"The Constitution Was Never Pro-Slavery"

[David Hartung]

"It was deliberately written to avoid establishing a legal precedent for
ownership of human beings"

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/05/06/the-constitution-was-never-pro-slavery/

[...]
The accusing finger that links slavery and the Constitution would have
surprised no one more than the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention. At the outbreak of the Revolution, every one of the newly
independent states had legalized slavery. (The numbers varied widely
from place to place: Georgia had 18,000 slaves, Pennsylvania 6,000,
Virginia 200,000, Massachusetts 5,200, and New York 17,000.)

But opinion about the moral legitimacy of slavery was shifting. Benjamin
Franklin bought and sold slaves in colonial Philadelphia, but by 1772 he
had begun denouncing slavery as “a constant butchery of the human
species” and the slave trade as a “pestilential, detestable traffic in
the bodies and souls of men.” New York founded a Manumission Society in
1785, while the Virginia Gazette in 1782 asked the Revolution’s most
logical question: “Whilst we are spilling our blood and exhausting our
treasure in defence of our own liberty, it would not perhaps be amiss,
to turn our eyes towards those of our fellow men now in bondage under
us. We say, ‘all men are equally entitled to liberty and the pursuit of
happiness’ but are we willing to grant this liberty to all men?”
[...]
When truculent slaveowners tried to insist that “slaves are property .
. . by the Constitution guaranteed,” John Quincy Adams just as
truculently replied that “the Constitution does not recognize slavery —
it contains no such word.” In fact, “a great circumlocution of words is
used merely to avoid the term slaves.” Any argument that would make the
Constitution a pro-slavery document has, on the evidence of the Framers’
generation, quite a boulder to roll up the hill.
[...]


Bernie Sanders: All Felons, Including Boston Marathon Bomber, Should Be
Able to Vote In Prison

Kamala Harris Vows to Tighten Gun Control Laws Through Executive Action
If Elected

Elizabeth Warren’s College Plan Is a Dance with Elves

The Impeachment Fantasy

Next Time, Use Congress to Investigate the President

Mexican Police Detain Hundreds of Central American Migrants

House Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Ex-WH Counsel McGahn

Pompeo: Length of Sanctions ‘Depends Solely’ on Iran’s Leaders

Donald Trump Will Need to Hand Over His Tax Returns

Supreme Court to Consider LGBT Job-Discrimination Cases

Bob Woodward: FBI, CIA Reliance on ‘Garbage’ Steele Dossier ‘Needs to Be
Investigated’

Henry Kissinger, Shouted Down at NYU, Addresses Yale’s WFB Society

The Earth: It’s Alive! It’s Alive!

Fix Free Speech or No Higher-Ed Act Reauthorization

Everybody Gets a Prime-Time, Cable-News Town Hall!

The Democrats Have Hurt Themselves by Lying about the Tax Cuts
Magazine | May 6, 2019, Issue
The Constitution Was Never Pro-Slavery
By Allen C. Guelzo

April 18, 2019 11:14 AM

(VisionsOfAmerica/Joe Sohm)
It was deliberately written to avoid establishing a legal precedent for
ownership of human beings

In the world of the woke, the U.S. Constitution is, simply on its face,
a document of racial oppression. No one less than Bernie Sanders has
declared that the United States is “a nation” that in “many ways was
created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist
principles.” Others are less sorry. Paul Finkelman, president of Gratz
College in Philadelphia, argues that the Constitution deliberately
intended to protect slavery, principally through its provisions for
interstate extradition of fugitives from “service” (Art. 4 IV, Sec. 2),
through the notorious three-fifths clause in Article I, Section 2, which
allowed states to count three-fifths of their slave populations toward
representation in Congress, and through the 20-year free pass given to
the slave trade (Art. I, Sec. 9).

In fact, for Finkelman, that’s only the beginning of the Constitution’s
love affair with slavery. Other offenses include the ban on export taxes
in Article I, Section 9 (written to give the products of slave labor an
open trade door); the limitation of “privileges and immunities” to
“citizens” in Article IV, Section 2 (since slaves could not be
“citizens”); the “full faith and credit” requirement between states in
Article IV, Section 1 (this required recognition of legalized slavery
everywhere in the nation); the power of “calling forth the Militia” to
“supress insurrections” in Article I, Section 8 (these “insurrections”
could naturally refer only to slave insurrections); and, of course, the
Electoral College, since its formula for determining electors was
swollen by the numbers of “three-fifths” slaves who would be counted and
thus granted slave states an extra advantage in electing presidents.

This is the reasoning that leads David Waldstreicher of the City
University of New York to claim that “of the 11 clauses in the
Constitution that deal with or have policy implications for slavery, 10
protect slave property and the powers of masters. Only one, the
international slave-trade clause, points to a possible future power by
which, after 20 years, slavery might be curtailed — and it didn’t work
out that way at all.” Even George Van Cleve, the most dispassionate
advocate of the “pro-slavery Constitution,” concludes (in A
Slaveholders’ Union) that the Constitution “was pro-slavery in its
politics, its economics, and its law.” By these reckonings, the
Constitution would have ensured slavery’s perpetuation into the
indefinite future had it not been for the fatal intervention of a civil war.

What often comes next is a demand to rid the Constitution of the
vestigial props for slavery that have somehow survived into our times,
usually beginning with the Electoral College. Or maybe, as with
University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson, it leads to a call
for junking the whole “We the People” business and starting over with a
new constitutional convention.

The accusing finger that links slavery and the Constitution would have
surprised no one more than the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention. At the outbreak of the Revolution, every one of the newly
independent states had legalized slavery. (The numbers varied widely
from place to place: Georgia had 18,000 slaves, Pennsylvania 6,000,
Virginia 200,000, Massachusetts 5,200, and New York 17,000.)

But opinion about the moral legitimacy of slavery was shifting. Benjamin
Franklin bought and sold slaves in colonial Philadelphia, but by 1772 he
had begun denouncing slavery as “a constant butchery of the human
species” and the slave trade as a “pestilential, detestable traffic in
the bodies and souls of men.” New York founded a Manumission Society in
1785, while the Virginia Gazette in 1782 asked the Revolution’s most
logical question: “Whilst we are spilling our blood and exhausting our
treasure in defence of our own liberty, it would not perhaps be amiss,
to turn our eyes towards those of our fellow men now in bondage under
us. We say, ‘all men are equally entitled to liberty and the pursuit of
happiness’ but are we willing to grant this liberty to all men?”

That question was also being asked among the members of the
Constitutional Convention when it assembled in Philadelphia in May 1787.
Of the Convention’s 55 delegates, 26 were slaveowners, most of them from
southern states — Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia — but a
smattering from New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. Still, many were
uneasy with the thought of giving slavery a continued lease on life in
the new republic. James Madison, who was the prime mover behind the
Convention, had long wondered whether emancipation “would certainly be
more consonant to the principles of liberty,” and, though the Madison
family depended on slave labor, he hoped “to depend as little as
possible on the labour of slaves.” When a slave who accompanied him to
Congress in Philadelphia in 1783 refused to return with Madison to
Virginia, Madison simply apprenticed him to a Philadelphia Quaker, since
he “cannot think of punishing him . . . merely for coveting that liberty
for which we have paid the price of so much blood, and have proclaimed
so often to be the right, & worthy the pursuit, of every human being.”

It was not, however, until August 8, well into the deliberations, that
the issue erupted on the floor of the Convention. In the midst of the
ongoing debate over representation in the new Congress, the Convention
was ready to agree to the formula used for Congress in the Articles of
Confederation (the three-fifths ratio) when Rufus King of New York
objected. “The admission of slaves” into a formula for representation
“was a most grating circumstance to his mind” and would only encourage
slaveowners to import more slaves, according to the Convention’s
minutes. He was seconded by the raffish Gouverneur Morris, who attacked
slavery wholesale as “a nefarious institution” that had “the curse of
heaven on the States where it prevailed.” Slavery was “a sacrifice of
every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity,” and Morris
ringingly declared that “he would sooner submit himself to a tax for
paying for all the negroes in the U. States, than saddle posterity with
such a Constitution.”

Morris drew an immediate response from South Carolina’s John Rutledge,
who warned that “religion & humanity had nothing to do with this
question.” If the Convention wanted to meddle with slavery, then the
“question” would become “whether the Southn. States shall or shall not
be parties to the Union.” Anxiously, other members sought to seal the
breach. Connecticut’s Roger Sherman hastily assured Rutledge that “he
disapproved of the slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of
the right to import slaves, . . . he thought it best to leave the matter
as we find it.” But this concession was worth making because it actually
offered so little. Slavery, Sherman insisted, was dying out on its own:
“The abolition of Slavery seemed to be going on in the U.S.” and “the
good sense of the several States would probably by degrees compleat it.”
Oliver Ellsworth agreed. “As population increases poor laborers will be
so plenty as to render slaves useless,” so that “slavery in time will
not be a speck in our Country.”

But later that month, slavery reappeared in debate — although it now
came in the form of a deal aimed at allaying the hostility of King and
Morris toward importing slaves. Congress would be empowered to tax slave
imports and, after 1808, prohibit slave importation completely (although
the wording of the provision gently tiptoed around using the term
“slave”). An additional provision made the extradition of fugitive
slaves a state obligation — although again gingerly applying it to all
“those held to service” rather than to slaves. On the surface, a great
compromise appeared to have been struck, and southerners went home
congratulating themselves that they had “a security that the general
government can never emancipate [slaves], . . . for no such authority is
granted.”

But they missed the big picture. As Roger Sherman insisted, the
Constitution might contain concessions to the states regarding the
existence of slavery, but nothing in it acknowledged “men to be
property.” As “dishonorable to the National character” as the
concessions were, added James Madison, it would be intolerable “to admit
in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” And
so the fundamental basis on which the entire notion of slavery rested
was barred at the Constitution’s door, even while its practical
existence slipped through.

Just how much distance the Framers wished to put between slavery and the
new Constitution emerged even before the Convention adjourned. On July
13, 1787, the final Congress under the Articles of Confederation,
sitting in New York, adopted the Northwest Ordinance as the instrument
for organizing the territory ceded by Great Britain around the Great
Lakes. The Ordinance’s sixth section provided that “there shall be
neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory,
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted.” The Ordinance did not at once liberate slaves
living in the Northwest (especially the slaves belonging to old French
colonial families along the Mississippi River), but it did turn the face
of the future away from slavery.

As the Constitution moved toward ratification, one member of the
Massachusetts ratifying convention recognized the same dynamic at work
in the new federal instrument. “It would not do to abolish slavery . . .
in a moment,” conceded Bostonian Thomas Dawes (whose cousin, William,
had ridden with Paul Revere). Nevertheless, even if “slavery is not
smitten with an apoplexy, yet it has received a mortal wound and will
die of a consumption.” And the Pennsylvania abolitionist Benjamin Rush
rejoiced that, by refusing to include slavery or “slaves in this
constitution,” the Framers had saved the republic from “the very words”
that “would contaminate the glorious fabric of American liberty and
government.” The “cloud” of anti-slavery, “which a few years ago was no
larger than a man’s hand, has descended in plentiful dews and at last
cover’d every part of our land.”

