Secedssion is OK but a demand for states rights is more doable.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union
is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
agent, not an overseer of the states.

A good place to start is to deny the US Supreme Court the power to
nullify laws, whether state or federal. Nowhere does the constitution
give them that power so by the tenth amendment the power is with the
states. That's right - the states can nullify laws but not the f
eds. States need to insist on that - the constitution is on their
side.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

The secession advocates need to ask themselves - Do you really want to
leave america? I don't - i want to stay american but
weaken the feds.

[Marvin the Martian]

States rights is more intelligent, but do to the human need to FUCK WITH
THAT OTHER GUY, it isn't more do-able.

We gave the fedgov the power and duty the defend the united States, and
instead they couldn't resist fucking with other countries.... almost as
many as the Brits have. And we prohibited the Fedgov from meddling in
domestic issues, and that didn't work at all.

The problem is, we give chimps the vote and wonder why they vote
themselves bananas.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:15:16 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:11:05 -0800 (PST), "Criminal Drivers Murder
> 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
>>founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union is
>>now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
>>agent, not an overseer of the states.
>

> In the latter 18th century---there was no huge expansive, post
> industrialized nation, stupid.

WTF are you gibbering about now? He didn't say it was!

> powers of states vs Federal govt.

Oh yes. You're the guy who claims that you, yourself, are too fucking
stupid to read the document and you need someone to explain it to you.

That would explain why you thought that CDM said something about
industrialized when he said nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry, I guess you're retarded and I've been too harsh.

< snip more of Yoorghis babbling. >

It is axiomatic that one cannot reason with an unreasonable person.

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Nov 15, 10:16 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murde Americans a Year"

Your request to revive and bring back Jim Crow is hereby
unceremoniously denied.

Check what happened with Arizona and the Individual Mandate:

http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/Swing-Vote.jpg

-Ramon

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Nov 15, 10:16 pm, "Judy Who is more concerned about the price of

Really? That is waaaaay cool!!

I will notify voters in the barrios and the officers in the Texas
Democratic Party that we can proceed with our "Sólo Español"
legislation in Texas, err, I mean: "Tejas".

-Ramon

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:17:17 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:06:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>>We gave the fedgov the power and duty the defend the united States, and
>>instead they couldn't resist fucking with other countries.... almost as
>>many as the Brits have. And we prohibited the Fedgov from meddling in
>>domestic issues, and that didn't work at all.
>

> You mean by "meddling" refers to:
>
> Old age poverty
>
> Child labor
>
> Contract law
>
> Womens suffrage
>
> Civil rights
>
> Civil liberties
>
> Workers rights
>
> You saying the feds should not have "meddled" in those "states rights"
>
> Gee---why were you okay with the feds "Meddling" in FL election laws
> then?

The states have all the sovereignty and power in the REAL subjects you
mention: Child law, contract law (except for interstate contracts), and
worker rights.

By "Civil rights" you mean forcing "white" people to associate with
"black" people against their will. Yeah, that's bullshit. The
constitution recognizes the right to associate - the fedgov is denied the
power to force people to associate against their will.

Article 1, section 8 lists all the things that the federal government CAN
do. Amendment 10 says that if the federal government is not EXPLICITLY
empowered to do something, that power is a state power. SOME of the
founding fathers felt that only a dumb shit would need to have it spelled
out in the 10th, but the founding fathers couldn't imagine a megaputz
like you coming along and that the 10th wasn't even clear enough.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Nov 15, 10:06 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> The problem is, we give chimps the vote and wonder why they vote
> themselves bananas.

I like that expression. Yes - illliterate drug-head blacks are
allowed to vote and they vote for a govt that takes care of them.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Nov 16, 9:17 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:06:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian

>
> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >We gave the fedgov the power and duty the defend the united States, and
> >instead they couldn't resist fucking with other countries.... almost as
> >many as the Brits have. And we prohibited the Fedgov from meddling in
> >domestic issues, and that didn't work at all.
>

> You mean by "meddling" refers to:
>
> Old age poverty
>
> Child labor
>
> Contract law
>
> Womens suffrage
>
> Civil rights
>
> Civil liberties
>
> Workers rights
>
> You saying the feds should not have "meddled" in those "states rights"
>
> Gee---why were you okay with the feds "Meddling" in FL election laws
> then?

Yoorg - i have to admit your last point is a good one. It was deeply
wrong for the Supreme Court to decide the 2000 election.
The states are supposed to be sovereign and they conduct elections
(even for federal officials) anyway they want. The SC
should have said "we have no jurisdiction" to bush v gore.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Nov 16, 9:15 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:

>
> NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that ONLY a "strict
> construction" or "literal" reading (of constitutional construct) is
> permitted.
>

HAHAHA. What a stupid thing to say. Are you saying there should have
been a clause in the constitution that said
something like - "And we really mean what we say here".

[Ramon F Herrera]

On Nov 16, 12:56 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"

Not quite. See Section (1) of my copy&paste below. It relates to the
lawsuit that you racists announced (and never actually filed) after
the Executive DREAM Act announcement.

Hey! There's still time! What are you waiting for???? Will the much-
heralded lawsuit be forthcoming?

-Ramon

---------------------------------

These are the reason why the GOP will NEVER dare to challenge the
presidential decision.

(1) The Bible and the Constitution can be interpreted to support
almost anything we wish:

- jockeys vs. boxers
- "Tastes great" vs. "less filling"
- Little endian vs. big endian
- Dog people vs. cat people.
- Martian Men vs. Venusian Females
- etc.

