Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Reposting stupidity doesn't change it to wisdom.
I understand America. You are a child trying to figure it out.
"I understand America."
Let's check.
What is the difference between the conservative's view of 'rights' and that of Progressives,Liberals, Democrats?
It's an open book test....take your time.
Just admit you know less than nothing so I don't have to keep embarrassing you.
Learn how America has operated instead of the conservative lie, you internalized racism afflicted idiot.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
You have embarrassed yourself. So when you can figure out that you are repeating right wing conservative propaganda, let me know.
You have embarrassed yourself. The total ignorance of American history is something the left is really good at. The product of our awesome educational system?
This was passed not to institutionalize racism, but to instead pave the way to get rid of slavery. The southern slave states had a higher population of slaves. If they would have allowed the one person rule instead the slave states would have garnered more representatives. The slaves in those states couldn't vote and the slave owners held the power. They would never have gotten rid of slavery had the three fifths been in the Article. The founders were smart.
Nah, I haven't embarrassed myself. Slavery could have been made illegal instead of that compromise. Your defense amounts to a bullshit excuse.
Amazing.
Seem to be tons of dolts like you who have nothing to be proud of about yourself, so you have to point back eight generations, at folks you never knew, and beat your chest as though it means anything.
Twice I've shown you to be both a liar and ignorant.
Now I've exposed you as pathetic.
"I understand America."
Let's check.
What is the difference between the conservative's view of 'rights' and that of Progressives,Liberals, Democrats?
It's an open book test....take your time.
Just admit you know less than nothing so I don't have to keep embarrassing you.
Learn how America has operated instead of the conservative lie, you internalized racism afflicted idiot.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
You have embarrassed yourself. So when you can figure out that you are repeating right wing conservative propaganda, let me know.
You have embarrassed yourself. The total ignorance of American history is something the left is really good at. The product of our awesome educational system?
This was passed not to institutionalize racism, but to instead pave the way to get rid of slavery. The southern slave states had a higher population of slaves. If they would have allowed the one person rule instead the slave states would have garnered more representatives. The slaves in those states couldn't vote and the slave owners held the power. They would never have gotten rid of slavery had the three fifths been in the Article. The founders were smart.
Nah, I haven't embarrassed myself. Slavery could have been made illegal instead of that compromise. Your defense amounts to a bullshit excuse.
Amazing.
Seem to be tons of dolts like you who have nothing to be proud of about yourself, so you have to point back eight generations, at folks you never knew, and beat your chest as though it means anything.
Twice I've shown you to be both a liar and ignorant.
Now I've exposed you as pathetic.
Really, you should be quiet. There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists since a white supremacist killed 22 people in El Paso. That happen this month, not 8 generations ago.
And as you go back the same 8 generations talking about an ideal from people you did not know who made sure people looking like you were not allowed to be part of, you have exposed yourself as a fool.
It applies to everyone. So do bankruptcy laws.
Does that apply to the money Trump borrowed to build his casinos?
How about the money he contracted to pay those who did work for him?
again, it was done to punish the southern states for being in a civil war. why would winners immediately hand over the country legislatively after all the people died on both sides? that would have been insane. had nothing to do with slaves.Are you japanese?
Speaking of what was promised:
A headright is a legal grant of land to settlers. Headrights are most notable for their role in the expansion of the thirteen British colonies in North America; the Virginia Company of London gave headrights to settlers, and the Plymouth Company followed suit. The headright system was used in several colonies, including Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Most headrights were for 1 to 1,000 acres (4.0 km2) of land, and were given to anyone willing to cross the Atlantic Ocean and help populate the colonies. Headrights were granted to anyone who would pay for the transportation costs of a laborer or enslaved people. These land grants consisted of 50 acres (200,000 m2) for someone newly moving to the area and 100 acres (0.40 km2) for people previously living in the area. By giving the land to the landowning masters the indentured servants had little or no chance to procure their own land. This kept many colonials poor and led to anger between the poor enslaved people and wealthy landowners.
Headright - Wikipedia
I guess heaadrights are rights. Am I right, doofus?
Whatever was promised when America was born, it wasn’t a large screen TV, or a pair of Jordan 1 Retro Legends Of Summer….
It was ‘rights.’
And important distinction in understanding America is the difference between ‘rights’ vs ‘entitlements.’
1.“…consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all.”
Rights Versus Entitlements | Steven Yates
The word "rights" is being twisted to mean entitlements, and there is a big difference. ... Entitlements, however, are welfare measures entailing government handouts. Rights are not limited by budget constraints, but entitlements are. So, rights are universal but entitlements are not.” Let’s not confuse entitlements with rights
2. The meaning of the term rights, today, represents what the Founders promised, and what the Left claims in will provide. The most important word in the Declaration of Independence is found here:
“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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”
The word is ‘secure.’
That means that the most important function of government is to maintain pre-existing rights, not to create them, nor to dispense them. They are known and self-evident prior to the founding of our nation, are inalienable, whether one chooses to use them or not.
These are the rights:
Men are created equal, and enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
3. Following the dictates of German philosopher, Hegel, the Left’s theory of government is at odds with that of America’s Founders. The original Americans memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, a specific set of rights that are immutable, inalienable and gifted to every America by, as the Founders put it, ‘Nature’s God, the Creator, the Supreme Judge, and divine Providence.
For the Left, Progressives, Liberals, Communists, Nazis, etc., there is no God, no universality of mankind, no God-given rights.
4. Pre-eminent Progressive, or should I say ‘Hegelian,’ Woodrow Wilson made clear his disdain for the beliefs of America’s founding: "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." –
Every totalitarian, Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Fascist, all promise every sort of material benefit…but you must give up those ‘inalienable rights’…
BTW….they never keep the promise….check out ‘the Worker’s Paradise.’
