The most disgusting state in the union signs the most disgusting law ever created

[P@triot]

Ah, they never were rated as such? Note that the thread uses the very specific wording "ever created", rather than "in existence today".

You need to read things more carefully next time before making your remarks.

Lets star here: do you consider the Constitution a legal document?

I can't stand you 3/5ths people. You have ZERO understanding of that situation. And frankly, I'm getting good-god-damn tired of explaining it to you people.

Dumbocrats believed that black people were PROPERTY. They insisted they were PROPERTY. And their stance was that since they were PROPERTY, they U.S. government had no right to "take" their PROPERTY (ie free the slaves).

However, when it came time to the census, the Dumbocrats counted their slaves to increase their overall population, and thus increase their representation in Washington (and thus keep slavery alive and well).

The Republicans rightfully said, "wait a second - you just told us that blacks were PROPERTY, not people. You can't count your property in the census".

Dumbocrats responded, "yes we can".

Republicans said, "fine - we get to count our property too". And they literally started counting tables, chairs, etc. (being in the north and thus more advanced in their building development, they had exponentially more of this stuff than the Dumbocrats in the South).

As is always the case with Dumbocrats when their hypocrisy is exposed, they lost their fuck'n minds and claimed this was a travesty. It turned into a stand-still. After a very long period of butting heads, the final solution was to count the slaves as 3/5th's of a person.

For the love of God, will every idiot on USMB please fucking read this post and understand the TRUTH about history so I don't have to listen to any more ignorant posts about the "3/5th's clause"?!?!

Quit your blathering/lecture, lol, as I don't give a flying fuck which party was behind the 3/5ths rule. I haven't voted for a Democrat in over 10 years, by the way. What are you trying to convince me of Rott?

I'm just saying it existed; are you arguing it didn't? Was it not written in the Constitution?? I'd LOVE to hear your answer.

Wow, a lot of whiners on this thread.

Hey stupid - I know you're one of those whining bitches Sovereign Citizen libertarian assholes. We all know it. I'm just tired of listening to libertarians being as ignorant as libtards.

As far as "I'm just saying it existed" - well now you've just take your libertarian ignorance to a whole new level. Why point that out when slavery itself was only, oh...I don't know, a gabillion times worse than the 3/5th's clause?!?

If anyone wonders why Obama is in office - it's because conservatives have to deal with parasites on the left, an irrational idiots Sovereign Citizen libertardians on the right...

Christ Almighty it's no wonder this nation is such a mess with two sets of equally ignorant and unreasonable ass-wipes running around out there.....

 

[KevinWestern]

I can't stand you 3/5ths people. You have ZERO understanding of that situation. And frankly, I'm getting good-god-damn tired of explaining it to you people.

Dumbocrats believed that black people were PROPERTY. They insisted they were PROPERTY. And their stance was that since they were PROPERTY, they U.S. government had no right to "take" their PROPERTY (ie free the slaves).

However, when it came time to the census, the Dumbocrats counted their slaves to increase their overall population, and thus increase their representation in Washington (and thus keep slavery alive and well).

The Republicans rightfully said, "wait a second - you just told us that blacks were PROPERTY, not people. You can't count your property in the census".

Dumbocrats responded, "yes we can".

Republicans said, "fine - we get to count our property too". And they literally started counting tables, chairs, etc. (being in the north and thus more advanced in their building development, they had exponentially more of this stuff than the Dumbocrats in the South).

As is always the case with Dumbocrats when their hypocrisy is exposed, they lost their fuck'n minds and claimed this was a travesty. It turned into a stand-still. After a very long period of butting heads, the final solution was to count the slaves as 3/5th's of a person.

For the love of God, will every idiot on USMB please fucking read this post and understand the TRUTH about history so I don't have to listen to any more ignorant posts about the "3/5th's clause"?!?!

Quit your blathering/lecture, lol, as I don't give a flying fuck which party was behind the 3/5ths rule. I haven't voted for a Democrat in over 10 years, by the way. What are you trying to convince me of Rott?

