# 3/5 Of A Human Being



## PoliticalChic

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

*"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"









						Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
					

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.




					www.cbsnews.com
				







Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*


----------



## theHawk

Illegals should not be counted at all for representation.


----------



## PoliticalChic

theHawk said:


> Illegals should not be counted at all for representation.





Too late.


Chalk it up to a victory for evil......er, the Democrats.


----------



## esalla

PoliticalChic said:


> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*


One day i will understand you, then promptly jump


----------



## Sunni Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."


Great post PoliticalChic!!  ...  
I never knew the "real" reason for the 3/5th's compromise.


----------



## Blackrook

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.


----------



## excalibur

theHawk said:


> Illegals should not be counted at all for representation.




Yep, because the term "resident" means Citizen or legal resident alien. 

Who the hell calls illegals aliens by the term illegal residents? Other than dumbasses in dirty black robes that is.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Sunni Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> Great post PoliticalChic!!  ...
> I never knew the "real" reason for the 3/5th's compromise.
Click to expand...



A big 'Thank You,' Sunni.


Had the Founders not gotten that compromise, this sort of thing would be pro forma:


"The lynchings were Southern whites' extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control, white supremacy, and Democratic Party rule, ..... From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[10] *Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting block."*




*Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill - Wikipedia*

en.wikipedia.org


----------



## PoliticalChic

Blackrook said:


> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.





Don't be afraid to call 'em out.......it's always the Democrats.


----------



## PoliticalChic

excalibur said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals should not be counted at all for representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, because the term "resident" means Citizen or legal resident alien.
> 
> Who the hell calls illegals aliens by the term illegal residents? Other than dumbasses in dirty black robes that is.
Click to expand...


"Who the hell calls illegals aliens by the term illegal residents? Other than dumbasses in dirty black robes that is."

Hussein Obama and the Democrat Party.



And as proof that he is more Democrat, than interested in the advancement of black folks.....

Obama's US Civil Rights Commission, 2010 Report:
"The United States Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) is pleased to transmit this report, The Impact of Illegal Immigration on the Wages and Employment Opportunities of Black Workers. A panel of experts briefed members of the Commission on April 4, 2008 regarding the evidence for economic loss and job opportunity costs to black workers attributable to illegal immigration. The panelists also described non-economic factors contributing to the depression of black wages and employment rates.

*Illegal immigration to the United States in recent decades has tended to depress both wages and employment rates for low-skilled American citizens, a disproportionate number of whom are black men."*
USCCR:  Page Not Found

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/docs/IllegImmig_10-14-10_430pm.pdf


----------



## excalibur

theHawk said:


> Illegals should not be counted at all for representation.




And representation means money.


----------



## danielpalos

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.


----------



## Canon Shooter

excalibur said:


> Who the hell calls illegals aliens by the term illegal residents?



I prefer "illegal vermin scum"...


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" No Representation For Non Jurisdiction Sojourners "

* Imagine Seeding A Foreign Country With Loyalist Agents **


Blackrook said:


> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.


The non jurisdiction sojourner is not enslaved and have objectives and social structures that do not include population control as a consideration , especially when having citizen children includes a stipend and a seeding of cause by familial citizens to rally numerical and political representation .

Irrespective of public policy for aggressive deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners to their country of origin ,  a non jurisdiction sojourner is not entitled from any numerical incidence to representation by a vote in any legislative body .

A census would only be useful to indicate where to target resources for the deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners .

** Stuck In The Middle Of Saying Know To Not Knot Make It Our Problem **

There are certainly enough economic libertarians willing to import non jurisdiction labor to lower wages and operating costs while offloading responsibilities of over population and its low socioeconomic conditions to the public .

There are also the secular humanists seeking to sacrifice taxpayer finances for saving the world by on boarding anyone from anywhere regardless of merit , intentionally lowering barriers to implement its authoritarian socialist controls for pilfering free enterprise and for implementing political correctness that it promotes by fomenting race based and class based conflicts .

** Jus Sanguinin For Children Of Non Jurisdiction Sojourners **

The " non jurisdiction " sojourner remains subject to jurisdiction by the country of its citizenship ; and , by not being a subject of a title in us legal immigration system an offspring of a non jurisdiction sojourner is to be provided birth to the country of maternal citizenship  , by jus sanguinin .

While non violence principles for individualism is an ethical standard among hue mammon and a basis for liberty in social civil agreements for which one exchanges natural freedoms to become a citizen of a greater individual of state , to an extent , national sovereignty is individual sovereignty , and non jurisdiction sojourners can be deported .


----------



## PoliticalChic

Monk-Eye said:


> *" No Representation For Non Jurisdiction Sojourners "
> 
> * Imagine Seeding A Foreign Country With Loyalist Agents **
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> The non jurisdiction sojourner is not enslaved and have objectives and social structures that do not include population control as a consideration , especially when having citizen children includes a stipend and a seeding of cause by familial citizens to rally numerical and political representation .
> 
> Irrespective of public policy for aggressive deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners to their country of origin ,  a non jurisdiction sojourner is not entitled from any numerical incidence to representation by a vote in any legislative body .
> 
> A census would only be useful to indicate where to target resources for the deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners .
> 
> ** Stuck In The Middle Of Saying Know To Not Knot Make It Our Problem **
> 
> There are certainly enough economic libertarians willing to import non jurisdiction labor to lower wages and operating costs while offloading responsibilities of over population and its low socioeconomic conditions to the public .
> 
> There are also the secular humanists seeking to sacrifice taxpayer finances for saving the world by on boarding anyone from anywhere regardless of merit , intentionally lowering barriers to implement its authoritarian socialist controls for pilfering free enterprise and for implementing political correctness that it promotes by fomenting race based and class based conflicts .
> 
> ** Jus Sanguinin For Children Of Non Jurisdiction Sojourners **
> 
> The " non jurisdiction " sojourner remains subject to jurisdiction by the country of its citizenship ; and , by not being a subject of a title in us legal immigration system an offspring of a non jurisdiction sojourner is to be provided birth to the country of maternal citizenship  , by jus sanguinin .
> 
> While non violence principles for individualism is an ethical standard among hue mammon and a basis for liberty in social civil agreements for which one exchanges natural freedoms to become a citizen of a greater individual of state , to an extent , national sovereignty is individual sovereignty , and non jurisdiction sojourners can be deported .
Click to expand...




I wish that were the case.

Here, we have Democrat Presidents who tell illegal aliens to go and vote in our elections.


----------



## danielpalos

Just right wing shills?



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/08/no-this-video-does-not-show-obama-urging-undocumented-people-to-vote/


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Enforce Jus Sanguinin And Remit Social Subsistence Costs To Countries Of Citizenship Origin "

* No Subscription For Open Source Seekers **


danielpalos said:


> Just right wing shills?
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/08/no-this-video-does-not-show-obama-urging-undocumented-people-to-vote/


That o ba ma promoted us citizens to vote for the interests of non jurisdiction migrants must necessarily imply that non jurisdiction migrants expect political persuasion for social entitlements of which they are not entitled to receive .


----------



## danielpalos

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Enforce Jus Sanguinin And Remit Social Subsistence Costs To Countries Of Citizenship Origin "
> 
> * No Subscription For Open Source Seekers **
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just right wing shills?
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/08/no-this-video-does-not-show-obama-urging-undocumented-people-to-vote/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That o ba ma promoted us citizens to vote for the interests of non jurisdiction migrants must necessarily imply that non jurisdiction migrants expect political persuasion for social entitlements of which they are not entitled to receive .
Click to expand...

Nothing but right wing bigotry.  Who was he talking to?  Y'all make it seem like he was only talking to illegals instead of the electorate.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Enforce Jus Sanguinin And Remit Social Subsistence Costs To Countries Of Citizenship Origin "
> 
> * No Subscription For Open Source Seekers **
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just right wing shills?
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/08/no-this-video-does-not-show-obama-urging-undocumented-people-to-vote/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That o ba ma promoted us citizens to vote for the interests of non jurisdiction migrants must necessarily imply that non jurisdiction migrants expect political persuasion for social entitlements of which they are not entitled to receive .
Click to expand...


American taxpayer would pay for illegal alien's healthcare


----------



## danielpalos

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass; and, we should be making money off of foreign nationals in the US not losing money.  

Too bad right wingers only have bigotry not any solutions that promote the general welfare. 

Vote blue not red!


----------



## PoliticalChic

As the subject is illegal immigrants, the starting point should be the number of same.

1. Only a fool accepts the bogus 11 million number.....simply remember how you have to press #1 for English these days.


2. The statistics indicate that the real number, the number hidden by the Democrats and their allies, is between 50 and 80 million illegal aliens living in the USofA.



3. James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes

"... *the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted*. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children.



When the states and local governments *challenged that number as an undercount, *the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, *but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase."*
How many illegal aliens reside in the United States? | CAIRCO - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform | issues legislation projects research



_Increased the totals by 13%!!!

Now....hold on tight....this is gonna involve mathematics, so I may lose you here:_

*Soooo....if we apply that same 'adjustment' to the fabled 11 million....over a decade of so....we have almost 40 million.



But wait!!!

There's more!*



4. Another way to arrive at the numbers of illegals in the country is to *base it on the number of apprehensions and escapes.

"The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year [in 2007].* A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen *Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more)* estimate that a minimum of *five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven.* That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.



He concludes that:

*My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated,* however, *using a conservative annual rate of entry* (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) *of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. *My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports.


5. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the *1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States."*

How many illegal aliens reside in the United States? | CAIRCO - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform | issues legislation projects research


....and that number is over a decade old!!!!!!

Gettin' nervous?


6. But other Border Patrol agents estimate that a minimum of *five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven.*.....which would give a total of nearly *80 million illegals *occupying our country.


*The number of illegals would be at least.....at least.....60-80 million at this time.....permanently residing right here is this country.*





Hence...even a tiny fraction of them voting would be 3-6 million votes.

======================================================

Judging by the amount of time and effort that the Democrats spend advancing the aims and claims of illegal aliens....one can begin to see what a huge constituency they make up for the Democrat Party.



" Democrats had extensive get-out-the-vote campaigns in areas heavily populated by illegal aliens. As far back as 2008, Obama made sure that those who wanted to vote knew it was safe, announcing that election records would not be cross-checked with immigration databases.

... the Obama White House supported a court injunction that kept Kansas, Alabama and Georgia from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. The message was sent, loud and clear: If you're a noncitizen or here illegally, don't be afraid. You're free to vote. No one will stop you."








						Did Votes By Noncitizens Cost Trump The 2016 Popular Vote? Sure Looks That Way
					

We don't know the exact number of illegal votes. No one does. But the data that are available suggest that the number of illegal votes was substantial.




					www.investors.com


----------



## danielpalos

Who's fault is it right wingers?  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.  

Don't be illegal to the laws, right wingers.  

The three fifths clause would be much simpler by bearing true witness to our naturalization clause.  

All foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  


No need for right wing bigotry at all.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Ass Clowns On The Left Fight Not To Correct A Standard Of Gluttony And Constitutional Thwarting While The Right Ignores The Consequences Saying It Is Not My Socioeconomic Class And Does not Affect Me "

* Demands For The Same Standard From Both Wings **


danielpalos said:


> Nothing but right wing bigotry.  Who was he talking to?  Y'all make it seem like he was only talking to illegals instead of the electorate.


It is nothing but a stipulation that a state is comprised of citizens on whose behalf the interests of state lay , which excludes non jurisdiction sojourners from state interests , so step back from authoritarianism through a bureaucratic collective and own up that private interests be funded by private ventures .


----------



## danielpalos

This is the Law, right wingers; don't be illegal to the law and just be hypocrites to the less fortunate:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" More From The Artisans Of Banal Drivel "

* Hypocrite Arguments Of A Thief Ranting About Legality **


danielpalos said:


> This is the Law, right wingers; don't be illegal to the law and just be hypocrites to the less fortunate:
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,


There are rules for naturalizatin and non jurisdiction sojourners do not qualify for naturalization by virtue of vagrancy , except that they follow the legal process of registering to become a subject of a title in us legal immigration system ; and , neither are their cash cow , anchor babies , for social security theft , entitled to citizenship by birth .

There are 800 million people in the bureaucratic collective slum that is latin america and the peoples importing themselves outside of the naturalization process are too idiotic to not continue breeding themselves into poverty and taking everyone else with them .


----------



## danielpalos

Only right wingers seem to prefer their bigotry to being legal to the laws; and, we have a Commerce Clause and a central bank.  Only the right wing prefers to eschew Capitalism at every opportunity for their socialism on a national and international basis while alleging they are not really like that, in socialism threads. 

Tourism is the first, second, or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  What is wrong with Capitalism, right wingers?


----------



## Leo123

Blackrook said:


> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.


Yep, Democrats always denigrate human life.  Rioting, Abortion.....etc.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, Democrats always denigrate human life.  Rioting, Abortion.....etc.
Click to expand...

Instigated by right wingers who merely practice the abomination of hypocrisy about it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

esalla said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
Click to expand...

It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th


----------



## jwoodie

The 3/5 compromise used the term "person" in reference to slaves.  The 14th Amendment used the same term to eliminate this 3/5 provision for Congressional representation.  It was never intended to add temporary or illegal residents for this purpose.


----------



## Quasar44

PoliticalChic said:


> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*


1/5 sounds more accurate lol


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Instigated by right wingers who merely practice the abomination of hypocrisy about it.



Ah yes, the standard leftist, juvenile line...."My bad behavior is the fault of everyone else......but me."   They never take personal responsibility for their own fucked up lives.


----------



## danielpalos

jwoodie said:


> The 3/5 compromise used the term "person" in reference to slaves.  The 14th Amendment used the same term to eliminate this 3/5 provision for Congressional representation.  It was never intended to add temporary or illegal residents for this purpose.


I agree to disagree.  We don't have an immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  Foreign nationals in the US are not citizens for franchise purposes and don't have to be counted as whole persons for census purposes, especially in modern transportation times.  Our federal Constitution was object oriented before the technology sector provided the term.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instigated by right wingers who merely practice the abomination of hypocrisy about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the standard leftist, juvenile line...."My bad behavior is the fault of everyone else......but me."   They never take personal responsibility for their own fucked up lives.
Click to expand...

Why our Civil War?  The North was willing to give up the moral turpitude of slavery why wasn't the South.


----------



## esalla

bigrebnc1775 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
Click to expand...

3/5 of what?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

esalla said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
Click to expand...

Representation in the house of representatives


----------



## esalla

bigrebnc1775 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
Click to expand...

Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Why our Civil War? The North was willing to give up the moral turpitude of slavery why wasn't the South.


Read some history, slavery was an economic institution at the time.  There were slaves in the North as well.  The morays AT THE TIME were different than today.   We fought a Civil War over it and shed lots of blood.  You seem to want to completely erase history in order to satisfy your soyboy moral relativity.   History is a lot more complicated than your simplistic views, dufus.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why our Civil War? The North was willing to give up the moral turpitude of slavery why wasn't the South.
> 
> 
> 
> Read some history, slavery was an economic institution at the time.  There were slaves in the North as well.  The morays AT THE TIME were different than today.   We fought a Civil War over it and shed lots of blood.  You seem to want to completely erase history in order to satisfy your soyboy moral relativity.   History is a lot more complicated than your simplistic views, dufus.
Click to expand...

Behavior is still behavior.  Why are confederate statues coming down after over a hundred years?


----------



## DGS49

So here's the thing:  Leftist jurists long ago declared that all benefits made available to residents of a state were to be made available to all PERSONS residing there.  Hence, ALL of the Social Safety Net MUST be made available to people who are ILLEGALLY IN THE COUNTRY.  Free public school for their children (a dubious benefit to be sure, but whatever...), food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, in-state college tuition rates, MEDICAID, and on and on.  ILLEGALS GET THEM ON THE SAME BASIS AS CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS, because of Leftists judges who declared it.

So now, the states can say with a straight face that the illegals should be counted for census purposes because THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR THEM WITH TAX DOLLARS.

But it goes further than that.  Democrats WANT to provide for illegals, because they plan to LEGALIZE then NATURALIZE them the minute they take over the Federal government.  Then the former-illegals will be guaranteed Democrat votes for GENERATIONS.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Behavior is still behavior. Why are confederate statues coming down after over a hundred years?


Behavior is dictated by the morays of society at the time.  In order to understand history you have to actually study it instead of relying on idiots who decide they hate America for something that happened hundreds of years ago.  Yes, when we look back now, we see Slavery was an abomination and it took time and battles to overcome that institution.   Tearing down statues effectively erases history and future generations will likely repeat what they are ignorant of.


----------



## danielpalos

DGS49 said:


> So here's the thing:  Leftist jurists long ago declared that all benefits made available to residents of a state were to be made available to all PERSONS residing there.  Hence, ALL of the Social Safety Net MUST be made available to people who are ILLEGALLY IN THE COUNTRY.  Free public school for their children (a dubious benefit to be sure, but whatever...), food stamps, welfare, housing subsidies, in-state college tuition rates, MEDICAID, and on and on.  ILLEGALS GET THEM ON THE SAME BASIS AS CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS, because of Leftists judges who declared it.
> 
> So now, the states can say with a straight face that the illegals should be counted for census purposes because THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR THEM WITH TAX DOLLARS.
> 
> But it goes further than that.  Democrats WANT to provide for illegals, because they plan to LEGALIZE then NATURALIZE them the minute they take over the Federal government.  Then the former-illegals will be guaranteed Democrat votes for GENERATIONS.


There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  This would not be a problem if the right wing were not illegal to our own laws.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass and should be making money from foreign nationals not losing money; only lousy Capitalists do that.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Behavior is still behavior. Why are confederate statues coming down after over a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> Behavior is dictated by the morays of society at the time.  In order to understand history you have to actually study it instead of relying on idiots who decide they hate America for something that happened hundreds of years ago.  Yes when we look back we now see Slavery was an abomination and it took time and battles to overcome.   Tearing down statues effectively erases history and future generations will likely repeat what they are ignorant of.
Click to expand...

The South was Illegal in rebelling.  It was not a moray but bigotry and made up racism to cover their bigotry.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population because blacks were citizens after 1808.  Black codes were also illegal and eventually overturned.  Why do we have problems now if not for Behavior?


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Behavior is still behavior. Why are confederate statues coming down after over a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> Behavior is dictated by the morays of society at the time.  In order to understand history you have to actually study it instead of relying on idiots who decide they hate America for something that happened hundreds of years ago.  Yes when we look back we now see Slavery was an abomination and it took time and battles to overcome.   Tearing down statues effectively erases history and future generations will likely repeat what they are ignorant of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was Illegal in rebelling.  It was not a moray but bigotry and made up racism to cover their bigotry.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population because blacks were citizens after 1808.  Black codes were also illegal and eventually overturned.  Why do we have problems now if not for Behavior?
Click to expand...

People back then generally did not think slavery was bigotry.  That is a modern term that we LEARNED from our history.   You want to erase history which is ignorant and stupid.  No one is celebrating slavery today.  I know it's hard for some people like you to understand that evil lies within every human being.  Even you.  The way we curb it is understanding the bad things that went before.   Tearing down our History is a guarantee to repeat that evil.  We have problems today because there is power to be had in the term 'racism' which largely no longer exists in any great extent America today.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Behavior is still behavior. Why are confederate statues coming down after over a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> Behavior is dictated by the morays of society at the time.  In order to understand history you have to actually study it instead of relying on idiots who decide they hate America for something that happened hundreds of years ago.  Yes when we look back we now see Slavery was an abomination and it took time and battles to overcome.   Tearing down statues effectively erases history and future generations will likely repeat what they are ignorant of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South was Illegal in rebelling.  It was not a moray but bigotry and made up racism to cover their bigotry.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population because blacks were citizens after 1808.  Black codes were also illegal and eventually overturned.  Why do we have problems now if not for Behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People back then generally did not think slavery was bigotry.  That is a modern term that we LEARNED from our history.   You want to erase history which is ignorant and stupid.  No one is celebrating slavery today.  I know it's hard for some people like you to understand that evil lies within every human being.  Even you.  The way we curb it is understanding the bad things that went before.   Tearing down our History is a guarantee to repeat that evil.
Click to expand...

You need to learn some history and actually study it.  Europeans voluntarily gave up slavery as did the North.  The Dred Scott decision was nothing but bigotry since any Jurist understood our declaration of Independence and blacks were citizens after 1808.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> You need to learn some history and actually study it. Europeans voluntarily gave up slavery as did the North. The Dred Scott decision was nothing but bigotry since any Jurist understood our declaration of Independence and blacks were citizens after 1808.


OK you are a simpleton.


"Forced labour is the most prevalent form of modern slavery in Europe and Central Asia, according to new data published on Wednesday."

"The rate of forced labour (3.6 per 1,000 people) in both regions — considered as one in the report — was higher than the rate of forced marriage (0.4 per 1,000 people)."









						Forced labour 'most prevalent form of modern slavery in Europe'
					

Even though Europe has the lowest rates of forced marriage, it still has high rates of forced labour, particularly in eastern Europe,




					www.euronews.com
				





"Men working in agriculture, hospitality and fisheries are most at risk of exploitation, according to human rights body."                                          




"Labor trafficking and exploitation is on the rise in Europe, according to a new report by the Council of Europe published Tuesday."









						‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
					

Men working in agriculture, hospitality and fisheries are most at risk of exploitation, according to human rights body.




					www.politico.eu
				




Apparently Europe didn't learn their lesson.  Go protest over there.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to learn some history and actually study it. Europeans voluntarily gave up slavery as did the North. The Dred Scott decision was nothing but bigotry since any Jurist understood our declaration of Independence and blacks were citizens after 1808.
> 
> 
> 
> OK you are a simpleton.
> 
> 
> "Forced labour is the most prevalent form of modern slavery in Europe and Central Asia, according to new data published on Wednesday."
> 
> "The rate of forced labour (3.6 per 1,000 people) in both regions — considered as one in the report — was higher than the rate of forced marriage (0.4 per 1,000 people)."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forced labour 'most prevalent form of modern slavery in Europe'
> 
> 
> Even though Europe has the lowest rates of forced marriage, it still has high rates of forced labour, particularly in eastern Europe,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.euronews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Men working in agriculture, hospitality and fisheries are most at risk of exploitation, according to human rights body."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Labor trafficking and exploitation is on the rise in Europe, according to a new report by the Council of Europe published Tuesday."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
> 
> 
> Men working in agriculture, hospitality and fisheries are most at risk of exploitation, according to human rights body.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.eu
Click to expand...

You are even more of a simpleton.  Lousy laws do not make a right.



> Victims are often reluctant to come forward as they may fear deportation or retaliation from criminal trafficking networks," according to Mullally. "Prosecutions and convictions of the perpetrators are also very rare."



We have no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.  All foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

esalla said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
Click to expand...

did slaves have voting rights before 1866?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
Click to expand...

They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.
Click to expand...

link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
Click to expand...

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.  Women should have also had the franchise by birth because our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.
Click to expand...

Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
Click to expand...

They did not have voting rights at the time, and neither did women.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not have voting rights at the time, and neither did women.
Click to expand...

they didn't have voting rights more did they have a citizenship
They didn't get citizenship until after 1866 with the 1st civil rights act of 1866 
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well.
Slaves did not have rights, Free blacks in the north had some rights within some states until dread scott decision  of 1857 that  specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.