(2) The move made by the administration can be easily defended,
constitutionally (see above and below) and most important POLITICALLY.
Read the following 90-page article by YALE CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS:

http://tinyurl.com/83p68o4

(3) There is a HUGE intestine division in the GOP, the leaders will
not even answer journalists' calls. They have cancelled press
conferences. Obama painted them in a corner; they are nicely boxed.

http://tinyurl.com/7glkmea

(4) The LAST thing on Earth the GOP could do would be trying to sue
the administration over this. Can you imagine the reaction from Dems
and Latinos? "The poor KIDS! All they want is a chance! Those CRUEL
Republicans!" They are praying that the whole thing blows over ASAP
(AND that it is NOT mentioned in the electoral debates!).

In short, the presidential move was a stroke of genius. The Obama
strategists must be Russian Chess Champions.

http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/Hot-Chimichanga.jpg

-Ramon

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own black
>people.

Cite

[Ramon F Herrera]

> The Constitution also recognized the right of white people

> to own Black people.

Actually, it is in the Bible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQn3vBSxdZE

-Ramon

[RD Sandman]

Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in

news:hscb74jbxewe$.ya91bitbhsn6$.d...@40tude.net:

> The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own

> black people.

It walked a very fine line between slavery and those who wished to abolish
it.

Art I(2)(3): the "federal number" clause apportioning House seats by
population, counting "other persons" (that is, those who weren't free) as
three-fifths of a person.

Art I(2)(3): apportioning direct taxes the same as representatives, so
that the total slave population could not be taxed.

Art I(8)(15): granting Congress power to call up the militia to suppress
insurrections, including slave rebellions.

Art I(9)(1): prohibiting Congress from banning the slave trade before 1808
and permitting a head tax on slaves of up to ten dollars.

Art I(9)(4): redundantly prohibiting a direct tax not based on the federal
census as provided for in Art I(2)(3).

Art I(9)(5): prohibiting Congress from taxing exports from any state, a
provision included in part to prevent Congress from taxing the slave trade
out of business.

Art I(10)(2): prohibiting the states from taxing exports and thus taxing
the product of slave labor.

Art IV(2)(3): prohibiting states from emancipating fugitive slaves.

Art IV(4): requiring the federal government to protect the states against
domestic violence, including slave insurrection.

Art V: making the slave trade and the direct tax provisions unamenable.

> Then the Civil War came along to put an end to that notion.

In short, yes. However, what really did it were the Reconstruction
Amendments 13, 14 & 15.



--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

If law school is so hard to get through....
how come there are so many lawyers?

[RD Sandman]

Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:2e9da896sj5lrs6ma...@4ax.com:

That's true but it didn't really support that right either. It didn't
directly address it in either direction.

[Marvin the Martian]

> The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own black
> people.
>

> Then the Civil War came along to put an end to that notion.

Sort of true. The civil war was fought over Tariffs; the US put tariffs
on European imported manufactured goods to protect northern manufacturing
so Europe put tariffs on American imported goods - largely southern
cotton. That made the Yankees richer at the expense of the southerners.

The war was going pretty crappy for the North by the time Lincoln was up
for re-election, so he made slavery and issue. Northern manufacturing
workers did NOT want to have to compete against slave labor (for the same
reasons why American workers don't want to have to compete against
Chinese slave and sweatshop labor today, btw) and so they were against
slavery. That motived the Northern blue collar workers for the war.

[Marvin the Martian]

Correct. IIRC, at least one of those was not correctly ratified.

[RD Sandman]

Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in
news:zuGdnR7zF_lGXDvN...@giganews.com:

The complaints I have heard with not being correctly ratified were tied
to the 16A.

[Marvin the Martian]

There were issues... Southern senators were excluded, southern states not
included and all that. If the justification for the Civil war was that
the Southern states could NOT leave, then they had to have suffrage in
the congress, which they denied them.

The 16th was also not properly ratified, but that was another issue.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:47:56 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:43:52 -0600, Marvin the Martian

> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:17:17 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:06:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
>>> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We gave the fedgov the power and duty the defend the united States,
>>>>and instead they couldn't resist fucking with other countries....
>>>>almost as many as the Brits have. And we prohibited the Fedgov from
>>>>meddling in domestic issues, and that didn't work at all.
>>>
>>> You mean by "meddling" refers to:
>>>
>>> Old age poverty
>>>
>>> Child labor
>>>
>>> Contract law
>>>
>>> Womens suffrage
>>>
>>> Civil rights
>>>
>>> Civil liberties
>>>
>>> Workers rights
>>>
>>> You saying the feds should not have "meddled" in those "states rights"
>>>
>>> Gee---why were you okay with the feds "Meddling" in FL election laws
>>> then?
>>
>>The states have all the sovereignty and power in the REAL subjects you
>>mention: Child law, contract law (except for interstate contracts), and
>>worker rights.
>

> And allowed child labor, exploitation of children and women,
> minorities and workers.

Yes, yes. That's all in the communist manifesto, which is NOT part of the
U.s Constitution.

If you don't like the laws of the state you're in, MOVE to a better one.

Easy! But no, asswipes like you just gotta fuck with people who aren't
doing you ANY harm.

[RD Sandman]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:s5kda81jlnvija6u3i76ac0sln5mfep8mc@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:17:57 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:2e9da896sj5lrs6ma...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>>The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own
black
>>>>people.
>>>
>>> Cite
>>>
>>
>>That's true but it didn't really support that right either. It didn't
>>directly address it in either direction.
>

> Sure it did
>
> Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because that
> was "Stolen Property"
>
> That sure is "addressing"...
>

Show me those laws in the Constitution itself which is what was being
discussed. Take all the screens you need.

[RD Sandman]

Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in

news:zuGdnRjzF_nQVTvN...@giganews.com:

The issues on the 16th were mostly slight wording or puncuational changes
where not all states saw the same exact punctuations in their copy of the
amendment.