I'm just saying it existed; are you arguing it didn't? Was it not written in the Constitution?? I'd LOVE to hear your answer.

Wow, a lot of whiners on this thread.

Hey stupid - I know you're one of those whining bitches Sovereign Citizen libertarian assholes. We all know it. I'm just tired of listening to libertarians being as ignorant as libtards.

As far as "I'm just saying it existed" - well now you've just take your libertarian ignorance to a whole new level. Why point that out when slavery itself was only, oh...I don't know, a gabillion times worse than the 3/5th's clause?!?

If anyone wonders why Obama is in office - it's because conservatives have to deal with parasites on the left, an irrational idiots Sovereign Citizen libertardians on the right...

Christ Almighty it's no wonder this nation is such a mess with two sets of equally ignorant and unreasonable ass-wipes running around out there.....

It's just one of many laws worse than the one described in the OP.

So back on the topic - did the 3/5ths law exist? I've asked you that twice now and it seems you are unable to respond directly to that question.

 

[KevinWestern]

I can't stand you 3/5ths people. You have ZERO understanding of that situation. And frankly, I'm getting good-god-damn tired of explaining it to you people.

Dumbocrats believed that black people were PROPERTY. They insisted they were PROPERTY. And their stance was that since they were PROPERTY, they U.S. government had no right to "take" their PROPERTY (ie free the slaves).

However, when it came time to the census, the Dumbocrats counted their slaves to increase their overall population, and thus increase their representation in Washington (and thus keep slavery alive and well).

The Republicans rightfully said, "wait a second - you just told us that blacks were PROPERTY, not people. You can't count your property in the census".

Dumbocrats responded, "yes we can".

Republicans said, "fine - we get to count our property too". And they literally started counting tables, chairs, etc. (being in the north and thus more advanced in their building development, they had exponentially more of this stuff than the Dumbocrats in the South).

As is always the case with Dumbocrats when their hypocrisy is exposed, they lost their fuck'n minds and claimed this was a travesty. It turned into a stand-still. After a very long period of butting heads, the final solution was to count the slaves as 3/5th's of a person.

For the love of God, will every idiot on USMB please fucking read this post and understand the TRUTH about history so I don't have to listen to any more ignorant posts about the "3/5th's clause"?!?!

Quit your blathering/lecture, lol, as I don't give a flying fuck which party was behind the 3/5ths rule. I haven't voted for a Democrat in over 10 years, by the way. What are you trying to convince me of Rott?

I'm just saying it existed; are you arguing it didn't? Was it not written in the Constitution?? I'd LOVE to hear your answer.

Wow, a lot of whiners on this thread.

Hey stupid - I know you're one of those whining bitches Sovereign Citizen libertarian assholes. We all know it. I'm just tired of listening to libertarians being as ignorant as libtards.

As far as "I'm just saying it existed" - well now you've just take your libertarian ignorance to a whole new level. Why point that out when slavery itself was only, oh...I don't know, a gabillion times worse than the 3/5th's clause?!?

If anyone wonders why Obama is in office - it's because conservatives have to deal with parasites on the left, an irrational idiots Sovereign Citizen libertardians on the right...

Christ Almighty it's no wonder this nation is such a mess with two sets of equally ignorant and unreasonable ass-wipes running around out there.....

And by the way, adding "tard" to the end of a person's political affiliation is not even remotely clever. Let's try to keep this a big boy discussion.

 

[P@triot]

Quit your blathering/lecture, lol, as I don't give a flying fuck which party was behind the 3/5ths rule. I haven't voted for a Democrat in over 10 years, by the way. What are you trying to convince me of Rott?

I'm just saying it existed; are you arguing it didn't? Was it not written in the Constitution?? I'd LOVE to hear your answer.

Wow, a lot of whiners on this thread.

Hey stupid - I know you're one of those whining bitches Sovereign Citizen libertarian assholes. We all know it. I'm just tired of listening to libertarians being as ignorant as libtards.

As far as "I'm just saying it existed" - well now you've just take your libertarian ignorance to a whole new level. Why point that out when slavery itself was only, oh...I don't know, a gabillion times worse than the 3/5th's clause?!?

