moonbat like you
Malcom will never understand. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Slave Monster

so all of your ancestors loved the white men who made
slavery legal? you do remember that that's what
happened...Legalized Slavery

OMG! You have no idea what "abolitionist" means do you?
Malcom, you're another fine example of The
Dumbassification Of The Western World. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Disgusted Monster

apparently, you are incapable of admitting that slavery was
legal and it was made so by the founding fathers. you
wanted liberals to remember all the wonderful things in the
Constitution, I just reminded you of one you forgot or
didn't think was significant

Dayammmm! Maladjusted, I don't think YOU even know WTF you're
yapping about. o_O

[8~{} Uncle WTF Monster [8~{} Uncle

of course I do. I'm yapping about your inability to admit that
the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal and just for giggles didn't allow women to
vote. live with it

I thought you had to own property to vote in those days?


and strangely enough, women weren't allowed to own property

You can't leave that
one out. There were pole taxes at one time and literacy tests to
keep the uneducated from voting, a test to exclude dumb-asses is
something really needed today. It may have been a mistake to
allow women to vote because most of them vote for the male
politician who's the most hansom and the least attractive woman
because they hate the pretty ones. There is hope due the fact
that more women are starting to pay attention to political party
platforms. Some of my own ancestors were slaves under The
Constitution but THEY GOT OVER IT. My ancestors were treated like
crap when they got to this country but THEY GOT OVER IT. Slavery
was outlawed in The United States 150 years ago by a
Constitutional Amendment, when are Negro Americans going to GET
OVER IT? So Malcontent, when are you going to get over your
inability admit that slavery is illegal under The Constitution
with all its wonderful amendments? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Smart Monster


I never denied that, I just pointed out that if you want liberals
to remember things, you rightards should also remember that the
Constitution legalized slavery. why does that bother you so much?

The Constitution in 1787 was ambiguous when it came to slavery. It
was neither pro nor con because those colonies which utilized large
numbers of slaves would have rejected it if it prohibited slavery and
there would have been no United States. It took an amendment to the
Constitution in 1865 to categorically prohibit slavery. Your claim
that The Constitution legalized slavery is a lie. The Dred Scott
decision affirmed the fact that slaves were property and not persons.
When The Constitution was drafted in 1787 Blacks were not considered
to be citizens and the federal government had no jurisdiction over
slavery. When you refer to me as a "rightard" does that mean you are
a "leftard"?

it's what you call me


OMG! I must immediately apologize to all retarded people for insulting them by thinking that they could ever be as brain damaged as you Malcom.


To me you are one of the Progressive Liberal
Leftist Commiecrat Freaks and I use the term because I don't want to
leave anyone out and hurt their feelings.

and I don't want to hurt your feelings so you will always be the
conservative rightwing fascist


You'll have to define the words "conservative", "rightwing" and "fascist" because I really doubt you even know what the words mean.


The fact that you write lies doesn't
bother me because I expect it from your ilk. If you must know, I'm
not a Republican, they disgust me but Democrats are special, they
horrify me. I'm not a member of The Tea Party and I've never met a
member. I'm not a member of any party or a wing that spins either
way. Oh yea, I can post edit too. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Perceptive Monster

Tea Party? Funny thing, last time I looked you couldn't register to
vote as a member of the Tea Party, why is that?


Why would you look into registering to be a member of the Tea Party Malcom? Is it your wish to infiltrate the party and try to destroy it from within? That is one of the tactics those of your ilk employ against the people you hate.

I've had a lot of moonbats, like you Malcom, call me a Tea Party member because some other moonbat said it was a bad thing. It almost makes me want to be a member of the Tea Party. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Earth Monster

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Yet people are allowed to donate without restriction to elected officials
who are all supposed to be so altruistic that all that money had
absolutely
no effect on their official decisions and duties. IN A PIG'S EYE!!!!!


Isn't it interesting how we all KNOW how human nature works and we all
know that if someone gives someone else a ****load of money they
expect something in return AND that they will GET something in return.