As to the original comments in this thread, the 10 points I placed above
were the dissenting ones covering slavery or not covering it. Both sides
were afraid that if that language hadn't been placed in the original
Constitution that it would not have been ratified.

[Gray Guest]

Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in

news:1uq64jpjeultu.1dn6rv7x0jz2u$.d...@40tude.net:

>
>> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
>> founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union
>> is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
>> agent, not an overseer of the states.
>>

>> A good place to start is to deny the US Supreme Court the power to
>> nullify laws, whether state or federal. Nowhere does the constitution
>> give them that power so by the tenth amendment the power is with the
>> states. That's right - the states can nullify laws but not the f
>> eds. States need to insist on that - the constitution is on their
>> side.
>

> You mean that the Feds could not longer enforce their marijuana laws?
>
> The Republicans will never go for that.

Really, stupid? I very much support decrimializing marijuana. The lefties
will be much easier to round up when they are stoned.

--
Refusenik #1

Libs suffer from Eleutherophobia. And there is no cure.

Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama,
THEY GOT DENIED. Fuck Obama

[Gray Guest]

Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in news:kty3s3j2zg0d.oobvd9bqcd6f
$.d...@40tude.net:

>
>> The secession advocates need to ask themselves - Do you really want to
>> leave america? I don't - i want to stay american but
>> weaken the feds.
>

> But...But...That would mean the FBI could no longer read your e-mail.
>
> The Republicans won't buy that, either.
>

Do you think that President Nigger will stop murdering Americans citizens
without a court decision?

[Gray Guest]

Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in news:hscb74jbxewe
$.ya91bitbhsn6$.d...@40tude.net:

> The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own black
> people.
>

> Then the Civil War came along to put an end to that notion.
>

Maybe we need a reset.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:17:57 -0600, RD Sandman
><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>

>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>news:2e9da896sj5lrs6ma...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>>The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own black
>>>>people.
>>>
>>> Cite
>>>
>>
>>That's true but it didn't really support that right either. It didn't
>>directly address it in either direction.
>

>Sure it did
>
>Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because that
>was "Stolen Property"
>
>That sure is "addressing"...

Cool. All you have to do is provide a cite.

Waiting......................................

[Oglethorpe]

"Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
news:nYWdnTxuAPqs5jvN...@giganews.com...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:15:16 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:

>
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:11:05 -0800 (PST), "Criminal Drivers Murder
>> 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
>>>founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union is
>>>now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
>>>agent, not an overseer of the states.
>>

>> In the latter 18th century---there was no huge expansive, post
>> industrialized nation, stupid.
>
> WTF are you gibbering about now? He didn't say it was!
>


Did you see "The Men Who Built America"? The nation gew and expanded with
the railroads. So someone is ignorant about what happened in the late 1t00s
and early 1800s.

>> powers of states vs Federal govt.
>
> Oh yes. You're the guy who claims that you, yourself, are too fucking
> stupid to read the document and you need someone to explain it to you.
>
> That would explain why you thought that CDM said something about
> industrialized when he said nothing of the sort.
>
> I'm sorry, I guess you're retarded and I've been too harsh.
>
> < snip more of Yoorghis babbling. >
>
> It is axiomatic that one cannot reason with an unreasonable person.

[Oglethorpe]

"Ramon F Herrera" <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in message
news:8c427a1e-2b15-4195...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 15, 10:16 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murde Americans a Year"

<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The secession advocates need to ask themselves - Do you really
> want to leave america? I don't - i want to stay american but
> weaken the feds.

Your request to revive and bring back Jim Crow is hereby
unceremoniously denied.

--------------

Jin Crow was the work of the Democrats who feared the newly freed slaves.
Gun contro,l started because they feared the slaves would take revenge and
start killing whites en masse. Also, it was no fun when Democrats road out
in theor white shjeets to hang an "uppiity nigger" and their intended victim
blew them out of the saddle. Planned Parenthood was founded to stem the
birthrate of inferior human beings - whom foundr Margeret Sanger defined as
being the negro race. The minimum wage was instituted to stop black laborers
from working in construction in the north.


Before Democrats "helped blacks"38% of black children were born out of
wedlock. With their help today 70% of black children are born out of
wedlock.

[Oglethorpe]

"Ramon F Herrera" <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in message

news:691450b6-ad22-47c6...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 15, 10:16 pm, "Judy Who is more concerned about the price of

the gallon of gin than that of gasoline" wrote:

> The secession advocates need to ask themselves -
> Do you really want to leave america? I don't -
> i want to stay american but weaken the feds.

Really? That is waaaaay cool!!



-----

LBJ called blacks niggers and laughed at the tricks he pulled on them to buy
their loyalty to the Democrats.

[Oglethorpe]

"Ramon F Herrera" <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in message

news:31b81743-1f69-4e21...@b6g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 16, 12:56 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:15 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > NO WHERE in the constitution does it say that ONLY a "strict
> > construction" or "literal" reading (of constitutional construct) is
> > permitted.
>

> HAHAHA. What a stupid thing to say. Are you saying there should
> have been a clause in the constitution that said
> something like - "And we really mean what we say here".


Not quite. See Section (1) of my copy&paste below. It relates to the
lawsuit that you racists announced (and never actually filed) after
the Executive DREAM Act announcement.

----

The Dream Act is crap. Why should people get special treatment for being
here illegally?

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Nov 16, 7:54 pm, "Oglethorpe" <antike...@go.com> wrote:
----
>
> The Dream Act is crap. Why should people get special
> treatment for being here illegally?

No special treatment at all. Human treatment.

"America is a land of laws, but it is also a land of compassion"
-Barack Obama

If you have a problem with the DREAM Acts:

(a) The Executive DREAM Act, ordered by President Obama.

