This Is So Moving: Elite School Tells Sixth Graders The Swastika Is A Symbol Of Peace

[Where_r_my_Keys]

."

So is America at this rate. Do you know how many Mosques you have, look it up, it'll scare you.

Well the US is probably a year or two from our first actual civil war. So, we're working our way through that.

At the end of that, the CONUS will either be free of Americans, or free of Leftists and Muslims... (Pardon the redundancy).

Your President ...

Oh sweety... I'm an American. I don't have a President. Haven't for some time now. You're confused again.

You should probably avoid the media as a news resource, for information regarding Americans, what they know, what they want and what they give a fuck about. In fairness to the media... they're pissed because the first thing we do not give a fuck about, is them.

Your FIRST actual Civil War? So what was THIS one then, a myth?

American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re. The Media. I haven't bothered with the Propaganda MSM for years now.

Oh my...

Whooo... a link from the 'ORACLE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE! How so typical... Ok. Let me get some coffee.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Al righty... where were we?

OH! The War between the USA and CSA, OKA, colloquially: The US "CIVIL WAR".

That was a war between the United States of America and The Confederate States of America. Which means that it was a war between the armies of two sovereign nations.

A Civil War, is a war fought by multiple factions, over control of the same ground.

The CSA was not fighting for control of the USA... . It was exercising its right to depart the union of states.

Two entirely different animals.

The First US Civil War, will be first, the annihilation of the Ideological Left, which of course, includes Islam... in the United States.

After that is completed... shit will just fall back into place, at which time the Americans will again control the United States.

See the difference?

The First US Civil War will be for control of THE UNITED STATES. Where AMERICANS seek to DESTROY the opposition. TO ERASE THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT.

Not to 'win their hearts and minds'... or to compromise... to ERASE THEM. Without apology, compromise, or mercy.

Civil War.

It's 4.23am and I absolutely have to go to bed.

It's been 'um....interesting shall I say in a vaguely disturbing way.

Nitey Night.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

He uses that expression constantly. It just means he hasn't got an argument.

He really does... but in his defense, he does so because without exception, his opposition inevitably fails to sustain their argument, thus they concede to the standing points in opposition.

So... it's sort of what happens when they concede.

The coolest part is that it really pisses them off. It's nearly as cool as how much hope they're all pinning on you, that you're something close to a match.

And frankly... that would be SO nice for them.

Sadly... it's not looking good at this point and I don't mind tellin' ya, I think we're all more than just a little disappointed.

"The coolest part is that it really pisses them off."

Really, this is what you think?

"It's nearly as cool as how much hope they're all pinning on you, that you're something close to a match."

Huh?

"Sadly... it's not looking good at this point and I don't mind tellin' ya, I think we're all more than just a little disappointed"

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

what are you blathering about?

Oh sweety... it has to do with 'reason'. So you wouldn't understand. Go fix me a sandwich.

Your comments are most 'um....unusual to say the least.

Oh... Aren't you sweet to say so. Thank you. You're a peach!

Well I try, it must be my natural charm coming through here.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

."

So is America at this rate. Do you know how many Mosques you have, look it up, it'll scare you.

Well the US is probably a year or two from our first actual civil war. So, we're working our way through that.

At the end of that, the CONUS will either be free of Americans, or free of Leftists and Muslims... (Pardon the redundancy).

Your President ...

Oh sweety... I'm an American. I don't have a President. Haven't for some time now. You're confused again.

You should probably avoid the media as a news resource, for information regarding Americans, what they know, what they want and what they give a fuck about. In fairness to the media... they're pissed because the first thing we do not give a fuck about, is them.

Your FIRST actual Civil War? So what was THIS one then, a myth?

American Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re. The Media. I haven't bothered with the Propaganda MSM for years now.

Oh my...

Whooo... a link from the 'ORACLE OF ALL KNOWLEDGE! How so typical... Ok. Let me get some coffee.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Al righty... where were we?

OH! The War between the USA and CSA, OKA, colloquially: The US "CIVIL WAR".