Reposting stupidity doesn't change it to wisdom.
I understand America. You are a child trying to figure it out.
"I understand America."
Let's check.
What is the difference between the conservative's view of 'rights' and that of Progressives,Liberals, Democrats?
It's an open book test....take your time.
Just admit you know less than nothing so I don't have to keep embarrassing you.
Learn how America has operated instead of the conservative lie, you internalized racism afflicted idiot.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
You have embarrassed yourself. So when you can figure out that you are repeating right wing conservative propaganda, let me know.
You have embarrassed yourself. The total ignorance of American history is something the left is really good at. The product of our awesome educational system?
This was passed not to institutionalize racism, but to instead pave the way to get rid of slavery. The southern slave states had a higher population of slaves. If they would have allowed the one person rule instead the slave states would have garnered more representatives. The slaves in those states couldn't vote and the slave owners held the power. They would never have gotten rid of slavery had the three fifths been in the Article. The founders were smart.
The 3/5 a person was part of the original constitutionagain, it was done to punish the southern states for being in a civil war. why would winners immediately hand over the country legislatively after all the people died on both sides? that would have been insane. had nothing to do with slaves.Whatever was promised when America was born, it wasn’t a large screen TV, or a pair of Jordan 1 Retro Legends Of Summer….
It was ‘rights.’
And important distinction in understanding America is the difference between ‘rights’ vs ‘entitlements.’
1.“…consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all.”
Rights Versus Entitlements | Steven Yates
The word "rights" is being twisted to mean entitlements, and there is a big difference. ... Entitlements, however, are welfare measures entailing government handouts. Rights are not limited by budget constraints, but entitlements are. So, rights are universal but entitlements are not.” Let’s not confuse entitlements with rights
2. The meaning of the term rights, today, represents what the Founders promised, and what the Left claims in will provide. The most important word in the Declaration of Independence is found here:
“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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”
The word is ‘secure.’
That means that the most important function of government is to maintain pre-existing rights, not to create them, nor to dispense them. They are known and self-evident prior to the founding of our nation, are inalienable, whether one chooses to use them or not.
These are the rights:
Men are created equal, and enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
3. Following the dictates of German philosopher, Hegel, the Left’s theory of government is at odds with that of America’s Founders. The original Americans memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, a specific set of rights that are immutable, inalienable and gifted to every America by, as the Founders put it, ‘Nature’s God, the Creator, the Supreme Judge, and divine Providence.
For the Left, Progressives, Liberals, Communists, Nazis, etc., there is no God, no universality of mankind, no God-given rights.
4. Pre-eminent Progressive, or should I say ‘Hegelian,’ Woodrow Wilson made clear his disdain for the beliefs of America’s founding: "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." –
Every totalitarian, Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Fascist, all promise every sort of material benefit…but you must give up those ‘inalienable rights’…
BTW….they never keep the promise….check out ‘the Worker’s Paradise.’
Reposting stupidity doesn't change it to wisdom.
I understand America. You are a child trying to figure it out.
"I understand America."
Let's check.
What is the difference between the conservative's view of 'rights' and that of Progressives,Liberals, Democrats?
It's an open book test....take your time.
Just admit you know less than nothing so I don't have to keep embarrassing you.
Learn how America has operated instead of the conservative lie, you internalized racism afflicted idiot.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
You have embarrassed yourself. So when you can figure out that you are repeating right wing conservative propaganda, let me know.
You have embarrassed yourself. The total ignorance of American history is something the left is really good at. The product of our awesome educational system?
This was passed not to institutionalize racism, but to instead pave the way to get rid of slavery. The southern slave states had a higher population of slaves. If they would have allowed the one person rule instead the slave states would have garnered more representatives. The slaves in those states couldn't vote and the slave owners held the power. They would never have gotten rid of slavery had the three fifths been in the Article. The founders were smart.
I seem to have embarrassed our little brown pal....and now he's off in a huff.
Poor thing.....but.....he is out of his league.
I don't play in the minor leagues coolie.
Soooo......you're ready to admit you don't understand America....and you can't answer the question?
That's alright (pat on the head)....you can still have a cookie.
I understand perfectly.
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.”
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)
When a slave petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, the Court ruled against him — also ruling that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to African Americans. If it did, the majority ruling argued, then African Americans would be permitted "the full liberty of speech in public and in private," "to hold public meetings upon political affairs," and "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." In 1856, both the justices in the majority and the white aristocracy they represented found this idea too horrifying to contemplate. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment made it law. What a difference a war makes!
Pace v. Alabama (1883)
In 1883 Alabama, interracial marriage meant two to seven years' hard labor in a state penitentiary. When a black man named Tony Pace and a white woman named Mary Cox challenged the law, the Supreme Court upheld it — on grounds that the law, inasmuch as it prevented whites from marrying blacks and blacks from marrying whites, was race-neutral and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling was finally overturned in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
The Civil Rights Act, which mandated an end to racial segregation in public accommodations, has actually passed twice in U.S. history. Once in 1875, and once in 1964. We don't hear much about the 1875 version because it was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases ruling of 1883, made up of five separate challenges to the 1875 Civil Rights Act. Had the Supreme Court simply upheld the 1875 civil rights bill, U.S. civil rights history would have been dramatically different.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Most people are familiar with the phrase "separate but equal," the never-achieved standard that defined racial segregation until Brown v. Board of Education (1954), but not everybody knows that it comes from this ruling, where Supreme Court justices bowed to political pressure and found an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that would still allow them to keep public institutions segregated.