(b) The Private DREAM Act championed by Mrs. Steve Jobs and other
high tech titans.

(c) The Legislative DREAM Act, promised by your candidate.

err, well, I guess you are screwed. Your only possible peers are
these:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/12/neo-nazi-rally-drown-out-by-clowns-in-north-carolina/

Pray tell: Which of the mentioned DREAM Acts (plus the one in
California universities and elsewhere), do you hate the most?

-Ramon

------------------------------------------

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203458604577261342745473460.html

------------------------------------------

The following event took place a few weeks ago in Miami. This was
leaked to the NYT and others (profuse apologies for the
uncharacteristic lack of URL, I transcribed this from the TV):

------------------------------------------
Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC:

"We now know what the secret Mitt Romney says at his $50,000 per
person fundraisers that the public Mitt Romney would never say. Romney
demonstrated some competence in campaign math. He told his audience
that president Obama's huge lead among Hispanic voters 'Spells doom
for us. We have to come up with some kind of Republican DREAM Act. We
HAVE TO GET Hispanics to vote for our party.'"
------------------------------------------

(Can you spell D-E-S-P-E-R-A-D-O-S?)

The following day, Marco Rubio got on his rear bottom and started to
work on the Republican DREAM Act which is EXACTLY the same as the one
announced by President Obama. Now the Rubio DREAM Act is dead in the
Rio Grande, and the Repubs are understandably pissed.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:43:15 -0800, Oglethorpe wrote:

> "Marvin the Martian" <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in message
> news:nYWdnTxuAPqs5jvN...@giganews.com...
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:15:16 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 20:11:05 -0800 (PST), "Criminal Drivers Murder
>>> 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
>>>>founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union
>>>>is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
>>>>agent, not an overseer of the states.
>>>
>>> In the latter 18th century---there was no huge expansive, post
>>> industrialized nation, stupid.
>>
>> WTF are you gibbering about now? He didn't say it was!
>>
>>
>
> Did you see "The Men Who Built America"? The nation gew and expanded
> with the railroads. So someone is ignorant about what happened in the
> late 1t00s and early 1800s.

CDM was talking about how America originally was a loose confederation -
under the Articles of Confederation, America's FIRST "constitution",
similar to the European Union today.

Then Yoorghis starts gibbering about industrialization.

[Marvin the Martian]

Accept for a moment the revisionist version of history where the civil
war was fought over slavery and only slavery. It was the bloodiest war in
American history.

Blacks claim it was the worst thing that ever happened. Some blacks
demand reparations. At the same time, they vote at a rate of 90% to be
made slaves of the state... and are comfortable with their leaders saying
that they "belong to the government".

Not exactly logically consistent.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:33:29 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because that
>>>was "Stolen Property"
>>>
>>>That sure is "addressing"...
>>
>>Cool. All you have to do is provide a cite.
>>
>>Waiting......................................
>

>Ah, another ass-kicked winger who needs "Cites" for common, accepted
>historical facts.

If they are so common and accepted, you should have no trouble citing
it.

The Constitution isn't that big a document.

What are you waiting for?

And just so you're not confused any more than you already are, here is
what you're looking for...............

:: >The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own black
:: >people.
::
:: Cite

Waiting.................................

[RD Sandman]

Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
news:XnsA10DC98841286We...@88.198.244.100:

> Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in
> news:1uq64jpjeultu.1dn6rv7x0jz2u$.d...@40tude.net:
>
>>
>>> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america
>>> was founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European
>>> Union is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal
>>> govt was an agent, not an overseer of the states.
>>>
>>> A good place to start is to deny the US Supreme Court the power to
>>> nullify laws, whether state or federal. Nowhere does the
>>> constitution give them that power so by the tenth amendment the
>>> power is with the states. That's right - the states can nullify
>>> laws but not the f eds. States need to insist on that - the
>>> constitution is on their side.
>>
>> You mean that the Feds could not longer enforce their marijuana laws?
>>
>> The Republicans will never go for that.
>
> Really, stupid? I very much support decrimializing marijuana. The
> lefties will be much easier to round up when they are stoned.
>

And righties would be a lot mellower.

[RD Sandman]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:i2bfa8pg8jfmdunfbvlmpaavm6d7j8r8ji@
4ax.com:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:33:29 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>>>Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because that
>>>was "Stolen Property"
>>>
>>>That sure is "addressing"...
>>
>>Cool. All you have to do is provide a cite.
>>
>>Waiting......................................
>

> Ah, another ass-kicked winger who needs "Cites" for common, accepted
> historical facts.

Your claim.....support it.

> You need "cites" for the fact that ships do not fall of the edge of
> the earth too?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:i2bfa8pg8jfmdunfbvlmpaavm6d7j8r8ji@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:33:29 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because that
>>>>was "Stolen Property"
>>>>
>>>>That sure is "addressing"...
>>>
>>>Cool. All you have to do is provide a cite.
>>>
>>>Waiting......................................
>>
>> Ah, another ass-kicked winger who needs "Cites" for common, accepted
>> historical facts.
>
>Your claim.....support it.

Actually......

:: >Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

[Gray Guest]

RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in

news:XnsA10F68150...@216.196.121.131:

> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA10DC98841286We...@88.198.244.100:
>
>> Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in
>> news:1uq64jpjeultu.1dn6rv7x0jz2u$.d...@40tude.net:
>>
>>>
>>>> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america
>>>> was founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European
>>>> Union is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal
>>>> govt was an agent, not an overseer of the states.
>>>>
>>>> A good place to start is to deny the US Supreme Court the power to
>>>> nullify laws, whether state or federal. Nowhere does the
>>>> constitution give them that power so by the tenth amendment the
>>>> power is with the states. That's right - the states can nullify
>>>> laws but not the f eds. States need to insist on that - the
>>>> constitution is on their side.
>>>
>>> You mean that the Feds could not longer enforce their marijuana laws?
>>>
>>> The Republicans will never go for that.
>>
>> Really, stupid? I very much support decrimializing marijuana. The
>> lefties will be much easier to round up when they are stoned.
>>
>
> And righties would be a lot mellower.
>

What if they didn't smoke it? Just because it's legal doesn't mean I'd
smoke it.

