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.
The Deplorables elected TrumpNo.....it has to do with racist assholes who tend to flock to conservatismand it has nothing to do with conservatismIt has nothing to do with this country despite fear mongering from "Patriot"Rightwinger,
Sharia law is a conservative muslim law! More conservationism....
Bad shit!
and Matthew thinks it has to do with conservationism
just more proof that he doesn't know shit from Shinola
yeah because a liberal can't be a racist
you really are a blind sheep
Yes it is selling outOK....lets go back to the original issue thenThe Constitution ducked the issue and it ended up costing us 600,000 lives to fix the problem
I disagree. It didn't duck the issue, it couldn't resolve the issue. With the overwhelming majority of America involved either directly or indirectly in some way with agriculture/slavery, do you think the Constitution would have ever been ratified if it banned slavery?
Now, they DID ban slave trade. You could no longer go down to Charleston and buy a slave fresh off the boat. That ended with the Constitution. This is fairly significant given the importance of slaves to the plantations at the time. The fact they did accomplish this much is a complete refutation of the argument they ducked the issue.
In addition, they worded the Constitution and preamble so that it became a righteous sword for future abolitionists. They knew that the day would come when the people would be ready to end slavery and liberate those in shackles. They gave them the tools to do that when the time came.
Of course, when that time came, justices on the courts ruled slaves were property. It was upon that ruling we had a splitting of opinions across America and suddenly, abolition became a social issue versus a state's rights issue. This is what prompted the war. It was the failure of the courts and congress to find a resolution.
They didn't need the slave trade any more
They had breeding programs to get all the slaves they wanted. Home grown slaves were easier to deal with than Kunta Kinte
There were over 4 million slaves in 1860. Didn't look like banning imports made any impact
But now you are abandoning your argument and changing to another one you like better. I can't let you do that in the middle of a debate. You argued they ducked the issue, now you're admitting they didn't duck the issue but what they did was superficial and didn't matter much. Again, they did what they were able to do at that time. They could not ban slavery! That wasn't going to happen. Had they attempted to do this with the Constitution, it would have never been ratified.
And let me clarify something so you don't go getting the wrong idea. I hate when people twist something I say into something they want to hear and disregard my point. I am not saying that the founders banning slave trade was some glorious achievement they should be commended and praised for. I merely stated that, at that time, it was significantly bold to do that. They didn't HAVE to... there wasn't any real pressure from anyone. It was simply a matter of consciousness. Slavery is an affront to Liberty.
My argument has been that they didn't "duck the issue" as you claimed. They addressed it the best way they could at the time. They couldn't resolve it but they left the tools and language to resolve it for future generations.
They not only ducked the issue....they sold out
With key founders owning slaves, what do you expect?
No they didn't address it. They had other priorities and "all men are created equal" was not one of them
By selling out, they set us up for a war four score and seven years later.
Again, that is a purely revisionist idea of what went down. People who grew cotton, tobacco and sugar cane owned slaves because that was how it was harvested. There was no other option. It's not selling out when there isn't another option.
And AGAIN... they DID address it, as I pointed out, which you acknowledged but are now ignoring and pretending it wasn't a point I made. They addressed slavery as best they could at the time. They outlawed slave trade and put the language in the Constitution to enable freedom of slaves when the time came. Even Frederick Douglass recognized their brilliance in that. Why are YOU having a problem?
The War wasn't the fault of the founders, it was the result of the courts and congress FAILING to do the right thing when the time came. They failed and we had war. Furthermore, the war didn't end slavery! It took a Constitutional Amendment to do that. Why couldn't that have been done BEFORE the war? No reason... it just wasn't.
Yes it is selling outOK....lets go back to the original issue thenI disagree. It didn't duck the issue, it couldn't resolve the issue. With the overwhelming majority of America involved either directly or indirectly in some way with agriculture/slavery, do you think the Constitution would have ever been ratified if it banned slavery?
Now, they DID ban slave trade. You could no longer go down to Charleston and buy a slave fresh off the boat. That ended with the Constitution. This is fairly significant given the importance of slaves to the plantations at the time. The fact they did accomplish this much is a complete refutation of the argument they ducked the issue.
In addition, they worded the Constitution and preamble so that it became a righteous sword for future abolitionists. They knew that the day would come when the people would be ready to end slavery and liberate those in shackles. They gave them the tools to do that when the time came.
Of course, when that time came, justices on the courts ruled slaves were property. It was upon that ruling we had a splitting of opinions across America and suddenly, abolition became a social issue versus a state's rights issue. This is what prompted the war. It was the failure of the courts and congress to find a resolution.
They didn't need the slave trade any more
They had breeding programs to get all the slaves they wanted. Home grown slaves were easier to deal with than Kunta Kinte
There were over 4 million slaves in 1860. Didn't look like banning imports made any impact
But now you are abandoning your argument and changing to another one you like better. I can't let you do that in the middle of a debate. You argued they ducked the issue, now you're admitting they didn't duck the issue but what they did was superficial and didn't matter much. Again, they did what they were able to do at that time. They could not ban slavery! That wasn't going to happen. Had they attempted to do this with the Constitution, it would have never been ratified.