It's been the cornerstone of human interactions since the dawn of time:
"I'll give you two apples for one fish!" etc. Yet somehow, when politicians
collect money that all that experience goes out the window.

Yet our politicians would lie to our faces saying they aren't swayed
by all that money that is the lifeblood of their election to office.

I read somewhere that Congressmen spend close to 50% of their time trying to
win the *next* election. In NJ some politicians are proposing bills trying
to force Christie (and all future candidates for Prez) to resign if he runs
for President. They say they are being cheated because he spends less and
less time in New Jersey these days because he's crossing the country looking
for "support" (read dollars) for his Presidential campaign.

If they will lie about something so patently obvious you know they
will lie about pretty much anything.

Bingo! It is a pretty sad realization that the relationship between voter
and politician is built on such a humongous lie. I once heard a Congressman
(actually woman) say: "Since BOTH sides donate money to buy influence, it
all evens out in the wash." Maybe, maybe not.

Remember when copyrights expired after a while?

Disney hired themselves a politician (Ernest Hollings) so receptive to
giving them rights to Mickey Mouse in near-perpetuity that his nickname
became "Senator Disney." The Founding Fathers wanted that term to be 14
years, with an additional 14 years if the author were still alive. After 28
years, they assumed you'd had your chance to exploit your creation, and now
it belonged to all the people. That was part of the quid pro quo of
granting government protection. More importantly, with limited terms we
*should* never end up with a system of hereditary privilege, like the
printers guilds of Renaissance England, who tied up rights to dead authors
and tightly controlled what could or could not be printed and who could or
could not use literary material. But the "limited" term specified in the
Constitution wasn't good enough for Disney. They wanted to control the
rights to Mickey Mouse *forever* and the Constitution be damned.

And now Disney tried firing American IT workers and bringing in foreigners
under the nakedly false pretense they can't find American workers to do the
job. Hey, Ghost of Walt, you FIRED the all the AMERICAN people who knew how
to do those jobs. C\/NTS! (Sorry, but this story REALLY made me angry. It
shows why immigration reform is such a disaster. Companies can't wait to
fire Americans to replace them with cheaper foreigners, even if they have to
tell naked lies to justify those firings.)

http://www.womansday.com/life/work-m...ancels-layoff/

. . . the news comes just months after 250 Disney workers were laid off
in the Parks and Resorts department. Many of those workers also had to train
their replacements, who came from India on temporary work visas known as
H-1B visas. News of those layoffs created an online uproar, with the
original New York Times report about it getting almost 3,000 comments.
WomansDay.com's story on the controversy got shared almost 8,000 times.

Without the internet to shame them, they would have gotten away with it!
The internet may also bring about a quick end to another new policy Disney
is trying to ram down employees' throats. They have required park
performers to promise to never reveal their roles:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015...ors-identities

The two-week-old written policy prevents actors from publicly revealing in
social media or traditional media which characters they play, according to
the union . . . The performers are very concerned because you can't un-tell
somebody something," Dalton said. "They have family and friends that already
know this and have pictures of themselves in their performing roles. It's
out there." Does management *really* think this is classified
information? Are they *that* deluded that they think they can get away with
BS like this? WTF does knowing who's walking around in a Goofy suit at
Disneyworld harm Disney so much they've got to keep it secret unto pain of
termination?

How did we get to the point where speech is money, in is out, up is down and
government influence is peddled to the highest bidder?

--
Bobby G.

"rbowman" wrote in message

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of The Supreme Court was to
rule on the constitutionality of a law, not to legislate. I thought to
legislate was the job of Congress.

So Roberts says when he isn't busy legislating.

Yes, "don't watch what I say, watch what I do" is the operative principle
here. I recall at his confirmation hearings him saying how much he
respected "stare decisis" (not to re-litigate something that's already been
decided). I guess that went out the window along with an implied promise
not to legislate from the bench.