I did not say slavery was right.  I said at the time slavery was an institution and the social morays were different than now.  That doesn't make it right today.   Your posts reveal you have a very myopic and monolithic view of history.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say slavery was right.  Apparently you think you're debating someone else.
Click to expand...

you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol


----------



## Leo123

bigrebnc1775 said:


> you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol


Yeah and also someone with no real understanding of American history or even world history.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say slavery was right.  I said at the time slavery was an institution and the social morays were different than now.  That doesn't make it right today.   Your posts reveal you have a monolithic view of history.
Click to expand...

Your posts reveal a lack of understanding of simple English.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not have voting rights at the time, and neither did women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they didn't have voting rights more did they have a citizenship
> They didn't get citizenship until after 1866 with the 1st civil rights act of 1866
> The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well.
> Slaves did not have rights, Free blacks in the north had some rights within some states until dread scott decision  of 1857 that  specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights.
Click to expand...

They should have been natural born citizens after 1808.  Entry into the Union was a federal matter then.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say slavery was right.  I said at the time slavery was an institution and the social morays were different than now.  That doesn't make it right today.   Your posts reveal you have a very myopic and monolithic view of history.
Click to expand...

Neither did I.  You comprehension skills are lacking.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Leo123 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and also someone with no real understanding of American history or even world history.
Click to expand...

This is his view on 19th century U.S. history
"Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union. Women should have also had the franchise by birth because our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral. "


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Your posts reveal a lack of understanding of simple English.



Yeah my American English is too complicated for you I guess.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are even more of a simpleton. Lousy laws do not make a right.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say slavery was right.  Apparently you think you're debating someone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol
Click to expand...

I stated blacks (persons) were natural born citizens after 1808 when the general Government of the Union assumed control over entry into the Union.  Why do right wingers have such lousy comprehension but want to be considered Right?  Just being on the right wing only works in right wing fantasy.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and also someone with no real understanding of American history or even world history.
Click to expand...

Yours is worse.  Simply being on the right wing does not mean you are Right.  Fantasy much?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and also someone with no real understanding of American history or even world history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is his view on 19th century U.S. history
> "Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union. Women should have also had the franchise by birth because our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral. "
Click to expand...

I am citing Constitutional law; only right wingers have a problem with it; go figure.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not have voting rights at the time, and neither did women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they didn't have voting rights more did they have a citizenship
> They didn't get citizenship until after 1866 with the 1st civil rights act of 1866
> The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well.
> Slaves did not have rights, Free blacks in the north had some rights within some states until dread scott decision  of 1857 that  specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They should have been natural born citizens after 1808.  Entry into the Union was a federal matter then.
Click to expand...

all I can do is laugh at your limited knowledge of 19th century U.S. history 
They should have would have could have but didn't have any citizenship until after the civil rights act of 1866


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Neither did I. You comprehension skills are lacking.


OK so you said "a right" my point still stands.  And I bet you edited.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts reveal a lack of understanding of simple English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah my American English is too complicated for you I guess.
Click to expand...

You wish.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and also someone with no real understanding of American history or even world history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is his view on 19th century U.S. history
> "Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union. Women should have also had the franchise by birth because our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am citing Constitutional law; only right wingers have a problem with it; go figure.
Click to expand...

No fuck you aren't


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not have voting rights at the time, and neither did women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they didn't have voting rights more did they have a citizenship
> They didn't get citizenship until after 1866 with the 1st civil rights act of 1866
> The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well.
> Slaves did not have rights, Free blacks in the north had some rights within some states until dread scott decision  of 1857 that  specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They should have been natural born citizens after 1808.  Entry into the Union was a federal matter then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all I can do is laugh at your limited knowledge of 19th century U.S. history
> They should have would have could have but didn't have any citizenship until after the civil rights act of 1866
Click to expand...

Right wingers have a problem being legal to the laws but like to blame the less fortunate.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Yours is worse. Simply being on the right wing does not mean you are Right. Fantasy much?


I never said I was on the 'right wing' Dufus.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did I. You comprehension skills are lacking.
> 
> 
> 
> OK so you said "a right" my point still stands.  And I bet you edited.
Click to expand...

You only prove your lack of comprehension.  Right in this case and context does not imply any legal right only moral right.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and also someone with no real understanding of American history or even world history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is his view on 19th century U.S. history
> "Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union. Women should have also had the franchise by birth because our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am citing Constitutional law; only right wingers have a problem with it; go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fuck you aren't
Click to expand...

Yes fuck, I am.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Right wingers have a problem being legal to the laws but like to blame the less fortunate.


Left wingers have a problem being legal to the laws but like to blame the less fortunate.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is worse. Simply being on the right wing does not mean you are Right. Fantasy much?
> 
> 
> 
> I never said I was on the 'right wing' Dufus.
Click to expand...

You can't be on the left with your attitude.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers have a problem being legal to the laws but like to blame the less fortunate.
> 
> 
> 
> Left wingers have a problem being legal to the laws but like to blame the less fortunate.
Click to expand...

I have no problem being legal to the laws and am on the left.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> You only prove your lack of comprehension. Right in this case and context does not imply any legal right only moral right.


What?  Are you drunk or something?   Your posts are getting ridiculous.


----------



## danielpalos

Leo123 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only prove your lack of comprehension. Right in this case and context does not imply any legal right only moral right.
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Are you drunk or something?   Your posts are getting ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Your comprehension is even more, rediculus.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> You can't be on the left with your attitude.



Yes I can, you see I am not myopic like you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were citizens after 1808.  The North was emancipating their slave population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Request number 2 link where slaves in the U.S had voting rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They did not have voting rights at the time, and neither did women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they didn't have voting rights more did they have a citizenship
> They didn't get citizenship until after 1866 with the 1st civil rights act of 1866
> The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization (and citizenship) to "free white persons," ruling out slaves and free blacks, as well.
> Slaves did not have rights, Free blacks in the north had some rights within some states until the Dread Scott decision of 1857 that specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They should have been natural born citizens after 1808.  Entry into the Union was a federal matter then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all I can do is laugh at your limited knowledge of 19th century U.S. history
> They should have would have could have but didn't have any citizenship until after the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers have a problem being legal to the laws but like to blame the less fortunate.
Click to expand...

Your concession is accepted 
The Naturalization Act of 1790 ONLY GAVE FREE WHITES CITIZENSHIP
Slaves did not have rights, Free blacks in the north had some rights within some states until the Dread Scott decision of 1857 that specifically set forth that African slaves (and their descendants) could never be citizens and had no citizenship rights.


----------



## Leo123

danielpalos said:


> Your comprehension is even more, rediculus.


HA!! Your grammar is 'rediculus'.  Come on, time to go to bed.  I think your mommy is calling.


----------



## MarcATL

The 3/5ths issue is covered in this presentation...


Learn something idiots.


----------



## Nosmo King

"counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.

Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.

For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did I. You comprehension skills are lacking.
> 
> 
> 
> OK so you said "a right" my point still stands.  And I bet you edited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only prove your lack of comprehension.  Right in this case and context does not imply any legal right only moral right.
Click to expand...


without legal rights moral rights have no teeth, the only way to have a legal right is to have the right to self defense


----------



## Leo123

MarcATL said:


> Learn something idiots.


I only had to watch the first few seconds and found out that we are to believe Jeffery's definition of racism because he's 'black.'   Fuck that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nosmo King said:


> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.


So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Leo123 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learn something idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> I only had to watch the first few seconds and found out that we are to believe Jeffery's definition of racism because he's 'black.'   Fuck that.
Click to expand...

By his own definition of a racist, he is a racist
Bigoted+ Predjudist+ Social Power+ legal Authority 
Blacks have social power 
Blacks have legal authority


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
Click to expand...

I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.


----------



## MarcATL

bigrebnc1775 said:


> By his own definition of a racist, he is a racist
> Bigoted+ Predjudist+ Social Power+ legal Authority
> Blacks have social power
> Blacks have legal authority


LoL!!!!

#TooFunny


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and also someone with no real understanding of American history or even world history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is his view on 19th century U.S. history
> "Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union. Women should have also had the franchise by birth because our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am citing Constitutional law; only right wingers have a problem with it; go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fuck you aren't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes fuck, I am.
Click to expand...

I cited Constitutional law you gave an opinion


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
Click to expand...

You are confusing history with the present 
When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

MarcATL said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By his own definition of a racist, he is a racist
> Bigoted+ Predjudist+ Social Power+ legal Authority
> Blacks have social power
> Blacks have legal authority
> 
> 
> 
> LoL!!!!
> 
> #TooFunny
Click to expand...

what part of what I said was incorrect?
The speaker conceded that Blacks can be Bigoted and prejudice
Blacks have social power
They control the output of the majority of the media.
and Blacks have a legal authority they have lawyers elected politicians hell we just had a black president
Just because the guy doesn't like it being a racist it's by his own words
I will also add he's trying to create the argument that blacks can't be charged with hate crimes when they attack someone of another race just because of that person's race.


----------



## Leo123

MarcATL said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By his own definition of a racist, he is a racist
> Bigoted+ Predjudist+ Social Power+ legal Authority
> Blacks have social power
> Blacks have legal authority
> 
> 
> 
> LoL!!!!
> 
> #TooFunny
Click to expand...

Actually your link to Jeffery was too funny.


----------



## Leo123

bigrebnc1775 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By his own definition of a racist, he is a racist
> Bigoted+ Predjudist+ Social Power+ legal Authority
> Blacks have social power
> Blacks have legal authority
> 
> 
> 
> LoL!!!!
> 
> #TooFunny
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what part of what I said was incorrect?
> The speaker conceded that Blacks can be Bigoted and prejudice
> Blacks have social power
> They control the output of the majority of the media.
> and Blacks have a legal authority they have lawyers elected politicians hell we just had a black president
> Just because the guy doesn't like it being a racist it's by his own words
> I will also add he's trying to create the argument that blacks can't be charged with hate crimes when they attack someone of another race just because of that person's race.
Click to expand...

Yeah ol' Jefferey claims because he's black he can't be racist.  What a crock.


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
Click to expand...

Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.


----------



## Leo123

Nosmo King said:


> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.


Passed by Republicans headed by Lincoln.  So there's that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
Click to expand...

Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?


----------



## esalla

bigrebnc1775 said:


> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
Click to expand...

How does 3/5 of a person go to the polls?


----------



## Nosmo King

Leo123 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> 
> 
> Passed by Republicans headed by Lincoln.  So there's that.
Click to expand...

Passed by Liberals.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you're having a discussion with someone who actually believes slaves in the U.S. had citizenship rights lol
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and also someone with no real understanding of American history or even world history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is his view on 19th century U.S. history
> "Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by natural born birth because that is when the general Government of the Union assumed supremacy over entry into the Union. Women should have also had the franchise by birth because our federal Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am citing Constitutional law; only right wingers have a problem with it; go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No fuck you aren't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes fuck, I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I cited Constitutional law you gave an opinion
Click to expand...

No, you didn't.  Persons are citizens by birth after 1808.  All laws to the contrary were unConstitutional and their eventual repeal proves it.


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
Click to expand...

I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.


----------



## danielpalos

esalla said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does 3/5 of a person go to the polls?
Click to expand...

It was for Census purposes and representation in the House.


----------



## danielpalos

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
Click to expand...

The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

esalla said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does 3/5 of a person go to the polls?
Click to expand...

You really don't





esalla said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> esalla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> One day i will understand you, then promptly jump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's really easy to understand instead of allowing the slaveholding state unbalanced representation through slaves the actual representation number for slaves was reduced to 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 3/5 of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representation in the house of representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slaves were not 3/5 of anything at the time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> did slaves have voting rights before 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does 3/5 of a person go to the polls?
Click to expand...

The year of the discussion is 1787 blacks slaver or otherwise do not have rights but you want them counted so the slave owners can have more power in the house and continue slavery.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
Click to expand...

You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
Click to expand...

Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
Click to expand...

We could be doing that by faithfully executing our supreme law of the land instead of right wing policy that only proves they are lousy Capitalists.


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
Click to expand...

The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?

Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
Click to expand...

The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
Click to expand...



"The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons".


And, as usual, Democrats/Liberals have corrupted the intent.


They follow Lucifer's press agent, Saul Alinsky, a brilliant exponent of the worst elements of human nature, and intend it to increase their power-   power to destroy America.


"_Make_ the enemy _live up_ to _its own_ book of rules." 
Alinsky


Obama was far more open about the plan, telling illegal aliens to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."


Either you are out to destroy America, or you are as dumb as asphalt.
Which is it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
Click to expand...


"The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "



Let's check:

Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren

1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.

2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.

3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.

4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.

5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years

6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.

7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.

8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro


9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.

10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.



Is this the party you support?


----------



## danielpalos

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons".
> 
> 
> And, as usual, Democrats/Liberals have corrupted the intent.
> 
> 
> They follow Lucifer's press agent, Saul Alinsky, a brilliant exponent of the worst elements of human nature, and intend it to increase their power-   power to destroy America.
> 
> 
> "_Make_ the enemy _live up_ to _its own_ book of rules."
> Alinsky
> 
> 
> Obama was far more open about the plan, telling illegal aliens to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
> 
> 
> Either you are out to destroy America, or you are as dumb as asphalt.
> Which is it?
Click to expand...

Right wingers are worse.  They just make up right wing fantasy and keep repeating it.


----------



## danielpalos

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
Click to expand...

Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.


----------



## Nosmo King

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
Click to expand...

My political alignment is primarily to the United States of America. My political ideology is toward liberal democracy and a political liberal outlook. My party is irrelevant.

If you believe that today's Democrats are aligned with the Democrats of the South in the 19th through the mid 20th century, you must also believe that today's Republicans also align with the Republicans of the same period. Are Trump republicans ideologically in agreement with Theodore Roosevelt Republicans? Eisenhower Republicans?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My political alignment is primarily to the United States of America. My political ideology is toward liberal democracy and a political liberal outlook. My party is irrelevant.
> 
> If you believe that today's Democrats are aligned with the Democrats of the South in the 19th through the mid 20th century, you must also believe that today's Republicans also align with the Republicans of the same period. Are Trump republicans ideologically in agreement with Theodore Roosevelt Republicans? Eisenhower Republicans?
Click to expand...


"If you believe that today's Democrats are aligned with the Democrats of the South in the 19th through the mid 20th century, ...."


Believe it????


I proved it......here:

Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren

1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.

2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.

3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.

4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.

5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years

6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.

7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.

8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro


9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.

10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance. 



Now......is this the party you support?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My political alignment is primarily to the United States of America. My political ideology is toward liberal democracy and a political liberal outlook. My party is irrelevant.
> 
> If you believe that today's Democrats are aligned with the Democrats of the South in the 19th through the mid 20th century, you must also believe that today's Republicans also align with the Republicans of the same period. Are Trump republicans ideologically in agreement with Theodore Roosevelt Republicans? Eisenhower Republicans?
Click to expand...



"My party is irrelevant."


It appears you are afraid to admit that this is what you support:

The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.

See if you recognize the similarity in this Margaret Mead, anthropologist, quote: *The natives are superficially agreeable, but they go in for cannibalism, headhunting, infanticide, incest, avoidance and joking relationships, and biting lice in half with their teeth.

One wonders, if she were still alive, what her views of this Democrat Party would be.*
Democrats, the anti-America party, anti-police, pro-anarchy, anti-military, anti-history. Keeps ‘em busy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
Click to expand...

Link


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
Click to expand...

Your morals are corrupt.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
Click to expand...

Liar prove it or retract your lie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
Click to expand...

The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.


Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
Click to expand...

What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?


----------



## anynameyouwish

PoliticalChic said:


> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*




the slave owners in the USA were ALL CHRISTIANS!

like you


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
Click to expand...

Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.


----------



## PoliticalChic

anynameyouwish said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the slave owners in the USA were ALL CHRISTIANS!
> 
> like you
Click to expand...



Democrats.....slavers.



Religious folks were the abolitionists.

The reference can be found in a book you may not be familiar with, called the Bible, where we find the following: Genesis *1:26* And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness 


Of course, you atheists have a different view of mankind.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.
Click to expand...




It appears my posts have put a cork in your pie hole.

Many Democrat voters can neither defend, nor explain, the party they support, and behave the very same way. It's the reason Democrats wish to silence opposing voices, as we eat their lunch.


----------



## Nosmo King

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears my posts have put a cork in your pie hole.
> 
> Many Democrat voters can neither defend, nor explain, the party they support, and behave the very same way. It's the reason Democrats wish to silence opposing voices, as we eat their lunch.
> 
> 
> View attachment 388570
Click to expand...

If you believe everyone who identified as a Republican in 2016 STILL identifies as a Republican today, you're off your rocker.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears my posts have put a cork in your pie hole.
> 
> Many Democrat voters can neither defend, nor explain, the party they support, and behave the very same way. It's the reason Democrats wish to silence opposing voices, as we eat their lunch.
> 
> 
> View attachment 388570
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe everyone who identified as a Republican in 2016 STILL identifies as a Republican today, you're off your rocker.
Click to expand...



Sorry....you will not be allowed to change the subject to hide the fact that this is what you support:
Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren

1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.

2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.

3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.

4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.

5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years

6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.

7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.

8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro


9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.

10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.



And this is what you will be voting for:
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.



It might be best if you simply wander off.


----------



## Nosmo King

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears my posts have put a cork in your pie hole.
> 
> Many Democrat voters can neither defend, nor explain, the party they support, and behave the very same way. It's the reason Democrats wish to silence opposing voices, as we eat their lunch.
> 
> 
> View attachment 388570
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe everyone who identified as a Republican in 2016 STILL identifies as a Republican today, you're off your rocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....you will not be allowed to change the subject to hide the fact that this is what you support:
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what you will be voting for:
> The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
> 
> 
> 
> It might be best if you simply wander off.
Click to expand...

It might be best if you just talked with other Qanaon nutcases and stopped trying to pose as an intelligent person. You're fringe and you like it that way. All critical thought is set aside.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears my posts have put a cork in your pie hole.
> 
> Many Democrat voters can neither defend, nor explain, the party they support, and behave the very same way. It's the reason Democrats wish to silence opposing voices, as we eat their lunch.
> 
> 
> View attachment 388570
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe everyone who identified as a Republican in 2016 STILL identifies as a Republican today, you're off your rocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....you will not be allowed to change the subject to hide the fact that this is what you support:
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what you will be voting for:
> The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
> 
> 
> 
> It might be best if you simply wander off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might be best if you just talked with other Qanaon nutcases and stopped trying to pose as an intelligent person. You're fringe and you like it that way. All critical thought is set aside.
Click to expand...




Everything I posted is true, accurate and correct.

That is why you are unable to dispute any of it, most especially your support of the party responsible: the Democrat Party.



But....I am magnanimous to a fault, so you can have one more opportunity.





Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren

1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.

2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.

3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.

4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.

5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years

6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.

7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.

8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro


9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.

10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.



And this is what you will be voting for:
The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.


----------



## Nosmo King

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears my posts have put a cork in your pie hole.
> 
> Many Democrat voters can neither defend, nor explain, the party they support, and behave the very same way. It's the reason Democrats wish to silence opposing voices, as we eat their lunch.
> 
> 
> View attachment 388570
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe everyone who identified as a Republican in 2016 STILL identifies as a Republican today, you're off your rocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....you will not be allowed to change the subject to hide the fact that this is what you support:
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what you will be voting for:
> The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
> 
> 
> 
> It might be best if you simply wander off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might be best if you just talked with other Qanaon nutcases and stopped trying to pose as an intelligent person. You're fringe and you like it that way. All critical thought is set aside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I posted is true, accurate and correct.
> 
> That is why you are unable to dispute any of it, most especially your support of the party responsible: the Democrat Party.
> 
> 
> 
> But....I am magnanimous to a fault, so you can have one more opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what you will be voting for:
> The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
Click to expand...

Everything you posted a,punts to strawman arguments. They only fly among the fringe, the brainwashed and the deluded.

I, as everyone, cannot prove a negative. You keep posting negatives as if they are true.

Seek verifiable information, not fringe propaganda.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears my posts have put a cork in your pie hole.
> 
> Many Democrat voters can neither defend, nor explain, the party they support, and behave the very same way. It's the reason Democrats wish to silence opposing voices, as we eat their lunch.
> 
> 
> View attachment 388570
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe everyone who identified as a Republican in 2016 STILL identifies as a Republican today, you're off your rocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....you will not be allowed to change the subject to hide the fact that this is what you support:
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what you will be voting for:
> The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
> 
> 
> 
> It might be best if you simply wander off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might be best if you just talked with other Qanaon nutcases and stopped trying to pose as an intelligent person. You're fringe and you like it that way. All critical thought is set aside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I posted is true, accurate and correct.
> 
> That is why you are unable to dispute any of it, most especially your support of the party responsible: the Democrat Party.
> 
> 
> 
> But....I am magnanimous to a fault, so you can have one more opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what you will be voting for:
> The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you posted a,punts to strawman arguments. They only fly among the fringe, the brainwashed and the deluded.
> 
> I, as everyone, cannot prove a negative. You keep posting negatives as if they are true.
> 
> Seek verifiable information, not fringe propaganda.
Click to expand...



Find anything in my post not true.




And, while you're at it, shielding your party, another dose of reallity:


1. The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school children….until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne 

2. It is the party of Jefferson Davis, of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Knights of the KKK, Planned Parenthood, concentration camps for American citizens, and restrictions on free speech.

3. It is the party of Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree, and of James Hodgkinson, and of Communist Bernie Sanders, of pretend genders.

4. The Democrat Party is the oldest racist organization in America, the trail of tears, the author of Jim Crow and the bigotry of low expectations, filibustered against women getting the vote and killed every anti-lynching bill to get to Congress

5. The Democrat Party is the number one funder of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran….to the tune of $100 billion to the Ayatollahs….and gave Hezbollah the go-ahead to sell cocaine in America.

6. It is the party of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan, and of the first Cabinet member ever to be held in contempt of Congress.

7. It is the party that admits its future depends on flooding the country with illegal aliens, and telling them to vote.

8. It is the party that couldn't suck up to the Castro Brothers enough, and treats the Bill of Rights like a Chinese menu..

9. The Democrats got us into the Civil War…Jefferson Davis .... Woodrow Wilson, WWI….FDR, WWII……Truman, Korean War….VietNam, JFK and LBJ…..yet they want to weaken our military.

10. The Democrats are the party that looks at the mayhem their gun laws have produced in Chicago, ……and this is their model for the nation.

11. I should mention that the Democrat Party was used as a model by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party….another ‘feather’ in the party’s cap?

12. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism.

13. It's the party of felons over law-abiding actual citizens

14. No shared values, not an American party…they oppose free speech, the second amendment, and the free practice of one’s religion.

15. Recent development prove the Democrats to be, as well, the party of rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists.

Democrats: Bull Connor, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, Al Gore, Sr., Bill Clinton….all racists, all Democrats.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
Click to expand...

It matters when states are getting representation for people they should not be getting  iLLEGALS SHOULD BE COUNTED AS 3/5


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.
Click to expand...

It is the main reason


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
Click to expand...