And so it seemed. The new Congress created by the Constitution was in a
constant ferment from petitions “teasing and pestering them with
something about slavery,” and one Georgia representative grumbled that
“it was the fashion of the day to favor the liberty of slaves.” In its
first three decades, Congress received proposals to tax slave imports,
impose regulations (including prohibitions on the use of American ports
or shipyards for equipping slave ships) on the slave trade, extend the
Northwest Ordinance’s ban on slavery to the Mississippi territory, and
impose gradual emancipation on the Louisiana territory (after its
acquisition under Thomas Jefferson in 1803), as well as petitions to
“undo the heavy burthens, and prepare the way for the oppressed to go
free, that every yoke may be broken.” When truculent slaveowners tried
to insist that “slaves are property . . . by the Constitution
guaranteed,” John Quincy Adams just as truculently replied that “the
Constitution does not recognize slavery — it contains no such word.” In
fact, “a great circumlocution of words is used merely to avoid the term
slaves.” Any argument that would make the Constitution a pro-slavery
document has, on the evidence of the Framers’ generation, quite a
boulder to roll up the hill.

But rolling that boulder was what slaveholders nearly accomplished in
the generation after the Framing, and they did so not because the
Constitution sanctioned slavery but because of cotton. South Carolina’s
prime champion of slavery, John Caldwell Calhoun, conceded that “many in
the South once believed that it was a moral and political evil.” But
times had changed, and they had changed largely because cotton — the
preeminent commodity grown by slave labor in the American South — had
been transformed by the Industrial Revolution into the white gold of the
transatlantic economy. As late as 1809, cotton was only a secondary crop
for southern agriculture; on the eve of the Civil War, it accounted for
27.5 percent of all United States exports and 57.7 percent of
agricultural exports.

The South now saw slavery “in its true light,” Calhoun said, and
regarded it as “the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in
the world.” In the kingdom of cotton, the Constitution was a relic.
Guarantees of free speech and a free press were disregarded in the
South. Anyone who proposed a discussion of slavery, wrote Alvan Stewart,
an anti-slavery lawyer, “may then provoke a syllogism of feathers, or a
deduction of tar.” Missouri senator Thomas Hart Benton congratulated
mobs that attacked abolitionists for exerting “a vigor beyond all law,”
saying that “they had obeyed the enactments not of the statutebook, but
of the heart.” And so long as he agreed with their spirit, “he cared
nothing for laws written in a book.” In 1836, the Virginia legislature
adopted a statute decreeing the imprisonment of any member of
anti-slavery society so unwary as to enter the Old Dominion. That same
year, Calhoun proposed a post-office bill that would have allowed
postmasters to destroy abolitionist publications — only to have it fail,
narrowly, by a vote of 19 to 25 in the Senate. They were more successful
in passing a “gag rule” to prevent the reading of anti-slavery petitions
in the House of Representatives. The resolution stayed in force until 1844.

In the southern argument, the states were “as independent of each other
as they were before the Constitution was formed,” and in some places
even more so. South Carolina, declared one state legislator, was no
longer a republic but an oligarchy, “an odious cunning, tyrannical
intriguing oligarchy,” determined to “rule or ruin every man who tries
to think, speak or act for himself. Not that this departure from
constitutional government was seriously opposed; to the contrary, it was
the wave of the future.”

“The time must come,” warned Thomas Roderick Dew in 1836, when slavery
would rescue the nation from its outdated laws. “Domestic slavery, such
as ours, is the only institution which I know of, that can secure that
spirit of equality among freemen, so necessary to the true and genuine
feeling of republicanism.”

But slavery’s opponents just as vigorously demanded recognition of the
Constitution’s anti-slavery import. Senator William Henry Seward of New
York defended the Constitution as the shrine of “perpetual, organic,
universal” freedom; slavery had only a “temporary, accidental, partial
and incongruous” presence in it, and only because slavery had the
protection of state, not federal law. The Constitution devotes “the
national domain” to “union, to justice, to defense, to welfare and
liberty” — not to slavery. Ohio governor Salmon Chase (who was known as
the “attorney general for fugitive slaves”) declared that “the founders
of the Republic in framing our institutions, were careful to give no
national sanction” to slavery; “all recognition of the rightfulness of
slaveholding, and all national sanction of the practice, was carefully
excluded from the instrument.”

Above all, Abraham Lincoln, in his great Cooper Union speech in February
1860, appealed to the Framers as proof that the Constitution “marked”
slavery “as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and
protected only, because of and so far as its actual presence among us
makes that toleration and protection a necessity.” Far from justifying
slaveholding as a right, “the Constitution . . . is literally silent
about any such right,” and any impartial inspection of the Constitution
“will show that the right of property in a slave is not ‘distinctly and
expressly affirmed’ in it.” Like Madison, Lincoln resisted the “idea”
that “the Constitution” sanctioned the pretense “that there could be
property in man.”
[...]

Then this happened:
[...]
And when push came to shove, the slaveholders conceded the point. They
seceded from the Union and wrote the kind of constitution the Framers
had not written, one declaring at last that “no . . . law denying or
impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
[...]

And lost.

[...]
To read the Constitution as pro-slavery, in the manner of Finkelman,
Waldstreicher, and even Sanders, requires a suspension of disbelief that
only playwrights and morticians could admire.
[...]

The bottom line is simple, those who claim the Constitution is
pro-slavery are operating from either ignorance, or a desire to
deliberately mislead.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 4/23/2019 7:15 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> "It was deliberately written to avoid establishing a legal precedent for
> ownership of human beings"
>
> https://www.nationalreview.com/

The subject line is a lie. The 3/5th rule and the electoral college were
pro-slavery.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <cJydnXOGUu-PgyLB...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "It was deliberately written to avoid establishing a legal precedent for
> ownership of human beings"

Article 1 Section 9
1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress
prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be
imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[ed...@post.com]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 10:15:52 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
> "It was deliberately written to avoid establishing a legal precedent for
> ownership of human beings"
>
> https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/05/06/the-constitution-was-never-pro-slavery/

>

> The bottom line is simple, those who claim the Constitution is
> pro-slavery are operating from either ignorance, or a desire to
> deliberately mislead.

Then there shouldn't have been any slaves after the Constitution was adopted. How do you explain that, Mississippi genius?

[milt....@gmail.com]

Until the 13th Amendment, the Constitution was pro-slavery. Slaves were three-fifths of a human being, just so slaves states could get more representation in Congress and more electors in the Electoral College. How is that NOT pro-slavery?

[Anonymous Reactionary]

milt....@gmail.com:

> Until the 13th Amendment, the Constitution was pro-slavery. Slaves
> were three-fifths of a human being, just so slaves states could get
> more representation in Congress and more electors in the Electoral
> College. How is that NOT pro-slavery?

The Constitution made no judgement as to the "humanity" of negro slaves,
the vast majority of whom would do NOTHING productive except under the whip.

That said, I agree. The Southern states wanted ALL slaves counted toward
representation, and that's damn well what they should have gotten.

If the South had more power, maybe we wouldn't have such a bad negro
problem today.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 4/23/19 1:21 PM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com:
>
>> Until the 13th Amendment, the Constitution was pro-slavery. Slaves
>> were three-fifths of a human being, just so slaves states could get
>> more representation in Congress and more electors in the Electoral
>> College. How is that NOT pro-slavery?
> The Constitution made no judgement as to the "humanity" of negro slaves,
> the vast majority of whom would do NOTHING productive except under the whip.
>
> That said, I agree. The Southern states wanted ALL slaves counted toward
> representation, and that's damn well what they should have gotten.

Today the Democrats want all illegals counted toward representation so
that the BIG CITY PLANTATIONS that harvest votes for Democrats will have
more representation than there is needed for the actual number of United
States Citizens.





--
That's Karma

[David Hartung]

On 4/23/19 12:21 PM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com:
>
>> Until the 13th Amendment, the Constitution was pro-slavery. Slaves
>> were three-fifths of a human being, just so slaves states could get
>> more representation in Congress and more electors in the Electoral
>> College. How is that NOT pro-slavery?
>
> The Constitution made no judgement as to the "humanity" of negro slaves,
> the vast majority of whom would do NOTHING productive except under the whip.

Yes I know, you are a racist.

> That said, I agree. The Southern states wanted ALL slaves counted toward
> representation, and that's damn well what they should have gotten.

Only if those slaves were also given the vote.

> If the South had more power, maybe we wouldn't have such a bad negro
> problem today.

Racist.

[David Hartung]

On 4/23/19 12:21 PM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:

This post is so blatantly stupid, that I have to wonder if one of our
resident leftists hasn't posted this in a attmpt to get conservatives to
agree with it.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 4/23/19 11:06 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <cJydnXOGUu-PgyLB...@giganews.com>,
> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "It was deliberately written to avoid establishing a legal precedent for
>> ownership of human beings"
>
> Article 1 Section 9
> 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now
> existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress
> prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be
> imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
>

You want to tax Mexico for importing undocumented illegal slaves into
the United States? That is an original idea... One that TRUMP should
use. It's still on the books.

I think $10 per head is pretty cheap, suppose we adjust that for
inflation from 1776 to 20019.... then charge that fee to the Mexican
Government.


30 Million illegal slaves at $???? (I think that works out to $5 Million
dollars each) times the 30 million illegals here already....


$1,500,000,000,000,000

That's more than Mexico's NET WORTH ISN'T IT?

They better start digging under the cushions of their Presidential couch
to look for all the loose change in Mexico. Or send the word out to the
Latinos that they will give each illegal that passed through Mexico into
the USA a million dollars to come home to Mexico..... ;)


--
That's Karma

[Tom Sr.]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 1:47:32 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
> On 4/23/19 12:21 PM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
> > The Constitution made no judgement as to the "humanity" of negro slaves,
> > the vast majority of whom would do NOTHING productive except under the whip.

> --

>
> Yes I know, you are a racist.

Yes, we know *you* are also a racist, David Hartung:

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:30:47 AM UTC-5, Tom Sr. wrote:
> David Hartung said in November he was voting for LYING RACIST Hyde-Smith.
> (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/espy$20david|sort:date/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/32j_F1K6GUk/z-ApLAPpAwAJ)

--------
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2018/nov/23/hyde-smith-attended-all-white-seg-academy-avoid-in/

*Hyde-Smith Attended All-White ‘Seg Academy’ to Avoid Integration*
by Ashton Pittman
Friday, November 23, 2018

JACKSON, Miss. — U.S. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith attended and graduated from a segregation academy that was set up so that white parents could avoid having to send their children to schools with black students, a yearbook reveals.

A group photo in the 1975 edition of The Rebel—the Lawrence County Academy Yearbook—illustrates the point. High-school cheerleaders smile at the camera as they lie on the ground in front of their pom-poms, fists supporting their heads. In the center, the mascot, dressed in what appears to be an outfit designed to mimic that of a Confederate general, offers a salute as she holds up a large Confederate flag.

Third from the right on the ground is a sophomore girl with short hair, identified in the caption as Cindy Hyde.