[RD Sandman]

Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in

news:XnsA10E7FAB14062We...@88.198.244.100:

> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:XnsA10F68150...@216.196.121.131:
>
>> Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA10DC98841286We...@88.198.244.100:
>>
>>> Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in
>>> news:1uq64jpjeultu.1dn6rv7x0jz2u$.d...@40tude.net:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america
>>>>> was founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European
>>>>> Union is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal
>>>>> govt was an agent, not an overseer of the states.
>>>>>
>>>>> A good place to start is to deny the US Supreme Court the power to
>>>>> nullify laws, whether state or federal. Nowhere does the
>>>>> constitution give them that power so by the tenth amendment the
>>>>> power is with the states. That's right - the states can nullify
>>>>> laws but not the f eds. States need to insist on that - the
>>>>> constitution is on their side.
>>>>
>>>> You mean that the Feds could not longer enforce their marijuana
laws?
>>>>
>>>> The Republicans will never go for that.
>>>
>>> Really, stupid? I very much support decrimializing marijuana. The
>>> lefties will be much easier to round up when they are stoned.
>>>
>>
>> And righties would be a lot mellower.
>>
>
> What if they didn't smoke it? Just because it's legal doesn't mean I'd
> smoke it.
>

I don't think you are all the righties. One, yes.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 08:35:56 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:43:15 -0800, "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Did you see "The Men Who Built America"? The nation gew and expanded
>>with the railroads. So someone is ignorant about what happened in the
>>late 1t00s and early 1800s.
>

> The federal govt supplied railroads and industry with massive tracts of
> land which they could use, sell, or do whatever they wanted.

The land was distributed in a chep ckerboard pattern, where the rail road
would own half the squares near the rail road and the other squares were
open to homesteaders.

Free land for railroads for providing the rails and to the people.

> The westward expansion spread millions of immigrants across the land,

Except they weren't immigrants. Farms in the east were getting divided up
by heirs and were too small... the Government started a land giveaway
called the homestead act. People were moving to bigger farms.

> mostly farmers---to feed the urban centers, raised cattle to feed meat
> to the nation (Chicago stockyards)
>
> However, the regulations were far behind the needs of a growing urban
> society, technology outstripping the govt's loonytarian model, and by
> the 30's we collapsed financially.

President Coolidge faced a similar financial crisis. He handled it by NOT
pandering to the panicked people and doing essentially nothing. President
Hoover, on the other hand, pandered to the people and put a crimp on
international trade, trying to protect American businesses against
European imports. That shut down European business, so Europe imposed
restrictive tariffs of their own and the depression started in full
swing.

FDR (a commie) then lied his ass off and slandered the hell out of
President Hoover and won the Presidency. Money that was out of the market
was NOT going to re-invest as long as a commie who was trashing the
constitution was president due to the risk of having their investments
nationalized.

What ended the Great Depression was when FDR croaked, and the markets
became safe once again for capitalism. The lesson to be learned is that
when you have a lying commie son-of-a-bitch in the government, recovery
follows when he leaves office. If he won't leave office (like FDR) then
you have to wait until he kicks the bucket.

> During that run-up--the industrialists polluted, exploited, killed,
> poisoned and pillaged the resources even as they innovated business.
>
> Finally, citizens demanded regulations on food, water, environment, work
> safety, workers rights, womens rights, childrens rights and the host of
> other "things" that eventually made us great

Yep. Same failed big government that turned a recession into the great
Depression continued it much longer than it needed to be.

> NO conservative OR Loonytarian can claim they were in the forefront of
> making America a better nation----they opposed everything and still do.

Every socialist government that ever existed, from The Soviet Union to
Cuba to North Korea to China, has failed. When we have a socialist
President, be it FDR or Obama, America's economy is in the toilet. Having
a positive attitude is one thing, but being fucking stupid is just
inexcusable.

[Gray Guest]

RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in

news:XnsA10F6E250...@216.196.121.131:

I'm not sure I consider myself a rightie either.

I beleive in economic, personal and political liberty to the greatest
extent possible.

I beleive in the basic concept that your actions should not impact another
without thier consent.

I beleive in a fairly small government to provide the framework to enforce
that.

I beleive that if you disagree you are an enemy of mankind and freedom.

If that makes me a rightie, well, tiny minds have to go with what works for
them.

[Ramon F. Herrera]

On Nov 17, 12:33 pm, Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote innews:XnsA10F6E250...@216.196.121.131:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote in

> >news:XnsA10E7FAB14062We...@88.198.244.100:
>
> >> RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in
> >>news:XnsA10F68150...@216.196.121.131:
>

> >>> Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote in

> >>>news:XnsA10DC98841286We...@88.198.244.100:
>
> >>>> Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in
> >>>>news:1uq64jpjeultu.1dn6rv7x0jz2u$.d...@40tude.net:
>
> >>>>>> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america
> >>>>>> was founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European
> >>>>>> Union is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal
> >>>>>> govt was an agent, not an  overseer of the states.
>
> >>>>>> A good place to start is to deny the US Supreme Court the power to
> >>>>>> nullify laws, whether state or federal.  Nowhere does the
> >>>>>> constitution give them that power so by the tenth amendment the
> >>>>>> power is with the states.  That's right - the states can nullify
> >>>>>> laws but not the f eds.  States need to insist on that - the
> >>>>>> constitution is on their side.
>
> >>>>> You mean that the Feds could not longer enforce their marijuana
> > laws?
>
> >>>>> The Republicans will never go for that.
>
> >>>> Really, stupid? I very much support decrimializing marijuana. The
> >>>> lefties will be much easier to round up when they are stoned.
>
> >>> And righties would be a lot mellower.
>
> >> What if they didn't smoke it? Just because it's legal doesn't mean I'd
> >> smoke it.
>
> > I don't think you are all the righties.  One, yes.
>