If anyone wonders why Obama is in office - it's because conservatives have to deal with parasites on the left, an irrational idiots Sovereign Citizen libertardians on the right...

Christ Almighty it's no wonder this nation is such a mess with two sets of equally ignorant and unreasonable ass-wipes running around out there.....[/B]

It's just one of many laws worse than the one described in the OP.

So back on the topic - did the 3/5ths law exist? I've asked you that twice now and it seems you are unable to respond directly to that question.

Well, considering I explained it thoroughly, what do you think?

And now that you've actually been educated on something you spoke out on - you should realize that this law is exponentially worse than the 3/5ths clause ever was.

3/5th's lead to the end of slavery. It ultimately resulted in one of the most positive things in world history. Can you say the same thing about this law? Really? Can you genius? I'm waiting...

 

[P@triot]

Quit your blathering/lecture, lol, as I don't give a flying fuck which party was behind the 3/5ths rule. I haven't voted for a Democrat in over 10 years, by the way. What are you trying to convince me of Rott?

I'm just saying it existed; are you arguing it didn't? Was it not written in the Constitution?? I'd LOVE to hear your answer.

Wow, a lot of whiners on this thread.

Hey stupid - I know you're one of those whining bitches Sovereign Citizen libertarian assholes. We all know it. I'm just tired of listening to libertarians being as ignorant as libtards.

As far as "I'm just saying it existed" - well now you've just take your libertarian ignorance to a whole new level. Why point that out when slavery itself was only, oh...I don't know, a gabillion times worse than the 3/5th's clause?!?

If anyone wonders why Obama is in office - it's because conservatives have to deal with parasites on the left, an irrational idiots Sovereign Citizen libertardians on the right...

Christ Almighty it's no wonder this nation is such a mess with two sets of equally ignorant and unreasonable ass-wipes running around out there.....

And by the way, adding "tard" to the end of a person's political affiliation is not even remotely clever. Let's try to keep this a big boy discussion.

First of all - I ended your political affiliation with ARIAN. I added "tard" to the middle of your political affiliation

Second, you started the pissing match with your hissy above ("Quit your blathering/lecture, lol, as I don't give a flying fuck which party was behind the 3/5ths rule"). If you can't play with the big boys, don't take the mound and throw at the first batters head to begin with. If you want to "reset" to a more civilized conversation, then I'm game.

On a side note, it's rather tragic that a self-professed libertarian would declare "I don't give a fuck which party was behind <insert issue here>...". I was under the impression the entire ideology of the libertarian was built on FACTUAL HISTORY of our founders intent?

 

[KevinWestern]

Well, considering I explained it thoroughly, what do you think?

And now that you've actually been educated on something you spoke out on - you should realize that this law is exponentially worse than the 3/5ths clause ever was.

3/5th's lead to the end of slavery. It ultimately resulted in one of the most positive things in world history. Can you say the same thing about this law? Really? Can you genius? I'm waiting...

So, you're saying that classifying black people as 3/5ths of a human being - by law - is not (in it of itself) a sort of degrading, disgusting law?

 

[KevinWestern]

First of all - I ended your political affiliation with ARIAN. I added "tard" to the middle of your political affiliation

Same difference.

Second, you started the pissing match with your hissy above ("Quit your blathering/lecture, lol, as I don't give a flying fuck which party was behind the 3/5ths rule"). If you can't play with the big boys, don't take the mound and throw at the first batters head to begin with. If you want to "reset" to a more civilized conversation, then I'm game.

I said I don't give a fuck about something, that's a "hissy"? Lol. And you're the one that came out calling me an idiot. Being civil is your call because that's how I've been conducting the conversation with you from the get-go.

On a side note, it's rather tragic that a self-professed libertarian would declare "I don't give a fuck which party was behind <insert issue here>...". I was under the impression the entire ideology of the libertarian was built on FACTUAL HISTORY of our founders intent?

I'm a libertarian? Maybe in some respects, but I sure as heck support a lot more laws and regulations that most libertarians I know would not.