The photo, and the recently appointed Republican senator’s attendance at one of the many private schools that was set up to bypass integration, adds historic context to comments she made in recent weeks about a “public hanging” that drew condemnations from across the political spectrum.

*‘No Doubt That’s Why Those Schools Were Set Up’

Lawrence County Academy opened in the small town of Monticello, Miss., about 60 miles south of Jackson, in 1970. That same year, another segregation school, Brookhaven Academy, opened in nearby Lincoln County. Years later, Hyde-Smith would send her daughter, Anna-Michael, to that academy.

Hyde-Smith graduated from Lawrence County Academy in 1977, meaning she would have already been in school elsewhere at the time the academy opened.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ordered public schools to desegregate in 1954 and again in 1955 to do so with “all deliberate speed,” Mississippi slow-walked the integration of its schools as long as possible [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-integration-failed-jacksons-public-schools-196/], trying a variety of “school choice” schemes, state legislation and court cases to stop full integration, including arguing that white kids should not go to school with so-called "genetically inferior" black students [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/232/241/1748927/].

Fifteen years after school integration become the law of the land, the Supreme Court ordered the immediate desegregation of public schools in 1969, and Mississippi Gov. John Bell Williams ordered that public schools integrate when students returned from Christmas break in early 1970. “So let us accept the inevitable that we are going to suffer one way or the other, both white and black, as a result of the court's decree,” he said at the time [https://www.nytimes.com/1970/01/04/archives/governor-of-mississippi-backs-private-schools-speaks-as-total.html].

It is no coincidence that the academy Hyde-Smith attended opened the very year after the highest court’s ultimatum, as did others around the state. The day he announced his compliance, Williams made it a priority to focus on private schools as an alternative for white students whose parents were not keen on their children sharing classrooms with black children. The Legislature even approved private-school vouchers for white families to offset the costs of sending their kids to whites-only private schools.

*Rep. Shows: 'I'd Do Anything for Her'

There’s “no doubt that’s why those schools were set up,” said former U.S. Rep Ronnie Shows, a Democrat who was Hyde’s junior high basketball coach at Lawrence County Academy in the 1970s. He served as the representative for Mississippi’s fourth congressional district from 1999 to 2003.

“She was always a great person back in those days,” Shows told the Jackson Free Press Friday. “I called Cindy and talked to her about this campaign, and I told her I loved her, and I’d do anything for her.”

He will not be supporting the senator’s bid for re-election Tuesday, though. When a video surfaced on Nov. 11 of Hyde-Smith saying she would “be on the front row” if a constituent asked her to go to “a public hanging,” it was just another black eye for perceptions of the state, he said today. If her Democratic opponent, Mike Espy, is not elected, Shows said, “it just reinforces” the worst stereotypes about the state [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2018/sep/19/it-only-matters-what-you-answer-jfp-interview-mike/].

Espy, a former congressman who served as U.S. secretary of agriculture from 1993 to 1994 under President Bill Clinton, would be the first black U.S. senator from Mississippi since the post-Civil War Reconstruction era.

“I told her, ‘There’s nothing I couldn’t do for you, but I can’t do this for you,’” Shows said he told Hyde-Smith about voting for her.

After Lamar White, an independent journalist who writes the 'Bayou Brief', published the “public hanging” video, people all across the state, including many African American leaders, pointed to the state’s history of lynchings that targeted African Americans [https://www.bayoubrief.com/2018/11/13/cindy-hyde-smith-was-not-telling-a-joke/]. Mississippi was the worst perpetrator of racially motivated lynchings of any state in the South. Hyde-Smith’s campaign responded by saying the “public hanging” remark was just an “expression of regard” for a supporter and called the concerns “ridiculous” [https://www.apnews.com/ee79cac2b75f4af9afe4b6ad44d1fa8d].

* ‘It Was All About the White Guy, Right?’

Many Mississippians scratched their heads. It seemed no one had ever heard the alleged colloquialism, “If he invited me to a public hanging, I’d be on the front row.” 'The New York Times', though, interviewed a southern linguist who said the expression was used in the late 1800s and early 1900s — when lynchings were most common—but had mostly died out by 1950 [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/12/us/politics/public-hanging-cindy-hyde-smith.html]. Hyde-Smith was born in 1959.

Shows, though, said he recalled hearing the expression growing up.

“I heard it in passing, not as a joke,” he said. “Coming up back then, I didn’t know the impact until I got older and started reading to find out, and I was shocked. You’ve got to remember that we didn’t study black history then—it was all about the white guy, right? I’m not making excuses. It’s crazy running for office in Mississippi to say that.”

Hyde-Smith refused to comment on the video for over a week, but finally offered a pre-written milquetoast apology at the Nov. 20 debate with Espy, only to cast the blame on him and accuse him of twisting her words for “nothing but personal and political gain” [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mississippi-sen-cindy-hyde-smith-apologizes-to-anyone-offended-by-comments-about-public-hanging-as-opponent-mike-espy-says-she-gave-the-state-a-black-eye/2018/11/20/6eeb3a14-ed0c-11e8-baac-2a674e91502b_story.html.]

In fact, Espy and his campaign first learned of the video when the 'Jackson Free Press' called them for a comment shortly after it surfaced [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2018/nov/11/hyde-smiths-public-hanging-quip-bombs-state-most-l/].

Shows attributed Hyde-Smith's refusal to offer a proper apology to her “following Trump” — the president whom she’s clung to throughout the campaign and whom she reminds voters she has voted with “100 percent of the time” [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/cindy-hyde-smith/].

“Have you ever heard Trump back off something?” Shows said.

Even though Shows has endorsed her opponent and thinks her victory would be a stain on the state, he does not think of the woman he once coached as a bigot.

“I don’t think she’s a racist,” Shows said. “I just think she’s got a lot of constituents who are racist. You know we have them.”

* She ‘Should Not Get a Pass’

The yearbook, provided to the 'Jackson Free Press' by a former student who asked not to be named, is one of very few pieces of evidence still available that identify the segregation academy as the recently appointed senator’s alma mater. While Hyde-Smith regularly touts her subsequent education at Copiah-Lincoln Community College and the University of Southern Mississippi, her high school has been conspicuously absent from the senator’s official statements, speeches and public biographies. Even her Facebook account suggests her education began with community college.

In that reticence about her high-school years, Hyde-Smith is like the man who appointed her to the U.S. Senate seat, Gov. Phil Bryant, who attended one of the Citizens Council academies set up around Jackson by the virulently racist organization for white families fleeing newly integrated schools. Local newspapers treated announcements from those schools about sports and other honors the same as public schools, while running photos of children with a “Citizens Council: States Rights, Racial Integrity” placard in front of them [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2017/nov/14/lies-scientific-racists-told-about-jacksons-childr/].

Bryant also does not publicize that he attended Council McCluer School in south Jackson, which a local historian confirmed through yearbooks for a column in the 'Jackson Free Press' last year [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2017/feb/15/council-schools-todays-fight-public-ed/].

Former Mississippi Democratic Party Chairman Rickey Cole, who knew Hyde-Smith when she was a Democratic state senator before she became Republican in 2010 to run for state agriculture commissioner, said Hyde-Smith would have known why she was at a school like Lawrence County Academy.

“When the public schools in Mississippi were ordered desegregated, many thousands of white families cobbled together what they could laughingly call a school to send their children to for no other reason except they didn’t want them to be around n-words or to be treated or behave as equal to black people,” Cole said.

Cole attended a public school in Ellisville, Miss., and recalls making fun of the kids in town whose parents drove them 26 miles to Heidelberg Academy and back—more than 100 miles a day—just so they could have a substandard education with teachers who often had little more than a high-school diploma.

“The only reason people of my generation and Cindy’s generation went to segregation academies was to keep the white kids and the black kids apart,” said Cole, who added that he is about six or seven years younger than Hyde-Smith.

The student who provided the 'Jackson Free Press' with the yearbook said she realized her parents had sent her to Lawrence County Academy to keep her from going to school with black students sometime while she was still a student.

“That was just between the family, and we found out when we were old enough to question it,” the student said. “That’s how our parents felt. I didn’t learn it from anyone in the administration.”

The student was younger than Hyde-Smith, and though she knew of her, she said she was too young to have any sort of relationship with the future politician.

Lawrence County Academy shut down in the late 1980s due to dwindling attendance—one of the now-defunct early schools that sprang up in response to integration. Among those that survived, though, was Brookhaven Academy, where Hyde-Smith chose to send her daughter, Anna-Michael. Many started recasting themselves as Christian academies, later admitting students of color; Council McCluer, for instance, became Hillcrest Academy.

Cole said Hyde-Smith “should not get a pass” for her attendance at a segregation academy, nor for later sending her daughter to one.

“Socially, instinctively and intuitively, I know why these things happened, because it’s what we all lived through,” Cole said. “For the younger generation, though, this will be big news to them. Hell, it might even be big news to Cindy’s daughter. That’s the way it always was, and we were very much separate and unequal.”

As of Friday night, the Hyde-Smith campaign was not prepared to comment on this story because it was too late for campaign communications director Melissa Scallan to speak to the senator, but this story will be updated if Hyde-Smith does decide to comment.

* The Academy and the Council

Even to this day, Brookhaven Academy, from which Hyde-Smith’s daughter graduated in 2017, is almost all-white. In the 2015-2016 school year, Brookhaven Academy enrolled 386 white children, five Asian children, and just one black child, the National Center for Education Statistics shows [https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/privateschoolsearch/school_detail.asp?Search=1&Zip=39601&Miles=10&ID=00736196]. That’s despite the fact that Census statistics show Brookhaven is 55 percent black and 43 percent white, per 2016 Census estimates [https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk].

In Trent Watts’ 2008 book, “White Masculinity in the Recent South,” the historian and Brookhaven native recounts an episode in which tensions over the local private academy came to the fore [https://books.google.com/books?id=03_SyPiMaroC&pg=PA128&dq=%22brookhaven+academy%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvsaK2-eveAhUSDKwKHb0zD8UQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=noxious&f=false].

“People, white and black, but whites especially, did not want bad publicity for Brookhaven,” Watts wrote. “They didn’t care if someone threw a rock, as long as nobody saw who threw it.”

In 1988, Brookhaven High School hired a football coach named Hollis Rutter, who had worked previously at Brookhaven Academy, and the veneer of colorblindness was rent in two. White Brookhavenites were taken aback when black residents decried the decision to bring in a coach from a segregation academy.

"This association with noxious institutions caused practically all black Brookhavenites to perceive Rutter as at least a tacit supporter of segregation,” Watts wrote. “In their eyes, his authority as coach and his privilege to mold young men was fatally compromised; what masculinity gave, race (or rather, black perceptions of his racism) took away.”

Black ministers, NAACP leaders and black students banded together for a 10-week boycott of every facet of the town. That April, 200 black students in the school district walked out of class, with students at Brookhaven High removing the state flag from the flagpole outside the school as they went.

The high school’s boys’ basketball team was reduced from 24 players to just eight, and the ninth-grade basketball team’s entire season was cancelled because there was no longer a team at all. White nationalists descended on the town to counter-protest. White business leaders, though, panicked, and soon convinced the school board to rescind its decision to hire Rutter so that regular life could resume.