Cumming v. Richmond (1899)
When three black families in Richmond County, Virginia faced the closing of the area's only public black high school, they petitioned the Court to allow their children to finish their education at the white high school instead. It only took the Supreme Court three years to violate its own "separate but equal" standard by establishing that if there was no suitable black school in a given district, black students would simply have to do without an education.
Ozawa v. United States (1922)
A Japanese immigrant, Takeo Ozawa, attempted to become a full U.S. citizen, despite a 1906 policy limiting naturalization to whites and African Americans. Ozawa's argument was a novel one: Rather than challenging the constitutionality of the statute himself (which, under the racist Court, would have probably been a waste of time anyway), he simply attempted to establish that Japanese Americans were white. The Court rejected this logic.
United States v. Thind (1923)
An Indian-American U.S. Army veteran named Bhagat Singh Thind attempted the same strategy as Takeo Ozawa, but his attempt at naturalization was rejected in a ruling establishing that Indians, too, are not white. Well, the ruling technically referred to "Hindus" (ironic considering that Thind was actually a Sikh, not a Hindu), but the terms were used interchangeably at the time. Three years later he was quietly granted citizenship in New York; he went on to earn a Ph.D. and teach at the University of California at Berkeley.
Lum v. Rice (1927)
In 1924, Congress passed the Oriental Exclusion Act to dramatically reduce immigration from Asia — but Asian Americans born in the United States were still citizens, and one of these citizens, a nine-year-old girl named Martha Lum, faced a catch-22. Under compulsory attendance laws, she had to attend school — but she was Chinese and she lived in Mississippi, which had racially segregated schools and not enough Chinese students to warrant funding a separate Chinese school. Lum's family sued to try to allow her to attend the well-funded local white school, but the Court would have none of it.
Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)
During World War II, President Roosevelt issued an executive order severely restricting the rights of Japanese Americans and ordering 110,000 to be relocated to internment camps. Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, challenged the executive order before the Supreme Court — and lost.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Fred Korematsu also challenged the executive order and lost in a more famous and explicit ruling that formally established that individual rights are not absolute and may be suppressed at will during wartime. The ruling, generally considered one of the worst in the history of the Court, has been almost universally condemned over the past six decades.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. Building on the 1875 Page Act, which banned Chinese women from immigrating to the United States, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating.
The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the U.S.–China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration. The act was initially intended to last for 10 years, but was renewed in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943, which allowed 105 Chinese to enter per year. Chinese immigration later increased with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers, and later by Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.
Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the Asian Exclusion Act and National Origins Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants.
The 1924 act supplanted earlier acts to effectively ban all immigration from Asia[1][2] and set a total immigration quota of 165,000 for countries outside the Western Hemisphere, an 80% reduction from the pre-World War I average.[1] Quotas for specific countries were based on 2% of the U.S. population from that country as recorded in 1890.[2] As a result, populations poorly represented in 1890 were prevented from immigrating in proportionate numbers—especially affecting Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles and other Slavs.[1][3][4] According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity."[2] Congressional opposition was minimal.
A key element of the act was its provisions for enforcement. The act provided funding and legal instructions to courts of deportation for immigrants whose national quotas were exceeded. The act was revised in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952[2] and replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia
By the looks of things, you might want to put the cookies down and find a gym.
If your goal was to reiterate the racist attitudes of the past, you did a nice job. Problem is though, America overcame the issues. One, we fought a war to end slavery and millions of white men died to free the black man.
Civil Rights laws were passed. There are very very few people left that lived under the racist laws of the southern Democrats. There are NONE alive that lived under slavery. All blacks live under the same opportunities as white people. They can go where they want, own what they want, earn what they want and have any job they want. They can go to college and get a doctorate in whatever they want.
It's time to join the 21st century and stop living in the past. It's gone.
The civil war was not fought to free blacks. We went through 100 years of apartheid in the north and south, by republicans and democrats, after that. Civil rights were written on paper but folks still have problems with that law. So when you turn to a person of color and live, I'll consider your opinion. You see, I live in the present and when a thread is about the intent of the founders, they are talking about the past.
Learn how America has operated instead of the conservative lie, you internalized racism afflicted idiot.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
You have embarrassed yourself. So when you can figure out that you are repeating right wing conservative propaganda, let me know.
You have embarrassed yourself. The total ignorance of American history is something the left is really good at. The product of our awesome educational system?
This was passed not to institutionalize racism, but to instead pave the way to get rid of slavery. The southern slave states had a higher population of slaves. If they would have allowed the one person rule instead the slave states would have garnered more representatives. The slaves in those states couldn't vote and the slave owners held the power. They would never have gotten rid of slavery had the three fifths been in the Article. The founders were smart.
Nah, I haven't embarrassed myself. Slavery could have been made illegal instead of that compromise. Your defense amounts to a bullshit excuse.
Amazing.
Seem to be tons of dolts like you who have nothing to be proud of about yourself, so you have to point back eight generations, at folks you never knew, and beat your chest as though it means anything.
Twice I've shown you to be both a liar and ignorant.
Now I've exposed you as pathetic.
Really, you should be quiet. There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists since a white supremacist killed 22 people in El Paso. That happen this month, not 8 generations ago.
And as you go back the same 8 generations talking about an ideal from people you did not know who made sure people looking like you were not allowed to be part of, you have exposed yourself as a fool.
"There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists ..."
1. Here you go, again, you walking miasma of swamp gas.....putting your hoof in your mouth.
2. Case in point:.....there is no such thing as a 'white supremacist'...
It is one of those terms, like 'boogey man' that is used to fuel other immature minds.
3. Let's prove it:
. There are no white supremacists. The term is a created 'term of art' to camouflage the real villains, the Democrats.
Neither being white, nor using the term 'white supremacists,' I looked up the term.