In his defense (and it hurts to say it) he's also well aware that the normal
process of the SC invalidating a law - and then Congress reworking that law
to be within the Constitution's framework - has broken down. If the SC
strikes down a law for a particular, although small technicality, the
results now are that we won't have ANY law to replace it because Congress
has basically abdicated their role in that process.

So Roberts is faced time and time again knowing "if I vote Nay then the
small technicality will end up controlling the issue in its entirety." That
is a little bit backwards from what the Frowning Fathers intended. I
suspect he feels forced to legislate because Congress often won't. )-:

--
Bobby G.

On 7/10/2015 11:08 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 3:41 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
As I understand it, we are endowed by our creator
with certain inaianable rights. The B of R just
limits government.


I believe you're right about the Constitution limiting government.


Well, that's what it's supposed to do. If the
present elected reps live with the limits is
another question altogether.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/11/2015 2:09 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:

The purpose of The Constitution is not to give
rights to the people, it's meant to instruct the
government as to what it can't do. The people
already have rights. Unfortunately, the meaning
of The Constitution has been lost due to the
destruction of the educational system by the
Progressive Liberal Leftists Commiecrat Freaks who
have infested it for decades leading to The
Dumbassification of America. I wonder if we can
ever get the country back on the correct course? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Saddened Monster


I've heard of little bits of push back, so there
is still hope. As for me and my house, I'll keep
driving my state inspected vehicle, buying ethanol
motor fuel, and sleeping in a bed with the "do not
remove under penalty of law" matress tag proudly
still atached. I'll eat USFDA inspected food, drink
chlorinated and fluoridated water, wave my Made In
China flag with the stars and bars to celebrate my
freedom.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 10:52 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 3:24 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/10/2015 10:50 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:59:18 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/10/2015 7:13 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/10/2015 12:11 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/9/2015 10:54 PM, Dan Espen wrote:
You said, "the constitution, with all of it's wonderful amendment still
made slavery legal". Could you clarify what you mean?

Think back, the constitution, then they realized something was
missing...

It's called the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments.


OK ... what about the Bill of Rights? What do they have to do with
making slavery legal?


The Bill of Rights provides limits on the power of
government. Which, sadly, are being ignored now days.


I agree with that. I just can't figure out which one made slavery legal.

--
Maggie


When The Constitution was drafted, it was ambiguous on the subject
of slavery even though many of the framers were abolitionists and
wanted The Constitution to prohibit slavery. If The Constitution had
prohibited slavery, none of the Southern colonies that had large
numbers of slaves would have ratified The Constitution and there
would have been no United States. The information is easy to find on
the Interweb but you'll need to go to several sites in order to
filter out the spin different sides will put on history. When a
large number of sources present the same information the same way,
it's usually much closer to the truth. I found a YouTube video that
will make Democrats howl because it presents the truth about their
party. ^_^

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

[8~{} Uncle Truth Monster


I've read the Constitution more than once and have never seen it say
anything that would come close to legalizing slavery, which, is what Dan
Espen was inferring. I think he means to say that since the
Constitution didn't make slavery illegal that it was by default making
slavery legal, but it doesn't work that way.

Note that I did not make the original statement which was worded poorly.
But by referring to "free persons", it's very clear that "non-free
persons" are legal.

If you read any of the discussions of what was going on at the time,
there were lots of people that wanted to make slavery illegal. That
did not happen.

I understand the text you quoted. It's obvious that both free and those
bound in service existed, but that text still doesn't make slavery
legal. Slavery was already legal at the time the document was written.
How can the Constitution make something legal that was already legal at
the time? It does acknowledge both existed, which, isn't the same thing.

If that makes you feel better, go with it.

Go with what exactly? It's not about what makes me feel better. If I
wanted to feel better I'd talk about puppies and kittens, not slavery.

Clearly the founders considered whether slavery should be illegal,
and they decided not to do that. So, they made it legal,

It was already legal before the founding fathers wrote the Constitution
and Bill of Rights. What they did do was create a document that put
limits on the government, and made it so we could legislate amendments
in the future and bring about the changes the nation needed as it grew up.