While the town’s white residents felt blindsided by the outrage over the hiring, it did not happen in a vacuum. Even before desegregation brought the advent of segregation academies, Brookhaven had inflicted its own special brand of pain on its black residents.

* Led by the (White) Citizens Council

A major force behind the segregation academies was the white-supremacist organization officially called the Citizens Council and routinely referred to as the "White Citizens Council." Brookhaven was the home of Judge Tom Brady, a white supremacist who authored “Black Monday,” the organization’s 92-page semi-official handbook soon after the Brown v. Board decision [https://archive.org/details/1954Brady/page/n]. In it, he made the case that those with “negroid” blood were inherently inferior to white people. The booklet functioned as a guide for the founding of the Citizens Council in July 1954 by Robert “Tut” Patterson, a former Mississippi State University football star.

In the February 1972 issue of the Council’s official publication, The Citizen, the racist organization described its work to enroll white children in private schools.

“It is in Mississippi that thousands of white parents have enrolled their children in the Council School Foundation's private school system rather than accept the degradation of forced race-mixing, and mass bussing of pupils as ordered for public schools by the federal courts,” the article reads.

In a 1974 issue, The Citizen touted a program to help white parents in Brookhaven pay for their children to attend Brookhaven Academy.

The Citizens Councils of America, based in Jackson and run for years by William J. “Bill” Simmons, the previous owner of the Fairview Inn, officially folded in 1989. By that time, another organization started using its national mailing list. The Council of Conservative Citizens, launched in 1988, held similar white-supremacist views against miscegenation (insisting that race-mixing would destroy “racial integrity”) and pushed stories about black-on-white crime to hype the violence of African Americans. That group raised money to support the state’s segregation academies every year at the Blackhawk Rally in Carroll County, one of the state’s two most popular gatherings for political campaign speeches, alongside the Neshoba County Fair [https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/14/us/lott-and-shadow-of-a-pro-white-group.html].

Mississippi politicians from former U.S. Sen. Trent Lott [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2002/dec/18/our-boy-trent/?templates=desktop], Gov. Haley Barbour [http://ttp//www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2004/jan/11/haleys-choice-native-son-barbour-comes-home/], and Gov. Kirk Fordice [https://www.adl.org/news/article/the-council-of-conservative-citizens-declining-bastion-of-hate], to current Mississippi Senate Tourism Chairwoman Lydia Chassaniol [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2009/jun/24/guess-whos-coming-to-jackson/] have spoken to or had close associations with the CofCC.

The Council of Conservative Citizens is also the organization that Dylann Roof cited in his racist “manifesto” as the inspiration for his massacre of nine black worshipers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., in 2015 [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2015/jun/22/terrorists-politicians-council-conservative-citize/].

* ‘She Was Scared to Death of Race’

Brookhaven’s oppressive race history, like anywhere else in Mississippi, did not begin with the academy.

On Aug. 13, 1955, Lamar Smith, a black civil-rights activist, was helping black voters fill out absentee ballots for a local election so they could avoid the harassment of voting in person when three men began shouting at him. An altercation broke out, and one of the men, Noah Smith—an unrelated white man—drew a pistol and shot Lamar Smith in front of a crowd of dozens of witnesses [https://blackpast.org/aah/smith-lamar-1892-1955].

Neither Noah Smith nor the two men who were with him were ever indicted for the slaying; the witnesses all told a grand jury they had not seen a crime.

Against this backdrop, Cindy Hyde was born four years later.

Brookhaven at the time of her birth and youth might seem like a crucible for the story of race in America, but according to the ex-chairman of her former party, race has always made Hyde-Smith uncomfortable.

Cole recalled her time as a Democratic state senator, and said he believed the demographic makeup of Brookhaven is part of the reason why she is uncomfortable. It was also during the time when members of the old racist Democratic Party were still transitioning into the new Republican Party that realigned to welcome old “Dixiecrats” frustrated that national Democrats supported civil-rights legislation in the 1960s.

“She was scared to death of race because she was a Democrat in a district where she depended on black votes, and she knew that she had to at least give the appearance of being friendly to African American constituents, but she was mortally terrified of being overly identified with black constituents,” Cole said, adding that “the legislators she hung with were white legislators.”

After getting elected to the Mississippi Senate in 1999, Hyde-Smith took up an effort to pass a law to rename a highway after Confederate President Jefferson Davis. While some have pointed to that as evidence of her affinity for the “Lost Cause” revisionist romanticization of the Civil War, Cole takes a more pedestrian view of her actions [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-i-learned-about-cult-lost-cause-180968426/]. More likely, he said, someone from the Sons of Confederate Veterans asked her to do it, because “it wouldn’t occur to her” to do it on her own [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2015/sep/09/mississippi-flag-symbol-hate-or-reconciliation/].

“If you asked Cindy what time it is, she would say, ‘I don’t know, what do you think?’” Cole said. “Playing both sides, that’s what she does.”

Cole said that probably explains why Hyde-Smith is one of just two U.S. senators not to display the state flag outside her office in the Washington, D.C., Capitol. Because of its Confederate symbolism, Mississippi’s other U.S. senator, Roger Wicker, does not display the flag either, and called for it to be changed in 2016.

Wicker doesn’t display it, so she doesn’t display it,” Cole posited. After the Nov. 20 debate, Espy spoke with the press. Hyde-Smith, though, sent Wicker out to speak on her behalf, insisting she had to get back to her husband.

Cole suspects Hyde-Smith left the Democratic Party and ran for agriculture commissioner as a Republican because she realized it had become “too closely identified with black people,” he said. “Republicans were either going to beat her in that state senate race, or she was not going to get that nomination again.”

* 'The South Was Right'

Gov. Bryant, who appointed Hyde-Smith to the U.S. Senate after Sen. Thad Cochran resigned due to health in April, is a dues-paying members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Every April, the 'Jackson Free Press' revealed in February 2016, Bryant proclaims “Confederate Heritage Month” [http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2016/feb/24/mississippi-governor-declares-april-confederate-hi/].

When Hyde-Smith’s daughter graduated from Brookhaven Academy in 2017, Bryant appeared to give a commencement address to her class of just 34 students as a gift. A story from 'The Daily Leader' at the time features a photo of Bryant, Anna-Michael Smith and Cindy Hyde-Smith all astride horses as they take part in the Dixie National Rodeo [https://www.dailyleader.com/2017/05/09/governor-to-speak-at-ba-graduation/]. It is an event Hyde-Smith’s farm-raised family participates in yearly, alongside people of other races, including African Americans.

Hyde-Smith shared a series of photos on her Facebook page in 2016 of her and her daughter at the parade. In several of the photos, though, other attendees carry Confederate flags. Her photos included a group of men dressed as Confederate soldiers marching with the flag of the Dixie Alliance, a group that maintains that the South was right to secede from the union to enter the Civil War.

“Since the end of the War for Southern Independence (some call it the Civil War),” reads the Dixie Alliance website, “decades of time, Leftist influences, and unconstitutional federal actions have proven that the South was right to exercise its moral and legal grounds to declare independence” [http://www.mydixie.org/]. Through its work, the group says, “Leftist influences will decline, division and hatred will subside, and the symbols and monuments of the Confederacy of America will be preserved.”

Earlier this week, a photo Hyde-Smith posted on Facebook in 2014 surfaced, showing her wearing a Confederate uniform as she toured Beauvoir in Biloxi—the historic home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis where you can buy books like “The South Was Right” [http://www.visitbeauvoir.org/gift-shop]. “Mississippi history at its finest,” Hyde-Smith captioned the photo. Beauvoir is owned and managed by members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who, like the Alliance, seek to recast the South’s role in the Civil War in a positive light [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/06/pride-and-prejudice-the-americans-who-fly-the-confederate-flag].

Hyde-Smith has made no explicit endorsement of groups like the Dixie Alliance, nor has she made it a cause to defend the state flag or Confederate monuments. Like segregation academies, Confederate uniforms, Dixie parades, and colloquialisms that recall Mississippi’s history of lynching, however, it is another detail of her life that demonstrates the ubiquitous, and at times banal, nature of the role of white-supremacist culture in her upbringing and adult life.

* Hyde-Smith Faces Espy in Debate, Nov. 27 Runoff

No matter who wins, the Nov. 27 runoff will be historic. When Gov. Phil Bryant appointed her, Hyde-Smith became the first woman to represent Mississippi in Congress and could be the first duly elected come November. If Espy wins, he would be the first black U.S. senator from the state since Reconstruction, when Sens. Hiram Revels and Blanche K. Bruce represented the state in Washington, D.C., until the end of Reconstruction brought the disenfranchisement of black voters.

Around 900,000 Mississippians voted in this year's election—a midterm turnout record of 40 percent, up from 29.7 percent in 2014. Anyone who registered to vote by Oct. 29 will be eligible to vote in the runoff, even if they could not vote in the Nov. 6 election. Voters must have a valid form of photo ID, such as a driver's license or student ID. The Secretary of State's website has a full list of acceptable forms of ID. Polls are open in Mississippi from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
-----

Ashton Pittman covers politics and elections for the 'Jackson Free Press'. Donna Ladd also contributed to this report.
----------


. . .

[Just Wondering]

On 4/23/2019 11:51 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 4/23/19 11:06 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <cJydnXOGUu-PgyLB...@giganews.com>,
>>   David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "It was deliberately written to avoid establishing a legal precedent for
>>> ownership of human beings"
>>
>> Article 1 Section 9
>> 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now
>> existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
>> Congress
>> prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or
>> duty may be
>> imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
>>
> You want to tax Mexico for importing undocumented illegal slaves into
> the United States?  That is an original idea... One that TRUMP should
> use.  It's still on the books.
>
> I think $10 per head is pretty cheap, suppose we adjust that for
> inflation from 1776 to 20019....  then charge that fee to the Mexican
> Government.

20019? Eighteen thousand years into the future? :)

[milton...@gmail.com]

Ww... whattaya know... a Trump supporter.

[milton...@gmail.com]

Actual conservatives would never agree with that. YOU are not a conservative.

[BeamMeUpScotty]

On 4/23/19 2:02 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 4/23/2019 11:51 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 4/23/19 11:06 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <cJydnXOGUu-PgyLB...@giganews.com>,
>>>   David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "It was deliberately written to avoid establishing a legal precedent
>>>> for
>>>> ownership of human beings"
>>>
>>> Article 1 Section 9
>>> 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now
>>> existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
>>> Congress
>>> prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or
>>> duty may be
>>> imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
>>>
>> You want to tax Mexico for importing undocumented illegal slaves into
>> the United States?  That is an original idea... One that TRUMP should
>> use.  It's still on the books.
>>
>> I think $10 per head is pretty cheap, suppose we adjust that for
>> inflation from 1776 to 20019....  then charge that fee to the Mexican
>> Government.
>
> 20019?  Eighteen thousand years into the future?    :)
>

2019... an obvious typo, but I'll take your suggestion and suggest that
we charge several years into the future since it will take time for them
to all leave so inflate the TAX or DUTY to 2020 dollars, given Obama's
Federal Reserve money printing the inflation is likely to be unpredictable.