> I'm not sure I consider myself a rightie either.
>

> I believe in economic, personal and political liberty to the greatest
> extent possible.
>
> I believe in the basic concept that your actions should not impact another
> without thier consent.
>
> I believe in a fairly small government to provide the framework to enforce
> that.
>
> I believe that if you disagree you are an enemy of mankind and freedom.

>
> If that makes me a rightie, well, tiny minds have to go with what works for
> them.

Great!! You are in favor of the US Chamber of Commerce's position on
immigration!!

Based on your writings, we readers were under the impression that you
were in the anti-business (aka communist, where the racists hang out)
car, but now you claim to be pro-business???

http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/GOP-Stake.gif

(NB: The donkey and the business folks are in 99% agreement)

-Ramon
Proud Member of the US Chamber of Commerce (regular and Hispanic)
So quit calling me commie, will ya'?
100% Supporter of the position on immigration being
lobbied and led by The US Chamber of Commerce

[Gray Guest]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:8c427a1e-2b15-4195-
a931-db1...@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 15, 10:16 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murde Americans a Year"

><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The secession advocates need to ask themselves - Do you really
> > want to leave america?  I don't  -   i want to stay american but
> > weaken the feds.
>

> Your request to revive and bring back Jim Crow is hereby
> unceremoniously denied.
>

> Check what happened with Arizona and the Individual Mandate:
>
> http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/Swing-Vote.jpg
>
> -Ramon
>

Spics and wetbacks, welfare state slaves.

[Gray Guest]

Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:691450b6-ad22-47c6-
9576-062...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:

>
> On Nov 15, 10:16 pm, "Judy Who is more concerned about the price of

> the gallon of gin than that of gasoline" wrote:
>
> > The secession advocates need to ask themselves -
> > Do you really want to leave america?  I don't  -
> > i want to stay american but weaken the feds.
>

> Really? That is waaaaay cool!!
>

> I will notify voters in the barrios and the officers in the Texas
> Democratic Party that we can proceed with our "Sólo Español"
> legislation in Texas, err, I mean: "Tejas".
>
> -Ramon
>

You really do want a shooting war, don't you?

[Liberal Here]

On Nov 15, 11:11 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"

<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
> founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union
> is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
> agent, not an  overseer of the states.

Bullshit. Get out a history book. The "loose confederacy" established
under the Articles of Confederation did not work and was replaced by
the US Constitution. The Civil War settled the question of permanency
of union.

[Derek Smalls]

Yoorghiss wrote in message
news:1unfa85omeon616vq...@4ax.com...

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:14:50 -0600, RD Sandman
<rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:



>>>>Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because that
>>>>was "Stolen Property"

>Your claim.....support it.

It's a historical fact, you dumb fuckwit.

>^^^^

Then PROVE your "supposed fact" with a historical fact via the US
Constitution (as YOU SAID) that supports it , you retard!

[RD Sandman]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in
news:1unfa85omeon616vq...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:14:50 -0600, RD Sandman

> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because
>>>>>that was "Stolen Property"
>
>

>>Your claim.....support it.
>
> It's a historical fact, you dumb fuckwit.
>

> RDLOON you get more like Knicklas every day.
>
>
> The Middle Passage and Slavery in America
>
> In the British North American colonies, slavery arrived late, and then
> only after a significant transitional period, during which chattel
> slavery gradually supplanted the system of indentured servitude that
> had hitherto supplied the main source for manual plantation labor. By
> 1700, chattel slavery had become legally institutionalized throughout
> British North America, but it flourished primarily in the Chesapeake
> region and the Carolina Low Country.
>
> http://salempress.com/store/samples/great_events_from_history_seventeen
> th/great_events_from_history_seventeenth_slavery.htm
>

And what of that do you think is in the Constitution, you ignorant twit?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:08:16 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:09:16 -0600, Marvin the Martian
> <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>>> The federal govt supplied railroads and industry with massive tracts
>>> of land which they could use, sell, or do whatever they wanted.
>>
>>The land was distributed in a chep ckerboard pattern, where the rail
>>road would own half the squares near the rail road and the other squares
>>were open to homesteaders.
>>
>>Free land for railroads for providing the rails and to the people.
>

> And without govt regulation---put them at the mercy of whatever the
> monopolies decided to charge.

There was always land that was NOT rail road land not far away. This was
under the 1862 rail road act.

The rail roads did try to entrap people from time to time, but mostly the
settlers and the railroads had a common interest.

> Eventually leading to more and more abuse---until one of the Few Good
> Republicans (a progressive) took them on.

The Rail Road act of 1862 was the work of Lincoln and the Republicans to
begin with.

Back in Lincoln's day, Republicans were the party of Northern Business
interest...

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:10:14 -0800, Liberal Here wrote:

> On Nov 15, 11:11 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
>> founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union is
>> now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
>> agent, not an  overseer of the states.
>
> Bullshit. Get out a history book. The "loose confederacy" established
> under the Articles of Confederation did not work and was replaced by the
> US Constitution. The Civil War settled the question of permanency of
> union.

The articles of confederation worked just fine!