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.  

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
Click to expand...

What party are right wingers voting now?  It should be a self-evident Truth.  Or, you can read The Prince of Darkness by Robert Novack.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar prove it or retract your lie.
Click to expand...

They vote republican now not democrat.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
Click to expand...

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.


----------



## danielpalos

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
Click to expand...

Right wingers don't care about the laws.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.  Anyone who was a natural born person was a citizen after 1808.


----------



## danielpalos

PoliticalChic said:


> anynameyouwish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the slave owners in the USA were ALL CHRISTIANS!
> 
> like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats.....slavers.
> 
> 
> 
> Religious folks were the abolitionists.
> 
> The reference can be found in a book you may not be familiar with, called the Bible, where we find the following: Genesis *1:26* And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness
> 
> 
> Of course, you atheists have a different view of mankind.
Click to expand...

The right wing has the most problem equality and equal protection of the laws.


----------



## danielpalos

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose was to have a count of people for the makeup for the house of representatives. Should a slave who had no citizenship rights be counted as a whole number giving slave states bigger control of the house??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Representative apportionment is but one of the many reasons we take a census.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears my posts have put a cork in your pie hole.
> 
> Many Democrat voters can neither defend, nor explain, the party they support, and behave the very same way. It's the reason Democrats wish to silence opposing voices, as we eat their lunch.
> 
> 
> View attachment 388570
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe everyone who identified as a Republican in 2016 STILL identifies as a Republican today, you're off your rocker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry....you will not be allowed to change the subject to hide the fact that this is what you support:
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what you will be voting for:
> The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
> 
> 
> 
> It might be best if you simply wander off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It might be best if you just talked with other Qanaon nutcases and stopped trying to pose as an intelligent person. You're fringe and you like it that way. All critical thought is set aside.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I posted is true, accurate and correct.
> 
> That is why you are unable to dispute any of it, most especially your support of the party responsible: the Democrat Party.
> 
> 
> 
> But....I am magnanimous to a fault, so you can have one more opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what you will be voting for:
> The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism, socialism, infanticide, opposition to free speech, substituting illegal alien voters for the American citizenry, support for rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists, and anti-Semitism… the knuckle-dragging, atavistic pagan party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you posted a,punts to strawman arguments. They only fly among the fringe, the brainwashed and the deluded.
> 
> I, as everyone, cannot prove a negative. You keep posting negatives as if they are true.
> 
> Seek verifiable information, not fringe propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Find anything in my post not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, while you're at it, shielding your party, another dose of reallity:
> 
> 
> 1. The Democrats are, and have always been, the party of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship, the party that stood in schoolhouse doors to block black school children….until Republicans sent in the 101st airborne
> 
> 2. It is the party of Jefferson Davis, of Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Knights of the KKK, Planned Parenthood, concentration camps for American citizens, and restrictions on free speech.
> 
> 3. It is the party of Mao ornaments on the White House Christmas tree, and of James Hodgkinson, and of Communist Bernie Sanders, of pretend genders.
> 
> 4. The Democrat Party is the oldest racist organization in America, the trail of tears, the author of Jim Crow and the bigotry of low expectations, filibustered against women getting the vote and killed every anti-lynching bill to get to Congress
> 
> 5. The Democrat Party is the number one funder of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran….to the tune of $100 billion to the Ayatollahs….and gave Hezbollah the go-ahead to sell cocaine in America.
> 
> 6. It is the party of anti-Semitism and Louis Farrakhan, and of the first Cabinet member ever to be held in contempt of Congress.
> 
> 7. It is the party that admits its future depends on flooding the country with illegal aliens, and telling them to vote.
> 
> 8. It is the party that couldn't suck up to the Castro Brothers enough, and treats the Bill of Rights like a Chinese menu..
> 
> 9. The Democrats got us into the Civil War…Jefferson Davis .... Woodrow Wilson, WWI….FDR, WWII……Truman, Korean War….VietNam, JFK and LBJ…..yet they want to weaken our military.
> 
> 10. The Democrats are the party that looks at the mayhem their gun laws have produced in Chicago, ……and this is their model for the nation.
> 
> 11. I should mention that the Democrat Party was used as a model by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party….another ‘feather’ in the party’s cap?
> 
> 12. The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism.
> 
> 13. It's the party of felons over law-abiding actual citizens
> 
> 14. No shared values, not an American party…they oppose free speech, the second amendment, and the free practice of one’s religion.
> 
> 15. Recent development prove the Democrats to be, as well, the party of rioters, arsonists, murderers, and anarchists.
> 
> Democrats: Bull Connor, George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, Al Gore, Sr., Bill Clinton….all racists, all Democrats.
Click to expand...

Yet, right wingers vote Republican not democrat.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters when states are getting representation for people they should not be getting  iLLEGALS SHOULD BE COUNTED AS 3/5
Click to expand...

Obey our naturalization laws right wingers.  Don't be illegals to the laws.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
With acception of Native Americans.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What party are right wingers voting now?  It should be a self-evident Truth.  Or, you can read The Prince of Darkness by Robert Novack.
Click to expand...

The party that freed the democrat slaves


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar prove it or retract your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They vote republican now not democrat.
Click to expand...

The right wing has never voted democrat


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters when states are getting representation for people they should not be getting  iLLEGALS SHOULD BE COUNTED AS 3/5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obey our naturalization laws right wingers.  Don't be illegals to the laws.
Click to expand...

What in the fuck does that have to do with states receiving more represtives in the house because of illegal immigrants?


----------



## wamose

Joe Biden wishes he was 3/5 of a person. He's hovering at around half a man now. MAGA


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons".
> 
> 
> And, as usual, Democrats/Liberals have corrupted the intent.
> 
> 
> They follow Lucifer's press agent, Saul Alinsky, a brilliant exponent of the worst elements of human nature, and intend it to increase their power-   power to destroy America.
> 
> 
> "_Make_ the enemy _live up_ to _its own_ book of rules."
> Alinsky
> 
> 
> Obama was far more open about the plan, telling illegal aliens to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
> 
> 
> Either you are out to destroy America, or you are as dumb as asphalt.
> Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers are worse.  They just make up right wing fantasy and keep repeating it.
Click to expand...

oh the Irony is thick in this boy


----------



## bigrebnc1775

What do democrats when talking about slave owning democrats always address them as right wing?
They were DEMOCRATS they were racist just like democrats are now still racist


----------



## hadit

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
Click to expand...

Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters when states are getting representation for people they should not be getting  iLLEGALS SHOULD BE COUNTED AS 3/5
Click to expand...

Undocumented immigrants cannot vote!


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
Click to expand...

How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What party are right wingers voting now?  It should be a self-evident Truth.  Or, you can read The Prince of Darkness by Robert Novack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The party that freed the democrat slaves
Click to expand...

Isn't right wing fantasy wonderful.  Why would "republicans" wage a civil war against a republican administration?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar prove it or retract your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They vote republican now not democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing has never voted democrat
Click to expand...

lol.  You mean the South voted for Lincoln?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters when states are getting representation for people they should not be getting  iLLEGALS SHOULD BE COUNTED AS 3/5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obey our naturalization laws right wingers.  Don't be illegals to the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What in the fuck does that have to do with states receiving more represtives in the house because of illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...

lol.  If you actually understood the concept you would understand that we should have no illegals or illegal underclass because there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  The three fifths clause could apply to foreign nationals with our naturalization clause.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
With exception of Native Americans.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons".
> 
> 
> And, as usual, Democrats/Liberals have corrupted the intent.
> 
> 
> They follow Lucifer's press agent, Saul Alinsky, a brilliant exponent of the worst elements of human nature, and intend it to increase their power-   power to destroy America.
> 
> 
> "_Make_ the enemy _live up_ to _its own_ book of rules."
> Alinsky
> 
> 
> Obama was far more open about the plan, telling illegal aliens to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
> 
> 
> Either you are out to destroy America, or you are as dumb as asphalt.
> Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers are worse.  They just make up right wing fantasy and keep repeating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh the Irony is thick in this boy
Click to expand...

Says the right wing who only know how to appeal to ignorance instead of providing valid rebuttals with valid arguments.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar prove it or retract your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They vote republican now not democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing has never voted democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You mean the South voted for Lincoln?
Click to expand...

no democrats didn't even allow Lincoln on the ballot in the south


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons". Not create non-people when there are actual people to be counted. You're argument says not all men are created equal. How does that square up with the founding fathers?
> 
> Or are you saying racism and bigotry must govern our nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The purpose of the census is to count "the whole number of persons".
> 
> 
> And, as usual, Democrats/Liberals have corrupted the intent.
> 
> 
> They follow Lucifer's press agent, Saul Alinsky, a brilliant exponent of the worst elements of human nature, and intend it to increase their power-   power to destroy America.
> 
> 
> "_Make_ the enemy _live up_ to _its own_ book of rules."
> Alinsky
> 
> 
> Obama was far more open about the plan, telling illegal aliens to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."
> 
> 
> Either you are out to destroy America, or you are as dumb as asphalt.
> Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers are worse.  They just make up right wing fantasy and keep repeating it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh the Irony is thick in this boy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the right wing who only know how to appeal to ignorance instead of providing valid rebuttals with valid arguments.
Click to expand...

As I said the irony is thick in this boy.


----------



## danielpalos

hadit said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
Click to expand...

Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What do democrats when talking about slave owning democrats always address them as right wing?
> They were DEMOCRATS they were racist just like democrats are now still racist


Right wingers are getting their confederate statues removed.  The democrats are for social justice in modern times.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters when states are getting representation for people they should not be getting  iLLEGALS SHOULD BE COUNTED AS 3/5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obey our naturalization laws right wingers.  Don't be illegals to the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What in the fuck does that have to do with states receiving more represtives in the house because of illegal immigrants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  If you actually understood the concept you would understand that we should have no illegals or illegal underclass because there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  The three fifths clause could apply to foreign nationals with our naturalization clause.
Click to expand...

once again what did you blather have to do with states receiving more representatives in the house because of illegal immigrants?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do democrats when talking about slave owning democrats always address them as right wing?
> They were DEMOCRATS they were racist just like democrats are now still racist
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers are getting their confederate statues removed.  The democrats are for social justice in modern times.
Click to expand...

democrats today are the same as democrats of the 19th century


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
Click to expand...

You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring a lot of things


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it stopped slave states from getting more power in the house. Imagine without that 1787 compromise slavery might still exist today. Just like today's illegal immigrants we need to count them as 3/5th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless.  We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The moral imperative against slavery would have prevailed nonetheless. We were a moral nation prior to Trumpism.. "
> 
> 
> 
> Let's check:
> 
> Democrat’s Bountiful Gifts To Out Black Brethren
> 
> 1.Doubling down on their support for slavery and segregation, the Democrat Party blocked every anti-lynching to come to the Senate.
> 
> 2. Dragging their feet on post-war freedom for their slaves, they imposed poll taxes and Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 3. The Obama ‘Promise Program’ made it almost impossible to remove thugs and criminals from ghetto schools, to make certain that learning was impeded.
> 
> 4. Authored gun laws that only law abiding citizens would obey, preventing black citizens in crime ridden neighborhood from protecting themselves.
> 
> 5. Promoted bogus anti-police hatred, while ignoring some 350,000 blacks killed by lawless blacks. 324,000 U.S. Blacks Killed by Blacks In Only 35 Years
> 
> 6. In nearing a century of Democrat welfare, blacks remain as the lowest income racial group.
> 
> 7. Allied with the International Left, the Democrat party makes certain that racial animosity never dies down.
> 
> 8. The Democrats made and make certain that religion and morality is barred from the schools and from the public arena. “…will America be made better by curbing religion in the name of secularism, of vice versa?” Ben Shapiro
> 
> 
> 9. The Democrat judicial system is based on the idea that all blacks are felons, so felons must be released from jails. Carter-appointed judge Norma Shapiro “ is one of the worst offenders among that influential cadre of federal judges who have substituted the ACLU's prisoners' rights wish list for the Bill of Rights and have trifled with public safety concerns. …” In 1992, black youths were nine times more likely to be murdered than white youths. Democrats lied, kids died.
> 
> 10. But wait…..they did manage to ban one single word from common parlance.
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the party you support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical of right wing misdirection and misleading.  Right wingers vote republican, now.  They changed from voting democrat after the civil rights acts.  To much equality for right wingers to handle, I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar prove it or retract your lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They vote republican now not democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing has never voted democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  You mean the South voted for Lincoln?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no democrats didn't even allow Lincoln on the ballot in the south
Click to expand...

You mean the persons who rebelled against the Union to keep slavery?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters when states are getting representation for people they should not be getting  iLLEGALS SHOULD BE COUNTED AS 3/5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obey our naturalization laws right wingers.  Don't be illegals to the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What in the fuck does that have to do with states receiving more represtives in the house because of illegal immigrants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  If you actually understood the concept you would understand that we should have no illegals or illegal underclass because there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  The three fifths clause could apply to foreign nationals with our naturalization clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> once again what did you blather have to do with states receiving more representatives in the house because of illegal immigrants?
Click to expand...

lol.  Having difficulty understanding the concepts?   If you actually understood the concept you would understand that we should have no illegals or illegal underclass because there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  The three fifths clause could apply to foreign nationals with our naturalization clause.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do democrats when talking about slave owning democrats always address them as right wing?
> They were DEMOCRATS they were racist just like democrats are now still racist
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers are getting their confederate statues removed.  The democrats are for social justice in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats today are the same as democrats of the 19th century
Click to expand...

They can't be.  Democrats back then rebelled against the Union and did not vote republican.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a lot of things
Click to expand...

I am not the one ignoring express Constitutional law and whining about it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...

That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated 
That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
And women right to vote 
yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do democrats when talking about slave owning democrats always address them as right wing?
> They were DEMOCRATS they were racist just like democrats are now still racist
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers are getting their confederate statues removed.  The democrats are for social justice in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats today are the same as democrats of the 19th century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't be.  Democrats back then rebelled against the Union and did not vote republican.
Click to expand...

oh fuck democrats are rebelling today and not voting Republican 
I rest my case dumb shit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a lot of things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one ignoring express Constitutional law and whining about it.
Click to expand...

post your sources


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
Click to expand...

Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do democrats when talking about slave owning democrats always address them as right wing?
> They were DEMOCRATS they were racist just like democrats are now still racist
> 
> 
> 
> Right wingers are getting their confederate statues removed.  The democrats are for social justice in modern times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats today are the same as democrats of the 19th century
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't be.  Democrats back then rebelled against the Union and did not vote republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh fuck democrats are rebelling today
> I rest my case dumb shit.
Click to expand...

You have no case, only ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a lot of things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one ignoring express Constitutional law and whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> post your sources
Click to expand...

Our Constitution.  Show us Any gender or race terms in our Original Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Anything gender or race specific happened after that, because right wingers could not obey our own laws.


----------



## danielpalos

Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
Click to expand...

democrats still don't believe in equal rights


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a lot of things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one ignoring express Constitutional law and whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> post your sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution.  Show us Any gender or race terms in our Original Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anything gender or race specific happened after that, because right wingers could not obey our own laws.
Click to expand...

show me where slaves or blacks had citizenship before the ratification of the 14th amendment and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.


it's the history of your democrat party lol


----------



## Nosmo King

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
Click to expand...

By what measure?

Are Republicans in favor of Gay rights? Women's rights? Black rights? Latino rights? 

Are Republicans advocates for American Islamic rights?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what measure?
> 
> Are Republicans in favor of Gay rights? Women's rights? Black rights? Latino rights?
> 
> Are Republicans advocates for American Islamic rights?
Click to expand...

God given rights not the rights that are given and taken away by democrats


----------



## PoliticalChic

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters when states are getting representation for people they should not be getting  iLLEGALS SHOULD BE COUNTED AS 3/5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Undocumented immigrants cannot vote!
Click to expand...




You're certainly thick with lies today


*"Nevada Sec. State: DMV Instructed Employees To Register Non-Citizens To Vote*

“It has come to our attention that when offering voter registration opportunities to customers, DMV’s employees offer voter registration materials to DMV customers whom they know to be non-citizens based upon their presentation of a Green Card for identification purposes,” Cegavske wrote."





“More specifically, it is our understanding that some DMV employees have been instructed to accept registration materials from all customers, including those who present a Green Card for identification purposes…"








						Nevada Sec. State: DMV Instructed Employees To Register Non-Citizens To Vote
					

Nevada’s Secretary of State blamed the Department of Motor Vehicles voter registration process for adding people to the state voter rolls who were not U.S. Citizens.




					dailycaller.com
				





*"New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election*
A new bombshell study released by the Government Accountability Institute shows ....that thousands of votes in the 2016 election were illegal duplicate votes from people who registered and voted in more than one state.

The probability of 45,000 illegal duplicate votes is the low end of the spectrum, and it does not even account for other types of fraud such as ineligible voting by noncitizens and felons and absentee ballot fraud.

....duplicate voting and voter fraud are a real problem that can have serious consequential effects."
New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Judicial Watch noted that public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission’s 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey and through verbal accounts from various county agencies show 11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).

In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that Los Angeles County officials “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.” Judicial Watch Warns California to Clean Voter Registration Lists or Face Federal Lawsuit - Judicial Watch


*"Hundreds of Illegal Voters Revealed in Philadelphia*
According to a Philadelphia elections official, hundreds of individuals who are not U.S. citizens have registered to vote in Philadelphia and nearly half of them voted in past elections. Since 2006, 317 registered voters have contacted the City Commissioners, which oversees Philadelphia elections, asking that their registrations be canceled because they are not citizens.

Philly.com reported that many of them registered while either applying for or renewing their driver’s licenses."
Hundreds of Illegal Voters Revealed in Philadelphia


Hmmmm.....

"....many of them registered while either applying for or renewing their driver’s licenses."

Remember when I posted this....

a. "12 States (and DC) That Allow Driver's Licenses for People in the Country Illegally" 12 States (and DC) That Allow Driver's Licenses for People in the Country Illegally - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org



b. "If you’ve visited the DMV in the last few weeks, you may have noticed that you can now complete your voter registration at the same time you renew your driver’s license — without having to fill out a separate form.... *they will be registered *as having no party preference. " Registered to vote at the DMV? Check again. Many who use the new process miss a vital step two



*Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote*
Thanks to a new poll, we now know that approximately 13% of illegal aliens vote. Since they are already criminals, stealing ID’s or using phony ID’s. lie to get welfare, steal jobs—why not vote as they to lose. Since they can not be deported or jailed, they have nothing to lose. Obama is protecting these law breakers. Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote - California Political Review





Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote - California Political Review[/QUOTE]


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
Click to expand...

lol.  Right wingers believe in less in equal rights.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a lot of things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one ignoring express Constitutional law and whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> post your sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution.  Show us Any gender or race terms in our Original Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anything gender or race specific happened after that, because right wingers could not obey our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me where slaves or blacks had citizenship before the ratification of the 14th amendment and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866?
Click to expand...

lol.  We know why right wingers did not vote Republican before our Civil War. Equality and equal protection of the laws has always been difficult for the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
Click to expand...

lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.


----------



## danielpalos

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what measure?
> 
> Are Republicans in favor of Gay rights? Women's rights? Black rights? Latino rights?
> 
> Are Republicans advocates for American Islamic rights?
Click to expand...

They only have false witness bearing and practice the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God) to try to confuse the issue.  Yet, they are also willing to allege to be the, party of God.  Go figure.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what measure?
> 
> Are Republicans in favor of Gay rights? Women's rights? Black rights? Latino rights?
> 
> Are Republicans advocates for American Islamic rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God given rights not the rights that are given and taken away by democrats
Click to expand...

Persons who believe in God should not be immoral enough to bear false witness or practice the abomination of hypocrisy.  

Not bright enough to insist on equality and equal protection of the laws or is that concept too difficult for the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

PoliticalChic said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does it matter? This happens to be 2020! Women weren't allowed to vote in 1866! Do you want 1866 governance for a 2020 nation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters when states are getting representation for people they should not be getting  iLLEGALS SHOULD BE COUNTED AS 3/5
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Undocumented immigrants cannot vote!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're certainly thick with lies today
> 
> 
> *"Nevada Sec. State: DMV Instructed Employees To Register Non-Citizens To Vote*
> 
> “It has come to our attention that when offering voter registration opportunities to customers, DMV’s employees offer voter registration materials to DMV customers whom they know to be non-citizens based upon their presentation of a Green Card for identification purposes,” Cegavske wrote."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “More specifically, it is our understanding that some DMV employees have been instructed to accept registration materials from all customers, including those who present a Green Card for identification purposes…"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevada Sec. State: DMV Instructed Employees To Register Non-Citizens To Vote
> 
> 
> Nevada’s Secretary of State blamed the Department of Motor Vehicles voter registration process for adding people to the state voter rolls who were not U.S. Citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dailycaller.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election*
> A new bombshell study released by the Government Accountability Institute shows ....that thousands of votes in the 2016 election were illegal duplicate votes from people who registered and voted in more than one state.
> 
> The probability of 45,000 illegal duplicate votes is the low end of the spectrum, and it does not even account for other types of fraud such as ineligible voting by noncitizens and felons and absentee ballot fraud.
> 
> ....duplicate voting and voter fraud are a real problem that can have serious consequential effects."
> New Report Exposes Thousands of Illegal Votes in 2016 Election
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> " Judicial Watch noted that public records obtained on the Election Assistance Commission’s 2016 Election Administration Voting Survey and through verbal accounts from various county agencies show 11 California counties have more registered voters than voting-age citizens: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).
> 
> In the letter, Judicial Watch noted that Los Angeles County officials “informed us that the total number of registered voters now stands at a number that is a whopping 144% of the total number of resident citizens of voting age.” Judicial Watch Warns California to Clean Voter Registration Lists or Face Federal Lawsuit - Judicial Watch
> 
> 
> *"Hundreds of Illegal Voters Revealed in Philadelphia*
> According to a Philadelphia elections official, hundreds of individuals who are not U.S. citizens have registered to vote in Philadelphia and nearly half of them voted in past elections. Since 2006, 317 registered voters have contacted the City Commissioners, which oversees Philadelphia elections, asking that their registrations be canceled because they are not citizens.
> 
> Philly.com reported that many of them registered while either applying for or renewing their driver’s licenses."
> Hundreds of Illegal Voters Revealed in Philadelphia
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....
> 
> "....many of them registered while either applying for or renewing their driver’s licenses."
> 
> Remember when I posted this....
> 
> a. "12 States (and DC) That Allow Driver's Licenses for People in the Country Illegally" 12 States (and DC) That Allow Driver's Licenses for People in the Country Illegally - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org
> 
> 
> 
> b. "If you’ve visited the DMV in the last few weeks, you may have noticed that you can now complete your voter registration at the same time you renew your driver’s license — without having to fill out a separate form.... *they will be registered *as having no party preference. " Registered to vote at the DMV? Check again. Many who use the new process miss a vital step two
> 
> 
> 
> *Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote*
> Thanks to a new poll, we now know that approximately 13% of illegal aliens vote. Since they are already criminals, stealing ID’s or using phony ID’s. lie to get welfare, steal jobs—why not vote as they to lose. Since they can not be deported or jailed, they have nothing to lose. Obama is protecting these law breakers. Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote - California Political Review
> Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote - California Political Review
Click to expand...