"a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races"
Definition of WHITE SUPREMACIST
I really can't get too excited, nor see it as a pejorative, if any individual of any race sees his/her group as the very best, i.e., superior to any other group.
The proof that it is a made-up smear, a chimera....the usual strategy of the Left, is the secondary phrase in the definition..."and that white people should have control over people of other races"
Clearly this is totally bogus.
Or....let's see some examples of any American leaders, white, black, yellow....who demand "control over people of other races"
See....another question you can't answer.
There are none.
QED....there is no such thing as "white supremacists."
4. The real reason the Democrat push this bogus view is that without the black vote, they would never win a national election.....and, if it causes division and violence...that Party couldn't care less.
What is that....three....four times in this thread alone I've asked simple questions that leave you speechless.
Gads, you're a moron.
just to remind you that the founding fathers didn't think ALL men were created equal.... if they did, then they wouldn't have owned other humans.
You have embarrassed yourself. The total ignorance of American history is something the left is really good at. The product of our awesome educational system?
This was passed not to institutionalize racism, but to instead pave the way to get rid of slavery. The southern slave states had a higher population of slaves. If they would have allowed the one person rule instead the slave states would have garnered more representatives. The slaves in those states couldn't vote and the slave owners held the power. They would never have gotten rid of slavery had the three fifths been in the Article. The founders were smart.
Nah, I haven't embarrassed myself. Slavery could have been made illegal instead of that compromise. Your defense amounts to a bullshit excuse.
Amazing.
Seem to be tons of dolts like you who have nothing to be proud of about yourself, so you have to point back eight generations, at folks you never knew, and beat your chest as though it means anything.
Twice I've shown you to be both a liar and ignorant.
Now I've exposed you as pathetic.
Really, you should be quiet. There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists since a white supremacist killed 22 people in El Paso. That happen this month, not 8 generations ago.
And as you go back the same 8 generations talking about an ideal from people you did not know who made sure people looking like you were not allowed to be part of, you have exposed yourself as a fool.
"There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists ..."
1. Here you go, again, you walking miasma of swamp gas.....putting your hoof in your mouth.
2. Case in point:.....there is no such thing as a 'white supremacist'...
It is one of those terms, like 'boogey man' that is used to fuel other immature minds.
3. Let's prove it:
. There are no white supremacists. The term is a created 'term of art' to camouflage the real villains, the Democrats.
Neither being white, nor using the term 'white supremacists,' I looked up the term.
"a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races"
Definition of WHITE SUPREMACIST
I really can't get too excited, nor see it as a pejorative, if any individual of any race sees his/her group as the very best, i.e., superior to any other group.
The proof that it is a made-up smear, a chimera....the usual strategy of the Left, is the secondary phrase in the definition..."and that white people should have control over people of other races"
Clearly this is totally bogus.
Or....let's see some examples of any American leaders, white, black, yellow....who demand "control over people of other races"
See....another question you can't answer.
There are none.
QED....there is no such thing as "white supremacists."
4. The real reason the Democrat push this bogus view is that without the black vote, they would never win a national election.....and, if it causes division and violence...that Party couldn't care less.
What is that....three....four times in this thread alone I've asked simple questions that leave you speechless.
Gads, you're a moron.
I answered your question 4 times.
I have to laugh at your stupid asian ass. You are in a forum where the majority of whites believe white people are superior to other races, want America to be controlled by whites, with a president trying to get that done and your silly asian ass says there is no such thing as white supremacists.
I don't play in the minor leagues coolie.
Soooo......you're ready to admit you don't understand America....and you can't answer the question?
That's alright (pat on the head)....you can still have a cookie.
I understand perfectly.
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.”
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)
When a slave petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, the Court ruled against him — also ruling that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to African Americans. If it did, the majority ruling argued, then African Americans would be permitted "the full liberty of speech in public and in private," "to hold public meetings upon political affairs," and "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." In 1856, both the justices in the majority and the white aristocracy they represented found this idea too horrifying to contemplate. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment made it law. What a difference a war makes!
Pace v. Alabama (1883)
In 1883 Alabama, interracial marriage meant two to seven years' hard labor in a state penitentiary. When a black man named Tony Pace and a white woman named Mary Cox challenged the law, the Supreme Court upheld it — on grounds that the law, inasmuch as it prevented whites from marrying blacks and blacks from marrying whites, was race-neutral and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling was finally overturned in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
The Civil Rights Act, which mandated an end to racial segregation in public accommodations, has actually passed twice in U.S. history. Once in 1875, and once in 1964. We don't hear much about the 1875 version because it was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases ruling of 1883, made up of five separate challenges to the 1875 Civil Rights Act. Had the Supreme Court simply upheld the 1875 civil rights bill, U.S. civil rights history would have been dramatically different.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Most people are familiar with the phrase "separate but equal," the never-achieved standard that defined racial segregation until Brown v. Board of Education (1954), but not everybody knows that it comes from this ruling, where Supreme Court justices bowed to political pressure and found an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that would still allow them to keep public institutions segregated.
Cumming v. Richmond (1899)
When three black families in Richmond County, Virginia faced the closing of the area's only public black high school, they petitioned the Court to allow their children to finish their education at the white high school instead. It only took the Supreme Court three years to violate its own "separate but equal" standard by establishing that if there was no suitable black school in a given district, black students would simply have to do without an education.
Ozawa v. United States (1922)
A Japanese immigrant, Takeo Ozawa, attempted to become a full U.S. citizen, despite a 1906 policy limiting naturalization to whites and African Americans. Ozawa's argument was a novel one: Rather than challenging the constitutionality of the statute himself (which, under the racist Court, would have probably been a waste of time anyway), he simply attempted to establish that Japanese Americans were white. The Court rejected this logic.