That was a war between the United States of America and The Confederate States of America. Which means that it was a war between the armies of two sovereign nations.

A Civil War, is a war fought by multiple factions, over control of the same ground.

The CSA was not fighting for control of the USA... . It was exercising its right to depart the union of states.

Two entirely different animals.

The First US Civil War, will be first, the annihilation of the Ideological Left, which of course, includes Islam... in the United States.

After that is completed... shit will just fall back into place, at which time the Americans will again control the United States.

See the difference?

The First US Civil War will be for control of THE UNITED STATES. Where AMERICANS seek to DESTROY the opposition. TO ERASE THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT.

Not to 'win their hearts and minds'... or to compromise... to ERASE THEM. Without apology, compromise, or mercy.

Civil War.

It's 4.23am and I absolutely have to go to bed.

It's been 'um....interesting shall I say in a vaguely disturbing way.

Nitey Night.

The same to you darling.

 

[westwall]

Nope. You're a fucking progressive murderous scumbag. Every post you make says that. No liberal is for the mass murder of all mankind. Not one.

That is untrue, Mr. Troll. The notions are not mutually exclusive but you have to be able to keep more than one thought in your head at one time, and you can't manage half that.

Actually yes they are. Liberalism was a rejection of the King and big government. Progressivism is the exact opposite. It is the embrace of big, overpowering, intrusive government. As you say rights are granted by the government. Liberals KNOW they are not. Liberals KNOW that rights are innate.

there is no such thing as a right that exists unless it is enforced.

That is true. However, rights are not granted by the COTUS as is pointed out. What is codified are Rights that the government can't intrude upon. Rights must constantly be fought for to prevent progressives like PMH from stripping them away.

Read the Burka thread, I defend rights, except for guns.

The right to keep guns in the hands of civilians ensures that all other rights are maintained. Unlike you our Founders weren't stupid and realized that the people need teeth to defend themselves from people like you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The right to keep guns in the hands of civilians ensures that all other rights are maintained.

Nope, but that's the NRA dogma. You don't need a gun you need a lawyer, a liberal, and the ACLU. The courts, not the guns, are what defend your (granted by liberals) rights.

Works like this, read up: Swis Region Bans Burqas | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[westwall]

The right to keep guns in the hands of civilians ensures that all other rights are maintained.

Nope, but that's the NRA dogma. You don't need a gun you need a lawyer, a liberal, and the ACLU. The courts, not the guns, are what defend your (granted by liberals) rights.

Works like this, read up: Swis Region Bans Burqas | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your opinion vs Thomas Jefferson's opinion..... hmmmmm... I'll take Thomas Jefferson for one bazillion dollars Alex!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The right to keep guns in the hands of civilians ensures that all other rights are maintained.

Nope, but that's the NRA dogma. You don't need a gun you need a lawyer, a liberal, and the ACLU. The courts, not the guns, are what defend your (granted by liberals) rights.

Works like this, read up: Swis Region Bans Burqas | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your opinion vs Thomas Jefferson's opinion..... hmmmmm... I'll take Thomas Jefferson for one bazillion dollars Alex!

He lived 230 years ago, and was raping his slave (she could not grant consent being property), not to mention having babies with her. Times change but on religious liberty we agree while you do not.

 

[westwall]

The right to keep guns in the hands of civilians ensures that all other rights are maintained.

Nope, but that's the NRA dogma. You don't need a gun you need a lawyer, a liberal, and the ACLU. The courts, not the guns, are what defend your (granted by liberals) rights.

Works like this, read up: Swis Region Bans Burqas | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your opinion vs Thomas Jefferson's opinion..... hmmmmm... I'll take Thomas Jefferson for one bazillion dollars Alex!

He lived 230 years ago, and was raping his slave (she could not grant consent being property), not to mention having babies with her. Times change but on religious liberty we agree while you do not.

Rights are not relative, nor are they time based.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Rights are not relative, nor are they time based.

Oh, but they are. That's why *******, women, children, etc. are no longer human property. Rights can be found and granted, they can also be lost and taken away, especially if abused, like guns for instance.