Typical of the hypocrisy of the right wing:

Albertson’s response letter to Cegavske read in part: “Your letter comes as a complete surprise as you and your office have reviewed, contributed to, and approved the processes you are expressing concerns about.”

And, since Your guy lost the Popular vote; y'all have to prove any illegals who allegedly voted, voted blue and not red.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Right wingers believe in less in equal rights.
Click to expand...

Link or own your lie


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what measure?
> 
> Are Republicans in favor of Gay rights? Women's rights? Black rights? Latino rights?
> 
> Are Republicans advocates for American Islamic rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God given rights not the rights that are given and taken away by democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Persons who believe in God should not be immoral enough to bear false witness or practice the abomination of hypocrisy.
> 
> Not bright enough to insist on equality and equal protection of the laws or is that concept too difficult for the right wing.
Click to expand...

You're right they don't lie I don't lie and you're still wrong. Where is your





danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a lot of things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one ignoring express Constitutional law and whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> post your sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution.  Show us Any gender or race terms in our Original Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anything gender or race specific happened after that, because right wingers could not obey our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me where slaves or blacks had citizenship before the ratification of the 14th amendment and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  We know why right wingers did not vote Republican before our Civil War. Equality and equal protection of the laws has always been difficult for the right wing.
Click to expand...

yourdumb ass no such thing as a right wing left wing when this country was created it was all democrat


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
Click to expand...

And your point after all they are rebelling now


----------



## AZrailwhale

Nosmo King said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what measure?
> 
> Are Republicans in favor of Gay rights? Women's rights? Black rights? Latino rights?
> 
> Are Republicans advocates for American Islamic rights?
Click to expand...

Conservatives are in favor of EVERYONE having the same rights, not gay people, women, latinos, blacks or anyone else having special, or specific rights.  Perhaps it's simpler to say that conservatives are in favor of AMERICAN RIGHTS.


----------



## AZrailwhale

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what measure?
> 
> Are Republicans in favor of Gay rights? Women's rights? Black rights? Latino rights?
> 
> Are Republicans advocates for American Islamic rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God given rights not the rights that are given and taken away by democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Persons who believe in God should not be immoral enough to bear false witness or practice the abomination of hypocrisy.
> 
> Not bright enough to insist on equality and equal protection of the laws or is that concept too difficult for the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right they don't lie I don't lie and you're still wrong. Where is your
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a lot of things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one ignoring express Constitutional law and whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> post your sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution.  Show us Any gender or race terms in our Original Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anything gender or race specific happened after that, because right wingers could not obey our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me where slaves or blacks had citizenship before the ratification of the 14th amendment and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  We know why right wingers did not vote Republican before our Civil War. Equality and equal protection of the laws has always been difficult for the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yourdumb ass no such thing as a right wing left wing when this country was created it was all democrat
Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong,  The First Party System of the United States featured the *Federalist Party and the Democratic- Republican Party* (also known as the Anti-Federalist Party).  The Federalists were the closest to the modern democratic party wanting a large, powerful central government.  The Democratic-Republican party was closest to the conservative/republican party believing in a small central government with little power.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Anti-Racist Racist Bigotry Intolerance And Violence Of The Left Has Nothing To Do With Roe V Wade Constitutionality "

* Party Platform Policy Profundity **



Leo123 said:


> Yep, Democrats always denigrate human life.  Rioting, Abortion.....etc.


This individual is more closely aligned with republican policies that have nothing to do with being anti-choice .

The anti-choice camp does not exclusive to the republican party and the religious riech is 100% against the birth requisite for citizenship and therefore equal protection as provided by us constitution .


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Right wingers believe in less in equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link or own your lie
Click to expand...

I got banned from a thread by right wing socialists who care more about censorship than they do about the topics.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
Click to expand...

The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States. 

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

AZrailwhale said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what measure?
> 
> Are Republicans in favor of Gay rights? Women's rights? Black rights? Latino rights?
> 
> Are Republicans advocates for American Islamic rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives are in favor of EVERYONE having the same rights, not gay people, women, latinos, blacks or anyone else having special, or specific rights.  Perhaps it's simpler to say that conservatives are in favor of AMERICAN RIGHTS.
Click to expand...

Who are these alleged conservatives?  Right wingers care about their bigotry and censorship than they care about "natural rights".


----------



## bigrebnc1775

AZrailwhale said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By what measure?
> 
> Are Republicans in favor of Gay rights? Women's rights? Black rights? Latino rights?
> 
> Are Republicans advocates for American Islamic rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God given rights not the rights that are given and taken away by democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Persons who believe in God should not be immoral enough to bear false witness or practice the abomination of hypocrisy.
> 
> Not bright enough to insist on equality and equal protection of the laws or is that concept too difficult for the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right they don't lie I don't lie and you're still wrong. Where is your
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh, illegal means the law already doesn't apply. You might as well say the Constitution has no drug policy clause so we shouldn't have any problem with ne'er do wells illegally smoking pot in Mom's basement. The truth is, we do have a problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance of the laws and don't care about natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is what I was talking about in your post. We have an illegal problem and an illegal underclass because the law and the Constitution is being ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show us the Immigration clause that is being ignored, right wingers.  Don't just be hypocrites and whine about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignoring a lot of things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not the one ignoring express Constitutional law and whining about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> post your sources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution.  Show us Any gender or race terms in our Original Constitution and Bill of Rights.
> 
> Anything gender or race specific happened after that, because right wingers could not obey our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> show me where slaves or blacks had citizenship before the ratification of the 14th amendment and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  We know why right wingers did not vote Republican before our Civil War. Equality and equal protection of the laws has always been difficult for the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yourdumb ass no such thing as a right wing left wing when this country was created it was all democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are wrong,  The First Party System of the United States featured the *Federalist Party and the Democratic- Republican Party* (also known as the Anti-Federalist Party).  The Federalists were the closest to the modern democratic party wanting a large, powerful central government.  The Democratic-Republican party was closest to the conservative/republican party believing in a small central government with little power.
Click to expand...

Actually I'm not because the democratic-republican party is the democrat party. and the Republican party wasn't created until years later from what was called the whig party


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> "counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.” The WHOLE NUMBER OF PERSONS.
> 
> Pretty cut and dried, no matter the bigotry of the reader.
> 
> For folks who are willing to watch us get slaughtered just so they can play with the gun of their choice because the constitution says so, the rest of the document seems worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying slave states should get equal representation in the house of representatives even though they had fewer free whites within their state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm saying as slavery is unconstitutional but the census is, when the census is held, WVERYONE living in the United States MUST be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing history with the present
> When was slavery considered unconstitutional what year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 so, there's that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know anything about the 3/5th compromise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know it has nothing to do with any argument that undocumented immigrants should not be counted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The argument is we have a naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.  Right wingers simply have a moral problem being legal to our own laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just got a stupid problem. . In accordance with laws of the 18th and mid 19th century law blacks and slaves had not citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  All those other laws were unconstitutional after 1808.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth since general Government of the Union assumed that sovereign obligation from the several States.
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With acception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did you reach your conclusion?  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from intelligent design and inception. Being unable to bear true witness to our own laws seems to be a right wing trait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
> Why don't you address this instead of giving your opinion?
> Where in the Constitution before 1866 did the constitution mention citizenship for anyone other than white males? Be specific and not opinionated.
> The census of 1790 said only white males had citizenship
> The civil rights act of 1866 made sure all Americans had citizenship
> With exception of Native Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have even less.  It is not my opinion.  Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights is both gender and race neutral.  It is supposed to effectuate our declaration of Independence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why the civil rights act of 1866 was created that's why the 13th and 14th amendments were crated
> That's why separate legislation was created to give Native Americans citizenship.
> And women right to vote
> yes sir our "original constitution and bill of rights was so much gender and race neutral those things had to be written in. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern democrats had a problem with equality and equal protection of the laws.  They did not vote republican back then.  Why appeal to so much ignorance and inist you are right, right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> democrats still don't believe in equal rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Right wingers believe in less in equal rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link or own your lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got banned from a thread by right wing socialists who care more about censorship than they do about the topics.
Click to expand...

1. what does you getting banned from a thread have to do with your inability to provide a link to support your opinion?
2. How do you know who caused you to get banned? do you have proof?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Respite Of Technical Jargon For Removing Your Own Head From Your Own Rectum "

* Iterative Application Of Mundane Language **


danielpalos said:


> lol.  Right wingers believe in less in equal rights.


If only the inanity would go away for a presumption that the term " equal rights ( sic ) " has any genetic meaning in political science .

There are negative wrights written as prescriptions against authoritarian actions of government that represent protections of negative liberties to act without government interference .

There are positive wights that are prescriptions for authoritarian actions of government .

The positive wrights written as prescriptions for authoritarian actions of government that represent protections of negative liberties to act without interference from other individual citizens .

The positive wrights prescribing authoritarian actions of government may be for endowments of positive liberties to act with interference from other individual citizens , as the endowments are acquired from other individuals by means of contentious aggression .

While negative liberties represent protections to act independently from interference by government or by other individuals , positive liberties represents endowments acquiesced from other individuals through authoritarian actions by government .

While negative liberties may be equally protected , positive wrights may not be equally endowed .

So , cease and desist in absurd use of the " equal rights ( sic ) " reference .


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
Click to expand...

lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Respite Of Technical Jargon For Removing Your Own Head From Your Own Rectum "
> 
> * Iterative Application Of Mundane Language **
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Right wingers believe in less in equal rights.
> 
> 
> 
> If only the inanity would go away for a presumption that the term " equal rights ( sic ) " has any genetic meaning in political science .
> 
> There are negative wrights that proscriptions against authoritarian actions of government that represent protections of negative liberties to act without government interference .
> 
> There are positive wights that are prescriptions for authoritarian actions of government .
> 
> The positive wrights prescribing authoritarian actions of government my be for protections of negative liberties to act without interference from other individual citizens .
> 
> The positive wrights prescribing authoritarian actions of government my be for endowments of positive liberties to act with interference from other individual citizens .
> 
> While negative liberties represent protections to act independently from interference by government or by other individuals , positive liberties represents endowments acquiesced from other individuals through authoritarian actions by government .
> 
> While negative liberties may be equally protected , positive wrights may not be equally endowed .
> 
> So , cease and desist in absurd use of the " equal rights ( sic ) " reference .
Click to expand...

Not my experience with right wingers, at all.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Illegitimate Aggression Versus Disappointment  For Legitimate Aggression "

* Stipulations Of A ' Natural Rights ( sic ) ' Concept **


danielpalos said:


> Who are these alleged conservatives?  Right wingers care about their bigotry and censorship than they care about "natural rights".


The contemporary notion of " natural rights ( sic ) " stipulates divine retribution .

The religion of secular humanism may be adopting the " inalienable " conjecture from a " natural rights " paradigm to forward beliefs that wrights it espouses are consistent with the ideals of individual liberty , however the left adopts the assertions without a necessity for divine retribution that is absurd .

Neither the right not the left articulates a necessary distinction between negative liberties of protection and positive liberties of endowment .


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
Click to expand...

WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment


----------



## danielpalos

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Illegitimate Aggression Versus Disappointment  For Legitimate Aggression "
> 
> * Stipulations Of A ' Natural Rights ( sic ) ' Concept **
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who are these alleged conservatives?  Right wingers care about their bigotry and censorship than they care about "natural rights".
> 
> 
> 
> The contemporary notion of " natural rights ( sic ) " stipulates divine retribution .
> 
> The religion of secular humanism may be adopting the " inalienable " conjecture from a " natural rights " paradigm to forward beliefs that wrights it espouses are consistent with the ideals of individual liberty , however the left adopts the assertions without a necessity for divine retribution that is absurd .
> 
> Neither the right not the left articulates a necessary distinction between negative liberties of protection and positive liberties of endowment .
Click to expand...

Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
Click to expand...

Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
Click to expand...

wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
Click to expand...

By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
Click to expand...

Damn you're ignorant
the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
The unorganized militia is not


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "

* Unconstrained By Uncertainties **



danielpalos said:


> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?


The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .

The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence from the theories .









						United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence: 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._


----------



## bigrebnc1775




----------



## bigrebnc1775

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
Click to expand...

You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
Click to expand...

lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.


----------



## danielpalos

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence from the theories .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
Click to expand...

The preamble to our federal Constitution provides the context for our form of Government.  It is not relativist but a mission statement for how our laws should be interpreted.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> View attachment 389121


lol.  The South was more organized, and they should have used our First Amendment simply because it is First not Second.  Eminent domain could have solved their problem without their useless rebellion.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
Click to expand...

Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.  

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
Click to expand...

the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
 FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
Click to expand...

No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college  
the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights 
Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 389121
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  The South was more organized, and they should have used our First Amendment simply because it is First not Second.  Eminent domain could have solved their problem without their useless rebellion.
Click to expand...

You need to study up on tyrannical governments King George said you didn't have a second amendment right


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Racist CPA Lying About Citizenship Requirements "

* Subject To Jurisdiction Stipulation **


danielpalos said:


> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.


You neglected , obviously out of bias and ignorance to include " subject to the jurisdiction thereof  " which the children of non jurisdiction migrants are not and are therefore citizens from the country of their parent .


----------



## Unkotare

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Racist CPA Lying About Citizenship Requirements "
> 
> * Subject To Jurisdiction Stipulation **
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> 
> 
> You neglected , obviously out of bias and ignorance to include " subject to the jurisdiction thereof  " which the children of non jurisdiction migrants are not and are therefore citizens from the country of their parent .
Click to expand...


You are wrong, no matter how many times you repeat this nonsense.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second. 

A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos. 

_That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
Click to expand...

Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen.  If one Person can be, any Person can be.

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 389121
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  The South was more organized, and they should have used our First Amendment simply because it is First not Second.  Eminent domain could have solved their problem without their useless rebellion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to study up on tyrannical governments King George said you didn't have a second amendment right
Click to expand...

What King George said no longer mattered to US citizens under our republican form of Government after 1776.  We have a First Amendment and it is First not Second.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
Click to expand...

Sorry if I haven't dumbed it down enough for right wingers; it can be challenge sometimes.  

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._

Your appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land is meaningless.


----------



## danielpalos

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Racist CPA Lying About Citizenship Requirements "
> 
> * Subject To Jurisdiction Stipulation **
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> 
> 
> You neglected , obviously out of bias and ignorance to include " subject to the jurisdiction thereof  " which the children of non jurisdiction migrants are not and are therefore citizens from the country of their parent .
Click to expand...

Subject to US jurisdiction means if the police power applies they are subject to US jurisdiction.  Following your line of reasoning means current illegals would need to be treated more like ambassadors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen.  If one Person can be, any Person can be.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
Click to expand...

that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED 
SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry if I haven't dumbed it down enough for right wingers; it can be challenge sometimes.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Your appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land is meaningless.
Click to expand...

blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
Click to expand...

you're ignornt


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen.  If one Person can be, any Person can be.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED
> SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST
Click to expand...

Only Because of immoral right wingers being unable to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land.  You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law, like usual.  Any illegal can do that; but right wingers are immoral enough to only complain about the less fortunate under our form of Capitalism.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry if I haven't dumbed it down enough for right wingers; it can be challenge sometimes.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Your appeal to ignorance of our supreme law of the land is meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
Click to expand...

Due to right wing immorality and unfaithful execution of the laws.  Any infidel could be a right winger.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
Click to expand...

You are simply clueless and Causeless.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen.  If one Person can be, any Person can be.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED
> SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only Because of immoral right wingers being unable to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land.  You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law, like usual.  Any illegal can do that; but right wingers are immoral enough to only complain about the less fortunate under our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...

I thought you leftists always claimed the founders were liberals? Make up your mind sport.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
Click to expand...

says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen.  If one Person can be, any Person can be.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED
> SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only Because of immoral right wingers being unable to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land.  You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law, like usual.  Any illegal can do that; but right wingers are immoral enough to only complain about the less fortunate under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you leftists always claimed the founders were liberals? Make up your mind sport.
Click to expand...

Our Founding Fathers liberal enough to create our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing about slavery in our federal Constitution. Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from Inception.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
Click to expand...

You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Legitimate Terms And Rules To Be Enforced "

* Justified And Valid **


Unkotare said:


> You are wrong, no matter how many times you repeat this nonsense.


A subject of a title in a legal immigration system includes an acceptance of jurisdiction for the sojourner by the visiting country , else the sojourner remains a subject of jurisdiction from the country of national origin .

The us v wka court was correct in its decision but failed to expound that wong became a subject of title in us legal immigration system upon agreement with china to allow wong entrance to remain in the us unless or until returning to china .

The notion of non jurisdiction for diplomats is dependent upon the agreement between countries where the sojourner might include immunity from prosecution , or specify that children born of the sojourner be given jus sanguinin citizenship , which the us should stipulate in its visa program to include all legal migrants as well .

The reasoning for awarding children jus sanguinin citizenship from the country of origin for non jurisdiction sojourners and for jurisdiction sojourners as well is that there is a fundamental difference between negative liberties of protection arising from either negative or positive wrights , versus positive liberties of endowment arising from positive wrights , where an extension of citizenship is an endowment , as is social welfare , and not a protection .

The us makes significant efforts to curb birth tourism by denying visibly pregnant women entry into the us , and us legal immigration stipulates and challenges that a legal migrant , a jurisdiction sojourner , is not visiting with an intended purpose of having a child , because us citizens are obligated and privileged through its legal immigration system to determine the competence and fitness of those admitted as citizens .

Such fates are not to be determined by non jurisdiction sojourners practicing vagrancy to usurp us solvency .






						United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[9]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[10]_

_United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the US Supreme Court ruling that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.__[6]_


----------



## Unkotare

Remember why Cliff from Cheers was funny?

  ^^^^^^^^^


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*





Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

PoliticalChic said:


> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*




The actual number was chosen mathematically as well.

Had their been less whites in the souths, it would have been 4/5,  had their been more whites in the south it would have been 2/5.


----------



## justinacolmena

PoliticalChic said:


> to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress


It was the slave owners, after all, who were entitled to 3/5 the vote of a free man for every male slave they owned.

Women didn't vote back then of course. A horse drawn carriage ride to the polls was impractical to arrange for everybody, and besides the women had to stay home with a sidearm or derringer or a shotgun at the ready if their husbands were going to have any property at all to come back to after voting down the usual host of local levies and property taxes.


----------



## PoliticalChic

For historical perspective.....

There is no society in which slavery didn't exist.

North African Muslims enslaved millions of white folks.....hence the Barbary War.

The only question that is pertinent is, which societies have banned slavery.


Slavery ended first....FIRST...in America.

*"July 2, 1777.* In response to abolitionists' calls across the colonies to end slavery, Vermont became the first colony to ban it outright. Not only did Vermont's legislature agree to abolish slavery entirely, *it also moved to provide full voting rights for African American males."*





*Vermont 1777: Early Steps Against Slavery*
Long before Vermont became our 14th state, its people were known for their independence. They were not excited about joining the new United States; nor did they want to remain a part of the British crown. They liked being independent and made that clear to the other colonies on more than one...





 nmaahc.si.edu



That's thirty years before England abolished slavery.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
Click to expand...

 Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights. 
BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen.  If one Person can be, any Person can be.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED
> SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only Because of immoral right wingers being unable to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land.  You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law, like usual.  Any illegal can do that; but right wingers are immoral enough to only complain about the less fortunate under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you leftists always claimed the founders were liberals? Make up your mind sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers liberal enough to create our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Nothing about slavery in our federal Constitution. Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from Inception.
Click to expand...

Yet according to you modern-day leftists they were racist slave owners Seems you leftists long for the good old days of owning slaves to push your authoritarian agenda


----------



## danielpalos

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Legitimate Terms And Rules To Be Enforced "
> 
> * Justified And Valid **
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong, no matter how many times you repeat this nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> A subject of a title in a legal immigration system includes an acceptance of jurisdiction for the sojourner by the visiting country , else the sojourner remains a subject of jurisdiction from the country of national origin .
> 
> The us v wka court was correct in its decision but failed to expound that wong became a subject of title in us legal immigration system upon agreement with china to allow wong entrance to remain in the us unless or until returning to china .
> 
> The notion of non jurisdiction for diplomats is dependent upon the agreement between countries where the sojourner might include immunity from prosecution , or specify that children born of the sojourner be given jus sanguinin citizenship , which the us should stipulate in its visa program to include all legal migrants as well .
> 
> The reasoning for awarding children jus sanguinin citizenship from the country of origin for non jurisdiction sojourners and for jurisdiction sojourners as well is that there is a fundamental difference between negative liberties of protection arising from either negative or positive wrights , versus positive liberties of endowment arising from positive wrights , where an extension of citizenship is an endowment , as is social welfare , and not a protection .
> 
> The us makes significant efforts to curb birth tourism by denying visibly pregnant women entry into the us , and us legal immigration stipulates and challenges that a legal migrant , a jurisdiction sojourner , is not visiting with an intended purpose of having a child , because us citizens are obligated and privileged through its legal immigration system to determine the competence and fitness of those admitted as citizens .
> 
> Such fates are not to be determined by non jurisdiction sojourners practicing vagrancy to usurp us solvency .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[9]—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[10]_
> 
> _United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision[4] of the US Supreme Court ruling that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China",[5] automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth.__[6]_
Click to expand...

Subject to extradition if the Emperor wanted them back?  Did the parents have any problems becoming naturalized citizens of the US?


----------



## danielpalos

PoliticalChic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
Click to expand...

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.


----------



## danielpalos

PoliticalChic said:


> For historical perspective.....
> 
> There is no society in which slavery didn't exist.
> 
> North African Muslims enslaved millions of white folks.....hence the Barbary War.
> 
> The only question that is pertinent is, which societies have banned slavery.
> 
> 
> Slavery ended first....FIRST...in America.
> 
> *"July 2, 1777.* In response to abolitionists' calls across the colonies to end slavery, Vermont became the first colony to ban it outright. Not only did Vermont's legislature agree to abolish slavery entirely, *it also moved to provide full voting rights for African American males."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Vermont 1777: Early Steps Against Slavery*
> Long before Vermont became our 14th state, its people were known for their independence. They were not excited about joining the new United States; nor did they want to remain a part of the British crown. They liked being independent and made that clear to the other colonies on more than one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nmaahc.si.edu
> 
> 
> 
> That's thirty years before England abolished slavery.


How many societies had our Declaration of Independence and our federal Constitution.  Bearing false witness to both is a sin (unto God).


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.  

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen.  If one Person can be, any Person can be.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED
> SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only Because of immoral right wingers being unable to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land.  You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law, like usual.  Any illegal can do that; but right wingers are immoral enough to only complain about the less fortunate under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you leftists always claimed the founders were liberals? Make up your mind sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers liberal enough to create our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Nothing about slavery in our federal Constitution. Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from Inception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet according to you modern-day leftists they were racist slave owners Seems you leftists long for the good old days of owning slaves to push your authoritarian agenda
Click to expand...