United States v. Thind (1923)
An Indian-American U.S. Army veteran named Bhagat Singh Thind attempted the same strategy as Takeo Ozawa, but his attempt at naturalization was rejected in a ruling establishing that Indians, too, are not white. Well, the ruling technically referred to "Hindus" (ironic considering that Thind was actually a Sikh, not a Hindu), but the terms were used interchangeably at the time. Three years later he was quietly granted citizenship in New York; he went on to earn a Ph.D. and teach at the University of California at Berkeley.
Lum v. Rice (1927)
In 1924, Congress passed the Oriental Exclusion Act to dramatically reduce immigration from Asia — but Asian Americans born in the United States were still citizens, and one of these citizens, a nine-year-old girl named Martha Lum, faced a catch-22. Under compulsory attendance laws, she had to attend school — but she was Chinese and she lived in Mississippi, which had racially segregated schools and not enough Chinese students to warrant funding a separate Chinese school. Lum's family sued to try to allow her to attend the well-funded local white school, but the Court would have none of it.
Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)
During World War II, President Roosevelt issued an executive order severely restricting the rights of Japanese Americans and ordering 110,000 to be relocated to internment camps. Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, challenged the executive order before the Supreme Court — and lost.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Fred Korematsu also challenged the executive order and lost in a more famous and explicit ruling that formally established that individual rights are not absolute and may be suppressed at will during wartime. The ruling, generally considered one of the worst in the history of the Court, has been almost universally condemned over the past six decades.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. Building on the 1875 Page Act, which banned Chinese women from immigrating to the United States, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating.
The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the U.S.–China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration. The act was initially intended to last for 10 years, but was renewed in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943, which allowed 105 Chinese to enter per year. Chinese immigration later increased with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers, and later by Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.
Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the Asian Exclusion Act and National Origins Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants.
The 1924 act supplanted earlier acts to effectively ban all immigration from Asia[1][2] and set a total immigration quota of 165,000 for countries outside the Western Hemisphere, an 80% reduction from the pre-World War I average.[1] Quotas for specific countries were based on 2% of the U.S. population from that country as recorded in 1890.[2] As a result, populations poorly represented in 1890 were prevented from immigrating in proportionate numbers—especially affecting Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles and other Slavs.[1][3][4] According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity."[2] Congressional opposition was minimal.
A key element of the act was its provisions for enforcement. The act provided funding and legal instructions to courts of deportation for immigrants whose national quotas were exceeded. The act was revised in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952[2] and replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia
By the looks of things, you might want to put the cookies down and find a gym.
If your goal was to reiterate the racist attitudes of the past, you did a nice job. Problem is though, America overcame the issues. One, we fought a war to end slavery and millions of white men died to free the black man.
Civil Rights laws were passed. There are very very few people left that lived under the racist laws of the southern Democrats. There are NONE alive that lived under slavery. All blacks live under the same opportunities as white people. They can go where they want, own what they want, earn what they want and have any job they want. They can go to college and get a doctorate in whatever they want.
It's time to join the 21st century and stop living in the past. It's gone.
The civil war was not fought to free blacks. We went through 100 years of apartheid in the north and south, by republicans and democrats, after that. Civil rights were written on paper but folks still have problems with that law. So when you turn to a person of color and live, I'll consider your opinion. You see, I live in the present and when a thread is about the intent of the founders, they are talking about the past.
"Study Confirms You Are Most Oppressed Person On Planet
August 22nd, 2019
U.S.—A new study surveyed everyone on planet earth and found that of all the 7.7 billion people on the planet, you are definitely the most oppressed one.
The study confirmed that no one else has it worse than you, that everyone else has tons of privilege and you do not, and that the injustices you face are far worse than those faced by all the other people on earth.
"I mean, let's just look at the facts here," said Dr. Bill Lendenhaven, head researcher for this scientific study. "Some people have more money than you. Some people have a better smartphone than you. Some people even have a bigger house than you. You really are the unluckiest person ever to walk the face of the earth."
Lendenhaven pointed out that sometimes, other people get lucky breaks, like having rich parents or making a well-connected friend. "That's just not fair," he said, shaking his fist at the sky. "I mean, you obviously deserve so much better than you got. It's not as though every day is a gift and every breath new mercy from God or anything like that."
"You deserve to have all the things you're mad at other people for having," he added, patting you on the back and handing you a tissue.
The study concluded that you should demand the government make you less oppressed by oppressing those more privileged than you (which, if you've been tracking, is everyone)."
Study Confirms You Are Most Oppressed Person On Planet
Nah, I haven't embarrassed myself. Slavery could have been made illegal instead of that compromise. Your defense amounts to a bullshit excuse.
Amazing.
Seem to be tons of dolts like you who have nothing to be proud of about yourself, so you have to point back eight generations, at folks you never knew, and beat your chest as though it means anything.
Twice I've shown you to be both a liar and ignorant.
Now I've exposed you as pathetic.
Really, you should be quiet. There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists since a white supremacist killed 22 people in El Paso. That happen this month, not 8 generations ago.
And as you go back the same 8 generations talking about an ideal from people you did not know who made sure people looking like you were not allowed to be part of, you have exposed yourself as a fool.
"There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists ..."
1. Here you go, again, you walking miasma of swamp gas.....putting your hoof in your mouth.
2. Case in point:.....there is no such thing as a 'white supremacist'...
It is one of those terms, like 'boogey man' that is used to fuel other immature minds.
3. Let's prove it:
. There are no white supremacists. The term is a created 'term of art' to camouflage the real villains, the Democrats.
Neither being white, nor using the term 'white supremacists,' I looked up the term.
"a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races"
Definition of WHITE SUPREMACIST
I really can't get too excited, nor see it as a pejorative, if any individual of any race sees his/her group as the very best, i.e., superior to any other group.