Now back to the question - did the 3/5th rule exist at some point in time, as a law, in United States history?

 

[P@triot]

Well, considering I explained it thoroughly, what do you think?

And now that you've actually been educated on something you spoke out on - you should realize that this law is exponentially worse than the 3/5ths clause ever was.

3/5th's lead to the end of slavery. It ultimately resulted in one of the most positive things in world history. Can you say the same thing about this law? Really? Can you genius? I'm waiting...

So, you're saying that classifying black people as 3/5ths of a human being - by law - is not in the least bit disgusting?

In the proper historical context - not the least! Dumbocrats considered black people as 0/5th's of a human being. They considered them property. Getting Dumbocrats to go from seeing black as property to MORE than half of a human being it a tremendous accomplishment and one to be damn proud of.

Perhaps if you didn't "give a flying fuck" about what really happened, you wouldn't be so quick to yell "3/5th's Clause" when it doesn't even remotely apply.

Now I ask again - do you think this despicable California law will ultimately lead to anything even remotely as positive as ending slavery?

 

[P@triot]

Now back to the question - did the 3/5th rule exist at some point in time, as a law, in United States history?

Why do you redundantly keep posting something which is not in question? Haven't I more than proven my knowledge of the 3/5th's Clause? Have I ever denied it's existence in any capacity?!?

I've been extraordinarily clear on this. If you have something to say, would you please say it already? Otherwise, I have to assume you are obnoxiously trolling here...

 

[KevinWestern]

In the proper historical context - not the least! Dumbocrats considered black people as 0/5th's of a human being. They considered them property. Getting Dumbocrats to go from seeing black as property to MORE than half of a human being it a tremendous accomplishment and one to be damn proud of.

Again, I don't care if the 3/5ths law was an improvement over a more disgusting law. It's still a disgusting law that's much worse than anything described in the OP.

And please, for your own sake, just say "democrats" or "republicans". It's quite annoying.

Perhaps if you didn't "give a flying fuck" about what really happened, you wouldn't be so quick to yell "3/5th's Clause" when it doesn't even remotely apply.

It does apply, as it was a law written in our Constitution.

Now I ask again - do you think this despicable California law will ultimately lead to anything even remotely as positive as ending slavery?

Who knows? I can't predict the future. How do you know that in 50 years the law might make some transgendered kid help feel a bit more comfortable, confident, and he/she eventually goes on to become President, leading our country to victory against Alien invaders trying to capture our brains for space food?

Anything - as you know - is possible in this strange and mysterious universe.

 

[JohnA]

Well, considering I explained it thoroughly, what do you think?

And now that you've actually been educated on something you spoke out on - you should realize that this law is exponentially worse than the 3/5ths clause ever was.

3/5th's lead to the end of slavery. It ultimately resulted in one of the most positive things in world history. Can you say the same thing about this law? Really? Can you genius? I'm waiting...

So, you're saying that classifying black people as 3/5ths of a human being - by law - is not in the least bit disgusting?

In the proper historical context - not the least! Dumbocrats considered black people as 0/5th's of a human being. They considered them property. Getting Dumbocrats to go from seeing black as property to MORE than half of a human being it a tremendous accomplishment and one to be damn proud of.

Perhaps if you didn't "give a flying fuck" about what really happened, you wouldn't be so quick to yell "3/5th's Clause" when it doesn't even remotely apply.

Now I ask again - do you think this despicable California law will ultimately lead to anything even remotely as positive as ending slavery?

\

Problem is slavery was ended and now noboma is bringing it back
If you have to rely on the *govt * to find you a home ,give you food , supply you with a phone . and take care of your health problems you are A SLAVE TO THE GOVT/PROPERTY OF THE ADMINISTRATION

if you cant find and pay for a home for yourself, buy you own food, make arrangments for your own health care were is your freedom ???
WAKE UP LIBITARDS
I have spoken like a true libertarian

 

[KevinWestern]

So, you're saying that classifying black people as 3/5ths of a human being - by law - is not in the least bit disgusting?