>>
>> 30 Million illegal slaves at $???? (I think that works out to $5
>> Million dollars each) times the 30 million illegals here already....
>>
>>
>> $1,500,000,000,000,000
>>
>> That's more than Mexico's NET WORTH ISN'T IT?
>>
>> They better start digging under the cushions of their Presidential
>> couch to look for all the loose change in Mexico.  Or send the word
>> out to the Latinos that they will give each illegal that passed
>> through Mexico into the USA a million dollars to come home to
>> Mexico..... ;)
>>
>>
>

--
That's Karma

[Rudy Canoza]

On 4/23/2019 10:47 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> On 4/23/19 12:21 PM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
>> milt....@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Until the 13th Amendment, the Constitution was pro-slavery. Slaves
>>> were three-fifths of a human being, just so slaves states could get
>>> more representation in Congress and more electors in the Electoral
>>> College. How is that NOT pro-slavery?
>>
>> The Constitution made no judgement as to the "humanity" of negro slaves,
>> the vast majority of whom would do NOTHING productive except under the whip.
>
> Yes I know, you are a racist.

Fuck off. You fail when you try to play the racist card.

Why *would* slaves be productive except under duress? They wouldn't.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:sb6dnYtb2P2DzSLB...@giganews.com:

You of all people dare to accuse
others of "blatantly stupid" posts?




"The same people who seem to desire same
sex marriage, are also those who have
destroyed traditional marriage."
David Hartung, May 15 2018
http://tinyurl.com/y9lchucu

[Anonymous Reactionary]

David Hartung:

> On 4/23/19 12:21 PM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
>> milt....@gmail.com:
>>
>>> Until the 13th Amendment, the Constitution was pro-slavery. Slaves
>>> were three-fifths of a human being, just so slaves states could get
>>> more representation in Congress and more electors in the Electoral
>>> College. How is that NOT pro-slavery?
>>
>> The Constitution made no judgement as to the "humanity" of negro slaves,
>> the vast majority of whom would do NOTHING productive except under the
>> whip.
>
> Yes I know, you are a racist.

"Racism" is an anti-concept.

[Anonymous Reactionary]

Rudy Canoza:

Black slaves in America were descended from those who were causing
problems for their fellow sub-Saharan Africans.

That they wouldn't be productive except under the whip was not because
they were slaves, it was because they were low-quality blacks.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 4/23/2019 5:25 PM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
> Rudy Canoza:
>
>> On 4/23/2019 10:47 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 4/23/19 12:21 PM, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
>>>> milt....@gmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Until the 13th Amendment, the Constitution was pro-slavery. Slaves
>>>>> were three-fifths of a human being, just so slaves states could get
>>>>> more representation in Congress and more electors in the Electoral
>>>>> College. How is that NOT pro-slavery?
>>>>
>>>> The Constitution made no judgement as to the "humanity" of negro slaves,
>>>> the vast majority of whom would do NOTHING productive except under
>>>> the whip.
>>>
>>> Yes I know, you are a racist.
>>
>> Fuck off.  You fail when you try to play the racist card.
>>
>> Why *would* slaves be productive except under duress?  They wouldn't.
>
> Black slaves in America were descended from those who were causing
> problems for their fellow sub-Saharan Africans.

Fuck off, you don't know anything about slavery.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 4/23/2019 7:09 PM, David Hartung wrote:

> He doesn't, but then neither do you.

I know quite a lot about it - you don't - and I also know a lot about the
undeniably pernicious effect it had on the drafting of the Constitution. It
basically queered the whole endeavor, and the United States will never
escape the deep, indelible stain of slavery - never. People like you who
say "it's gone, get over it" with respect to slavery are ignorant. The
effects of it will never be gone. The United States never has been, and
never will be, what its reactionary admirers claim.

I am right about this, and you - an apologist (at least) for slavery and
the KKK - are wrong.

[NoBody]

Sorry Mitchie but David is spot on with that quotation. Perhaps you'd
like to try again?

[Tom Sr.]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 7:26:27 AM UTC-4, NoBody wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:26:15 -0500, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >"The same people who seem to desire same
> >sex marriage, are also those who have
> >destroyed traditional marriage."
> >David Hartung, May 15 2018
> >http://tinyurl.com/y9lchucu

> --

>
> Sorry Mitchie but David is spot on with that quotation. Perhaps you'd
> like to try again?

No, Hartung most certainly is not. He, like you, NoBrainer, are just being your typical bigoted, hate-filled selves.


. . .

[David Hartung]

Thank you sir, but don't expect our resident liberal bigots t understand it.

[Tom Sr.]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:00:03 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
> Thank you sir, but don't expect our resident liberal bigots t [sic]
> understand it.


We *understand* your bigotry, Hartung.


. . .

[David Hartung]

Actually you do not.

[David Hartung]

In fact your need to personally attack any who disagree with you, could
be taken as a sign that it is you who is the bigot.

[Tom Sr.]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
> On 4/24/19 7:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> > On 4/24/19 7:04 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:00:03 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
> >>> Thank you sir, but don't expect our resident liberal bigots t [sic]
> >>> understand it.

> >> --

> >>
> >> We *understand* your bigotry, Hartung.

> > --
> >
> > Actually you do not.
^^^^^^^
HUGE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION

I already established in this thread you actively *supported* a blatantly racist Mississippi senator, Hartung.

> In fact your need to personally attack any who disagree with you, could
> be taken as a sign that it is you who is the bigot.

I am not the one who voted for a white supremacist, Hartung *you* did. You *proved* your *own* bigotry.

Sadly, I do not think you will ever *understand*. It seems you will always *lack* the self-objective to do so.

That you actually started a topic titled "The Constitution Was Never Pro-Slavery" was just further proof of your aggressive and willful-ignorance and -stupid, David Hartung.

You are a pathetic, little man and a disgrace to Christianity.

. . .

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:cb-dnZ0Pg6Uh0l3B...@giganews.com:

Still waiting for you to name someone whose
traditional marriage was "destroyed by same sex
marriage".

Put their names right here:

[David Hartung]

On 4/24/19 7:33 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 4/24/19 7:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 4/24/19 7:04 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:00:03 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>> Thank you sir, but don't expect our resident liberal bigots t [sic]
>>>>> understand it.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> We *understand* your bigotry, Hartung.
>>> --
>>>
>>> Actually you do not.
> ^^^^^^^
> HUGE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION
>
> I already established in this thread you actively *supported* a blatantly racist Mississippi senator, Hartung.

Actively supported?

Please do prove this.

>> In fact your need to personally attack any who disagree with you, could
>> be taken as a sign that it is you who is the bigot.
>
>
> I am not the one who voted for a white supremacist, Hartung *you* did. You *proved* your *own* bigotry.
>
> Sadly, I do not think you will ever *understand*. It seems you will always *lack* the self-objective to do so.
>
> That you actually started a topic titled "The Constitution Was Never Pro-Slavery" was just further proof of your aggressive and willful-ignorance and -stupid, David Hartung.

So prove that the Constitution is, or was pro-slavery.

For a man who supposedly has a degree in philosophy, you have a distinct
understanding of how people come to believe things.

[Tom Sr.]

Fuck off, Hartung, you hate-filled, racist, bigoted piece-of-shit.

Go whine at someone else who might give a flying fuck about your arrogant and deliberately-stupid, -ignorant, -delusional *beliefs*.

. . .

[Tom Sr.]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 9:27:02 AM UTC-4, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Still waiting for you to name someone whose
> traditional marriage was "destroyed by same sex
> marriage".
> Put their names right here:

As we all know, David Hartung destroyed his own first marriage without the assistance of same-sex marriage.


. . .

[milton...@gmail.com]

Which "liberal bigots" are those?

And for the record, there are liberal bigots. I'm just pretty sure you wouldn't recognize them if you saw them.

[milton...@gmail.com]

We do, more than you think.

[milton...@gmail.com]

That has been proven several times in this thread and in the history books. It's been common knowledge for 232 years. So, YOU should be the one proving it isn't. PROOF, David, not some other right wingnut's opinion.

>
> For a man who supposedly has a degree in philosophy, you have a distinct
> understanding of how people come to believe things.

And here we have David doing what he just accused Rudy of doing; finding out something about someone and attempting to use it against them. Only, you fail at that, too.

[Tom Sr.]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:38:30 AM UTC-4, milto...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:49:57 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
> > On 4/24/19 7:33 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
> > >> On 4/24/19 7:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
> > >>> On 4/24/19 7:04 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> > > I already established in this thread you actively *supported* a
> > > blatantly racist Mississippi senator, Hartung.

> > --

> >
> > Actively supported?
> >
> > Please do prove this.

YOU VOTED FOR HER, YOU RACIST ASSHOLE.

------

On Saturday, February 9, 2019 at 8:30:47 AM UTC-5, Tom Sr. wrote:
> David Hartung said in November he was voting for LYING RACIST Hyde-Smith.
> (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/espy$20david|sort:date/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/32j_F1K6GUk/z-ApLAPpAwAJ)
------


> > > --

> > > Sadly, I do not think you will ever *understand*. It seems you
> > > will always *lack* the self-objective to do so.
> > >
> > > That you actually started a topic titled "The Constitution Was Never
> > > Pro-Slavery" was just further proof of your aggressive and willful-
> > > ignorance and -stupid, David Hartung.

> > --

> >
> > So prove that the Constitution is, or was pro-slavery.

> --

>
> That has been proven several times in this thread and in the history books. It's been common knowledge for 232 years. So, YOU should be the one proving it isn't. PROOF, David, not some other right wingnut's opinion.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
*THIS*

Which is exactly why I did not bother to reply to Hartung's bullshit question, since ample evidence has *already* been cited in this topic to prove he is wrong -- which, of course, Hartung has chosen to ignore the FACTS because they directly contradicted his irrational *beliefs*.

> > --

> >
> > For a man who supposedly has a degree in philosophy, you have a distinct
> > understanding of how people come to believe things.

> --

>
> And here we have David doing what he just accused Rudy of doing; finding
> out something about someone and attempting to use it against them. Only,
> you fail at that, too.

Once again David Hartung publicly demonstrates how he excels at psychological projectionism -- and blatant hypocrisy.


. . .

[Anonymous Reactionary]

Rudy Canoza:

The only things you know about African slavery were taught to you by
lying, ignorant Marxist academics.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:2OCdneA1vejj9F3B...@giganews.com:

>
>
> So prove that the Constitution is, or was pro-slavery.

The Proslavery Constitution
Feb 1 2016

The Constitution’s text contains several proslavery
clauses. The Apportionment Clause, Article I, Section
2, added three-fifths of "all other Persons" - slaves -
to the number of free inhabitants of a state for purposes
of representation. This clause, by boosting the number of
representatives in Congress for the slave states,
guaranteed political protection for slavery. The same
three-fifths ratio boosted the representation of slave
states in the Electoral College during presidential
elections. The slave import limitation, Article I,
Section 9, prohibited Congress from regulating the
international slave trade until 1808, 21 years after
ratification of the Constitution. Not only was Congress
forbidden from regulating the transoceanic slave trade,
but Article V of the Constitution explicitly forbids
amending the slave import limitation, one of only two
such forbidden matters in the whole document. Lastly,
the Fugitive Slave Clause, Article IV, Section 2,
guaranteed nationally, for the first time, the right
of slave owners to pursue and reclaim their slaves
anywhere throughout the land.