There were complains that stronger regulation of interstate commerce was
needed, so a constitutional convention was held.

Sadly, one of the motivating factors was that many of the Founding
Fathers bought up worthless Continental Congress debt paper for pennies
on the dollar. They then used the new constitution to make good on that
debt, so they became rich if the constitution was passed.

Greed and a scam were the driving factors behind the second constitution,
not a deficiency in the Articles of Confederation.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 12:09:00 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:13:13 -0600, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Really, stupid? I very much support decrimializing marijuana. The
>>> lefties will be much easier to round up when they are stoned.
>>>
>>>
>>And righties would be a lot mellower.
>

> But, like failed, discredited loonytarians---not much smarter.

So, why do you hate liberty, other than it means you can't use the
government to get a free lunch - something you greatly desire because
you're a loser...

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:42:41 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:

> Ramon F Herrera <gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote in news:691450b6-ad22-47c6-
> 9576-062...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> On Nov 15, 10:16 pm, "Judy Who is more concerned about the price of the
>> gallon of gin than that of gasoline" wrote:
>>
>> > The secession advocates need to ask themselves - Do you really want
>> > to leave america?  I don't  -
>> > i want to stay american but weaken the feds.
>>
>> Really? That is waaaaay cool!!
>>
>> I will notify voters in the barrios and the officers in the Texas
>> Democratic Party that we can proceed with our "Sólo Español"
>> legislation in Texas, err, I mean: "Tejas".
>>
>> -Ramon
>>
>>
> You really do want a shooting war, don't you?

Well, it worked to drive the Mexicans out the first time.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Liberal Here <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:11 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
>
> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
> > founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union
> > is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
> > agent, not an  overseer of the states.
>
> Bullshit. Get out a history book. The "loose confederacy" established
> under the Articles of Confederation did not work and was replaced by
> the US Constitution. The Civil War settled the question of permanency
> of union.
>

The civil war settled nothing. You don't settle issues at the point of
a gun.

[Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year]

On Nov 17, 7:48 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>
> You don't think that a tax code that favors the wealth class isn't
> "Free stuff"
>
> Or the decades of "small government" allowing poison/contaminated
> food, dangerous products, diseased water and exploitation of workers,
> women wasn't allowing a lot of "free stuff" to the wealth and
> corporate class?
>

You saying clinton and obozo got rid of those things? They didn't even
try. All govt officials take corporate bribes.

[Harold Burton]

In article <1teuta92egi5x$.ht0hvekp...@40tude.net>,

> Actually, that's the way most issues are settled.


Must be why WWI led to WWII.


snicker

[Gray Guest]

Liberal Here <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4c29770b-a23d-4783-b0c3-
d6df1d...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 15, 11:11 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
>> founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union
>> is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
>> agent, not an  overseer of the states.
>
> Bullshit. Get out a history book. The "loose confederacy" established
> under the Articles of Confederation did not work and was replaced by
> the US Constitution. The Civil War settled the question of permanency
> of union.

So you are an opponent of self determination and a proponent of political
and economic slavery?

>
>
>
>
>>
>> A good place to start is to deny the US Supreme Court the power to
>> nullify laws, whether state or federal.  Nowhere does the constitution
>> give them that power so by the tenth amendment the power is with the
>> states.  That's right - the states can nullify laws but not the f
>> eds.  States need to insist on that - the constitution is on their
>> side.
>
>

[Gray Guest]

"Derek Smalls" <Spin...@bass.gov> wrote in news:50a7e7cd$0$9835
$607e...@cv.net:

Geez you would think even an idiot like Yoyo could look up the Runaway
Slave Act.

[Gray Guest]

Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in
news:1unfa85omeon616vq...@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:14:50 -0600, RD Sandman
><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because that
>>>>>was "Stolen Property"
>
>
>>Your claim.....support it.
>
> It's a historical fact, you dumb fuckwit.
>

> RDLOON you get more like Knicklas every day.
>
>
> The Middle Passage and Slavery in America
>
> In the British North American colonies, slavery arrived late, and then
> only after a significant transitional period, during which chattel
> slavery gradually supplanted the system of indentured servitude that
> had hitherto supplied the main source for manual plantation labor. By
> 1700, chattel slavery had become legally institutionalized throughout
> British North America, but it flourished primarily in the Chesapeake
> region and the Carolina Low Country.
>
> http://salempress.com/store/samples/great_events_from_history_seventeenth
> /great_events_from_history_seventeenth_slavery.htm
>

Out of curisoity, it seems slavery has been a resolved issue since 1865.
What can't you retards let it go?

[Gray Guest]

"Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" <xeto...@yahoo.com>
wrote in news:b1cd7e99-9493-409a-9152-5bc8856bdc86
@r7g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:

Stupid and illiterate. What a combination.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 19:48:36 -0700, Yoorghis wrote:

> You don't think that a tax code that favors the wealth class isn't "Free
> stuff"

So, by "favor" you mean the 1% pay 30% of the taxes, and the top 50%
pays all the taxes, and the lower 50% gets a free ride and pays nothing...

That's Yoorghis logic for you, stupid as hell.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 06:45:22 +0000, Gray Guest wrote:

> Liberal Here <liber...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:4c29770b-a23d-4783-b0c3-
> d6df1d...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Nov 15, 11:11 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
>><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
>>> founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union
>>> is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
>>> agent, not an  overseer of the states.
>>
>> Bullshit. Get out a history book. The "loose confederacy" established
>> under the Articles of Confederation did not work and was replaced by
>> the US Constitution. The Civil War settled the question of permanency
>> of union.
>
> So you are an opponent of self determination and a proponent of
> political and economic slavery?