In the proper historical context - not the least! Dumbocrats considered black people as 0/5th's of a human being. They considered them property. Getting Dumbocrats to go from seeing black as property to MORE than half of a human being it a tremendous accomplishment and one to be damn proud of.

Perhaps if you didn't "give a flying fuck" about what really happened, you wouldn't be so quick to yell "3/5th's Clause" when it doesn't even remotely apply.

Now I ask again - do you think this despicable California law will ultimately lead to anything even remotely as positive as ending slavery?

\

Problem is slavery was ended and now noboma is bringing it back
If you have to rely on the *govt * to find you a home ,give you food , supply you with a phone . and take care of your health problems you are A SLAVE TO THE GOVT/PROPERTY OF THE ADMINISTRATION

if you cant find and pay for a home for yourself, buy you own food, make arrangments for your own health care were is your freedom ???
WAKE UP LIBITARDS
I have spoken like a true libertarian

Wait, what does this have to do with Rott's response? I'm confused.

We're arguing whether or not a law considering human beings 3/5ths of a person is more disgusting than a law allowing a transgendered kid to go to the bathroom in an area specified for people born of the gender the transgendered child transgenerated to.

 

[Katzndogz]

Since the slaves were only counted as 3/5ths of a person for apportionment purposes there is nothing wrong with that law. A child whose attention getting parents want them considered another gender solely to teach all those normal kids a lesson in tolerance is more disgusting. Since the 3/5 law was an apportionment technique most slaves had no idea it even happened. It's function was limited to legislative needs there was no practical application. A child forced to share a public bathroom with strangers of the opposite sex is very personal to that child and deeply offensive.

 

[P@triot]

Who knows? I can't predict the future. How do you know that in 50 years the law might make some transgendered kid help feel a bit more comfortable, confident, and he/she eventually goes on to become President, leading our country to victory against Alien invaders trying to capture our brains for space food?

Anything - as you know - is possible in this strange and mysterious universe.

3/5th's lead to the freedom of entire race of people with ZERO draw back. Literally millions upon millions upon millions of black people through out history went from horrible oppression to freedom.


This law is going to force millions to feel horribly uncomfortable, have thousands of cases of deviant sexual acts, and at best you give the extreme example of ONE person becoming president?

Come on buddy - be a big boy. You didn't understand 3/5th's - I've explained, just admit you were way off and move on.

 

[Beachboy]

Congratulations are in order to the libtard Dumbocrats of America. Their Nazi goose-stepping march to the destruction of civilized society just took another giant Nazi goose-step.

They've now made yet another of their disturbing and disgusting deviant sexual behaviors (voyeurism) legal! You can now declare yourself "transgender" and go watch members of the opposite sex shower and change in the school locker rooms! Yeah for disturbed and disgusting Dumbocrats!

Calif. governor signs transgender-student bill

​

I have spoken with a transgendered person, and as a result have met some more of them. The individual I know is the highest paid art director in the entertainment business. She has won a Cleo and an Oscar for her work, and has worked with Steven Spielberg, BBDO, United Air Lines, and JPMorgan Chase & Co., to name a few.

Understanding the dirty trick mother nature has played on transgendered individuals would scare any person who had to face it. Causes of transsexualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I would strongly suggest you learn more about the problem of transsexuals before you throw them under the bus.
I hope you have a transgendered child because the pain you will feel would make pancreatic cancer feel like a picnic!

 

[KevinWestern]

Who knows? I can't predict the future. How do you know that in 50 years the law might make some transgendered kid help feel a bit more comfortable, confident, and he/she eventually goes on to become President, leading our country to victory against Alien invaders trying to capture our brains for space food?

Anything - as you know - is possible in this strange and mysterious universe.

3/5th's lead to the freedom of entire race of people with ZERO draw back. Literally millions upon millions upon millions of black people through out history went from horrible oppression to freedom.


This law is going to force millions to feel horribly uncomfortable, have thousands of cases of deviant sexual acts, and at best you give the extreme example of ONE person becoming president?

Come on buddy - be a big boy. You didn't understand 3/5th's - I've explained, just admit you were way off and move on.