Is Free Speech really free? No exactly. Is Freedom of Religion really free? Not exactly. Rights and Responsibilities, with appropriate limitations, which change over time. That's why the Constitution is paper not stone, and can be altered. Pretty clever actually.

And show us your big Liberal stance, defend Muslim garments against being banned?

 

[westwall]

Rights are not relative, nor are they time based.

Oh, but they are. That's why *******, women, children, etc. are no longer human property. Rights can be found and granted, they can also be lost and taken away, especially if abused, like guns for instance.

Is Free Speech really free? No exactly. Is Freedom of Religion really free? Not exactly. Rights and Responsibilities, with appropriate limitations, which change over time. That's why the Constitution is paper not stone, and can be altered. Pretty clever actually.

And show us your big Liberal stance, defend Muslim garments against being banned?

Please show me the passage in the COTUS that says blacks have no rights....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Rights are not relative, nor are they time based.

Oh, but they are. That's why *******, women, children, etc. are no longer human property. Rights can be found and granted, they can also be lost and taken away, especially if abused, like guns for instance.

Is Free Speech really free? No exactly. Is Freedom of Religion really free? Not exactly. Rights and Responsibilities, with appropriate limitations, which change over time. That's why the Constitution is paper not stone, and can be altered. Pretty clever actually.

And show us your big Liberal stance, defend Muslim garments against being banned?

Please show me the passage in the COTUS that says blacks have no rights....

That's pretty easy since they were called slaves (property), and treated as 3/5ths of a person.

"The Three-Fifths Compromise, is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

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."
Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[westwall]

Rights are not relative, nor are they time based.

Oh, but they are. That's why *******, women, children, etc. are no longer human property. Rights can be found and granted, they can also be lost and taken away, especially if abused, like guns for instance.

Is Free Speech really free? No exactly. Is Freedom of Religion really free? Not exactly. Rights and Responsibilities, with appropriate limitations, which change over time. That's why the Constitution is paper not stone, and can be altered. Pretty clever actually.

And show us your big Liberal stance, defend Muslim garments against being banned?

Please show me the passage in the COTUS that says blacks have no rights....

That's pretty easy since they were called slaves (property), and treated as 3/5ths of a person.

"The Three-Fifths Compromise, is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads:

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."
Three-Fifths Compromise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, so they did have rights. They weren't considered equals of whites yet, but they were still counted as PEOPLE. Indentured servants also fall under this ruling if you hadn't noticed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, so they did have rights. They weren't considered equals of whites yet, but they were still counted as PEOPLE. Indentured servants also fall under this ruling if you hadn't noticed.

Everyone fell under this article however they were full persons, and slaves had no rights, they were property that had to be accounted for in representation and taxes.

Background: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_3.html

For example: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Continental Congress, Taxation and Representation

"The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves."

 

[westwall]

Oh, so they did have rights. They weren't considered equals of whites yet, but they were still counted as PEOPLE. Indentured servants also fall under this ruling if you hadn't noticed.

Everyone fell under this article however they were full persons, and slaves had no rights, they were property that had to be accounted for in representation and taxes.

Background: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Continental Congress, Taxation and Representation

"The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves."

If they count towards Congressional representation then yes, they did have certain rights. They couldn't be killed on a whim for instance. So the COTUS as written (not enforced of course, that has always been a problem, people being people) was on the right track. You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away. There was one attempt to do that called prohibition and that didn't work out too well so was repealed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, so they did have rights. They weren't considered equals of whites yet, but they were still counted as PEOPLE. Indentured servants also fall under this ruling if you hadn't noticed.

Everyone fell under this article however they were full persons, and slaves had no rights, they were property that had to be accounted for in representation and taxes.

Background: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Continental Congress, Taxation and Representation

"The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves."

If they count towards Congressional representation then yes, they did have certain rights. They couldn't be killed on a whim for instance.

Where'd you get that from? Oh right, your ass...

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

And there's that total failure of logic again...