Only in right wing fantasy.  The left is for promoting the general welfare not the general warfare, unlike the right wing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Choosing Alternative Perspectives "
> 
> * Unconstrained By Uncertainties **
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't believe in our Declaration of Independence?
> 
> 
> 
> The statements in the declaration of independence represent perspectives of the time .
> 
> The concepts of relativism and existentialism provision that nothing is assured , but anything is possible , so individuals are not resigned to being deprived of liberty by anyone or anything , even though some believe to be entitled to deprive others of liberty as a consequence .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're trying to have a highly educated discussion with someone who thinks slaves had citizenship rights before the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural born Persons in the US are citizens.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> All persons born in the US after 1808 were citizens by birth just like any other Person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No they weren't you keep repeating this stupid shit without showing any proof. You keep referencing the year 1808 that year referencing to the electoral college
> the Constitution became law of the land in 1789 the 1790 census only white males had rights
> Slaves did not have citizenship rights until 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any Person born in the US after 1808 is a US citizen.  If one Person can be, any Person can be.
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land not federal laws enacted by Congress or State legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is a lie slaves born in America and free blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> THE CONSTITUTION WASN'T AMENDED UNTIL THE 13TH AMENDMENT WAS ADDED
> SO YOUR BULLSHIT ABOUT 1808 JUST DOESN'T EXIST
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only Because of immoral right wingers being unable to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land.  You are simply appealing to ignorance of the law, like usual.  Any illegal can do that; but right wingers are immoral enough to only complain about the less fortunate under our form of Capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you leftists always claimed the founders were liberals? Make up your mind sport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Founding Fathers liberal enough to create our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.
> 
> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
> 
> Nothing about slavery in our federal Constitution. Our original Constitution and Bill of Rights are both gender and race neutral from Inception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet according to you modern-day leftists they were racist slave owners Seems you leftists long for the good old days of owning slaves to push your authoritarian agenda
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only in right wing fantasy.  The left is for promoting the general welfare not the general warfare, unlike the right wing.
Click to expand...

The only thing leftists are promoting is general division


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Click to expand...

I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> For historical perspective.....
> 
> There is no society in which slavery didn't exist.
> 
> North African Muslims enslaved millions of white folks.....hence the Barbary War.
> 
> The only question that is pertinent is, which societies have banned slavery.
> 
> 
> Slavery ended first....FIRST...in America.
> 
> *"July 2, 1777.* In response to abolitionists' calls across the colonies to end slavery, Vermont became the first colony to ban it outright. Not only did Vermont's legislature agree to abolish slavery entirely, *it also moved to provide full voting rights for African American males."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Vermont 1777: Early Steps Against Slavery*
> Long before Vermont became our 14th state, its people were known for their independence. They were not excited about joining the new United States; nor did they want to remain a part of the British crown. They liked being independent and made that clear to the other colonies on more than one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nmaahc.si.edu
> 
> 
> 
> That's thirty years before England abolished slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> How many societies had our Declaration of Independence and our federal Constitution.  Bearing false witness to both is a sin (unto God).
Click to expand...

yes maybe you should consider your lies Ms 1808 liar


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
Click to expand...

no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional


----------



## PoliticalChic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
Click to expand...



Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.



1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.

Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race

“The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
Adolph Hitler
Untitled Document


2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats



3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
“…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats


Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
(Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)



*4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.

In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.” 








						Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
					

Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.




					www.breitbart.com
				






5.  From the LATimes:
“At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes


----------



## bigrebnc1775

PoliticalChic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
Click to expand...

Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them


----------



## PoliticalChic

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
Click to expand...



I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
Click to expand...

What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808?  Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808.  Is that simple enough for you?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> For historical perspective.....
> 
> There is no society in which slavery didn't exist.
> 
> North African Muslims enslaved millions of white folks.....hence the Barbary War.
> 
> The only question that is pertinent is, which societies have banned slavery.
> 
> 
> Slavery ended first....FIRST...in America.
> 
> *"July 2, 1777.* In response to abolitionists' calls across the colonies to end slavery, Vermont became the first colony to ban it outright. Not only did Vermont's legislature agree to abolish slavery entirely, *it also moved to provide full voting rights for African American males."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Vermont 1777: Early Steps Against Slavery*
> Long before Vermont became our 14th state, its people were known for their independence. They were not excited about joining the new United States; nor did they want to remain a part of the British crown. They liked being independent and made that clear to the other colonies on more than one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nmaahc.si.edu
> 
> 
> 
> That's thirty years before England abolished slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> How many societies had our Declaration of Independence and our federal Constitution.  Bearing false witness to both is a sin (unto God).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes maybe you should consider your lies Ms 1808 liar
Click to expand...

Says Ms Constitutional ignorance.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
Click to expand...

Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
Click to expand...

Jim Crow laws were never Constitutional.  

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


----------



## danielpalos

PoliticalChic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...

Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808?  Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808.  Is that simple enough for you?
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808?  Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808.  Is that simple enough for you?
Click to expand...



The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, *1790* (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.




the civil rights act of 1866 gave slaves and blacks citizenship rights now move along dumbass


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808?  Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808.  Is that simple enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808?  Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808.  Is that simple enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, *1790* (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the civil rights act of 1866 gave slaves and blacks citizenship rights now move along dumbass
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info, but it means nothing after the ratification of our federal Constitution.  Any natural born person in the US was a citizen by birth even if not recognized by extra-Constitutional laws at the time.  States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization after 1808.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were never Constitutional.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Click to expand...

Yes Jim Crow laws were constitutional at the time they were written


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808?  Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808.  Is that simple enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808?  Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808.  Is that simple enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, *1790* (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the civil rights act of 1866 gave slaves and blacks citizenship rights now move along dumbass
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the info, but it means nothing after the ratification of our federal Constitution.  Any natural born person in the US was a citizen by birth even if not recognized by extra-Constitutional laws at the time.  States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization after 1808.
Click to expand...

Civil rights act of 1866 gave slaves and blacks rights
or are you saying slaves had rights?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
Click to expand...

I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were never Constitutional.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes Jim Crow laws were constitutional at the time they were written
Click to expand...

Not for any natural born citizen of the United States after 1808.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
Click to expand...



Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808?  Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808.  Is that simple enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is actual history not just right wing fantasy.  Proof right wingers are true witness bearing challenged and are willing to project onto others what they themselves are doing.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's the history of your democrat party lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Still appealing to ignorance not from ignorance?  The South were democrats back then and is why they rebelled Against a Republican and his republican administration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your point after all they are rebelling now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the unorganized exist to make sure we have a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  No, they don't.  We have a First Amendment for that.  Gun lovers only allege to care about the Second Amendment to love their guns better not because they actually Care about the security of our free States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW SMH no we have the first amendment because of the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States; something the unorganized militia is worthless for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow how do you keep your first amendment right when it's the government with it's militia that has taken it away? You are fucking clueless
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By not appealing to as much ignorance as right wingers.  The Organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States and prove it by all the gun control laws we have for Individuals of the People who comprise the unorganized militia. It is merely your right wing bigotry that causes you to be clueless and Causeless and hypocritical enough to project your fantastical line of reasoning on to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn you're ignorant
> the organized militia which is the national guard is under the control of the government
> The unorganized militia is not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, it says so in the first clause.  Individuals of the People are subject to the Police Power of a State.  The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free State.  The riots are Proof of why we need gun control laws for Individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the organized milita state guard dictates you no longer have a free state and are under their rule
> The riots are proof of why we need gun control??????? how do you stop rioters from harming you when the police are told to stand down?
> Tell you what you do go live in one of those leftists controlled blue cities
> FYI gun control violates second amendment rights to a free state
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment declares otherwise.  There is no reason to believe anyone on the right wing claiming the opposite.  We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems.  It is a simple ratio of organized militia to unorganized militia.  If our State legislators were doing their job, we should have no riots only peaceful protests and petitions for redress of grievances because our First Amendment is First not Second.
> 
> A free State is not about Individual Liberty to bear Arms but about what is necessary to achieve the goal and objective to good Order, security. Our First Amendment and State equivalents are what a free State is about.  Order not Chaos.
> 
> _That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're ignornt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot that doesn't know what a nanny state is and didn't know slaves and blacks before 1866 had no citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply too dumb to understand; I have to work hard to try to dumb it down for the Right Wing.
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was supposed to be a Citizen.  Why do you believe the North was gradually emancipating their slave population?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass show me the 1808 law that gave anyone born in the united states citizenship
> it wasn't until the civil rights act of 1866 that gave slaves and free blacks citizenship rights.
> BUT AGAIN SHOW THAT 1808 LAW THAT GAVE BLACKS AND SLAVES CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is our supreme law of the land.  Only the right wing, never gets it.  Anyone born in the US after 1808 should have automatically been a US citizen by natural born birth.  Any (white) male born in the US was a citizen of both their State and the Union.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked you what law created in 1808 that gave slaves and freed blacks citizenship rights? Still waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What law gave anyone US citizenship after 1808?  Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Any exclusion was unConstitutional after 1808.  Is that simple enough for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, *1790* (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and Asians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the civil rights act of 1866 gave slaves and blacks citizenship rights now move along dumbass
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the info, but it means nothing after the ratification of our federal Constitution.  Any natural born person in the US was a citizen by birth even if not recognized by extra-Constitutional laws at the time.  States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil rights act of 1866 gave slaves and blacks rights
> or are you saying slaves had rights?
Click to expand...

Unrecognized rights at law.  Our Constitution is clear and is our supreme law of the land.  It is also, both gender and race neutral from inception.  We did not need a Civil War to enable them, only morals to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
Click to expand...

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
Click to expand...

A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
Click to expand...

irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
Click to expand...

I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing 
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
Click to expand...

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
Click to expand...

Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
Click to expand...

all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
Click to expand...

Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.


----------



## meaner gene

PoliticalChic said:


> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."


First, everything you said was wrong.

The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.

The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866


----------



## meaner gene

PoliticalChic said:


> Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.


Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?

You ever find them?

Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.

So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

meaner gene said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?
> 
> You ever find them?
> 
> Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.
> 
> So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.
Click to expand...

From the leftists go to fact checker snopes 
*What's True*
Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
*What's False*
Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."








						Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?
					

A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.




					www.snopes.com


----------



## IM2

PoliticalChic said:


> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*


This is a lie. Your post is disingenuous. But that SOP for you.


----------



## IM2

PoliticalChic said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" No Representation For Non Jurisdiction Sojourners "
> 
> * Imagine Seeding A Foreign Country With Loyalist Agents **
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> The non jurisdiction sojourner is not enslaved and have objectives and social structures that do not include population control as a consideration , especially when having citizen children includes a stipend and a seeding of cause by familial citizens to rally numerical and political representation .
> 
> Irrespective of public policy for aggressive deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners to their country of origin ,  a non jurisdiction sojourner is not entitled from any numerical incidence to representation by a vote in any legislative body .
> 
> A census would only be useful to indicate where to target resources for the deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners .
> 
> ** Stuck In The Middle Of Saying Know To Not Knot Make It Our Problem **
> 
> There are certainly enough economic libertarians willing to import non jurisdiction labor to lower wages and operating costs while offloading responsibilities of over population and its low socioeconomic conditions to the public .
> 
> There are also the secular humanists seeking to sacrifice taxpayer finances for saving the world by on boarding anyone from anywhere regardless of merit , intentionally lowering barriers to implement its authoritarian socialist controls for pilfering free enterprise and for implementing political correctness that it promotes by fomenting race based and class based conflicts .
> 
> ** Jus Sanguinin For Children Of Non Jurisdiction Sojourners **
> 
> The " non jurisdiction " sojourner remains subject to jurisdiction by the country of its citizenship ; and , by not being a subject of a title in us legal immigration system an offspring of a non jurisdiction sojourner is to be provided birth to the country of maternal citizenship  , by jus sanguinin .
> 
> While non violence principles for individualism is an ethical standard among hue mammon and a basis for liberty in social civil agreements for which one exchanges natural freedoms to become a citizen of a greater individual of state , to an extent , national sovereignty is individual sovereignty , and non jurisdiction sojourners can be deported .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that were the case.
> 
> Here, we have Democrat Presidents who tell illegal aliens to go and vote in our elections.
Click to expand...

Another lie.


----------



## IM2

PoliticalChic said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> Great post PoliticalChic!!  ...
> I never knew the "real" reason for the 3/5th's compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A big 'Thank You,' Sunni.
> 
> 
> Had the Founders not gotten that compromise, this sort of thing would be pro forma:
> 
> 
> "The lynchings were Southern whites' extrajudicial efforts to maintain social control, white supremacy, and Democratic Party rule, ..... From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 petitioned Congress to pass a federal law."[10] *Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting block."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill - Wikipedia*
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...


Today's lesson:

*The Radical Republicans *

You know, I like to read. And COVID 19 has made it so that I have plenty of time to do so. One of the books I have read is called _Republicans and the Black Vote_. It's a book that tells the history of blacks and the republican party. Such is why I say there is no democratic plantation and it is why I say those saying such are racists. And that includes those with internalized racism.

For example, the republican faction responsible for freeing the slaves were  called "Radical Republicans." 

*The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party of the United States from around 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals", with a goal of immediate, complete, permanent eradication of slavery, without compromise. They were opposed during the War by the moderate Republicans (led by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln), and by the pro-slavery and anti-Reconstruction Democratic Party as well as liberals in the Northern United States during Reconstruction. Radicals led efforts after the war to establish civil rights for former slaves and fully implement emancipation. After weaker measures in 1866 resulted in violence against former slaves in the rebel states, Radicals pushed the Fourteenth Amendment and statutory protections through Congress. They disfavored allowing ex-Confederate officers to retake political power in the Southern United States, and emphasized equality, civil rights and voting rights for the "freedmen", i.e. people who had been enslaved by state slavery laws within the United States.

During the war, Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln's initial selection of General George B. McClellan for top command of the major eastern Army of the Potomac and Lincoln's efforts in 1864 to bring seceded Southern states back into the Union as quickly and easily as possible. Lincoln later recognized McClellan's weakness and relieved him of command. The Radicals passed their own Reconstruction plan through Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own policies in effect as military commander-in-chief when he was assassinated in April 1865. Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freed slaves, including measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials and military officers. They keenly fought Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, a former slave owner from Tennessee who favored allowing Southern states to decide the rights and status of former slaves. After Johnson vetoed various congressional acts favoring civil rights for former slaves, they attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.

The Radicals were never formally organized and there was movement in and out of the group. Their most successful and systematic leader was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives. The Democrats were strongly opposed to the Radicals, but they were generally a weak minority in politics until they took control of the House in the 1874 congressional elections. The moderate and conservative Republican factions usually opposed the Radicals, but they were not well organized. Lincoln tried to build a multi-faction coalition, including radicals, conservatives, moderates and War Democrats as while he was often opposed by the Radicals, he never ostracized them. Andrew Johnson was thought to be a Radical when he became President in 1865, but he soon became their leading opponent. However, Johnson was so inept as a politician he was unable to form a cohesive support network. Finally in 1872, the Liberal Republicans, who wanted a return to classical republicanism,[7] ran a presidential campaign and won the support of the Democratic Party for their ticket. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South.

After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, who they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality.

End of Reconstruction

The so-called "Liberal Republicans" (more conservative than the Radicals), along with Democrats, argued in 1872 that the Radical Republicans were corrupt and accepted bribes (notably since 1869, during the Grant administration). These opponents of the Radicals demanded amnesty for all ex-Confederates, thus restoring their right to vote and hold public office.*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans

So you see, this is where the dishonesty begins in the right wing gaslighting campaign. There were several  competing factions in the republican party at that time. This is part of the history republicans on the right won't tell black people. It is safe to say that no one in the current republican party matches the radical republican faction of the party who freed us.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
Click to expand...

All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?
> 
> You ever find them?
> 
> Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.
> 
> So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the leftists go to fact checker snopes
> *What's True*
> Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
> *What's False*
> Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?
> 
> 
> A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.snopes.com
Click to expand...

Is that how your guy lost the popular vote but won the electoral college?


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" No Representation For Non Jurisdiction Sojourners "
> 
> * Imagine Seeding A Foreign Country With Loyalist Agents **
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> The non jurisdiction sojourner is not enslaved and have objectives and social structures that do not include population control as a consideration , especially when having citizen children includes a stipend and a seeding of cause by familial citizens to rally numerical and political representation .
> 
> Irrespective of public policy for aggressive deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners to their country of origin ,  a non jurisdiction sojourner is not entitled from any numerical incidence to representation by a vote in any legislative body .
> 
> A census would only be useful to indicate where to target resources for the deportation of non jurisdiction sojourners .
> 
> ** Stuck In The Middle Of Saying Know To Not Knot Make It Our Problem **
> 
> There are certainly enough economic libertarians willing to import non jurisdiction labor to lower wages and operating costs while offloading responsibilities of over population and its low socioeconomic conditions to the public .
> 
> There are also the secular humanists seeking to sacrifice taxpayer finances for saving the world by on boarding anyone from anywhere regardless of merit , intentionally lowering barriers to implement its authoritarian socialist controls for pilfering free enterprise and for implementing political correctness that it promotes by fomenting race based and class based conflicts .
> 
> ** Jus Sanguinin For Children Of Non Jurisdiction Sojourners **
> 
> The " non jurisdiction " sojourner remains subject to jurisdiction by the country of its citizenship ; and , by not being a subject of a title in us legal immigration system an offspring of a non jurisdiction sojourner is to be provided birth to the country of maternal citizenship  , by jus sanguinin .
> 
> While non violence principles for individualism is an ethical standard among hue mammon and a basis for liberty in social civil agreements for which one exchanges natural freedoms to become a citizen of a greater individual of state , to an extent , national sovereignty is individual sovereignty , and non jurisdiction sojourners can be deported .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that were the case.
> 
> Here, we have Democrat Presidents who tell illegal aliens to go and vote in our elections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Another lie.
Click to expand...

And, she is a right winger citing the Bible.  Why should anyone take right wingers morally seriously?  It could be immoral.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie. Your post is disingenuous. But that SOP for you.
Click to expand...

oh yes, the propagator of all lies speaks. So racist where was the lie?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?
> 
> You ever find them?
> 
> Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.
> 
> So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the leftists go to fact checker snopes
> *What's True*
> Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
> *What's False*
> Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?
> 
> 
> A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.snopes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that how your guy lost the popular vote but won the electoral college?
Click to expand...

illegal votes don't mean someone won the popular vote it's means illegals voted


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
Click to expand...

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats


----------



## IM2

*"Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866" *

You right wingers need to read up on what the civil rights cases really did.


----------



## IM2

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
Click to expand...

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
Click to expand...

I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?
> 
> You ever find them?
> 
> Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.
> 
> So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the leftists go to fact checker snopes
> *What's True*
> Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
> *What's False*
> Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?
> 
> 
> A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.snopes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that how your guy lost the popular vote but won the electoral college?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> illegal votes don't mean someone won the popular vote it's means illegals voted
Click to expand...

You have to prove all illegals voted blue and not red.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
Click to expand...

Not democrats of today.  Right wingers were democrats back then and they rebelled to keep slavery.  Right wingers bringing up party affiliation now proves y'all are willing to try to confuse the issue with more superficial voters.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
Click to expand...

Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote, as always, is 100% true, correct and accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Like the 5-10 million illegal votes in california?
> 
> You ever find them?
> 
> Kris Kobach looked for them, and couldn't find them.
> 
> So claiming you're 100% right, is 100% wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the leftists go to fact checker snopes
> *What's True*
> Estimates of voter rolls in the counties of some states, including California, tally more registered voters than eligible adults.
> *What's False*
> Such estimates do not encompass the entire U.S., are based on questionable methodologies, and may include voters who are listed on state rolls as "inactive."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the U.S. Have Millions More Registered Voters Than Eligible Adults?
> 
> 
> A persistent claim about widespread voter fraud is based on problematic tallies of registered and eligible voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.snopes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that how your guy lost the popular vote but won the electoral college?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> illegal votes don't mean someone won the popular vote it's means illegals voted
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to prove all illegals voted blue and not red.
Click to expand...

Since blue states make it more accommodating for illegals than red states I'd say more happens in blue states than red states


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
Click to expand...

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not democrats of today.  Right wingers were democrats back then and they rebelled to keep slavery.  Right wingers bringing up party affiliation now proves y'all are willing to try to confuse the issue with more superficial voters.
Click to expand...

oh but hell yes democrats of today


----------



## IM2

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
Click to expand...

You don't dictate a damn thing here white supremacist.


----------



## IM2

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not democrats of today.  Right wingers were democrats back then and they rebelled to keep slavery.  Right wingers bringing up party affiliation now proves y'all are willing to try to confuse the issue with more superficial voters.
Click to expand...

We blacks who talk about slavery get told how we cannot blame whites today for what happened before they were alive. Yet they keep talking about the 1860 democratic party. I might be wrong, but none of those democrats alive today were around back then. So what we see here is the infantile "intellect" of the right wing extremist.


----------



## IM2

Tonight's lesson:

*The Radical Republicans-(redux)*

You know, I like to read. And COVID 19 has made it so that I have plenty of time to do so. One of the books I have read is called _Republicans and the Black Vote_. It's a book that tells the history of blacks and the republican party. Such is why I say there is no democratic plantation and it is why I say those saying such are racists. And that includes those with internalized racism.

For example, the republican faction responsible for freeing the slaves were  called "Radical Republicans." 

*The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party of the United States from around 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals", with a goal of immediate, complete, permanent eradication of slavery, without compromise. They were opposed during the War by the moderate Republicans (led by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln), and by the pro-slavery and anti-Reconstruction Democratic Party as well as liberals in the Northern United States during Reconstruction. Radicals led efforts after the war to establish civil rights for former slaves and fully implement emancipation. After weaker measures in 1866 resulted in violence against former slaves in the rebel states, Radicals pushed the Fourteenth Amendment and statutory protections through Congress. They disfavored allowing ex-Confederate officers to retake political power in the Southern United States, and emphasized equality, civil rights and voting rights for the "freedmen", i.e. people who had been enslaved by state slavery laws within the United States.

During the war, Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln's initial selection of General George B. McClellan for top command of the major eastern Army of the Potomac and Lincoln's efforts in 1864 to bring seceded Southern states back into the Union as quickly and easily as possible. Lincoln later recognized McClellan's weakness and relieved him of command. The Radicals passed their own Reconstruction plan through Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own policies in effect as military commander-in-chief when he was assassinated in April 1865. Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freed slaves, including measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials and military officers. They keenly fought Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, a former slave owner from Tennessee who favored allowing Southern states to decide the rights and status of former slaves. After Johnson vetoed various congressional acts favoring civil rights for former slaves, they attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.

The Radicals were never formally organized and there was movement in and out of the group. Their most successful and systematic leader was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives. The Democrats were strongly opposed to the Radicals, but they were generally a weak minority in politics until they took control of the House in the 1874 congressional elections. The moderate and conservative Republican factions usually opposed the Radicals, but they were not well organized. Lincoln tried to build a multi-faction coalition, including radicals, conservatives, moderates and War Democrats as while he was often opposed by the Radicals, he never ostracized them. Andrew Johnson was thought to be a Radical when he became President in 1865, but he soon became their leading opponent. However, Johnson was so inept as a politician he was unable to form a cohesive support network. Finally in 1872, the Liberal Republicans, who wanted a return to classical republicanism,[7] ran a presidential campaign and won the support of the Democratic Party for their ticket. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South.