Now you never answered my question, did the 3/5ths law exist?

I've asked maybe 4 times now? Are you unable to answer, or just aren't going to because you know it will crumble any bit of an "argument" you have left?

.

 

[P@triot]

I have spoken with a transgendered person, and as a result have met some more of them. The individual I know is the highest paid art director in the entertainment business. She has won a Cleo and an Oscar for her work, and has worked with Steven Spielberg, BBDO, United Air Lines, and JPMorgan Chase & Co., to name a few.

What the fuck does this persons career and alleged achievements have to do with the outrageous and despicable law outlined in this thread?!?

Understanding the dirty trick mother nature has played on transgendered individuals would scare any person who had to face it. Causes of transsexualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I would strongly suggest you learn more about the problem of transsexuals before you throw them under the bus.

So you shed your little tears for the "transgendered". Ok. Great. What about the 13 year old girl who is uncomfortable enough in her own skin now having to dread using the restroom at school because the male "transgendered" psycopath gets to walk in on her? Or the straight males who can hide behind "transgendered" in order to access the female restrooms and locker rooms? Guess you don't give a shit about them, uh?

By the way - how arrogant of you to assume you are sooo "enlightened" on the "transgendered", while I am not (typical of libtards). You don't know me at all. For all you fuck'n know, I am "transgendered".

I hope you have a transgendered child because the pain you will feel would make pancreatic cancer feel like a picnic!

So you wish something more horrific than pancreatic cancer (hey, your words ass wipe) on a stranger simply because they disagree with you? Well aren't you just the poster child for the modern day intolerant, closed-minded, hateful libtard Dumbocrat?

 

[P@triot]

Who knows? I can't predict the future. How do you know that in 50 years the law might make some transgendered kid help feel a bit more comfortable, confident, and he/she eventually goes on to become President, leading our country to victory against Alien invaders trying to capture our brains for space food?

Anything - as you know - is possible in this strange and mysterious universe.

3/5th's lead to the freedom of entire race of people with ZERO draw back. Literally millions upon millions upon millions of black people through out history went from horrible oppression to freedom.


This law is going to force millions to feel horribly uncomfortable, have thousands of cases of deviant sexual acts, and at best you give the extreme example of ONE person becoming president?

Come on buddy - be a big boy. You didn't understand 3/5th's - I've explained, just admit you were way off and move on.

Now you never answered my question, did the 3/5ths law exist?

I've asked maybe 4 times now? Are you unable to answer, or just aren't going to because you know it will crumble any bit of an "argument" you have left?

I have answered your "question" clearly no less than three times now: HERE, HERE, and HERE. Meanwhile, you have yet to even attempt to answer my question once. Which unequivocally proves two things:

1.) You've been thoroughly defeated

2.) Because of #1, you're now just trying a troll routine in some sort of an odd juvenile tantrum

And so with that, I'll simply end with:

 

[Katzndogz]

The pain of the 99% of all the children is necessary to spare the 1% of supposedly transgendered children a moment of being somewhat uncomfortable.

 

[KevinWestern]

3/5th's lead to the freedom of entire race of people with ZERO draw back. Literally millions upon millions upon millions of black people through out history went from horrible oppression to freedom.


This law is going to force millions to feel horribly uncomfortable, have thousands of cases of deviant sexual acts, and at best you give the extreme example of ONE person becoming president?

Come on buddy - be a big boy. You didn't understand 3/5th's - I've explained, just admit you were way off and move on.

Now you never answered my question, did the 3/5ths law exist?

I've asked maybe 4 times now? Are you unable to answer, or just aren't going to because you know it will crumble any bit of an "argument" you have left?

I have answered your "question" clearly no less than three times now: HERE, HERE, and HERE. Meanwhile, you have yet to even attempt to answer my question once. Which unequivocally proves two things:

1.) You've been thoroughly defeated

2.) Because of #1, you're now just trying a troll routine in some sort of an odd juvenile tantrum

And so with that, I'll simply end with:

All I ask is that you answer my original question directly.