And let me clarify something so you don't go getting the wrong idea. I hate when people twist something I say into something they want to hear and disregard my point. I am not saying that the founders banning slave trade was some glorious achievement they should be commended and praised for. I merely stated that, at that time, it was significantly bold to do that. They didn't HAVE to... there wasn't any real pressure from anyone. It was simply a matter of consciousness. Slavery is an affront to Liberty.
My argument has been that they didn't "duck the issue" as you claimed. They addressed it the best way they could at the time. They couldn't resolve it but they left the tools and language to resolve it for future generations.
They not only ducked the issue....they sold out
With key founders owning slaves, what do you expect?
No they didn't address it. They had other priorities and "all men are created equal" was not one of them
By selling out, they set us up for a war four score and seven years later.
Again, that is a purely revisionist idea of what went down. People who grew cotton, tobacco and sugar cane owned slaves because that was how it was harvested. There was no other option. It's not selling out when there isn't another option.
And AGAIN... they DID address it, as I pointed out, which you acknowledged but are now ignoring and pretending it wasn't a point I made. They addressed slavery as best they could at the time. They outlawed slave trade and put the language in the Constitution to enable freedom of slaves when the time came. Even Frederick Douglass recognized their brilliance in that. Why are YOU having a problem?
The War wasn't the fault of the founders, it was the result of the courts and congress FAILING to do the right thing when the time came. They failed and we had war. Furthermore, the war didn't end slavery! It took a Constitutional Amendment to do that. Why couldn't that have been done BEFORE the war? No reason... it just wasn't.
If you can't make a profit without resorting to slave labor you do not belong in business
Banning the importation of africans did nothing to end slavery
The slave population increased after the ban
Humanity would still be in africa and throwing rocks at each other if it was up to you parasitic conservatives....The innovators, thinkers and explorers are the ones that gave you this internet, easy life and food a plenty.
Conservatives the world over are bad. ISIS, Taliban and tribal groups are the conservatives in other parts of the world and cultures...
Why do so many people on this board wish to return to the 18th century? That was a time when we as a nation committed very little towards investment within our borders, very little laws or rules to protect the workers, life was far harder then today and I honestly believe the world of the time was so alien to the concepts of modern 20th and 21st century that America would be transformed into a very poor, backwards and violent society if we attempted it. It would be a outright suicide of the most advance nation on earth in many measures and a true lost to all of humanity.
Government expanded because it had too, just like every other modern state due to civilized people wanting infrastructure, wanting education for their children, clean air, water and food and a ever better standard of living. For one to argue that the 18th century was superior is the height of insanity within my mind, but that is exactly what extreme conservatism is bitching for. So you'd rather put your trust in the same corporations that pollute the environment in india then to have the government fine the bastards and give them a good reason to stop??? So you'd rather businesses have the power to refuse payment to work or set up sweat shops while you smile and say get a job. WTF is wrong with you? I say this because it could be you or your children that has little choice for employment! Why make life worse for yourself?
I could keep going on down the list on why the concepts of the 18th century would be a nightmare to the American people but I'll stop here. Lets just say that it isn't preferable and I really wish some people would see the benefits in living within a society that gives a shit about things.
This is what societies that don't do shit or care allow for their children...They have famines, death and suffering...Millions die because government doesn't build infrastructure for clean water and food in the market rots and is not thrown away.
These are the most conservative societies on this planet.
I can already tell from this polemic that you're referring to conservatives and Trump supporters.
As a black conservative and a Trump supporter, I most certainly do not want to return to the good ol' days of the 1700s—the days when my people were enslaved, beaten, sold for profit, raped and murdered when they tried to find safe haven, and when there were no awesome things like technology, cell phones, automobiles, airports and airplanes, computers, and so on. Nor do I oppose workers' rights. Seriously, do you honestly believe that all of us who are conservative support that shit?
If you do, then there is clearly no point in having a debate with you as you are clearly unhinged.
Yes it is selling outOK....lets go back to the original issue thenI disagree. It didn't duck the issue, it couldn't resolve the issue. With the overwhelming majority of America involved either directly or indirectly in some way with agriculture/slavery, do you think the Constitution would have ever been ratified if it banned slavery?
Now, they DID ban slave trade. You could no longer go down to Charleston and buy a slave fresh off the boat. That ended with the Constitution. This is fairly significant given the importance of slaves to the plantations at the time. The fact they did accomplish this much is a complete refutation of the argument they ducked the issue.
In addition, they worded the Constitution and preamble so that it became a righteous sword for future abolitionists. They knew that the day would come when the people would be ready to end slavery and liberate those in shackles. They gave them the tools to do that when the time came.
Of course, when that time came, justices on the courts ruled slaves were property. It was upon that ruling we had a splitting of opinions across America and suddenly, abolition became a social issue versus a state's rights issue. This is what prompted the war. It was the failure of the courts and congress to find a resolution.