The proof that it is a made-up smear, a chimera....the usual strategy of the Left, is the secondary phrase in the definition..."and that white people should have control over people of other races"
Clearly this is totally bogus.
Or....let's see some examples of any American leaders, white, black, yellow....who demand "control over people of other races"
See....another question you can't answer.
There are none.
QED....there is no such thing as "white supremacists."
4. The real reason the Democrat push this bogus view is that without the black vote, they would never win a national election.....and, if it causes division and violence...that Party couldn't care less.
What is that....three....four times in this thread alone I've asked simple questions that leave you speechless.
Gads, you're a moron.
I answered your question 4 times.
I have to laugh at your stupid asian ass. You are in a forum where the majority of whites believe white people are superior to other races, want America to be controlled by whites, with a president trying to get that done and your silly asian ass says there is no such thing as white supremacists.
"I answered your question 4 times."
See....I've forced you to lie again.
Thrice you were offered opportunities to support your fallacious boast: "I understand America."
Instead, you're on the batter's end of a no-hitter.
I asked you to provide examples of elected officials who "believe white people are superior to other races, want America to be controlled by whites, with a president trying to get that done"....
You couldn't.
Nor can you support your slander of Trump.
You're the one who might be able to answer this, as I have no experience in the area: how does it feel to be a life-long whiny loser?
Whatever was promised when America was born, it wasn’t a large screen TV, or a pair of Jordan 1 Retro Legends Of Summer….
It was ‘rights.’
And important distinction in understanding America is the difference between ‘rights’ vs ‘entitlements.’
1.“…consider the original rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, it should be clear that there are massive differences between those rights and these new ones. The original rights were rights to live by one’s personal efforts without the interference of others, and in particular, without interference by government. That is what the founders of the United States were declaring independence from, after all.”
Rights Versus Entitlements | Steven Yates
The word "rights" is being twisted to mean entitlements, and there is a big difference. ... Entitlements, however, are welfare measures entailing government handouts. Rights are not limited by budget constraints, but entitlements are. So, rights are universal but entitlements are not.” Let’s not confuse entitlements with rights
2. The meaning of the term rights, today, represents what the Founders promised, and what the Left claims in will provide. The most important word in the Declaration of Independence is found here:
“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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …”
The word is ‘secure.’
That means that the most important function of government is to maintain pre-existing rights, not to create them, nor to dispense them. They are known and self-evident prior to the founding of our nation, are inalienable, whether one chooses to use them or not.
These are the rights:
Men are created equal, and enjoy the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
3. Following the dictates of German philosopher, Hegel, the Left’s theory of government is at odds with that of America’s Founders. The original Americans memorialized in the Declaration of Independence, a specific set of rights that are immutable, inalienable and gifted to every America by, as the Founders put it, ‘Nature’s God, the Creator, the Supreme Judge, and divine Providence.
For the Left, Progressives, Liberals, Communists, Nazis, etc., there is no God, no universality of mankind, no God-given rights.
4. Pre-eminent Progressive, or should I say ‘Hegelian,’ Woodrow Wilson made clear his disdain for the beliefs of America’s founding: "If you want to understand the real Declaration, do not repeat the preface." –
Every totalitarian, Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Fascist, all promise every sort of material benefit…but you must give up those ‘inalienable rights’…
BTW….they never keep the promise….check out ‘the Worker’s Paradise.’
Reposting stupidity doesn't change it to wisdom.
I understand America. You are a child trying to figure it out.
"I understand America."
Let's check.
What is the difference between the conservative's view of 'rights' and that of Progressives,Liberals, Democrats?
It's an open book test....take your time.
Just admit you know less than nothing so I don't have to keep embarrassing you.
Learn how America has operated instead of the conservative lie, you internalized racism afflicted idiot.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
You have embarrassed yourself. So when you can figure out that you are repeating right wing conservative propaganda, let me know.
You have embarrassed yourself. The total ignorance of American history is something the left is really good at. The product of our awesome educational system?
This was passed not to institutionalize racism, but to instead pave the way to get rid of slavery. The southern slave states had a higher population of slaves. If they would have allowed the one person rule instead the slave states would have garnered more representatives. The slaves in those states couldn't vote and the slave owners held the power. They would never have gotten rid of slavery had the three fifths been in the Article. The founders were smart.
Nah, I haven't embarrassed myself. Slavery could have been made illegal instead of that compromise. Your defense amounts to a bullshit excuse.
I seem to have embarrassed our little brown pal....and now he's off in a huff.
Poor thing.....but.....he is out of his league.
I don't play in the minor leagues coolie.
Soooo......you're ready to admit you don't understand America....and you can't answer the question?
That's alright (pat on the head)....you can still have a cookie.
I understand perfectly.
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.”
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856)
When a slave petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, the Court ruled against him — also ruling that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to African Americans. If it did, the majority ruling argued, then African Americans would be permitted "the full liberty of speech in public and in private," "to hold public meetings upon political affairs," and "to keep and carry arms wherever they went." In 1856, both the justices in the majority and the white aristocracy they represented found this idea too horrifying to contemplate. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment made it law. What a difference a war makes!
Pace v. Alabama (1883)
In 1883 Alabama, interracial marriage meant two to seven years' hard labor in a state penitentiary. When a black man named Tony Pace and a white woman named Mary Cox challenged the law, the Supreme Court upheld it — on grounds that the law, inasmuch as it prevented whites from marrying blacks and blacks from marrying whites, was race-neutral and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling was finally overturned in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
The Civil Rights Cases (1883)
The Civil Rights Act, which mandated an end to racial segregation in public accommodations, has actually passed twice in U.S. history. Once in 1875, and once in 1964. We don't hear much about the 1875 version because it was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases ruling of 1883, made up of five separate challenges to the 1875 Civil Rights Act. Had the Supreme Court simply upheld the 1875 civil rights bill, U.S. civil rights history would have been dramatically different.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Most people are familiar with the phrase "separate but equal," the never-achieved standard that defined racial segregation until Brown v. Board of Education (1954), but not everybody knows that it comes from this ruling, where Supreme Court justices bowed to political pressure and found an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that would still allow them to keep public institutions segregated.
