Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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. |
#82
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 .. .. |
#83
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 .. .. |
#84
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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. |
#85
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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): €śRepresentatives 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.€ś 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 |
#86
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#87
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#88
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#89
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#90
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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. |
#91
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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. |
#92
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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): €śRepresentatives 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.€ś 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 |
#93
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#94
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#95
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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. |
#96
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 łAbout 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.˛ 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? |
#97
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#98
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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): €śRepresentatives 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.€ś 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 |
#99
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#100
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 .. .. |
#101
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 .. .. |
#102
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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? |
#103
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#104
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#105
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 .. .. |
#106
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#107
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#108
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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. |
#109
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#110
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#111
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 łAbout 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.˛ 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 |
#112
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
"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. |
#113
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
"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. |
#114
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 .. .. |
#115
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 .. .. |
#116
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
#117
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
"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. |
#118
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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/ |
#119
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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. |
#120
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
5 things liberals never remember
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Remember when... | Metalworking | |||
remember it | Woodturning | |||
Does anyone remember | Home Repair | |||
Remember | Woodworking | |||
Remember | Home Repair |