After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, who they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality.

End of Reconstruction

The so-called "Liberal Republicans" (more conservative than the Radicals), along with Democrats, argued in 1872 that the Radical Republicans were corrupt and accepted bribes (notably since 1869, during the Grant administration). These opponents of the Radicals demanded amnesty for all ex-Confederates, thus restoring their right to vote and hold public office.*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans

*So you see, this is where the dishonesty begins in the right wing gaslighting campaign. There were at least 3 competing factions in the republican party at that time. Moderate, Conservative and Radicals. Frederick Douglass was a radical republican. This is part of the history republicans on the right won't tell black people. It is safe to say that no one in the current republican party matches the radical republican faction of the party who freed us.   *


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> Tonight's lesson:
> 
> *The Radical Republicans-(redux)*
> 
> You know, I like to read. And COVID 19 has made it so that I have plenty of time to do so. One of the books I have read is called _Republicans and the Black Vote_. It's a book that tells the history of blacks and the republican party. Such is why I say there is no democratic plantation and it is why I say those saying such are racists. And that includes those with internalized racism.
> 
> For example, the republican faction responsible for freeing the slaves were  called "Radical Republicans."
> 
> *The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party of the United States from around 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals", with a goal of immediate, complete, permanent eradication of slavery, without compromise. They were opposed during the War by the moderate Republicans (led by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln), and by the pro-slavery and anti-Reconstruction Democratic Party as well as liberals in the Northern United States during Reconstruction. Radicals led efforts after the war to establish civil rights for former slaves and fully implement emancipation. After weaker measures in 1866 resulted in violence against former slaves in the rebel states, Radicals pushed the Fourteenth Amendment and statutory protections through Congress. They disfavored allowing ex-Confederate officers to retake political power in the Southern United States, and emphasized equality, civil rights and voting rights for the "freedmen", i.e. people who had been enslaved by state slavery laws within the United States.
> 
> During the war, Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln's initial selection of General George B. McClellan for top command of the major eastern Army of the Potomac and Lincoln's efforts in 1864 to bring seceded Southern states back into the Union as quickly and easily as possible. Lincoln later recognized McClellan's weakness and relieved him of command. The Radicals passed their own Reconstruction plan through Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own policies in effect as military commander-in-chief when he was assassinated in April 1865. Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freed slaves, including measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials and military officers. They keenly fought Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, a former slave owner from Tennessee who favored allowing Southern states to decide the rights and status of former slaves. After Johnson vetoed various congressional acts favoring civil rights for former slaves, they attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.
> 
> The Radicals were never formally organized and there was movement in and out of the group. Their most successful and systematic leader was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives. The Democrats were strongly opposed to the Radicals, but they were generally a weak minority in politics until they took control of the House in the 1874 congressional elections. The moderate and conservative Republican factions usually opposed the Radicals, but they were not well organized. Lincoln tried to build a multi-faction coalition, including radicals, conservatives, moderates and War Democrats as while he was often opposed by the Radicals, he never ostracized them. Andrew Johnson was thought to be a Radical when he became President in 1865, but he soon became their leading opponent. However, Johnson was so inept as a politician he was unable to form a cohesive support network. Finally in 1872, the Liberal Republicans, who wanted a return to classical republicanism,[7] ran a presidential campaign and won the support of the Democratic Party for their ticket. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South.
> 
> After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, who they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality.
> 
> End of Reconstruction
> 
> The so-called "Liberal Republicans" (more conservative than the Radicals), along with Democrats, argued in 1872 that the Radical Republicans were corrupt and accepted bribes (notably since 1869, during the Grant administration). These opponents of the Radicals demanded amnesty for all ex-Confederates, thus restoring their right to vote and hold public office.*
> 
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans
> 
> *So you see, this is where the dishonesty begins in the right wing gaslighting campaign. There were at least 3 competing factions in the republican party at that time. Moderate, Conservative and Radicals. Frederick Douglass was a radical republican. This is part of the history republicans on the right won't tell black people. It is safe to say that no one in the current republican party matches the radical republican faction of the party who freed us.   *





IM2 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't dictate a damn thing here white supremacist.
Click to expand...

more racism myths why do you racists keep this shit going? oh that's right it pays the bills


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not democrats of today.  Right wingers were democrats back then and they rebelled to keep slavery.  Right wingers bringing up party affiliation now proves y'all are willing to try to confuse the issue with more superficial voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We blacks who talk about slavery get told how we cannot blame whites today for what happened before they were alive. Yet they keep talking about the 1860 democratic party. I might be wrong, but none of those democrats alive today were around back then. So what we see here is the infantile "intellect" of the right wing extremist.
Click to expand...

your democrat party has never changed with the exception of a new coat of paint to cover up its racist hate.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
Click to expand...

lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not democrats of today.  Right wingers were democrats back then and they rebelled to keep slavery.  Right wingers bringing up party affiliation now proves y'all are willing to try to confuse the issue with more superficial voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh but hell yes democrats of today
Click to expand...

Are more for social justice than the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tonight's lesson:
> 
> *The Radical Republicans-(redux)*
> 
> You know, I like to read. And COVID 19 has made it so that I have plenty of time to do so. One of the books I have read is called _Republicans and the Black Vote_. It's a book that tells the history of blacks and the republican party. Such is why I say there is no democratic plantation and it is why I say those saying such are racists. And that includes those with internalized racism.
> 
> For example, the republican faction responsible for freeing the slaves were  called "Radical Republicans."
> 
> *The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party of the United States from around 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals", with a goal of immediate, complete, permanent eradication of slavery, without compromise. They were opposed during the War by the moderate Republicans (led by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln), and by the pro-slavery and anti-Reconstruction Democratic Party as well as liberals in the Northern United States during Reconstruction. Radicals led efforts after the war to establish civil rights for former slaves and fully implement emancipation. After weaker measures in 1866 resulted in violence against former slaves in the rebel states, Radicals pushed the Fourteenth Amendment and statutory protections through Congress. They disfavored allowing ex-Confederate officers to retake political power in the Southern United States, and emphasized equality, civil rights and voting rights for the "freedmen", i.e. people who had been enslaved by state slavery laws within the United States.
> 
> During the war, Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln's initial selection of General George B. McClellan for top command of the major eastern Army of the Potomac and Lincoln's efforts in 1864 to bring seceded Southern states back into the Union as quickly and easily as possible. Lincoln later recognized McClellan's weakness and relieved him of command. The Radicals passed their own Reconstruction plan through Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own policies in effect as military commander-in-chief when he was assassinated in April 1865. Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freed slaves, including measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials and military officers. They keenly fought Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, a former slave owner from Tennessee who favored allowing Southern states to decide the rights and status of former slaves. After Johnson vetoed various congressional acts favoring civil rights for former slaves, they attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.
> 
> The Radicals were never formally organized and there was movement in and out of the group. Their most successful and systematic leader was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives. The Democrats were strongly opposed to the Radicals, but they were generally a weak minority in politics until they took control of the House in the 1874 congressional elections. The moderate and conservative Republican factions usually opposed the Radicals, but they were not well organized. Lincoln tried to build a multi-faction coalition, including radicals, conservatives, moderates and War Democrats as while he was often opposed by the Radicals, he never ostracized them. Andrew Johnson was thought to be a Radical when he became President in 1865, but he soon became their leading opponent. However, Johnson was so inept as a politician he was unable to form a cohesive support network. Finally in 1872, the Liberal Republicans, who wanted a return to classical republicanism,[7] ran a presidential campaign and won the support of the Democratic Party for their ticket. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South.
> 
> After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, who they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality.
> 
> End of Reconstruction
> 
> The so-called "Liberal Republicans" (more conservative than the Radicals), along with Democrats, argued in 1872 that the Radical Republicans were corrupt and accepted bribes (notably since 1869, during the Grant administration). These opponents of the Radicals demanded amnesty for all ex-Confederates, thus restoring their right to vote and hold public office.*
> 
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans
> 
> *So you see, this is where the dishonesty begins in the right wing gaslighting campaign. There were at least 3 competing factions in the republican party at that time. Moderate, Conservative and Radicals. Frederick Douglass was a radical republican. This is part of the history republicans on the right won't tell black people. It is safe to say that no one in the current republican party matches the radical republican faction of the party who freed us.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't dictate a damn thing here white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more racism myths why do you racists keep this shit going? oh that's right it pays the bills
Click to expand...

Right wingers with nothing but bigotry and race baiting instead of any better solutions at lower cost.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not democrats of today.  Right wingers were democrats back then and they rebelled to keep slavery.  Right wingers bringing up party affiliation now proves y'all are willing to try to confuse the issue with more superficial voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We blacks who talk about slavery get told how we cannot blame whites today for what happened before they were alive. Yet they keep talking about the 1860 democratic party. I might be wrong, but none of those democrats alive today were around back then. So what we see here is the infantile "intellect" of the right wing extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your democrat party has never changed with the exception of a new coat of paint to cover up its racist hate.
Click to expand...

Projection and hypocrisy; have you right wingers no shame (unto God)?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
Click to expand...

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not democrats of today.  Right wingers were democrats back then and they rebelled to keep slavery.  Right wingers bringing up party affiliation now proves y'all are willing to try to confuse the issue with more superficial voters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We blacks who talk about slavery get told how we cannot blame whites today for what happened before they were alive. Yet they keep talking about the 1860 democratic party. I might be wrong, but none of those democrats alive today were around back then. So what we see here is the infantile "intellect" of the right wing extremist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your democrat party has never changed with the exception of a new coat of paint to cover up its racist hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projection and hypocrisy; have you right wingers no shame (unto God)?
Click to expand...

You've lied countless times and God hates lies


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tonight's lesson:
> 
> *The Radical Republicans-(redux)*
> 
> You know, I like to read. And COVID 19 has made it so that I have plenty of time to do so. One of the books I have read is called _Republicans and the Black Vote_. It's a book that tells the history of blacks and the republican party. Such is why I say there is no democratic plantation and it is why I say those saying such are racists. And that includes those with internalized racism.
> 
> For example, the republican faction responsible for freeing the slaves were  called "Radical Republicans."
> 
> *The Radical Republicans were a faction of American politicians within the Republican Party of the United States from around 1854 (before the American Civil War) until the end of Reconstruction in 1877. They called themselves "Radicals", with a goal of immediate, complete, permanent eradication of slavery, without compromise. They were opposed during the War by the moderate Republicans (led by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln), and by the pro-slavery and anti-Reconstruction Democratic Party as well as liberals in the Northern United States during Reconstruction. Radicals led efforts after the war to establish civil rights for former slaves and fully implement emancipation. After weaker measures in 1866 resulted in violence against former slaves in the rebel states, Radicals pushed the Fourteenth Amendment and statutory protections through Congress. They disfavored allowing ex-Confederate officers to retake political power in the Southern United States, and emphasized equality, civil rights and voting rights for the "freedmen", i.e. people who had been enslaved by state slavery laws within the United States.
> 
> During the war, Radical Republicans opposed Lincoln's initial selection of General George B. McClellan for top command of the major eastern Army of the Potomac and Lincoln's efforts in 1864 to bring seceded Southern states back into the Union as quickly and easily as possible. Lincoln later recognized McClellan's weakness and relieved him of command. The Radicals passed their own Reconstruction plan through Congress in 1864, but Lincoln vetoed it and was putting his own policies in effect as military commander-in-chief when he was assassinated in April 1865. Radicals pushed for the uncompensated abolition of slavery, while Lincoln wanted to pay slave owners who were loyal to the Union. After the war, the Radicals demanded civil rights for freed slaves, including measures ensuring suffrage. They initiated the various Reconstruction Acts as well as the Fourteenth Amendment and limited political and voting rights for ex-Confederate civil officials and military officers. They keenly fought Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, a former slave owner from Tennessee who favored allowing Southern states to decide the rights and status of former slaves. After Johnson vetoed various congressional acts favoring civil rights for former slaves, they attempted to remove him from office through impeachment, which failed by one vote in 1868.
> 
> The Radicals were never formally organized and there was movement in and out of the group. Their most successful and systematic leader was Pennsylvania Congressman Thaddeus Stevens in the House of Representatives. The Democrats were strongly opposed to the Radicals, but they were generally a weak minority in politics until they took control of the House in the 1874 congressional elections. The moderate and conservative Republican factions usually opposed the Radicals, but they were not well organized. Lincoln tried to build a multi-faction coalition, including radicals, conservatives, moderates and War Democrats as while he was often opposed by the Radicals, he never ostracized them. Andrew Johnson was thought to be a Radical when he became President in 1865, but he soon became their leading opponent. However, Johnson was so inept as a politician he was unable to form a cohesive support network. Finally in 1872, the Liberal Republicans, who wanted a return to classical republicanism,[7] ran a presidential campaign and won the support of the Democratic Party for their ticket. They argued that Grant and the Radicals were corrupt and had imposed Reconstruction far too long on the South.
> 
> After the 1860 elections, moderate Republicans dominated the Congress. Radical Republicans were often critical of Lincoln, who they believed was too slow in freeing slaves and supporting their legal equality.
> 
> End of Reconstruction
> 
> The so-called "Liberal Republicans" (more conservative than the Radicals), along with Democrats, argued in 1872 that the Radical Republicans were corrupt and accepted bribes (notably since 1869, during the Grant administration). These opponents of the Radicals demanded amnesty for all ex-Confederates, thus restoring their right to vote and hold public office.*
> 
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Republicans
> 
> *So you see, this is where the dishonesty begins in the right wing gaslighting campaign. There were at least 3 competing factions in the republican party at that time. Moderate, Conservative and Radicals. Frederick Douglass was a radical republican. This is part of the history republicans on the right won't tell black people. It is safe to say that no one in the current republican party matches the radical republican faction of the party who freed us.   *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't dictate a damn thing here white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> more racism myths why do you racists keep this shit going? oh that's right it pays the bills
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers with nothing but bigotry and race baiting instead of any better solutions at lower cost.
Click to expand...

Says the bigot


----------



## IM2

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
Click to expand...

Except you didn't have the facts son.

On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Blackrook said:


> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.



Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
Click to expand...

What facts are you claiming?  Our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral, from Inception.  

This is actually part of our supreme Law of the land:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Being legal to our express written supreme law of the land meant anyone (not just white persons) born in the US (after 1808) was automatically a US citizens; any extra Constitutional federal laws to the contrary not with Standing.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
Click to expand...

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.


----------



## Cecilie1200

meaner gene said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
Click to expand...


Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.

They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.

Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?


----------



## IM2

Cecilie1200 said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
Click to expand...


Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.


----------



## IM2

Cecilie1200 said:


> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you didn't have the facts son.
> 
> On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
Click to expand...

You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts are you claiming?  Our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
> 
> This is actually part of our supreme Law of the land:
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Being legal to our express written supreme law of the land meant anyone (not just white persons) born in the US (after 1808) was automatically a US citizens; any extra Constitutional federal laws to the contrary not with Standing.
Click to expand...

IM2 just contridicted what you said


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
Click to expand...

not true


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
Click to expand...

I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you didn't have the facts son.
> 
> On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
Click to expand...

They were supposed to.  This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:

_The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
Click to expand...

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you didn't have the facts son.
> 
> On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were supposed to.  This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
Click to expand...

*BECAUSE*  blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you 
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.
Click to expand...

You aren't an American are you?
Looks like you reading from a text book
and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
Click to expand...

the south started voting Republican in 96


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866


Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't an American are you?
> Looks like you reading from a text book
> and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
> There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?
Click to expand...

More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the south started voting Republican in 96
Click to expand...

Democratic dominance of the South originated in the struggle of white Southerners during and after Reconstruction (1865–1877) to reestablish white supremacy and disenfranchise blacks. The U.S. government under the Republican Party had defeated the Confederacy, abolished slavery, and enfranchised blacks. In several states, black voters were a majority or close to it. Republicans supported by blacks controlled state governments in these states. Thus the Democratic Party became the vehicle for the white supremacist "Redeemers". The Ku Klux Klan, as well as other insurgent paramilitary groups such as the White League and Red Shirts from 1874, acted as "the military arm of the Democratic party" to disrupt Republican organizing, and intimidate and suppress black voters.[8]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South


----------



## IM2

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the south started voting Republican in 96
Click to expand...

That started in 1964.


----------



## IM2

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the south started voting Republican in 96
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democratic dominance of the South originated in the struggle of white Southerners during and after Reconstruction (1865–1877) to reestablish white supremacy and disenfranchise blacks. The U.S. government under the Republican Party had defeated the Confederacy, abolished slavery, and enfranchised blacks. In several states, black voters were a majority or close to it. Republicans supported by blacks controlled state governments in these states. Thus the Democratic Party became the vehicle for the white supremacist "Redeemers". The Ku Klux Klan, as well as other insurgent paramilitary groups such as the White League and Red Shirts from 1874, acted as "the military arm of the Democratic party" to disrupt Republican organizing, and intimidate and suppress black voters.[8]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South
Click to expand...

Actually republicans made a compromise that ended reconstruction. Then they began actively trying to get the white vote to avoid being "THE PARTY OF THE NEGRO."


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the south started voting Republican in 96
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That started in 1964.
Click to expand...

that's a bald face lie


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't an American are you?
> Looks like you reading from a text book
> and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
> There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.
Click to expand...

anyone thinks that blacks and slaves had citizenship rights and claim it's something to do with an 1808 constitution knowns nothing of the U.S. Constitution 
In 1790 only white adult males had citizenship rights Slaves and freed blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
How in the hell do you keep a citizen with rights as a slave?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
Click to expand...

Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
Click to expand...

I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't an American are you?
> Looks like you reading from a text book
> and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
> There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone thinks that blacks and slaves had citizenship rights and claim it's something to do with an 1808 constitution knowns nothing of the U.S. Constitution
> In 1790 only white adult males had citizenship rights Slaves and freed blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> How in the hell do you keep a citizen with rights as a slave?
Click to expand...

If you understood English better you would understand that there was no Constitutional basis for those biased laws based on inequality. 

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Anyone born in the US was a citizen by birth after 1808.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
Click to expand...

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie
Click to expand...

You have nothing but ignorance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't an American are you?
> Looks like you reading from a text book
> and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
> There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone thinks that blacks and slaves had citizenship rights and claim it's something to do with an 1808 constitution knowns nothing of the U.S. Constitution
> In 1790 only white adult males had citizenship rights Slaves and freed blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> How in the hell do you keep a citizen with rights as a slave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood English better you would understand that there was no Constitutional basis for those biased laws based on inequality.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Anyone born in the US was a citizen by birth after 1808.
Click to expand...

You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
Click to expand...

wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.
Click to expand...

says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in. 








						Federalist Party
					

The Federalist Party originated in opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party in America during President George Washington’s first administration. Known




					www.history.com


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't an American are you?
> Looks like you reading from a text book
> and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
> There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone thinks that blacks and slaves had citizenship rights and claim it's something to do with an 1808 constitution knowns nothing of the U.S. Constitution
> In 1790 only white adult males had citizenship rights Slaves and freed blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> How in the hell do you keep a citizen with rights as a slave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood English better you would understand that there was no Constitutional basis for those biased laws based on inequality.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Anyone born in the US was a citizen by birth after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response
Click to expand...

Simply being naturally born in the US after 1808 should have resulted in automatic citizenship rights for everyone born here. 

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
Click to expand...

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
> old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
> The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Party
> 
> 
> The Federalist Party originated in opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party in America during President George Washington’s first administration. Known
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
Click to expand...

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth.  The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that. 

Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't an American are you?
> Looks like you reading from a text book
> and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
> There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone thinks that blacks and slaves had citizenship rights and claim it's something to do with an 1808 constitution knowns nothing of the U.S. Constitution
> In 1790 only white adult males had citizenship rights Slaves and freed blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> How in the hell do you keep a citizen with rights as a slave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood English better you would understand that there was no Constitutional basis for those biased laws based on inequality.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Anyone born in the US was a citizen by birth after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being naturally born in the US after 1808 should have resulted in automatic citizenship rights for everyone born here.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Click to expand...

Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.  








						Nationality Act of 1790 - Immigration History
					

This was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants became US citizens. In this early version, Congress limited this important right to “free white persons.”




					immigrationhistory.org


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
> old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
> The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Party
> 
> 
> The Federalist Party originated in opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party in America during President George Washington’s first administration. Known
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth.  The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.
> 
> Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.
Click to expand...

I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808
FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on *March 6, 1857*, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.

OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage  and free elections


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
Click to expand...

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't an American are you?
> Looks like you reading from a text book
> and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
> There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone thinks that blacks and slaves had citizenship rights and claim it's something to do with an 1808 constitution knowns nothing of the U.S. Constitution
> In 1790 only white adult males had citizenship rights Slaves and freed blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> How in the hell do you keep a citizen with rights as a slave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood English better you would understand that there was no Constitutional basis for those biased laws based on inequality.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Anyone born in the US was a citizen by birth after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being naturally born in the US after 1808 should have resulted in automatic citizenship rights for everyone born here.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
> Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nationality Act of 1790 - Immigration History
> 
> 
> This was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants became US citizens. In this early version, Congress limited this important right to “free white persons.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> immigrationhistory.org
Click to expand...




bigrebnc1775 said:


> Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
> Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.


Citizens by naturalization is not the same as citizens by birth.  Anyone born in the Union after 1808 should have been considered a citizen by natural born birth.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
> old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
> The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Party
> 
> 
> The Federalist Party originated in opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party in America during President George Washington’s first administration. Known
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth.  The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.
> 
> Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808
> FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on *March 6, 1857*, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.
> 
> OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage  and free elections
Click to expand...

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth; our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral.  Any race based laws should have been unConstitutional and null and void from Inception; but that would have required more morals than were available at the time, apparently.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
Click to expand...

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land; no federal law was required and those federal laws which contradicted our federal Constitution were null and void in any conflict of laws with our supreme law of the land. Morals is all that was required.


----------



## Rigby5

PoliticalChic said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" Enforce Jus Sanguinin And Remit Social Subsistence Costs To Countries Of Citizenship Origin "
> 
> * No Subscription For Open Source Seekers **
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just right wing shills?
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/08/no-this-video-does-not-show-obama-urging-undocumented-people-to-vote/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That o ba ma promoted us citizens to vote for the interests of non jurisdiction migrants must necessarily imply that non jurisdiction migrants expect political persuasion for social entitlements of which they are not entitled to receive .
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American taxpayer would pay for illegal alien's healthcare
Click to expand...


But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.


----------



## Rigby5

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
Click to expand...


A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
Click to expand...

The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land; no federal law was required and those federal laws which contradicted our federal Constitution were null and void in any conflict of laws with our supreme law of the land. Morals is all that was required.
Click to expand...

and you are still wrong!  
why was their a need for the 13th amendment 14th amendment?
The civil rights act of 1866?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
> old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
> The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Party
> 
> 
> The Federalist Party originated in opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party in America during President George Washington’s first administration. Known
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth.  The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.
> 
> Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808
> FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on *March 6, 1857*, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.
> 
> OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage  and free elections
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth; our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral.  Any race based laws should have been unConstitutional and null and void from Inception; but that would have required more morals than were available at the time, apparently.
Click to expand...