Cumming v. Richmond (1899)
When three black families in Richmond County, Virginia faced the closing of the area's only public black high school, they petitioned the Court to allow their children to finish their education at the white high school instead. It only took the Supreme Court three years to violate its own "separate but equal" standard by establishing that if there was no suitable black school in a given district, black students would simply have to do without an education.
Ozawa v. United States (1922)
A Japanese immigrant, Takeo Ozawa, attempted to become a full U.S. citizen, despite a 1906 policy limiting naturalization to whites and African Americans. Ozawa's argument was a novel one: Rather than challenging the constitutionality of the statute himself (which, under the racist Court, would have probably been a waste of time anyway), he simply attempted to establish that Japanese Americans were white. The Court rejected this logic.
United States v. Thind (1923)
An Indian-American U.S. Army veteran named Bhagat Singh Thind attempted the same strategy as Takeo Ozawa, but his attempt at naturalization was rejected in a ruling establishing that Indians, too, are not white. Well, the ruling technically referred to "Hindus" (ironic considering that Thind was actually a Sikh, not a Hindu), but the terms were used interchangeably at the time. Three years later he was quietly granted citizenship in New York; he went on to earn a Ph.D. and teach at the University of California at Berkeley.
Lum v. Rice (1927)
In 1924, Congress passed the Oriental Exclusion Act to dramatically reduce immigration from Asia — but Asian Americans born in the United States were still citizens, and one of these citizens, a nine-year-old girl named Martha Lum, faced a catch-22. Under compulsory attendance laws, she had to attend school — but she was Chinese and she lived in Mississippi, which had racially segregated schools and not enough Chinese students to warrant funding a separate Chinese school. Lum's family sued to try to allow her to attend the well-funded local white school, but the Court would have none of it.
Hirabayashi v. United States (1943)
During World War II, President Roosevelt issued an executive order severely restricting the rights of Japanese Americans and ordering 110,000 to be relocated to internment camps. Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, challenged the executive order before the Supreme Court — and lost.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
Fred Korematsu also challenged the executive order and lost in a more famous and explicit ruling that formally established that individual rights are not absolute and may be suppressed at will during wartime. The ruling, generally considered one of the worst in the history of the Court, has been almost universally condemned over the past six decades.
The Chinese Exclusion Act was a United States federal law signed by President Chester A. Arthur on May 6, 1882, prohibiting all immigration of Chinese laborers. Building on the 1875 Page Act, which banned Chinese women from immigrating to the United States, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first law implemented to prevent all members of a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating.
The act followed the Angell Treaty of 1880, a set of revisions to the U.S.–China Burlingame Treaty of 1868 that allowed the U.S. to suspend Chinese immigration. The act was initially intended to last for 10 years, but was renewed in 1892 with the Geary Act and made permanent in 1902. It was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943, which allowed 105 Chinese to enter per year. Chinese immigration later increased with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers, and later by Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.
Chinese Exclusion Act - Wikipedia
The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act, including the Asian Exclusion Act and National Origins Act (Pub.L. 68–139, 43 Stat. 153, enacted May 26, 1924), was a United States federal law that prevented immigration from Asia, set quotas on the number of immigrants from the Eastern Hemisphere, and provided funding and an enforcement mechanism to carry out the longstanding ban on other immigrants.
The 1924 act supplanted earlier acts to effectively ban all immigration from Asia[1][2] and set a total immigration quota of 165,000 for countries outside the Western Hemisphere, an 80% reduction from the pre-World War I average.[1] Quotas for specific countries were based on 2% of the U.S. population from that country as recorded in 1890.[2] As a result, populations poorly represented in 1890 were prevented from immigrating in proportionate numbers—especially affecting Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles and other Slavs.[1][3][4] According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, the purpose of the act was "to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity."[2] Congressional opposition was minimal.
A key element of the act was its provisions for enforcement. The act provided funding and legal instructions to courts of deportation for immigrants whose national quotas were exceeded. The act was revised in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952[2] and replaced by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Immigration Act of 1924 - Wikipedia
By the looks of things, you might want to put the cookies down and find a gym.
If your goal was to reiterate the racist attitudes of the past, you did a nice job. Problem is though, America overcame the issues. One, we fought a war to end slavery and millions of white men died to free the black man.
Civil Rights laws were passed. There are very very few people left that lived under the racist laws of the southern Democrats. There are NONE alive that lived under slavery. All blacks live under the same opportunities as white people. They can go where they want, own what they want, earn what they want and have any job they want. They can go to college and get a doctorate in whatever they want.
It's time to join the 21st century and stop living in the past. It's gone.
The civil war was not fought to free blacks. We went through 100 years of apartheid in the north and south, by republicans and democrats, after that. Civil rights were written on paper but folks still have problems with that law. So when you turn to a person of color and live, I'll consider your opinion. You see, I live in the present and when a thread is about the intent of the founders, they are talking about the past.
Amazing.
Seem to be tons of dolts like you who have nothing to be proud of about yourself, so you have to point back eight generations, at folks you never knew, and beat your chest as though it means anything.
Twice I've shown you to be both a liar and ignorant.
Now I've exposed you as pathetic.