 

[westwall]

Oh, so they did have rights. They weren't considered equals of whites yet, but they were still counted as PEOPLE. Indentured servants also fall under this ruling if you hadn't noticed.

Everyone fell under this article however they were full persons, and slaves had no rights, they were property that had to be accounted for in representation and taxes.

Background: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Continental Congress, Taxation and Representation

"The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves."

If they count towards Congressional representation then yes, they did have certain rights. They couldn't be killed on a whim for instance.

Where'd you get that from? Oh right, your ass...

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

And there's that total failure of logic again...

Show us an Amendment that takes rights away silly boy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, so they did have rights. They weren't considered equals of whites yet, but they were still counted as PEOPLE. Indentured servants also fall under this ruling if you hadn't noticed.

Everyone fell under this article however they were full persons, and slaves had no rights, they were property that had to be accounted for in representation and taxes.

Background: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Continental Congress, Taxation and Representation

"The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves."

If they count towards Congressional representation then yes, they did have certain rights. They couldn't be killed on a whim for instance.

Where'd you get that from? Oh right, your ass...

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

And there's that total failure of logic again...

Show us an Amendment that takes rights away silly boy.

18th, the 22nd, southerns would say the 13th, the 27th has nothing to do with rights, the 16th gave us Income taxes, the 25th doesn't involve rights, same with the 17th and the 12th. Besides that, great work by you, as usual.

 

[westwall]

Oh, so they did have rights. They weren't considered equals of whites yet, but they were still counted as PEOPLE. Indentured servants also fall under this ruling if you hadn't noticed.

Everyone fell under this article however they were full persons, and slaves had no rights, they were property that had to be accounted for in representation and taxes.

Background: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Continental Congress, Taxation and Representation

"The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves."

If they count towards Congressional representation then yes, they did have certain rights. They couldn't be killed on a whim for instance.

Where'd you get that from? Oh right, your ass...

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

And there's that total failure of logic again...

Show us an Amendment that takes rights away silly boy.

18th, the 22nd, southerns would say the 13th, the 27th has nothing to do with rights, the 16th gave us Income taxes, the 25th doesn't involve rights, same with the 17th and the 12th. Besides that, great work by you, as usual.

I already mentioned the 18th silly boy, 13th freed the slaves. I would say that that was recognizing more rights. The 22nd limits the times a person can be POTUS so allows more people to run for the office. 16th doesn't take rights away. Nice try but that's a fail. And I still don't see a single Amendment (other than the already mentioned 18th, which was also repealed) that REMOVES rights from people. The 22nd doesn't remove a right. There is no right to run for POTUS. So, no. It's you that failed monkey boy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Everyone fell under this article however they were full persons, and slaves had no rights, they were property that had to be accounted for in representation and taxes.

Background: Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: Continental Congress, Taxation and Representation

"The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves."

If they count towards Congressional representation then yes, they did have certain rights. They couldn't be killed on a whim for instance.

Where'd you get that from? Oh right, your ass...

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

And there's that total failure of logic again...

Show us an Amendment that takes rights away silly boy.

18th, the 22nd, southerns would say the 13th, the 27th has nothing to do with rights, the 16th gave us Income taxes, the 25th doesn't involve rights, same with the 17th and the 12th. Besides that, great work by you, as usual.

I already mentioned the 18th silly boy, 13th freed the slaves. I would say that that was recognizing more rights. The 22nd limits the times a person can be POTUS so allows more people to run for the office. 16th doesn't take rights away. Nice try but that's a fail. And I still don't see a single Amendment (other than the already mentioned 18th, which was also repealed) that REMOVES rights from people. The 22nd doesn't remove a right. There is no right to run for POTUS. So, no. It's you that failed monkey boy.

The 18th was booze, so your statement was wrong, as usual, and the 22nd limits my right to vote for the person of my choice, a third time or beyond. That and the amendments that have nothing to do with individual rights means you fucked up. Choose your words more careful and think though what you say before you say it.

"You should notice of course that ALL of the Amendments have been recognizing MORE rights for people. Not taking them away."

This is untrue, as usual.