NOPE WRONG AGAIN THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> 
> 
> 
> First, everything you said was wrong.
> 
> The south wanted to count 100% of the slaves, but give them 0% of the vote.  One person pointed out, that the north should then count their horses and cows, since they too were property and not people.
> 
> The adding of 3/5ths to the souths voting power clearly gave the south the power to tie the far bigger north, when it came to slavery.   The great and 3/5ths compromises were the two big bargains struck with the devil to build the union, and enshrine in the constitution the continuation of slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything YOU just said was ignorant bullshit.  I'm sure it sounds wonderful and "principled" for you to sit in your comfy armchair in the luxury of modern-day America and spout off about how the Founders should have demanded a complete abolition of slavery right on the spot, and refused to accept any "deal with the devil".  After all, YOU have nothing to lose by pretending to a moral superiority over your historical betters.  It costs you nothing to play at judgementalism.
> 
> They, on the other hand, were the ones who had to make a new country work with EVERYTHING to lose, both for themselves and you.
> 
> Where would your spoiled, entitled ass be right now if they had not made that compromise?  Where would the descendants of those slaves be if the Founders had had the benefit of your "wisdom" and made the "principled stand" you want to demand with no skin in the game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is pure horseshit. There was no reason for them not to have abolished slavery then and there. Today, we descendants of slaves would have the same wealth and representation as whites is slavery would have been abolished. There would have been no jim crow and the continuous fight we've had with whites would not be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can't get a straight answer from the right wing as to why the South did not insist on _eminent domain_ as a First Amendment right available to the several States and the Confederacy.  There was no need for our Civil War or the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aren't an American are you?
> Looks like you reading from a text book
> and no American would respond with words like "the several States"
> There were 13 colonies that became 13 states so which of the 13 are you referring to as the several states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More American than You, apparently since I understand our federal Constitution better than You.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> anyone thinks that blacks and slaves had citizenship rights and claim it's something to do with an 1808 constitution knowns nothing of the U.S. Constitution
> In 1790 only white adult males had citizenship rights Slaves and freed blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> How in the hell do you keep a citizen with rights as a slave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understood English better you would understand that there was no Constitutional basis for those biased laws based on inequality.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Anyone born in the US was a citizen by birth after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't understand slaves didn't have citizenship rights. What law freed slaves and gave them citizenship rights date must be added to your response
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being naturally born in the US after 1808 should have resulted in automatic citizenship rights for everyone born here.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
> Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nationality Act of 1790 - Immigration History
> 
> 
> This was the first law to define eligibility for citizenship by naturalization and establish standards and procedures by which immigrants became US citizens. In this early version, Congress limited this important right to “free white persons.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> immigrationhistory.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to the immigration act of 1790 the Congress of 1790 defined who was a citizen not you
> Congress first defined eligibility for citizenship by naturalization in this law, and limited this important right to “free white persons.” In practice, only white, male property owners could naturalize and acquire the status of citizens, whereas women, nonwhite persons, and indentured servants could not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Citizens by naturalization is not the same as citizens by birth.  Anyone born in the Union after 1808 should have been considered a citizen by natural born birth.
Click to expand...

NOT until the passage of the 14th amendment and the civil rights act of 1866


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" La Raza Sycophants "

* Out Of Your Criminal Mind **


Rigby5 said:


> But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.


Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .



			https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
		

_at the federal level, about *one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped *through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of* the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.*_










						Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely
					

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...




					www.gao.gov
				



_*GAO *found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) *estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; *(3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;_









						Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
					

Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.




					thehill.com
				



_One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is *the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens.* Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. *Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.*_


----------



## Rigby5

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
Click to expand...


Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
Click to expand...

It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
It's like when the supreme rules unconstitutional gun laws constitutional anything that infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens from having their weapon of choice is unconstitutional but old danny boy isn't bitching about that


----------



## Rigby5

Monk-Eye said:


> *" La Raza Sycophants "
> 
> * Out Of Your Criminal Mind **
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
> 
> 
> _at the federal level, about *one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped *through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
> 
> most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of* the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely
> 
> 
> Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gao.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*GAO *found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) *estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; *(3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is *the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens.* Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. *Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.*_
Click to expand...


Not true.
All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund.  No illegals can ever get refunds.  If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals.  They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" La Raza Sycophants "
> 
> * Out Of Your Criminal Mind **
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
> 
> 
> _at the federal level, about *one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped *through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
> 
> most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of* the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely
> 
> 
> Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gao.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*GAO *found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) *estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; *(3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is *the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens.* Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. *Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund.  No illegals can ever get refunds.  If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
> And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
> The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals.  They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
> Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
> Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
> In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
> They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
> The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.
Click to expand...

those illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number


----------



## Rigby5

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
Click to expand...


Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.


----------



## Rigby5

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" La Raza Sycophants "
> 
> * Out Of Your Criminal Mind **
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
> 
> 
> _at the federal level, about *one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped *through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
> 
> most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of* the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely
> 
> 
> Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gao.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*GAO *found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) *estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; *(3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is *the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens.* Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. *Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund.  No illegals can ever get refunds.  If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
> And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
> The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals.  They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
> Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
> Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
> In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
> They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
> The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number
Click to expand...


So?
They still pay taxes and can't risk getting refunds.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
> The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
> Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
> And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
> The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.
Click to expand...

shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" La Raza Sycophants "
> 
> * Out Of Your Criminal Mind **
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
> 
> 
> _at the federal level, about *one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped *through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
> 
> most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of* the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely
> 
> 
> Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gao.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*GAO *found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) *estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; *(3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is *the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens.* Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. *Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund.  No illegals can ever get refunds.  If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
> And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
> The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals.  They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
> Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
> Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
> In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
> They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
> The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> They still pay taxes and can't risk getting refunds.
Click to expand...

and here you were just harping about having rights that laws said slaves didn't have


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Typical Loathsome Idiocy "

* Pathetic Ignorance  **


Rigby5 said:


> Not true.
> *All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund.  No illegals can ever get refunds.  If they tried, they would risk getting deported.*
> And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
> The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals.  They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
> Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
> Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
> In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
> They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
> The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.


You are nothing more than a poorly informed , anti-racist racist , liar for thieves , reflective of disingenuous degeneracy exemplified by the entire left wing !

And ITIN filing only on themselves does not even cover the ssi doled out for the children of illegal migrants , who were unlawfully given citizenship , and based upon the income of their vagrant parents .






__





						About 6.1 Million Illegals Filed Taxes in US – Many Didn't Pay, Received Refunds
					

.




					www.cnsnews.com
				



_One of the most reliable sources of data concerning the federal income taxes of illegal immigrants comes from an *IRS program** that gives them “Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers” or ITINs. These numbers are “issued regardless of an individual’s immigration status,” and they allow illegal immigrants* and foreign investors to file tax returns without a Social Security number.

In reality, the polar opposite is true. Federal government data shows that while *roughly half of illegal immigrants file federal tax returns, the vast majority of them don’t pay any federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, *which are a form of cash welfare. In other words, *illegal immigrants mainly use the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens.*_





__





						Why Undocumented Immigrants Choose to Pay Income Taxes | Daniel Kowalski
					

The IRS created a program in 1996 that allows non-citizens residing in the USA who are earning money to report their income. Most undocumented immigrants have decided it’s worth the risk to document themselves as law-abiding taxpayers so they will have good standing legally and socially if one...



					fee.org


----------



## AZrailwhale

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts are you claiming?  Our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
> 
> This is actually part of our supreme Law of the land:
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Being legal to our express written supreme law of the land meant anyone (not just white persons) born in the US (after 1808) was automatically a US citizens; any extra Constitutional federal laws to the contrary not with Standing.
Click to expand...

Repeating the same incorrect information over and over again doesn't make it true.  Blacks, especially black slaves were not eligible to become citizens until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed.  Black Americans didn't get the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870 five years later.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

AZrailwhale said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts are you claiming?  Our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
> 
> This is actually part of our supreme Law of the land:
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Being legal to our express written supreme law of the land meant anyone (not just white persons) born in the US (after 1808) was automatically a US citizens; any extra Constitutional federal laws to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating the same incorrect information over and over again doesn't make it true.  Blacks, especially black slaves were not eligible to become citizens until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed.  Black Americans didn't get the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870 five years later.
Click to expand...

he's repeated the same old shit like textbook work 
Regardless of the facts presented to him.


----------



## AZrailwhale

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you didn't have the facts son.
> 
> On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were supposed to.  This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
Click to expand...

Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.


----------



## AZrailwhale

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
Click to expand...

Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.


----------



## AZrailwhale

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us.  You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.


----------



## Persistence Of Memory

PoliticalChic said:


> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*


The biggest mistake in our country's history was that we should have been picking our own GD F cotton.


----------



## Billiejeens

danielpalos said:


> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.



You are right.
We shouldn't have an illegal problem. 
Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
Click to expand...

They Should have had the same privileges and immunities of any other natural born person in the US, they didn't and that was an ethical and moral failure; and having "under God" in our pledge makes it also a hypocritical practice.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land; no federal law was required and those federal laws which contradicted our federal Constitution were null and void in any conflict of laws with our supreme law of the land. Morals is all that was required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you are still wrong!
> why was their a need for the 13th amendment 14th amendment?
> The civil rights act of 1866?
Click to expand...

For the same reason we have the Expense of Government instead of being moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.

Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain to avoid our Civil War?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
> old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
> The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Party
> 
> 
> The Federalist Party originated in opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party in America during President George Washington’s first administration. Known
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth.  The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.
> 
> Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808
> FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on *March 6, 1857*, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.
> 
> OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage  and free elections
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth; our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral.  Any race based laws should have been unConstitutional and null and void from Inception; but that would have required more morals than were available at the time, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOPE WRONG AGAIN THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
Click to expand...

Before 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States.--https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2957.html


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
> It's like when the supreme rules unconstitutional gun laws constitutional anything that infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens from having their weapon of choice is unconstitutional but old danny boy isn't bitching about that
Click to expand...

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
Click to expand...

Being infidels to our own Constitution was the problem.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" La Raza Sycophants "
> 
> * Out Of Your Criminal Mind **
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
> 
> 
> _at the federal level, about *one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped *through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
> 
> most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of* the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely
> 
> 
> Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gao.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*GAO *found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) *estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; *(3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is *the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens.* Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. *Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund.  No illegals can ever get refunds.  If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
> And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
> The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals.  They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
> Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
> Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
> In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
> They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
> The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number
Click to expand...

We don't have an Immigration clause, we have a Naturalization clause; all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass; and voting would be more secure.  Yet, right wingers prefer to Create problems and then complain about those same problems.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
> The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
> Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
> And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
> The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?
Click to expand...

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monk-Eye said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" La Raza Sycophants "
> 
> * Out Of Your Criminal Mind **
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
> 
> 
> _at the federal level, about *one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped *through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
> 
> most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of* the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely
> 
> 
> Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gao.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _*GAO *found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) *estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; *(3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thehill.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is *the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens.* Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. *Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund.  No illegals can ever get refunds.  If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
> And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
> The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals.  They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
> Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
> Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
> In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
> They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
> The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?
> They still pay taxes and can't risk getting refunds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and here you were just harping about having rights that laws said slaves didn't have
Click to expand...

Due to a lack of morals to Faithfully execute our own supreme law of the land.  How moral was the majority?


----------



## danielpalos

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Typical Loathsome Idiocy "
> 
> * Pathetic Ignorance  **
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.
> *All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund.  No illegals can ever get refunds.  If they tried, they would risk getting deported.*
> And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
> The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals.  They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
> Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
> Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
> In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
> They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
> The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.
> 
> 
> 
> You are nothing more than a poorly informed , anti-racist racist , liar for thieves , reflective of disingenuous degeneracy exemplified by the entire left wing !
> 
> And ITIN filing only on themselves does not even cover the ssi doled out for the children of illegal migrants , who were unlawfully given citizenship , and based upon the income of their vagrant parents .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About 6.1 Million Illegals Filed Taxes in US – Many Didn't Pay, Received Refunds
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _One of the most reliable sources of data concerning the federal income taxes of illegal immigrants comes from an *IRS program** that gives them “Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers” or ITINs. These numbers are “issued regardless of an individual’s immigration status,” and they allow illegal immigrants* and foreign investors to file tax returns without a Social Security number.
> 
> In reality, the polar opposite is true. Federal government data shows that while *roughly half of illegal immigrants file federal tax returns, the vast majority of them don’t pay any federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, *which are a form of cash welfare. In other words, *illegal immigrants mainly use the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Undocumented Immigrants Choose to Pay Income Taxes | Daniel Kowalski
> 
> 
> The IRS created a program in 1996 that allows non-citizens residing in the USA who are earning money to report their income. Most undocumented immigrants have decided it’s worth the risk to document themselves as law-abiding taxpayers so they will have good standing legally and socially if one...
> 
> 
> 
> fee.org
Click to expand...

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass with a Naturalization clause because, all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes, including tax purposes.


----------



## danielpalos

AZrailwhale said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What facts are you claiming?  Our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral, from Inception.
> 
> This is actually part of our supreme Law of the land:
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Being legal to our express written supreme law of the land meant anyone (not just white persons) born in the US (after 1808) was automatically a US citizens; any extra Constitutional federal laws to the contrary not with Standing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating the same incorrect information over and over again doesn't make it true.  Blacks, especially black slaves were not eligible to become citizens until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed.  Black Americans didn't get the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870 five years later.
Click to expand...

Simply appealing to ignorance and being on the right wing, does not make you automatically, Right. 


Before 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States.--https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2957.html


----------



## danielpalos

AZrailwhale said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you didn't have the facts son.
> 
> On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were supposed to.  This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.
Click to expand...

Not all blacks were slaves.


----------



## danielpalos

AZrailwhale said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
Click to expand...

The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.


----------



## danielpalos

AZrailwhale said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us.  You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.
Click to expand...

Levying War against the Union was Treason.  Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?


----------



## danielpalos

Billiejeens said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right.
> We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
> Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.
Click to expand...

They have HomeDepot in Mexico now right wingers.  What happened to free market Capitalism?  Buy American ladders!


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Should Be Deported For Treason "

* Anti-Racist Racist Liar **


danielpalos said:


> There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass with a Naturalization clause because, *all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes, including tax purposes*.


Are you so blatantly retarded as to not understand the entire purpose of a legal immigration system and that non jurisdiction migrants do not have permission to be in the us ?

The irs is prohibited by law from disclosing any information about itin filings to the general government .

No doubt you would be thrilled for the 800 million latin americans , who have bred themselves into poverty , to show up in the us and demand the occupation and theft of the us people .



			https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221495.pdf
		

_Illegal aliens are a concern not only because they are breaking *B-252730 immigration laws* but for various other reasons._



			https://www.congress.gov/104/crpt/hrpt828/CRPT-104hrpt828.pdf


----------



## IM2

danielpalos said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
Click to expand...

Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land; no federal law was required and those federal laws which contradicted our federal Constitution were null and void in any conflict of laws with our supreme law of the land. Morals is all that was required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you are still wrong!
> why was their a need for the 13th amendment 14th amendment?
> The civil rights act of 1866?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the same reason we have the Expense of Government instead of being moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.
> 
> Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain to avoid our Civil War?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blackrook said:
> 
> 
> 
> The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.
> 
> The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sets of people being Democrats.  That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
> old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
> The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Federalist Party
> 
> 
> The Federalist Party originated in opposition to the Democratic-Republican Party in America during President George Washington’s first administration. Known
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.history.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth.  The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.
> 
> Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808
> FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on *March 6, 1857*, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.
> 
> OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage  and free elections
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth; our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral.  Any race based laws should have been unConstitutional and null and void from Inception; but that would have required more morals than were available at the time, apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NOPE WRONG AGAIN THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Before 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States.--https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2957.html
Click to expand...

wrong wrong wrong


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
Click to expand...

just because a state abolished slavery did not give rights to slave and free blacks


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right.
> We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
> Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have HomeDepot in Mexico now right wingers.  What happened to free market Capitalism?  Buy American ladders!
Click to expand...

fine buy all the ladders you wetbacks want to buy we'll trade you lead for them


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you didn't have the facts son.
> 
> On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were supposed to.  This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all blacks were slaves.
Click to expand...

You are correct some bought their freedom and still didn't have citizenship rights.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us.  You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Levying War against the Union was Treason.  Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?
Click to expand...

It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
> The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
> Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
> And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
> The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Click to expand...

you're quoting the 14th amendment it wasn't ratified until 1868 the civil rights act of 1866 gave citizenship rights to blacks


----------



## danielpalos

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Should Be Deported For Treason "
> 
> * Anti-Racist Racist Liar **
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass with a Naturalization clause because, *all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes, including tax purposes*.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you so blatantly retarded as to not understand the entire purpose of a legal immigration system and that non jurisdiction migrants do not have permission to be in the us ?
> 
> The irs is prohibited by law from disclosing any information about itin filings to the general government .
> 
> No doubt you would be thrilled for the 800 million latin americans , who have bred themselves into poverty , to show up in the us and demand the occupation and theft of the us people .
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/221495.pdf
> 
> 
> _Illegal aliens are a concern not only because they are breaking *B-252730 immigration laws* but for various other reasons._
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.congress.gov/104/crpt/hrpt828/CRPT-104hrpt828.pdf
Click to expand...

I understand right wingers have difficulty being legal to the laws, but are hypocritical enough to blame the less fortunate.  Natural rights means nothing to the right wing outside of abortion threads, either. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution.  We have an express Establishment clause for an Uniform rule of Naturalization right wingers; Obey the law!

We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank; only right wingers prefer their socialism on a national basis instead of Capitalism, well regulated.


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
Click to expand...


Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?

*African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol

The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us.  You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Levying War against the Union was Treason.  Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.
Click to expand...

States had no rights over Entry into the Union after 1808.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
> The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
> Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
> And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
> The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're quoting the 14th amendment it wasn't ratified until 1868 the civil rights act of 1866 gave citizenship rights to blacks
Click to expand...

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.  I cited Article the Fourth, Section the Second.


----------



## Rigby5

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
> The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
> Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
> And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
> The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?
Click to expand...


The basis for law then as now, is that in a democratic republic, all legal authority comes from inherent rights of individuals only, and government only borrows or acts on delegated authority by defending the rights of those individuals.

The only problem then with the SCOTUS decision making process is that states then were considered superior to the federal government when it came to everything the feds were not specifically given jurisdiction over.
And the feds were never given jurisdiction over protecting individuals from things like slavery, until the 14th amendment.

The specific task facing the SCOTUS over Dred Scott case was that to end slavery would mean taking from slave holders without compensation, which violates another section of the constitution.   But at least the SCOTUS should have ruled that anyone born in this country was a citizen and not a slave, at the very least.


----------



## Rigby5

Billiejeens said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right.
> We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
> Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.
Click to expand...


But who then should be here, since the European immigrants that killed native Americans don't have a right to be here, nor their descendants.  You don't get rightful ownership by murdering the previous owner.


----------



## Billiejeens

Rigby5 said:


> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right.
> We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
> Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who then should be here, since the European immigrants that killed native Americans don't have a right to be here, nor their descendants.  You don't get rightful ownership by murdering the previous owner.
Click to expand...


Why don't you?


----------



## Rigby5

IM2 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
Click to expand...



You are both right.
Slavery was on the decline, UNTIL the invention of the cotton gin in 1794.
Then cotton became much more valuable and slavery greatly increased again.


----------



## Rigby5

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just because a state abolished slavery did not give rights to slave and free blacks
Click to expand...


The Declaration of Independence does say that all individuals are endowed with inherent rights.
There was no way to prevent citizenship of Blacks born here without violating the principles Jefferson documented.


----------



## Rigby5

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you didn't have the facts son.
> 
> On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were supposed to.  This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all blacks were slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct some bought their freedom and still didn't have citizenship rights.
Click to expand...


But many escaped slaves did have US citizenship rights, such as Frederick Douglas.
{...
*Frederick Douglass* (born *Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey*; c. February 1818 – February 20, 1895)[1][4] was an American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery in Maryland, he became a national leader of the abolitionist movement in Massachusetts and New York, becoming famous for his oratory[5] and incisive antislavery writings. Accordingly, he was described by abolitionists in his time as a living counter-example to slaveholders' arguments that slaves lacked the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens.[6][7] Likewise, Northerners at the time found it hard to believe that such a great orator had once been a slave.[8] 
...}








						Frederick Douglass - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




He had to have a passport to be able to travel and return to the US.
And we know he traveled to England many times.


----------



## Rigby5

Billiejeens said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billiejeens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are right.
> We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
> Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who then should be here, since the European immigrants that killed native Americans don't have a right to be here, nor their descendants.  You don't get rightful ownership by murdering the previous owner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you?
Click to expand...


Because murdering is a crime, and our laws do not allow one to profit from a crime like murder.
You punish murderers, not reward them.

In general, the point is keeping out immigrants from south of the border is hypocrisy since they are natives and we descendants of Europeans are not.


----------



## IM2

danielpalos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
Click to expand...

We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.

_"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_

*Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.

_“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_

*Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.

This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.

During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:

_In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.

First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”

As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.

The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _

*Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1

Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84

William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms

Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_

_Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress

Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",

_America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you

Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, https://vocalafrica.com/buck-breaking-afrcan-male-slaves/

Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, https://kottke.org/16/02/a-history-of-the-slave-breeding-industry-in-the-united-states

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: https://norbertobarreto.blog/2014/03/14/american-finance-grew-on-the-back-of-slaves/


​


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us.  You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Levying War against the Union was Treason.  Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States had no rights over Entry into the Union after 1808.
Click to expand...

dumbass 1808 is still the same as 1790 and until 1866
WHICH MEANS YOU'RE WRONG


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you didn't have the facts son.
> 
> On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were supposed to.  This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all blacks were slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct some bought their freedom and still didn't have citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But many escaped slaves did have US citizenship rights, such as Frederick Douglas.
> {...
> *Frederick Douglass* (born *Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey*; c. February 1818 – February 20, 1895)[1][4] was an American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery in Maryland, he became a national leader of the abolitionist movement in Massachusetts and New York, becoming famous for his oratory[5] and incisive antislavery writings. Accordingly, he was described by abolitionists in his time as a living counter-example to slaveholders' arguments that slaves lacked the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens.[6][7] Likewise, Northerners at the time found it hard to believe that such a great orator had once been a slave.[8]
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglass - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had to have a passport to be able to travel and return to the US.
> And we know he traveled to England many times.
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of the Dread Scott Decision? that means you're wrong


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just because a state abolished slavery did not give rights to slave and free blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Declaration of Independence does say that all individuals are endowed with inherent rights.
> There was no way to prevent citizenship of Blacks born here without violating the principles Jefferson documented.
Click to expand...

and slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights that's why you have the 3/5th compromise


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
> The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
> Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
> And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
> The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're quoting the 14th amendment it wasn't ratified until 1868 the civil rights act of 1866 gave citizenship rights to blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.  I cited Article the Fourth, Section the Second.
Click to expand...