I wonder how it was legal.
Before the constitution we lived under the rules of a monarchy.

I wasn't there, but if I had been there, I'd have been against slavery.
It's a horrible thing, imo, but it's still a part of the history of not
only America, but also nations all over the world.

or they failed to make it illegal. Same result.

It was eventually made illegal. It takes time to legislate change and
make it happen in a nation that was in its infancy.

You seem intent on making excuses for the founding fathers.
It didn't just take time, it took a war 100 years later.

I'm not really sure what you expected from the founding fathers when
they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I haven't said anything about what I expect.
You seem to think I have a horse in this race.
I've merely tried to answer questions.
It was the Bill of Rights and the Constitution,
and they quite purposely created the laws of the land to
allow slavery.
It's all in the history books.
Some of them wanted to outlaw slavery, but self interest
won the day.

It's not a question of what you or I want, it's what happened.
When we first got to create laws to govern ourselves,
we made slavery legal, intentionally.

--
Dan Espen

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:03:22 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:


you would have to also say religious people
could refuse anything having to do with blacks.

I'd be fine with that, for the reasons I previously described.

Which would lead us right back to the separate counters and bathrooms for
whites, etc. Why do you think the Civil Rights battles were so hard fought?
Because they asked people to change a time-proven and quite innate trait
that shows up in children before speech - namely a strong preference for
those they can identify as their own kind.

Legalize discrimination today and you'd have a race war on your hands
tomorrow, with LBGT skirmishes on the sidelines. We're on the fringes of a
race war even with discrimination laws in place because many blacks feel
they aren't working. Lots of studies prove that in many areas that's true.
Whites presented with equal resumes always seem to pick the white candidate.
All sorts of other sociologic experiments prove unconscious bias in many
aspects of life.

There is no widespread discrimination today,

Why do you think that is? That everyone's come to enlightenment? Or is it
fear of prosecution? Do you think schools and restaurants would have become
integrated "eventually?" The phrase "the price of freedom is eternal
vigilance" applies here because people naturally want to discriminate and
backsliding seems to occur pretty easily.

We could roll back the laws, but that's not happening. So the other option
is to comply with them. The bakers in question refused to. Should they be
able to say "my conscience forced me to break the law so it's OK?" That's
perilously close to "the Devil made me do it!"

--
Bobby G.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:39:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:05:01 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 06:04:14 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 4:37:02 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

--
Maggie

+1

I said before what my solution is. Get govt out of this altogether.
You should be able to refuse service today to anyone, for any reason.
I can see the need for outlawing discrimination 50 years ago, when
blacks were denied access to most lodging, had separate counters for
food service, had to ride the back of the (public) bus. It was widespread.
Therefore I can see a valid reason for the govt to step in. Today,
the situation is totally reversed. It's not like 90% of bakers won't
bake you a gay wedding cake. In fact, almost all will, the few that
have moral or religious objections generally have been where they don't
want to help cater at a gay wedding. That is exactly the case in Oregon.
And you have the other 99% of bakers that will do it anyway. So, there
is no widespread problem of unfairness that needs to be fixed and the
heavy handed solution is far worse than the minimal problem.

So, let businesses do what they want. If you want to deny service
to gays, Latinos, blacks, Jews, whatever, I say it's your right.
Expect that most of your other customers would evaluate what you're
doing and most of them would probably be offended and take their
business somewhere else. You could also expect the arrival of
protesters disrupting your business, people calling for boycotts,
lots of negative publicity, etc. In other words, very, very few
businesses are going to do it. And those that do, so what.

What is far worse, is the "solution". In Oregon a couple owns a
bakery. They have gay customers, have sold them cakes, etc. Along
comes a gay couple that wanted them to help cater their wedding,
actually being at the wedding. They declined for religious reasons.
The govt went after them, hit them with a $130K fine. And if that
isn't bad enough, the court put a gag order on them. They came up
with a list of speech from interviews where they voiced their opinions
that they didn't think being gay was moral, etc. The court actually
*banned* them from saying any similar things in the future.