Really, you should be quiet. There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists since a white supremacist killed 22 people in El Paso. That happen this month, not 8 generations ago.
And as you go back the same 8 generations talking about an ideal from people you did not know who made sure people looking like you were not allowed to be part of, you have exposed yourself as a fool.
"There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists ..."
1. Here you go, again, you walking miasma of swamp gas.....putting your hoof in your mouth.
2. Case in point:.....there is no such thing as a 'white supremacist'...
It is one of those terms, like 'boogey man' that is used to fuel other immature minds.
3. Let's prove it:
. There are no white supremacists. The term is a created 'term of art' to camouflage the real villains, the Democrats.
Neither being white, nor using the term 'white supremacists,' I looked up the term.
"a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races"
Definition of WHITE SUPREMACIST
I really can't get too excited, nor see it as a pejorative, if any individual of any race sees his/her group as the very best, i.e., superior to any other group.
The proof that it is a made-up smear, a chimera....the usual strategy of the Left, is the secondary phrase in the definition..."and that white people should have control over people of other races"
Clearly this is totally bogus.
Or....let's see some examples of any American leaders, white, black, yellow....who demand "control over people of other races"
See....another question you can't answer.
There are none.
QED....there is no such thing as "white supremacists."
4. The real reason the Democrat push this bogus view is that without the black vote, they would never win a national election.....and, if it causes division and violence...that Party couldn't care less.
What is that....three....four times in this thread alone I've asked simple questions that leave you speechless.
Gads, you're a moron.
I answered your question 4 times.
I have to laugh at your stupid asian ass. You are in a forum where the majority of whites believe white people are superior to other races, want America to be controlled by whites, with a president trying to get that done and your silly asian ass says there is no such thing as white supremacists.
"I answered your question 4 times."
See....I've forced you to lie again.
Thrice you were offered opportunities to support your fallacious boast: "I understand America."
Instead, you're on the batter's end of a no-hitter.
I asked you to provide examples of elected officials who "believe white people are superior to other races, want America to be controlled by whites, with a president trying to get that done"....
You couldn't.
Nor can you support your slander of Trump.
You're the one who might be able to answer this, as I have no experience in the area: how does it feel to be a life-long whiny loser?
But that's what you are. A life long whiny loser crying about liberals.
"I understand America."
Let's check.
What is the difference between the conservative's view of 'rights' and that of Progressives,Liberals, Democrats?
It's an open book test....take your time.
Just admit you know less than nothing so I don't have to keep embarrassing you.
Learn how America has operated instead of the conservative lie, you internalized racism afflicted idiot.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
You have embarrassed yourself. So when you can figure out that you are repeating right wing conservative propaganda, let me know.
You have embarrassed yourself. The total ignorance of American history is something the left is really good at. The product of our awesome educational system?
This was passed not to institutionalize racism, but to instead pave the way to get rid of slavery. The southern slave states had a higher population of slaves. If they would have allowed the one person rule instead the slave states would have garnered more representatives. The slaves in those states couldn't vote and the slave owners held the power. They would never have gotten rid of slavery had the three fifths been in the Article. The founders were smart.
Nah, I haven't embarrassed myself. Slavery could have been made illegal instead of that compromise. Your defense amounts to a bullshit excuse.
Amazing.
Seem to be tons of dolts like you who have nothing to be proud of about yourself, so you have to point back eight generations, at folks you never knew, and beat your chest as though it means anything.
Twice I've shown you to be both a liar and ignorant.
Now I've exposed you as pathetic.
Really, you should be quiet. There have been 27 arrests of white supremacists since a white supremacist killed 22 people in El Paso. That happen this month, not 8 generations ago.
And as you go back the same 8 generations talking about an ideal from people you did not know who made sure people looking like you were not allowed to be part of, you have exposed yourself as a fool.
It applies to everyone. So do bankruptcy laws.
Does that apply to the money Trump borrowed to build his casinos?
How about the money he contracted to pay those who did work for him?
Bankruptcy laws do not apply to student debt
Nope. It was done to ensure we had a country and so that the slave states didn't have all the power. It paved the way for future laws to end slavery. It was NOT because all the writers agreed with and wanted slavery.The 3/5 a person was part of the original constitutionagain, it was done to punish the southern states for being in a civil war. why would winners immediately hand over the country legislatively after all the people died on both sides? that would have been insane. had nothing to do with slaves.Reposting stupidity doesn't change it to wisdom.
I understand America. You are a child trying to figure it out.
"I understand America."
Let's check.
What is the difference between the conservative's view of 'rights' and that of Progressives,Liberals, Democrats?
It's an open book test....take your time.
Just admit you know less than nothing so I don't have to keep embarrassing you.
Learn how America has operated instead of the conservative lie, you internalized racism afflicted idiot.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
You have embarrassed yourself. So when you can figure out that you are repeating right wing conservative propaganda, let me know.
You have embarrassed yourself. The total ignorance of American history is something the left is really good at. The product of our awesome educational system?
This was passed not to institutionalize racism, but to instead pave the way to get rid of slavery. The southern slave states had a higher population of slaves. If they would have allowed the one person rule instead the slave states would have garnered more representatives. The slaves in those states couldn't vote and the slave owners held the power. They would never have gotten rid of slavery had the three fifths been in the Article. The founders were smart.
That 3/5 was used to ensure votes to keep them as salves
They still haven’t answered what they actually are if not human! What I truly hate is people who let the fks off the hook. No mthr fkr answer the questionjust to remind you that the founding fathers didn't think ALL men were created equal.... if they did, then they wouldn't have owned other humans.
They didn't think those xxxxxxx Racial slur removed. Do not use racial slurs. Flash from the Dark Continent were "men".
Not that much different than the Moon Bats of today not thinking that fetuses are human beings.