They didn't need the slave trade any more
They had breeding programs to get all the slaves they wanted. Home grown slaves were easier to deal with than Kunta Kinte
There were over 4 million slaves in 1860. Didn't look like banning imports made any impact
But now you are abandoning your argument and changing to another one you like better. I can't let you do that in the middle of a debate. You argued they ducked the issue, now you're admitting they didn't duck the issue but what they did was superficial and didn't matter much. Again, they did what they were able to do at that time. They could not ban slavery! That wasn't going to happen. Had they attempted to do this with the Constitution, it would have never been ratified.
And let me clarify something so you don't go getting the wrong idea. I hate when people twist something I say into something they want to hear and disregard my point. I am not saying that the founders banning slave trade was some glorious achievement they should be commended and praised for. I merely stated that, at that time, it was significantly bold to do that. They didn't HAVE to... there wasn't any real pressure from anyone. It was simply a matter of consciousness. Slavery is an affront to Liberty.
My argument has been that they didn't "duck the issue" as you claimed. They addressed it the best way they could at the time. They couldn't resolve it but they left the tools and language to resolve it for future generations.
They not only ducked the issue....they sold out
With key founders owning slaves, what do you expect?
No they didn't address it. They had other priorities and "all men are created equal" was not one of them
By selling out, they set us up for a war four score and seven years later.
Again, that is a purely revisionist idea of what went down. People who grew cotton, tobacco and sugar cane owned slaves because that was how it was harvested. There was no other option. It's not selling out when there isn't another option.
And AGAIN... they DID address it, as I pointed out, which you acknowledged but are now ignoring and pretending it wasn't a point I made. They addressed slavery as best they could at the time. They outlawed slave trade and put the language in the Constitution to enable freedom of slaves when the time came. Even Frederick Douglass recognized their brilliance in that. Why are YOU having a problem?
The War wasn't the fault of the founders, it was the result of the courts and congress FAILING to do the right thing when the time came. They failed and we had war. Furthermore, the war didn't end slavery! It took a Constitutional Amendment to do that. Why couldn't that have been done BEFORE the war? No reason... it just wasn't.
If you can't make a profit without resorting to slave labor you do not belong in business
Banning the importation of africans did nothing to end slavery
The slave population increased after the ban
You must mean that's when it was written, right? You don't have a truthful bone in your body do you?Which part?The constitution. Now, wait for it, the attack will come!
And in what century was the Constitution written?
The Constitution has an amendment process. It is a document that was written over centuries.
BOR was 18th Century. Period.
Might have something to do with your lot constantly bemoaning the constitution and trying to destroy our brilliant system.
You must mean that's when it was written, right? You don't have a truthful bone in your body do you?
At least those people have liberty. Progressives like Matthew believe this is how all of society should be forced to live:These are conservatives as they believe they should live as they did thousands of years ago and fuck the easy advance life. You're either with them or with me.
Which shows how insanely you dimwits are supporting all things muslim.Rightwinger,
Sharia law is a conservative muslim law! More conservationism.... Bad shit!
At least I started reading at a young age. A skill you have yet to develop....You did? You must have started reading racist propaganda at a young age
I could keep going on down the list on why the concepts of the 18th century would be a nightmare to the American people but I'll stop here. Lets just say that it isn't preferable and I really wish some people would see the benefits in living within a society that gives a shit about things.
Here's what people like you don't get... We DO give a shit about things!
The problem is, "WE" are 340,000,000,000 people across millions of square miles and we all "give a shit" about different things to different degrees and according to differing priorities depending on different circumstances. Do you understand this? We can't ALL have everything we idealistically want... it's not possible. Can you comprehend why that is?
Now.... Our framers were geniuses. They created a unique system of self-governing so that The People could have a powerful unionization to handle certain priorities we all benefit from... like a national defense. At the same time... follow me closely here... limited to a specific set of things that are universal to us all... not some...not most... but all. So this doesn't include things like your health care insurance or how much pay you can get. Those are things that vary from person to person.
That doesn't mean we don't care about things, there is still a mechanism for us to address the things that are important to us as individuals. We do these sorts of things through our states, where we live with other people who are likely in our same boat. People in Utah have different ideals and priorities than people in New York. Things that are important to the people in Alabama may be totally unimportant to the people in California. So this system that allows us to have state governments to address lesser universal issues is what the framers established. And within a state, you also have county and municipal governments who can address even more things you "give a shit" about but perhaps your state is less concerned with.
You see... the genius of this system is, MOST people are ensured happiness and individual liberty. It is through this brilliant system our happy and free people built the greatest and most powerful nation that ever existed. Some will inevitably chime in here... oh yeah, what about the SLAVES? Okay... it was our system and our fundamental principles which ultimately prevailed in ending slavery. It took a while, we had to fight a bloody war, but eventually the principles of liberty prevailed.
They had different terms for it, but it's what would eventually become Socialism. That's why I used the term "latest greatest thing" ...it was the "innovative modern thinking" of the time and even some of our founding fathers were interested in it. They simply chose to go a different direction, toward freedom of the individual.
Freedom of the individual? Ironic when you consider they incorporated the continuation of slavery into the constitution.
What's wrong with the 18th Century?
Slavery and Autocracy