Folks, it's getting really, really scary......


Yeah, not being allowed to exercise your bigotry is really really
scary. God forbid you have to serve a black person.

Stick to the facts. The case was not about serving blacks.
It was a couple who owned a bakery refusing to be at a gay
wedding reception. They had served the gay customers in the
past, at their bakery location, with no objections.

Now you tell me which is worse. The couple excercising their
religious freedom by not providing, delivering the cake to
the wedding, or what the court did? The "court" in
addition to fining them $130K, applied a gag
order on the couple, telling them that they can't give TV
interviews, talk to the media and say things like "We believe
homosexuality is immoral. The gay couple can find plenty of
other bakers to provide their cake. Where do the bakers find
free speech. This is so horrific, but it is a good example of
where the lib concept of either you're politically correct,
regardless of your religious beliefs, or we will destroy you.

$130K fines and gag orders that are obiously a violation
of the first amendment for two bakers. The San Francisco
lib politicians are violating US immigration law, harboring
illegal felons, resulting in the death of that 32 year old
woman. What's the penalty for them? There is none. That
is the sad state of justice today.

You need to stick to the facts. This had nothing to do with them
refusing to go to their reception. It was pure bigotry based on
religion. They refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple. Just as in
the south in the 50's businesses refused to do business with Blacks.
They violated the law. It's that simple.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:46:43 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 11:03:22 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 15:37:02 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/8/2015 3:20 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 13:51:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/07...ependence-day/


Published on July 2nd, 2015 | by Allen West Republic


Here is a list of the Top 5 Things Liberals Never
Remember ON Independence Day



2. It was about Religious Freedom: What the ACLU
was once FOR, they are now AGAINST. They are using
a made up accusation of discrimination to prevent
the actual practice of religious convictions.



How come it's acceptable to be a bigot if you do it in the name of
your religion?

Why do you consider practicing ones freedom of choice to be equivalent
to being a bigot?

If baking a "gay cake" is offensive because my bible
tells me that why should the religious person get to refuse service

Business owners should have the right to determine what sort of services
they will offer and not offer. If baking a "gay cake" isn't a service
they offer, why should anyone try to usurp the business owners rights to
what services they will provide? A straight person might also want to
order a "gay cake" and they would also be turned down.

The service would be equally denied to straight or gay people. There
would not be anything illegal in doing so.

but someone who is not religious but also finds gays offensive not be
similarly allowed to refuse them the service? And if my bible says
blacks are inferior why should I be able to refuse service to blacks.


The race argument is moot.

No the race argument isn't moot. You want religious belief to be able
to be able to trump the law. Which is why you are against being
"forced" to bake a gay cake.

No one is saying religious freedom trumps the law. I'm against
anyone being forced to bake a cake period. Sounds like Stalin,
Kim Jung Un or Hitler to me.


And if the religion says blacks are
inferior, as some do,

Which religion is that?


you would have to also say religious people
could refuse anything having to do with blacks.

I'd be fine with that, for the reasons I previously described.
There is no widespread discrimination today, and the heavy handed
politically correct "enforcement", where you force people to
bake cakes, is worse than any problem with black discrimination.
If discrimination were totally legal, do you think Walmart
is going to put up a sign, "no blacks"? The local hardware
store where you live? A gas station. Sure there would be a few
idiots someplace that would want to screw their businesses and
do it. But, so what? You libs want to pretend that you can
eliminate every wrong, every place, by the most draconian means,
even when it's hardly a problem today.

You would want your
religious beliefs to be able to trump ANY law that you claimed
infringed on your beliefs. So what makes religious bigotry "special",
why can't a non-religious bigot have the same choice to refuse service
for things they don't like, like gays or blacks etc.

I say they should be able to. It's called freedom. Problem solved.