No I'm not wrong but you are so far from being right you're having to lie to yourself 
The way you write tells me you aren't an American 
Who in the fuck writes this way?
 "I cited Article the Fourth, Section the Second."
You cited what article


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rigby5 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
> But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
> Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
> And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
> There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
> The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
> I realize it was really a state issue back then.
> But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
> It should already have been intuitive.
> Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
> That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
> The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
> Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
> And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
> The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The basis for law then as now, is that in a democratic republic, all legal authority comes from inherent rights of individuals only, and government only borrows or acts on delegated authority by defending the rights of those individuals.
> 
> The only problem then with the SCOTUS decision making process is that states then were considered superior to the federal government when it came to everything the feds were not specifically given jurisdiction over.
> And the feds were never given jurisdiction over protecting individuals from things like slavery, until the 14th amendment.
> 
> The specific task facing the SCOTUS over Dred Scott case was that to end slavery would mean taking from slave holders without compensation, which violates another section of the constitution.   But at least the SCOTUS should have ruled that anyone born in this country was a citizen and not a slave, at the very least.
Click to expand...

Dread Scott stated blacks and slaves did not have rights


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being infidels to our own Constitution was the problem.
Click to expand...

It's not your constitution


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us.  You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Levying War against the Union was Treason.  Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States had no rights over Entry into the Union after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass 1808 is still the same as 1790 and until 1866
> WHICH MEANS YOU'RE WRONG
Click to expand...

Only if you appeal to ignorance, like usual for the right wing.   Entry into the Union was federal jurisdiction after 1808. Thus, anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen.  And, if it was true for a person it was supposed to be true for any person.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.“…history of laws against *miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation*—in the United States.
> 
> Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with* the Progressive movement,* peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
> 
> “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained *racially pure and unmixed*, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to *defilement of the blood.”*
> Adolph Hitler
> Untitled Document
> 
> 
> 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
> “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”
> Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
> (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
> 
> 
> 
> *4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.*
> T*he Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
> 
> In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’*
> “Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
> 
> 
> Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.breitbart.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5.  From the LATimes:
> “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices.* Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly." *
> When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers were democrats back then.  Lincoln was a republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
> Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?
> 
> Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.
> 
> 
> 
> "Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
> Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:
> 
> *"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress
> 
> 
> Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:
> 
> 
> "Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
> page 33.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional.  Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, they were unConstitutional.  Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was *not meant to include American citizenship for black people*, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A political five to four decision?  Blacks were also created equal.  And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception.  They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization.  The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
> What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
> Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More disingenuous white racist bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
> My directive to you is go fuck your racist self
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fallacy is all right wingers usually have.  If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Thanks for proving my point, right winger.  No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you didn't have the facts son.
> 
> On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were supposed to.  This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:
> 
> _The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all blacks were slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are correct some bought their freedom and still didn't have citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But many escaped slaves did have US citizenship rights, such as Frederick Douglas.
> {...
> *Frederick Douglass* (born *Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey*; c. February 1818 – February 20, 1895)[1][4] was an American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman. After escaping from slavery in Maryland, he became a national leader of the abolitionist movement in Massachusetts and New York, becoming famous for his oratory[5] and incisive antislavery writings. Accordingly, he was described by abolitionists in his time as a living counter-example to slaveholders' arguments that slaves lacked the intellectual capacity to function as independent American citizens.[6][7] Likewise, Northerners at the time found it hard to believe that such a great orator had once been a slave.[8]
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frederick Douglass - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He had to have a passport to be able to travel and return to the US.
> And we know he traveled to England many times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever heard of the Dread Scott Decision? that means you're wrong
Click to expand...

The Dred Scott decision was wrong; just like DC v Heller.  The Court ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the end to the means.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being infidels to our own Constitution was the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not your constitution
Click to expand...

It is not your constitution, Russian tool.


----------



## IM2

danielpalos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
Click to expand...

True, but we both know that wasn't the case.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
Click to expand...

nope not true for the 50th time


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being infidels to our own Constitution was the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not your constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not your constitution, Russian tool.
Click to expand...

I took an oath to defend it from an enemy like you


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we both know that wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

Immigration laws of the time say otherwise


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us.  You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Levying War against the Union was Treason.  Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States had no rights over Entry into the Union after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass 1808 is still the same as 1790 and until 1866
> WHICH MEANS YOU'RE WRONG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance, like usual for the right wing.   Entry into the Union was federal jurisdiction after 1808. Thus, anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen.  And, if it was true for a person it was supposed to be true for any person.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Click to expand...

not true wrong for the 51st time


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope not true for the 50th time
Click to expand...

Right wingers don't care about the truth.  It must take morals to care about it.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being infidels to our own Constitution was the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not your constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not your constitution, Russian tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I took an oath to defend it from an enemy like you
Click to expand...

Too bad you don't understand our Constitution or what to defend.  Simply being able to parrot a few statements is worthless.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we both know that wasn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws of the time say otherwise
Click to expand...

We have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause in our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us.  You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Levying War against the Union was Treason.  Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain which was a Legal right; why did the South prefer to be Illegal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's called states rights, not eminent domain and the states did claim that right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States had no rights over Entry into the Union after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass 1808 is still the same as 1790 and until 1866
> WHICH MEANS YOU'RE WRONG
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only if you appeal to ignorance, like usual for the right wing.   Entry into the Union was federal jurisdiction after 1808. Thus, anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen.  And, if it was true for a person it was supposed to be true for any person.
> 
> The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true wrong for the 51st time
Click to expand...

Proof, right wingers only know how to parrot a few statements not think and understand for themselves.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nope not true for the 50th time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right wingers don't care about the truth.  It must take morals to care about it.
Click to expand...

OH, the hypocrisy and irony are thick in this one.
52nd time you're telling an untruth and piling the lies thinking than cow shit in the pasture.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we both know that wasn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws of the time say otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause in our Constitution.
Click to expand...

ok dumbass we are talking about before the 14th amendment was created and before the 1866 civil rights act WE HAD IMMIGRATION LAWS


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply being born in the US confers citizenship.  Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong snowflake  not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
> When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
> But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Being infidels to our own Constitution was the problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not your constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not your constitution, Russian tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I took an oath to defend it from an enemy like you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad you don't understand our Constitution or what to defend.  Simply being able to parrot a few statements is worthless.
Click to expand...

Your problem is 2 fold
You're not an American citizen
and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America.
I am defending the constitution as it stood before 1866 and 1868 and furthermore I am defending the Constitution as it stands now 
how about the second amendment are you supportive of it?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we both know that wasn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws of the time say otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok dumbass we are talking about before the 14th amendment was created and before the 1866 civil rights act WE HAD IMMIGRATION LAWS
Click to expand...

Our supreme law of the land says we have an establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization.  The several States used to have their own immigration laws until 1808.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Your problem is 2 fold
> You're not an American citizen
> and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America.
> I am defending the constitution as it stood before 1866 and 1868 and furthermore I am defending the Constitution as it stands now
> how about the second amendment are you supportive of it?


Your problem is you have nothing but bigotry not any valid solutions; how easily defeated by anyone with better arguments at lower cost. 

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization not immigration.  Any infidel can say what you allege, not true patriots to our supreme law of the land. 

And, we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!  

Furthermore, our Civil War should have never happened.  Can You tell me why the South chose to levy war against the Union instead of insist on eminent domain, like true patriots who can think for themselves not just parrot a few statements should have been able to do?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we both know that wasn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws of the time say otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok dumbass we are talking about before the 14th amendment was created and before the 1866 civil rights act WE HAD IMMIGRATION LAWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our supreme law of the land says we have an establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization.  The several States used to have their own immigration laws until 1808.
Click to expand...

and again 1790 immigration laws and the 1857 Supreme court ruling says blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights 1808 is irrelevant 
THIS MAKES CORRECTION NUMBER 53RD


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is 2 fold
> You're not an American citizen
> and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America.
> I am defending the constitution as it stood before 1866 and 1868 and furthermore I am defending the Constitution as it stands now
> how about the second amendment are you supportive of it?
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you have nothing but bigotry not any valid solutions; how easily defeated by anyone with better arguments at lower cost.
> 
> We have an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization not immigration.  Any infidel can say what you allege, not true patriots to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> And, we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
> 
> Furthermore, our Civil War should have never happened.  Can You tell me why the South chose to levy war against the Union instead of insist on eminent domain, like true patriots who can think for themselves not just parrot a few statements should have been able to do?
Click to expand...

4 keys years you need to focus on and are relevant 1790, 1857, 1866, and 1868
Your bigotry is appalling when it comes to certain sections of the Constitution


----------



## IM2

*"and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America." *

This is a silly argument used to defend past ignorance and it has no merit.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we both know that wasn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws of the time say otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok dumbass we are talking about before the 14th amendment was created and before the 1866 civil rights act WE HAD IMMIGRATION LAWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our supreme law of the land says we have an establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization.  The several States used to have their own immigration laws until 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and again 1790 immigration laws and the 1857 Supreme court ruling says blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights 1808 is irrelevant
> THIS MAKES CORRECTION NUMBER 53RD
Click to expand...

Proof right wingers don't care about our supreme law of the land.  And, there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, it is a Naturalization clause for anyone born outside of the Union.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is 2 fold
> You're not an American citizen
> and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America.
> I am defending the constitution as it stood before 1866 and 1868 and furthermore I am defending the Constitution as it stands now
> how about the second amendment are you supportive of it?
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you have nothing but bigotry not any valid solutions; how easily defeated by anyone with better arguments at lower cost.
> 
> We have an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization not immigration.  Any infidel can say what you allege, not true patriots to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> And, we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
> 
> Furthermore, our Civil War should have never happened.  Can You tell me why the South chose to levy war against the Union instead of insist on eminent domain, like true patriots who can think for themselves not just parrot a few statements should have been able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4 keys years you need to focus on and are relevant 1790, 1857, 1866, and 1868
> Your bigotry is appalling when it comes to certain sections of the Constitution
Click to expand...

What sections of our Constitution?  You are the one claiming politicians can make up any right wing fantasy they want regardless of what our actual Constitution enumerates.


----------



## danielpalos

IM2 said:


> *"and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America." *
> 
> This is a silly argument used to defend past ignorance and it has no merit.


Fallacy is all right wingers have not any valid arguments.  They were willing to levy War against the Union for their right wing fantasy regardless of what our Constitution is supposed to be accomplishing.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *BECAUSE* blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
> BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union.  The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't.  Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?
> 
> *African Slave Trade Patrol*[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol
> 
> The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.
> 
> _"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.
> 
> _“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”_
> 
> *Ned & Constance Sublette, **The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry*​
> To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.
> 
> This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.
> 
> During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:
> 
> _In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.
> 
> First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”
> 
> As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.
> 
> The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies. _
> 
> *Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves*​Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1
> 
> Ned & Constance Sublette, _The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry__, _Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84
> 
> William Spivey, _The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms_, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms
> 
> Rashid Booker, _Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America"_, https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_
> 
> _Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938_, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress
> 
> Elizabeth Keckley, _Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868_, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",
> 
> _America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you_, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you
> 
> Isaac Somto, _Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped_, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa
> 
> Jason Kottke, _A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States_, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States
> 
> Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, _American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves_, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but we both know that wasn't the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Immigration laws of the time say otherwise
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok dumbass we are talking about before the 14th amendment was created and before the 1866 civil rights act WE HAD IMMIGRATION LAWS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our supreme law of the land says we have an establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization.  The several States used to have their own immigration laws until 1808.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and again 1790 immigration laws and the 1857 Supreme court ruling says blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights 1808 is irrelevant
> THIS MAKES CORRECTION NUMBER 53RD
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof right wingers don't care about our supreme law of the land.  And, there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, it is a Naturalization clause for anyone born outside of the Union.
Click to expand...

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is 2 fold
> You're not an American citizen
> and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America.
> I am defending the constitution as it stood before 1866 and 1868 and furthermore I am defending the Constitution as it stands now
> how about the second amendment are you supportive of it?
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you have nothing but bigotry not any valid solutions; how easily defeated by anyone with better arguments at lower cost.
> 
> We have an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization not immigration.  Any infidel can say what you allege, not true patriots to our supreme law of the land.
> 
> And, we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
> 
> Furthermore, our Civil War should have never happened.  Can You tell me why the South chose to levy war against the Union instead of insist on eminent domain, like true patriots who can think for themselves not just parrot a few statements should have been able to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 4 keys years you need to focus on and are relevant 1790, 1857, 1866, and 1868
> Your bigotry is appalling when it comes to certain sections of the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What sections of our Constitution?  You are the one claiming politicians can make up any right wing fantasy they want regardless of what our actual Constitution enumerates.
Click to expand...

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified


----------



## bigrebnc1775

IM2 said:


> *"and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America." *
> 
> This is a silly argument used to defend past ignorance and it has no merit.


You can't do it you can't rewrite history and case laws dumbass even though you try.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?


Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified


I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> 
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
Click to expand...




The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
Click to expand...

lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
Click to expand...

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
Click to expand...

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.
Click to expand...

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker 
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties 
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
> The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
> Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land
Click to expand...

You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition.   Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction.  Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
> The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
> Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition.   Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction.  Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.
Click to expand...

YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
> The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
> Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition.   Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction.  Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS
Click to expand...

You only have a fallacy of composition not facts. 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof. 

_To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,_

We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
> The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
> Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition.   Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction.  Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,_
> 
> We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.
Click to expand...

your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land 
You're done now


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
> The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
> Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition.   Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction.  Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,_
> 
> We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land
> You're done now
Click to expand...

We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up. I guess right wingers only know how to be hypocrites not be legal to the laws.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
> The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
> Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition.   Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction.  Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,_
> 
> We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land
> You're done now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up. I guess right wingers only know how to be hypocrites not be legal to the laws.
Click to expand...

look dumbass America is a Republic that is governed by the rule of law, IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND, IN 1857 THE SUPREME COURT RULED SLAVES AND BLACKS WERE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
> The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
> Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition.   Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction.  Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,_
> 
> We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land
> You're done now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up. I guess right wingers only know how to be hypocrites not be legal to the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look dumbass America is a Republic that is governed by the rule of law, IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND, IN 1857 THE SUPREME COURT RULED SLAVES AND BLACKS WERE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
Click to expand...

lol.  Proof right wingers don't care about the law.  This is our most supreme law of the land: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,.  It say naturalization not Immigration.  What you claim about that clause could easily be applied to our Second Amendment since You believe Congress can manufacture any form of fascism they want to be the supreme law of the land.  Be Consistent or just be hypocritical and immoral and illegal to the law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
> 1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
> 1866 first civil rights law
> 1868 14th amendment ratified
> 
> 
> 
> I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation.  And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey:  The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
> 
> Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
> 
> Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  Are you a Russian tool?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *Supremacy Clause* of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, *federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, *and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.
> 
> In _Ableman v. Booth_, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
> NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers.  Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,
> 
> It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause.  There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization.  We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes.  Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.
> 
> Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States.  We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
> The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
> Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition.   Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction.  Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.
> 
> This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
> 
> There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.
> 
> _To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,_
> 
> We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land
> You're done now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have an _Establishment_ clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up. I guess right wingers only know how to be hypocrites not be legal to the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look dumbass America is a Republic that is governed by the rule of law, IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND, IN 1857 THE SUPREME COURT RULED SLAVES AND BLACKS WERE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Proof right wingers don't care about the law.  This is our most supreme law of the land: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,.  It say naturalization not Immigration.  What you claim about that clause could easily be applied to our Second Amendment since You believe Congress can manufacture any form of fascism they want to be the supreme law of the land.  Be Consistent or just be hypocritical and immoral and illegal to the law.
Click to expand...

no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.


lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
Click to expand...

total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
Click to expand...

Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
Click to expand...

dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal
Click to expand...

Why bother with our Second Amendment when any law Congress can manufacture is just as supreme, according to you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother with our Second Amendment when any law Congress can manufacture is just as supreme, according to you?
Click to expand...

Foreigner's do not have any American rights you are irrelevant


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother with our Second Amendment when any law Congress can manufacture is just as supreme, according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigner's do not have any American rights you are irrelevant
Click to expand...

Proof right wingers have nothing but right wing bigotry not any respect for the law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother with our Second Amendment when any law Congress can manufacture is just as supreme, according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigner's do not have any American rights you are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof right wingers have nothing but right wing bigotry not any respect for the law.
Click to expand...

and the truth hurts your feelings


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother with our Second Amendment when any law Congress can manufacture is just as supreme, according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigner's do not have any American rights you are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof right wingers have nothing but right wing bigotry not any respect for the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the truth hurts your feelings
Click to expand...

No, it merely reminds me right wingers would have no arguments at all if it weren't for fallacy.


----------



## playtime

if the founding fathers thought that slaves were fully human -  they would not have OWNED them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother with our Second Amendment when any law Congress can manufacture is just as supreme, according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigner's do not have any American rights you are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof right wingers have nothing but right wing bigotry not any respect for the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the truth hurts your feelings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it merely reminds me right wingers would have no arguments at all if it weren't for fallacy.
Click to expand...

when you make an argument that has some validity we might can discuss it but you haven't


----------



## danielpalos

playtime said:


> if the founding fathers thought that slaves were fully human -  they would not have OWNED them.


It was a legacy system.  Europe had no problem emancipating fellow human beings; only right wingers in the US seemed to have a problem being faithful to our declaration of independence and our federal Constitution which was pursuant to it.


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother with our Second Amendment when any law Congress can manufacture is just as supreme, according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigner's do not have any American rights you are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof right wingers have nothing but right wing bigotry not any respect for the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the truth hurts your feelings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it merely reminds me right wingers would have no arguments at all if it weren't for fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you make an argument that has some validity we might can discuss it but you haven't
Click to expand...

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother with our Second Amendment when any law Congress can manufacture is just as supreme, according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigner's do not have any American rights you are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof right wingers have nothing but right wing bigotry not any respect for the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the truth hurts your feelings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it merely reminds me right wingers would have no arguments at all if it weren't for fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you make an argument that has some validity we might can discuss it but you haven't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...

with the riots, we have a security problem, with the power grab of leftist fascists we have a security problem With leftists wanting to defund the police we have a security problem


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.



Wrong again Princess Cut and Paste

The compromise gave the south more political power than they were entitled.  it gave the status of persons to those who had no more legal standing than an animal.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

danielpalos said:


> playtime said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the founding fathers thought that slaves were fully human -  they would not have OWNED them.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a legacy system.  Europe had no problem emancipating fellow human beings; only right wingers in the US seemed to have a problem being faithful to our declaration of independence and our federal Constitution which was pursuant to it.
Click to expand...

no such group existed during the early 18th century but democrats were around


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again Princess Cut and Paste
> 
> The compromise gave the south more political power than they were entitled.  it gave the status of persons to those who had no more legal standing than an animal.
Click to expand...

not true I realize it saddens you but it kept slave owners from gaining more power through slavery


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again Princess Cut and Paste
> 
> The compromise gave the south more political power than they were entitled.  it gave the status of persons to those who had no more legal standing than an animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true I realize it saddens you but it kept slave owners from gaining more power through slavery
Click to expand...


It gave them political representation based on persons who they considered subhuman


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again Princess Cut and Paste
> 
> The compromise gave the south more political power than they were entitled.  it gave the status of persons to those who had no more legal standing than an animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true I realize it saddens you but it kept slave owners from gaining more power through slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It gave them political representation based on persons who they considered subhuman
Click to expand...

it didn't give them full representation which is what they want fucking democrats


----------



## rightwinger

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again Princess Cut and Paste
> 
> The compromise gave the south more political power than they were entitled.  it gave the status of persons to those who had no more legal standing than an animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true I realize it saddens you but it kept slave owners from gaining more power through slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It gave them political representation based on persons who they considered subhuman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it didn't give them full representation which is what they want fucking democrats
Click to expand...

More représentation than they deserved


----------



## bigrebnc1775

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again Princess Cut and Paste
> 
> The compromise gave the south more political power than they were entitled.  it gave the status of persons to those who had no more legal standing than an animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true I realize it saddens you but it kept slave owners from gaining more power through slavery
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It gave them political representation based on persons who they considered subhuman
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it didn't give them full representation which is what they want fucking democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More représentation than they deserved
Click to expand...

and democrats wanted it all through slavery


----------



## danielpalos

bigrebnc1775 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.
> 
> 
> 
> lol.  Proof all you have is right wing bigotry; any right wing tool can parrot that.  Our federal Constitution is more supreme than federal laws enacted by Congress, assembled.   We have a Naturalization clause not any form of Immigration clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> total leftist propaganda nothing but lies you fucking moron Federal laws and the U.S Constitution are equal the supreme law of the land
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our federal Constitution is most supreme.  Real Americans know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dumbass their is not difference between the Constitution laws and treaties they are equal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why bother with our Second Amendment when any law Congress can manufacture is just as supreme, according to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Foreigner's do not have any American rights you are irrelevant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof right wingers have nothing but right wing bigotry not any respect for the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and the truth hurts your feelings
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it merely reminds me right wingers would have no arguments at all if it weren't for fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when you make an argument that has some validity we might can discuss it but you haven't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with the riots, we have a security problem, with the power grab of leftist fascists we have a security problem With leftists wanting to defund the police we have a security problem
Click to expand...

The legislature should be doing their job, not creating more gun laws that don't work.


----------



## 22orchards

theHawk said:


> Illegals should not be counted at all for representation.


eh i dont know man. i personally think undocumented citizens are ppl too, but maybe that's just bc i'm able to see that these people are working their asses off to get into the country. name something more patriotic than that.


----------



## Cecilie1200

22orchards said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals should not be counted at all for representation.
> 
> 
> 
> eh i dont know man. i personally think undocumented citizens are ppl too, but maybe that's just bc i'm able to see that these people are working their asses off to get into the country. name something more patriotic than that.
Click to expand...


I personally think you're babbling nonsense.  What does "people too" have to do with anything?  The question is CITIZENS, not people.  And trying to make some moral superiority out of being ignorant of the facts and reality is lame.  We know they're "working their asses off to get into the country".  So what?  The question remains whether their hard work was on LEGAL methods of entering the country.  We elect representatives for LEGAL RESIDENTS.  Only legal residents are allowed to actually vote for those representatives.  Therefore, only legal residents should be counted in apportioning representation.  This is not difficult logic for anyone who's thinking with his brain instead of his glands.

You want me to name something more patriotic?  Obeying our laws.  THAT would be more patriotic.


----------



## danielpalos

Cecilie1200 said:


> 22orchards said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegals should not be counted at all for representation.
> 
> 
> 
> eh i dont know man. i personally think undocumented citizens are ppl too, but maybe that's just bc i'm able to see that these people are working their asses off to get into the country. name something more patriotic than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I personally think you're babbling nonsense.  What does "people too" have to do with anything?  The question is CITIZENS, not people.  And trying to make some moral superiority out of being ignorant of the facts and reality is lame.  We know they're "working their asses off to get into the country".  So what?  The question remains whether their hard work was on LEGAL methods of entering the country.  We elect representatives for LEGAL RESIDENTS.  Only legal residents are allowed to actually vote for those representatives.  Therefore, only legal residents should be counted in apportioning representation.  This is not difficult logic for anyone who's thinking with his brain instead of his glands.
> 
> You want me to name something more patriotic?  Obeying our laws.  THAT would be more patriotic.
Click to expand...

Our naturalization clause has a 3/5ths compromise solution.  Blacks were not considered citizens either if they were in bondage as slaves.


----------