The Constitution thus protected slavery by increasing
political representation for slave owners and slave
states; by limiting, stringently though temporarily,
congressional power to regulate the international
slave trade; and by protecting the rights of slave
owners to recapture their escaped slaves. The
Constitution also promoted slave ownership by promising
increased political representation while keeping
unregulated the flow of slaves through the international
slave trade for 21 years. Pretty significant protections,
don’t you think?

https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-proslavery-constitution/

[David Hartung]

Should you dig back over the years of posts, you will find that the
information that Tom has a philosophy degree came from one of his posts.

[David Hartung]

You for one.

[milton...@gmail.com]

Nope. And sadly, you know better.

[milton...@gmail.com]

You obviously are illiterate. it doesn't matter where it came from. Using personal information against someone in a public political space indicates that you are unable to discuss politics.

[Tom Sr.]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:59:27 PM UTC-4, milt wrote:
> And sadly, you know better.

Sadly, I think Hartung does NOT know better.


. . .

[Steve is offline now]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:02:05 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com

"There are actually a number of factors that would have an effect on
how fast I would have to pedal, you simpering moron. Among them how
big the chainring and the flywheel were and the tension between them,
--MILT Shook
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/ra3puCOTZ7o/8plu5pSCzF0J


When you sue me, why don't you ask to see my speeding ticket, for going 62
in a 35 mph zone -- on a bicycle. BTW, I didn't buy that bike off the rack.
No actual cyclist does. You buy a frame, and you buy the parts and install
them on that frame. Why do you think I LAUGH my ass off at you when you
look on Google to find the biggest baddest model of trike some sucker is
willing to sell you? Real cyclists build their own.

BTW, the bike I was riding when I got the ticket? I built it myself for
about $600, rode it for about four years and sold it for about $1500 about
25 years ago... According to my inflation calculator, that's about $2700
in 2015 dollars. Heavily used.

Bikes take too long to break in. I HATE riding a new rack bike off the shelf;
it takes at least a couple of weeks, maybe months to break them in and I
almost always have to swap out brakes, front cranks, pedals, derailleurs,
and the seat, anyway.

Milt Shook claiming to have built his own bicycle after telling me that
bicycle have freewheels and the speed of a bike is controlled by the tension
between the chainring and a mysterious flywheel..

https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.fan.rushlimbaugh/7G3oEpwqWSE/YmnH2zkmFeAJ

I should also mention Milt's claims that a chain ring was irrelevant when
discussing a 21 speed bike. After I explained that a 21 speed bike would
have three chainrings, I caught Milt explaining that it was useless and
stupid to change any of those chainrings because the bike wouldn't shift
right and have too much chain slack...

Milt says that he's broken a few dozen chains, but that he could fix them
with a paper clip, and, of course, that all bicycles have a flywheel...
not a freewheel as I corrected him about, nosiree, but a flywheel... Of
course, Shook claims that his bike, the one he built for $600 dollars in
1978 and rode competitively, was special and weighed only 12 lbs.

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:MeCdnZAyFOLYPl3B...@giganews.com:

So Tom has a college education and you don't.

Hmm............

[NoBody]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:49:50 -0500, David Hartung
<d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/24/19 7:33 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 4/24/19 7:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/19 7:04 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:00:03 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you sir, but don't expect our resident liberal bigots t [sic]
>>>>>> understand it.
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> We *understand* your bigotry, Hartung.
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Actually you do not.
>> ^^^^^^^
>> HUGE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION
>>
>> I already established in this thread you actively *supported* a blatantly racist Mississippi senator, Hartung.
>
>Actively supported?
>
>Please do prove this.
>

Tom proves nothing. He just states nonsense and then posts unrelated
"proof".

>>> In fact your need to personally attack any who disagree with you, could
>>> be taken as a sign that it is you who is the bigot.
>>
>>
>> I am not the one who voted for a white supremacist, Hartung *you* did. You *proved* your *own* bigotry.
>>
>> Sadly, I do not think you will ever *understand*. It seems you will always *lack* the self-objective to do so.
>>
>> That you actually started a topic titled "The Constitution Was Never Pro-Slavery" was just further proof of your aggressive and willful-ignorance and -stupid, David Hartung.
>
>So prove that the Constitution is, or was pro-slavery.
>
>For a man who supposedly has a degree in philosophy, you have a distinct
>understanding of how people come to believe things.

Tom has never demonstrated a complete thought process that would
indicate that he graduated high school, much less college.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com

Then please provide that proof.

>>
>> For a man who supposedly has a degree in philosophy, you have a distinct
>> understanding of how people come to believe things.
>
>And here we have David doing what he just accused Rudy of doing; finding out something about someone and attempting to use it against them. Only, you fail at that, too.

You have evidence that David researched into Tom's private life? If
so, please provide it. I seem to recall that Tom himself posted that
silly claim.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:02:05 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com

Milite, again you've proven yourself to be a moron. If Tom willing
posted this information and David recalls it, this is not the same as
David digging into Tom's private life. By stating what he said in a
public forum, that information is considered PUBLIC...sheesh.

[NoBody]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:33:48 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com
wrote:

Um...you?

>And for the record, there are liberal bigots. I'm just pretty sure you wouldn't recognize them if you saw them.

It's quite easy actually.

[David Hartung]

Sort of like the personal attacks for which you have become famous?

Tom regularly presents himself as being my intellectual superior, he
engages in personal attacks (ad-hom) every day, and consistently ignores
or changes the subject of a discussion, and you choose to attack me for
pointing out that Tom is not acting in accordance with his claimed
education.

[David Hartung]

The idea that the constitution is and always has been pro-slavery was
(sort of) argued by the slave states prior to the civil war, but they
lost that discussion, and it took four years and 1.7 million American
lives to make the point. Since 1865 it has been understood that the
Constitution at it core is pro-liberty and anti-slavery, and no credible
argument to the contrary has been offered,

The framers of the Constitution were men of varied backgrounds and
convictions, as were the people of the several states. In order to form
this diverse group into one nation, compromise was necessary, and yes
some of those compromises protected the slave owners, but there was far
more in the original Constitution to protect liberty than there was to
protect slavery. Of course modern day wannabe slave owners (American
leftists) are doing their best to eliminate those protections.

People who support gun control, who support "speech codes", who support
legislation which makes it illegal to operate a business according to
the owners moral convictions, who support the taking of human life while
till in the womb, and who never met a government regulation they do not
like, are far more pro-slavery than even the antebellum slave owners of
the American south.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <Dp-dnUQxnoiDOlzB...@giganews.com>,

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Constitution at it core is pro-liberty and anti-slavery, and no credible
> argument to the contrary has been offered,

The Constitution at its core said once you bought a human they remained your
slave everywhere you went in the US. The Constitution decided not that there
were free states and slaves states, but that there were states with slave
markets and states without.

That's why it took an amendment to finally change the Constitution into an
anti-slavery document.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:Dp-dnUQxnoiDOlzB...@giganews.com:

The pro-slavery Constitution forces WON the
discussion, via the Dred Scott ruling. That is
why it took a civil war and a Constitutional
Amendment to change things.

and it took four years and 1.7 million American
> lives to make the point. Since 1865 it has been understood that the
> Constitution at it core is pro-liberty and anti-slavery, and no
> credible argument to the contrary has been offered,
>
> The framers of the Constitution were men of varied backgrounds and
> convictions, as were the people of the several states. In order to
> form this diverse group into one nation, compromise was necessary, and
> yes some of those compromises protected the slave owners, but there
> was far more in the original Constitution to protect liberty than
> there was to protect slavery. Of course modern day wannabe slave
> owners (American leftists) are doing their best to eliminate those
> protections.
>
> People who support gun control,

Like Reagan and Trump.

> who support "speech codes", who
> support legislation which makes it illegal to operate a business
> according to the owners moral convictions,

Businesses don't have "moral convictions".

> who support the taking of
> human life while till in the womb,

Like Jenna Bush.

> and who never met a government
> regulation they do not like,

Like Republicans.

[Mitchell Holman]

Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net> wrote in
news:XnsAA3B82C2CE9...@216.166.97.131:

Hartung proven wrong, yet again.

[David Hartung]

This left wing law professor, writing for a "progressive" (left wing)
group, has proven nothing.

[Rudy Canoza]

He is. Of course, it's a low bar.

[ed...@post.com]

And what have you proven by saying that? Oh. Nothing.

[Rudy Canoza]

/ad hominem/ You lose.

The Constitution was pro-slavery. This is settled.

[milton...@gmail.com]

Like what? Be specific.

Even when I knock you for your pretend "Christianity," it's nt personal. You violate Christ's teachings daily on here. You're worse than Franklin Graham, who thinks he has the stones to tell "Mayor Pete" that he can't be both Christian and gay.

>
> Tom regularly presents himself as being my intellectual superior, he
> engages in personal attacks (ad-hom) every day, and consistently ignores
> or changes the subject of a discussion, and you choose to attack me for
> pointing out that Tom is not acting in accordance with his claimed
> education.

Tom is your intellectual superior, as is most everyone here. He doesn't do ad hominem against you, because it's not ad hominem if it's true. Like, if he were suggesting that you being gay makes you less equal and less of a human under some kind of fictional "law," that would be ad hominem. OTOH, if he calls you a bigot, that's not ad hominem because you are a bigot.

[milton...@gmail.com]

Jesus.

People are trying to teach you shit here, and I swear you get more ignorant. Slavery was a FACT in 1787, and the Founders would have ideally liked to ban it, but keeping the union together was too important back then to play with losing half the new states. Of course they were pro-slavery back then; it was the only way to keep all 13 states in the union and to get them to ratify the Constitution.

I would say you're probably right about one thing; it ISN'T pro-slavery at the moment, but it was until the passage of the 13th Amendment. But up until then, it was very much pro-slavery.

[milton...@gmail.com]

He's trying to shift the argument. He's now arguing against the notion that the Constitution was AND IS pro-slavery, an argument that no one has made.

[Rudy Canoza]

That piece from the "left wing" law professor argues that it still is - or,
that if it isn't literally pro-slavery due to slavery no longer existing,
it still supports racially disparate effects. Read the whole thing - it's
not that long, and it's pretty interesting.

[milton...@gmail.com]

Yeah, I see that. And he has a point, although the 14th Amendment had the intention of equalizing rights between Blacks and Whites. I think we need another Amendment that certifies that the BoR applies to everyone, regardless of whether Pastor Hartung likes them or not.

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 6:19:28 AM UTC-4, NoBody wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:49:50 -0500, David Hartung
> <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 4/24/19 7:33 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> >> I already established in this thread you actively *supported* a
> > blatantly racist Mississippi senator, Hartung.

> > --

> >
> > Actively supported?
> > Please do prove this.

> --

>
> Tom proves nothing. He just states nonsense and then posts unrelated
> "proof".