Say whatever you want. Your still a bigot because there is no
business related reason you would refuse service to gays or blacks.

On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 06:52:52 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Yet people are allowed to donate without restriction to elected officials
who are all supposed to be so altruistic that all that money had
absolutely
no effect on their official decisions and duties. IN A PIG'S EYE!!!!!


Isn't it interesting how we all KNOW how human nature works and we all
know that if someone gives someone else a ****load of money they
expect something in return AND that they will GET something in return.

It's been the cornerstone of human interactions since the dawn of time:
"I'll give you two apples for one fish!" etc. Yet somehow, when politicians
collect money that all that experience goes out the window.

Yet our politicians would lie to our faces saying they aren't swayed
by all that money that is the lifeblood of their election to office.

I read somewhere that Congressmen spend close to 50% of their time trying to
win the *next* election. In NJ some politicians are proposing bills trying
to force Christie (and all future candidates for Prez) to resign if he runs
for President. They say they are being cheated because he spends less and
less time in New Jersey these days because he's crossing the country looking
for "support" (read dollars) for his Presidential campaign.

If they will lie about something so patently obvious you know they
will lie about pretty much anything.

Bingo! It is a pretty sad realization that the relationship between voter
and politician is built on such a humongous lie. I once heard a Congressman
(actually woman) say: "Since BOTH sides donate money to buy influence, it
all evens out in the wash." Maybe, maybe not.

Remember when copyrights expired after a while?

Disney hired themselves a politician (Ernest Hollings) so receptive to
giving them rights to Mickey Mouse in near-perpetuity that his nickname
became "Senator Disney." The Founding Fathers wanted that term to be 14
years, with an additional 14 years if the author were still alive. After 28
years, they assumed you'd had your chance to exploit your creation, and now
it belonged to all the people. That was part of the quid pro quo of
granting government protection. More importantly, with limited terms we
*should* never end up with a system of hereditary privilege, like the
printers guilds of Renaissance England, who tied up rights to dead authors
and tightly controlled what could or could not be printed and who could or
could not use literary material. But the "limited" term specified in the
Constitution wasn't good enough for Disney. They wanted to control the
rights to Mickey Mouse *forever* and the Constitution be damned.

And now Disney tried firing American IT workers and bringing in foreigners
under the nakedly false pretense they can't find American workers to do the
job. Hey, Ghost of Walt, you FIRED the all the AMERICAN people who knew how
to do those jobs. C\/NTS! (Sorry, but this story REALLY made me angry. It
shows why immigration reform is such a disaster. Companies can't wait to
fire Americans to replace them with cheaper foreigners, even if they have to
tell naked lies to justify those firings.)

http://www.womansday.com/life/work-m...ancels-layoff/

. . . the news comes just months after 250 Disney workers were laid off
in the Parks and Resorts department. Many of those workers also had to train
their replacements, who came from India on temporary work visas known as
H-1B visas. News of those layoffs created an online uproar, with the
original New York Times report about it getting almost 3,000 comments.
WomansDay.com's story on the controversy got shared almost 8,000 times.

Without the internet to shame them, they would have gotten away with it!
The internet may also bring about a quick end to another new policy Disney
is trying to ram down employees' throats. They have required park
performers to promise to never reveal their roles:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015...ors-identities

The two-week-old written policy prevents actors from publicly revealing in
social media or traditional media which characters they play, according to
the union . . . The performers are very concerned because you can't un-tell
somebody something," Dalton said. "They have family and friends that already
know this and have pictures of themselves in their performing roles. It's
out there." Does management *really* think this is classified
information? Are they *that* deluded that they think they can get away with
BS like this? WTF does knowing who's walking around in a Goofy suit at
Disneyworld harm Disney so much they've got to keep it secret unto pain of
termination?

How did we get to the point where speech is money, in is out, up is down and
government influence is peddled to the highest bidder?


You've probably seen this but if not it will provide more confirmation
for what you already know,

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-us-no-longer-democracy