It was already proven by Hartung's own words, NoBrainer, earlier in this topic:
https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/MKd7i6wxzWk/X1aqSDrtCgAJ


You, NoBrainer, are just as fucking arrogantly and willfully-ignorant, -stupid, and -hypocritical as Hartung is.














*YAWN*

. . .

[Steve is offline now]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 08:12:01 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com
wrote:

>People are trying to teach you shit here, and I swear you get more ignorant.

Irony anyone? see below:

"There are actually a number of factors that would have an effect on
how fast I would have to pedal, you simpering moron. Among them how
big the chainring and the flywheel were and the tension between them,

--Milt Shook
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/ra3puCOTZ7o/8plu5pSCzF0J

Here's Milt Shook explaining that the reason he shaves his legs is because he's "bike
racer." Too bad that he obvioiusly knows nothing about racing bicycles or bicycled in general.

Flywheel??? Tension????

When you sue me, why don't you ask to see my speeding ticket, for going 62 in a 35 mph zone
-- on a bicycle. BTW, I didn't buy that bike off the rack. No actual cyclist does. You buy
a frame, and you buy the parts and install them on that frame. Why do you think I LAUGH my
ass off at you when you look on Google to find the biggest baddest model of trike some sucker
is willing to sell you? Real cyclists build their own.

BTW, the bike I was riding when I got the ticket? I built it myself for about $600, rode it
for about four years and sold it for about $1500 about 25 years ago... According to my
inflation calculator, that's about $2700 in 2015 dollars. Heavily used.

Bikes take too long to break in. I HATE riding a new rack bike off the shelf; it takes
at least a couple of weeks, maybe months to break them in and I almost always have
to swap out brakes, front cranks, pedals, derailleurs, and the seat, anyway.

Milt Shook claiming to have built his own bicycle after telling me that bicycle have
freewheels and the speed of a bike is controlled by the tension between the
chainring and a mysterious flywheel..

https://groups.google.com/forum/message/raw?msg=alt.fan.rushlimbaugh/7G3oEpwqWSE/YmnH2zkmFeAJ

I should also mention Milt's claims that a chain ring was irrelevant when discussing a
21 speed bike. After I explained that a 21 speed bike would have three chainrings, I
caught Milt explaining that it was useless and stupid to change any of those chainrings
because the bike wouldn't shift right and have too much chain slack...

I realized that Milt had no idea that bicyclists routinely take chains apart to clean
it or to change the length and that we call that "breaking" the chain. So I asked him
about breaking the chain.

Milt says that he's broken a few dozen chains. I didn't bother to tell him that any
bicyclist that's actually broken a few dozen chains while riding doesn't know how to
shift. No, he wasn't referring to taking the chains apart because he he also said he
fixed them with a paper clip and rode to a bike shop
And then,, of course, his claim that all bicycles

have a flywheel... not a freewheel as I corrected him about, nosiree, but a flywheel...

Of course, Shook claims that his bike, the one he built for 600 dollars in 1978 and
rode competitively, was special and weighed only 12 lbs. That was long before bikes
costing thousands of dollars got anywhere near that light.

[Steve is offline now]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 08:05:44 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Tom is your intellectual superior, as is most everyone here.

"No, the ruling is the law. The holding is a USSC clerks summary of
what Scalia said."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/ca2bb4b566c0823b?hl=en


["that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution] would only apply if I was taking the street to court."
--.Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b07914d210a0a5b5?dmode=source&hl=en


"Of COURSE the US Constitution is state law! You moron! Do you even know what it means to "ratify" something?"
--.Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/b27b8b27a4ae5e03?hl=en&


"People selling drive a stock price down, and people buying drive it up. They're not "trading," they're selling."
--Milt.Shook.. who doesn't realize that when people sell stock, somebody else has to buy it.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a9e76eb835355a76?hl=en&


"I am going to sue the store owner, and it WILL be based on the First Amendment. My rights were violated, but the First Amendment will only kick in if the judge "laughs me out of court"
--Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/7f9246640272baf4?hl=en&


"The feds don't have jurisdiction on a street corner. "
--Milt.Shook... July 22, 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/28db971e38f80e7f


"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com


Well, a loss is negative equity."
--Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&


"No person pays corporate taxes. The corporation pays those."[...] the corporation is not made up of people. It is made up of paper.
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=8c046319.0403172013.7bb7c449%40posting.google.com&oe=UTF-8&


"I said my claim would be based on the First Amendment. I didn't say it would be a First Amendment case. "
--.Milt.Shook... 16 Jun 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/69e343c9141dc00b?hl=en&


"I'm at a loss as to why you think increasing the necessary collateral, while not decreasing the value of the loan, is not a net loss."
Milt.Shook..
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/eca4b4662ef2cc82?hl=en&


"I was hit by buckshot by accident once when I was a kid. I have a scar to show for it. But no matter where it would have hit me, it wouldn't have killed me, because I was running away from it."
--Milt.Shook..
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.politics.misc/v2NKawcxmHI/MUyn8p6aVg0J



"The law doesn't "allow" any gender discrimination."
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=prqdnVQM8LfCsdLdRVn-ig%40comcast.com


"The [law] doesn't "allow" any behavior, you fucking idiot."
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com


"say you're standing on a street corner -- and someone else comes along and interrupts that, then that action can be seen as a violation of your right to free speech. Note that I didn't say First Amendment right to free speech."
--Milt.Shook.. Nov 8 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/1c0f82e2085adb5e?hl=en&


"I mean, Jesus, you moron; basically what you're arguing is that the Bill of Rights only protects you from the government. That's insane."
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=rOednTyGe5IzVjvd4p2dnA%40comcast.com


"Yet you, in your infinite stupidity, think the First Amendment only protects us from the government."
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=69mdnQzM9536gFTdRVn-jg%40comcast.com


"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around here and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt.Shook..
http://www.google.com/group

[David Hartung]

Actuaally it is.

> You violate Christ's teachings daily on here.

Such as?

By the way, you are no better.

> You're worse than Franklin Graham, who thinks he has the stones to tell "Mayor Pete" that he can't be both Christian and gay.

And you once again show an utter lack of understanding of anything
"Christian".

>>
>> Tom regularly presents himself as being my intellectual superior, he
>> engages in personal attacks (ad-hom) every day, and consistently ignores
>> or changes the subject of a discussion, and you choose to attack me for
>> pointing out that Tom is not acting in accordance with his claimed
>> education.
>
> Tom is your intellectual superior, as is most everyone here. He doesn't do ad hominem against you, because it's not ad hominem if it's true. Like, if he were suggesting that you being gay makes you less equal and less of a human under some kind of fictional "law," that would be ad hominem. OTOH, if he calls you a bigot, that's not ad hominem because you are a bigot.

So whether or not somethign is ad-hominem is based upon your subjective
opinion. From where do you get that?

[David Hartung]

In your mind, there seem to be many who disagree.

[David Hartung]

The Bill of rights applies to all citizens of the USA, why would we need
another amendment to state this?

[Rudy Canoza]

There is no one who rationally and knowledgeably disagrees. The proof is
incontrovertible: 3/5th clause, fugitive slave laws.

[David Hartung]

Now I know that you are blowing smoke.

On matters such as this rational and knowledgeable people often disagree.

[David Hartung]

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/05/06/the-constitution-was-never-pro-slavery/

(this link has been potedbefore)
[...]
But they missed the big picture. As Roger Sherman insisted, the
Constitution might contain concessions to the states regarding the
existence of slavery, but nothing in it acknowledged “men to be
property.” As “dishonorable to the National character” as the
concessions were, added James Madison, it would be intolerable “to admit
in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” And
so the fundamental basis on which the entire notion of slavery rested
was barred at the Constitution’s door, even while its practical
existence slipped through.
[...]
As the Constitution moved toward ratification, one member of the
Massachusetts ratifying convention recognized the same dynamic at work
in the new federal instrument. “It would not do to abolish slavery . . .
in a moment,” conceded Bostonian Thomas Dawes (whose cousin, William,
had ridden with Paul Revere). Nevertheless, even if “slavery is not
smitten with an apoplexy, yet it has received a mortal wound and will
die of a consumption.” And the Pennsylvania abolitionist Benjamin Rush
rejoiced that, by refusing to include slavery or “slaves in this
constitution,” the Framers had saved the republic from “the very words”
that “would contaminate the glorious fabric of American liberty and
government.” The “cloud” of anti-slavery, “which a few years ago was no
larger than a man’s hand, has descended in plentiful dews and at last
cover’d every part of our land.”
[...]
When truculent slaveowners tried to insist that “slaves are property . .
. by the Constitution guaranteed,” John Quincy Adams just as truculently
replied that “the Constitution does not recognize slavery — it contains
no such word.” In fact, “a great circumlocution of words is used merely
to avoid the term slaves.” Any argument that would make the Constitution
a pro-slavery document has, on the evidence of the Framers’ generation,
quite a boulder to roll up the hill.
[...]

Face it Rudy, the later day attempt to frame the Constitution as a
pro-slavery document is built on lies.

[Rudy Canoza]

No. You disagree, but you are neither rational nor knowledgeable. As
always, your ideology completely fucks up your view.

[lie/trope warning]

[David Hartung]

About the author of the National Refiew article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_C._Guelzo
[...]
Allen Carl Guelzo (born 1953) is an American historian who serves as the
Henry R. Luce III Professor of the Civil War Era at Gettysburg College,
where he serves as Director of the Civil War Era Studies Program.[1]

Rachel A. Shelden says that for two decades Guelzo "has been at the
forefront of Civil War–era scholarship. In particular, he has focused
his analytical efforts on the life and legacy of Abraham Lincoln,
publishing books covering the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the origins of
the Emancipation Proclamation, and Lincoln's presidential leadership,
among others."[3]
[...]

[Rudy Canoza]

No need to read past that lie. The Fugitive Slave Clause expressly
acknowledges humans to be property. Also, the protection of the slave
trade for 21 years implicitly acknowledges humans to be property.

You are wrong, and that's the end of it.

[David Hartung]

So you have no problem making decisions based upon incomplete data. No
real surprise there.

[milton...@gmail.com]

Here's the text of the Fugitive Slave Clause:

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Except for calling them "persons," how are they anything other than the property of the person they "serve or labor" for?

[milton...@gmail.com]

Yeah, but it's the National Review. back when William F. Buckley ran it, it was a conservative magazine. Now, it's just as right wing as The Nation is left wing.

[Rudy Canoza]

There is more than sufficient data. We know that the Constitution
expressly accommodated slavery, and while the document may not contain an
explicit mention of "men as property", the slaves *were* property, and that
was the whole point of the accommodation.

The Constitution was a pro-slavery document, and in some respects still is.

[David Hartung]

Just our of curiosity, how do you define conservative

[David Hartung]

Your unwillingness to learn is astounding.

[Rudy Canoza]

You are describing yourself.

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 4:47:50 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
> Your unwillingness to learn is astounding.

^^^^^^^^^^^
BLACK HOLE-LIKE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION


. . .

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 4:52:44 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 4/25/2019 1:47 PM, David Hartung wrote:
> > Your unwillingness to learn is astounding.

> --
>
> You are describing yourself.


Hartung sure was!


. . .

[Rudy Canoza]

Yep. And also another lie/trope.

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 4:47:50 PM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
> Your unwillingness to learn is astounding.

Ha ha haha haha ha ha ha ha hahaha haha ha haha haha ha haha
hahaha hahaha ha hahahahahaha haha hahahaha hahaha hahaha
hahaha hahaha hahaha hahahaha ha hahahahaha hahahahahaha
hahahahahaha HA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHAHA
HAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHA HAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHA
HAHA HA HAHA hahaha hahaha haha ha hahahaha hahaha haha
ha ha haha hahahaha ha haha haha ha hahaha hahaha ha hahaha
ha haha ha ha ha haha ha ha haha haha haha ha haha ha ha hee!














Oh. My.













Yes, I replied again, but *that* trope by David Hartung is so truly SO FUCKING INSANELY CLUELESS and empty of even the slightest quark of self-perception and self-objectivity it really, honestly deserves far, far more mockery and contempt.

. . .

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:EqidnV8viefuIlzB...@giganews.com:

> This left wing law professor, writing for a "progressive" (left wing)
> group, has proven nothing.
>




"For once why don't you actually address
what is said, instead of blindly and
ignorantly attacking the author"?
David Hartung, Nov 30, 2018
http://tinyurl.com/ycvgbsdc

[Mitchell Holman]

David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:v46dnSA28-paYFzB...@giganews.com:

The Bill of Rights doesn't even MENTION citizens.

It applies to the PEOPLE.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 4/25/2019 7:35 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:EqidnV8viefuIlzB...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 4/25/19 8:22 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>> Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizont.net> wrote in
>>> news:XnsAA3B82C2CE9...@216.166.97.131:
>>>
>>>> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:2OCdneA1vejj9F3B...@giganews.com:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So prove that the Constitution is, or was pro-slavery.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Proslavery Constitution
>>>> Feb 1 2016
>>>>

>>>> The Constitution’s text contains several proslavery

>>>> don’t you think?

>>>>
>>>> https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-proslavery-constitution/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hartung proven wrong, yet again.
>>
>> This left wing law professor, writing for a "progressive" (left wing)
>> group, has proven nothing.
>>
>
>
>
>
> "For once why don't you actually address
> what is said, instead of blindly and
> ignorantly attacking the author"?
> David Hartung, Nov 30, 2018
> http://tinyurl.com/ycvgbsdc

<chortle> Hartung fucks himself up the ass more than anyone else.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 07:25:02 -0500, David Hartung
<d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/25/19 5:21 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com

>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:49:57 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/19 7:33 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/24/19 7:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/24/19 7:04 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:00:03 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thank you sir, but don't expect our resident liberal bigots t [sic]
>>>>>>>>> understand it.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We *understand* your bigotry, Hartung.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually you do not.
>>>>> ^^^^^^^
>>>>> HUGE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION
>>>>>
>>>>> I already established in this thread you actively *supported* a blatantly racist Mississippi senator, Hartung.
>>>>
>>>> Actively supported?
>>>>
>>>> Please do prove this.
>>>>
>>>>>> In fact your need to personally attack any who disagree with you, could
>>>>>> be taken as a sign that it is you who is the bigot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not the one who voted for a white supremacist, Hartung *you* did. You *proved* your *own* bigotry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, I do not think you will ever *understand*. It seems you will always *lack* the self-objective to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> That you actually started a topic titled "The Constitution Was Never Pro-Slavery" was just further proof of your aggressive and willful-ignorance and -stupid, David Hartung.
>>>>

>>>> So prove that the Constitution is, or was pro-slavery.
>>>

>>> That has been proven several times in this thread and in the history books. It's been common knowledge for 232 years. So, YOU should be the one proving it isn't. PROOF, David, not some other right wingnut's opinion.
>>

>> Then please provide that proof.
>
>The idea that the constitution is and always has been pro-slavery was
>(sort of) argued by the slave states prior to the civil war, but they
>lost that discussion, and it took four years and 1.7 million American
>lives to make the point. Since 1865 it has been understood that the
>Constitution at it core is pro-liberty and anti-slavery, and no credible
>argument to the contrary has been offered,
>
>The framers of the Constitution were men of varied backgrounds and
>convictions, as were the people of the several states. In order to form
>this diverse group into one nation, compromise was necessary, and yes
>some of those compromises protected the slave owners, but there was far
>more in the original Constitution to protect liberty than there was to
>protect slavery. Of course modern day wannabe slave owners (American
>leftists) are doing their best to eliminate those protections.
>
>People who support gun control, who support "speech codes", who support
>legislation which makes it illegal to operate a business according to
>the owners moral convictions, who support the taking of human life while
>till in the womb, and who never met a government regulation they do not
>like, are far more pro-slavery than even the antebellum slave owners of
>the American south.

You've just described the modern Democrat party perfectly. Interesting
to note that Dems have always been the party of pro slavery.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 13:14:58 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com
wrote:

Your inability to refute anything that was posted is noted. Attacking
the source is not a rebuttal.

[NoBody]

Anyone with whom he disagrees of course.

[NoBody]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:23:12 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 11:02:05 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 10:56:27 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:

>>> On 4/24/19 10:38 AM, milton...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:49:57 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>> >> On 4/24/19 7:33 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> >>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>> >>>> On 4/24/19 7:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> >>>>> On 4/24/19 7:04 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> >>>>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:00:03 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> Thank you sir, but don't expect our resident liberal bigots t [sic]
>>> >>>>>>> understand it.
>>> >>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> We *understand* your bigotry, Hartung.
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Actually you do not.
>>> >>> ^^^^^^^
>>> >>> HUGE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I already established in this thread you actively *supported* a blatantly racist Mississippi senator, Hartung.
>>> >>
>>> >> Actively supported?
>>> >>
>>> >> Please do prove this.
>>> >>
>>> >>>> In fact your need to personally attack any who disagree with you, could
>>> >>>> be taken as a sign that it is you who is the bigot.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I am not the one who voted for a white supremacist, Hartung *you* did. You *proved* your *own* bigotry.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Sadly, I do not think you will ever *understand*. It seems you will always *lack* the self-objective to do so.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> That you actually started a topic titled "The Constitution Was Never Pro-Slavery" was just further proof of your aggressive and willful-ignorance and -stupid, David Hartung.
>>> >>

>>> >> So prove that the Constitution is, or was pro-slavery.
>>> >

>>> > That has been proven several times in this thread and in the history books. It's been common knowledge for 232 years. So, YOU should be the one proving it isn't. PROOF, David, not some other right wingnut's opinion.
>>> >>

>>> >> For a man who supposedly has a degree in philosophy, you have a distinct
>>> >> understanding of how people come to believe things.
>>> >
>>> > And here we have David doing what he just accused Rudy of doing; finding out something about someone and attempting to use it against them. Only, you fail at that, too.
>>>
>>> Should you dig back over the years of posts, you will find that the
>>> information that Tom has a philosophy degree came from one of his posts.
>>
>>You obviously are illiterate. it doesn't matter where it came from. Using personal information against someone in a public political space indicates that you are unable to discuss politics.
>
>Milite, again you've proven yourself to be a moron. If Tom willing
>posted this information and David recalls it, this is not the same as
>David digging into Tom's private life. By stating what he said in a
>public forum, that information is considered PUBLIC...sheesh.

<miltie-crickets.wav>

[NoBody]

On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 06:21:12 -0400, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:38:24 -0700 (PDT), milton...@gmail.com
>wrote:
>

>>On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:49:57 AM UTC-7, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 4/24/19 7:33 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:14:09 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>> >> On 4/24/19 7:12 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> >>> On 4/24/19 7:04 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> >>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:00:03 AM UTC-4, David Hartung wrote:
>>> >>>>> Thank you sir, but don't expect our resident liberal bigots t [sic]
>>> >>>>> understand it.
>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> We *understand* your bigotry, Hartung.
>>> >>> --
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Actually you do not.
>>> > ^^^^^^^
>>> > HUGE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION
>>> >
>>> > I already established in this thread you actively *supported* a blatantly racist Mississippi senator, Hartung.
>>>
>>> Actively supported?
>>>
>>> Please do prove this.
>>>
>>> >> In fact your need to personally attack any who disagree with you, could
>>> >> be taken as a sign that it is you who is the bigot.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I am not the one who voted for a white supremacist, Hartung *you* did. You *proved* your *own* bigotry.
>>> >
>>> > Sadly, I do not think you will ever *understand*. It seems you will always *lack* the self-objective to do so.
>>> >
>>> > That you actually started a topic titled "The Constitution Was Never Pro-Slavery" was just further proof of your aggressive and willful-ignorance and -stupid, David Hartung.
>>>
>>> So prove that the Constitution is, or was pro-slavery.
>>
>>That has been proven several times in this thread and in the history books. It's been common knowledge for 232 years. So, YOU should be the one proving it isn't. PROOF, David, not some other right wingnut's opinion.
>

>Then please provide that proof.
>
>>>

>>> For a man who supposedly has a degree in philosophy, you have a distinct
>>> understanding of how people come to believe things.
>>
>>And here we have David doing what he just accused Rudy of doing; finding out something about someone and attempting to use it against them. Only, you fail at that, too.
>

>You have evidence that David researched into Tom's private life? If
>so, please provide it. I seem to recall that Tom himself posted that
>silly claim.

Once again, Miltie has run away from a nonsense claim.

[Mitchell Holman]

Rudy Canoza <c...@philhendrie.con> wrote in news:ayuwE.105827$nx7.14999
@fx28.iad:

Hartung blasts the sources of posted articles
in between bouts of accusing others of doing the
same thing.

If it weren't for double standards he would
have no standards at all............

[NoBody]

<miltie-crickets.wav>

[Tom Sr.]

NoBrainer beats yet another dead horse.













*yawn*

. . .

[Gunner Asch]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:55:55 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>>States Citizens.
>
>Democrats are insane. No, actually they are predictability focused.

Democrats ARE insane. Psychotic. Focused on their goals...no matter
how treasonous or utterly balloonish and buffoonish..or deadly
dangerous.

__

"Poor widdle Wudy...mentally ill, lies constantly, doesnt know who he is, or even what gender "he" is.

No more pathetic creature has ever walked the earth. But...he is locked into a mental hospital for the safety of the public.

Which is a very good thing."

Asun rauhassa, valmistaudun sotaan.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Clave]

On 4/30/2019 9:32 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:55:55 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>>> States Citizens.
>>
>> Democrats are insane. No, actually they are predictability focused.
>
> Democrats ARE insane.

We're sane enough to not take people of your depths of stupidity seriously.

[Olrik]

Le 2019-05-01 à 01:32, Gunner Asch a écrit :
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 15:55:55 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
> wrote:
>
>>> States Citizens.
>>
>> Democrats are insane. No, actually they are predictability focused.
>
> Democrats ARE insane. Psychotic. Focused on their goals...no matter
> how treasonous or utterly balloonish and buffoonish..or deadly
> dangerous.

Yeah... You seem to be a well adjusted neo-nazi incel. Good luck.