Eh... most liberals are against self determination and a proponent of
subjugating the people. Liberals believe people are stupid animals and
need to be taken care of by the government.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:14:50 -0600, RD Sandman
><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because that
>>>>>was "Stolen Property"
>
>
>>Your claim.....support it.
>
>It's a historical fact, you dumb fuckwit.
>
>RDLOON you get more like Knicklas every day.
>
>
>The Middle Passage and Slavery in America
>
>In the British North American colonies, slavery arrived late, and then
>only after a significant transitional period, during which chattel
>slavery gradually supplanted the system of indentured servitude that
>had hitherto supplied the main source for manual plantation labor. By
>1700, chattel slavery had become legally institutionalized throughout
>British North America, but it flourished primarily in the Chesapeake
>region and the Carolina Low Country.
>
>http://salempress.com/store/samples/great_events_from_history_seventeenth/great_events_from_history_seventeenth_slavery.htm

Nice goal post move.

The original statement....

Actually......

:: >Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
::
:: >The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own black
:: >people.
::
:: Cite

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:57:56 -0600, RD Sandman
><rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>And what of that do you think is in the Constitution, you ignorant twit?
>

>"and what of that (idiot reponse), Must be in the constitution?
>
>The Interpretation of what the constitution says, or means, is not
>required to be literal. (or originalist)
>
>it is a foundation from which law is interpreted.
>
>


ROFLMAO

Thanks for confirming that the idiot who posted this statement....

:: >Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
::
:: >The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own black
:: >people.

....had his head up his ass.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:38:58 -0500, "Derek Smalls"
><Spin...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Then PROVE your "supposed fact" with a historical fact via the US
>>Constitution (as YOU SAID) that supports it , you retard!
>

>Show me ANYWHERE "in-the-Constitution" that requires literal reading.

Well we KNOW you're incapable of literal reading. Look at the problem
you had with the Second Amendment. It took you stupid fuckers about a
century to figure that out.

Here is the original post:

:: >Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
::
:: >The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own black
:: >people.

Suppose you tell us where is says this in the constitution- literally
or not.

[Marvin the Martian]

I donno... I'm beginning to believe that Yoorghis is really a right
winger spoofing the left wing by appearing to be ignorant, dishonest, and
completely illogical.

The trouble I have is that I've conversed with so many "Liberals" (even
the label Liberal is a lie, as they have no use for liberty) that if this
is a spoof, I find it believable.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

It's hard to believe people can be that ignorant... until you run into
people with Obama stickers on their cars.

Then you know they actually exist.

Still... I agree with you. More likely he's a Karl Rove Black
Operative.

[Man of Mind]

On 11/18/2012 12:45 AM, gay gusts whined and opined:
>
> Liberal Here <liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 15, 11:11 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year" wrote:
...

>>> The founding fathers took states rights for granted. When america was
>>> founded and the constitutuion written it was like the European Union
>>> is now - a loose grouping of SOVEREIGN states. The federal govt was an
>>> agent, not an overseer of the states.
>>
>> Bullshit. Get out a history book. The "loose confederacy" established
>> under the Articles of Confederation did not work and was replaced by
>> the US Constitution. The Civil War settled the question of permanency
>> of union.
>
> So you are an opponent of self determination and a proponent of political
> and economic slavery?

So, you are 'suggesting' a false dichotomy as the premise for your
rhetorical question?

--Or, were you simply quibbling over the details?

[Man of Mind]

On 11/18/2012 6:35 AM, false schadenfreude whined impotently:
>
> Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:38:58 -0500, "dick small" whined:
...

>>> Then PROVE your "supposed fact" with a historical fact via the US
>>> Constitution (as YOU SAID) that supports it , you retard!
>>
>> Show me ANYWHERE "in-the-Constitution" that requires literal reading.
>
> Well we KNOW you're incapable of literal reading.

*>LOL!<*

"But since I'm your superior in ever conceivable way"

"I *am* your superior in ever conceivable way"

--"Secedssion is OK" Literally?..

[Tom Swift Sr.]

On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/18/2012 6:35 AM, false schadenfreude whined impotently:

> > Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :

> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:38:58 -0500, "dick small" whined:
> ...
> >>> Then PROVE your "supposed fact" with a historical fact via the US
> >>> Constitution (as YOU SAID) that supports it , you retard!
>
> >> Show me ANYWHERE "in-the-Constitution" that requires literal reading.
>
> > Well we KNOW you're incapable of literal reading.
>
> *>LOL!<*
>
> "But since I'm your superior in ever conceivable way"
>
> "I *am* your superior in ever conceivable way"

There is also his grammatical mistake of beginning a "sentence" with
the word "But", which make it not a sentence but a fragment.

> --"Secedssion is OK"  Literally?

We can hope so. :D


-----
-----
Please Note:

In select newsgroups this post will be followed by an out-of-date, cut-
and-paste, SHRIEKING ranting and raving by Bob Milby Jr., aka Patriot
Games, aka Buster Norris, aka 1000s of Sockpuppets -- and the winner
of alt.usenet.kook's K00K of the Month Award for September 2012.

We hope to return you to more rational posting after this brief,
psychotic interruption.
------
------

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Tom Swift Sr." <thomas.sw...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Nov 18, 12:11 pm, Man of Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2012 6:35 AM, false schadenfreude whined impotently:
>> > Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:38:58 -0500, "dick small" whined:
>> ...
>> >>> Then PROVE your "supposed fact" with a historical fact via the US
>> >>> Constitution (as YOU SAID) that supports it , you retard!
>>
>> >> Show me ANYWHERE "in-the-Constitution" that requires literal reading.
>>
>> > Well we KNOW you're incapable of literal reading.
>>
>> *>LOL!<*
>>
>> "But since I'm your superior in ever conceivable way"
>>
>> "I *am* your superior in ever conceivable way"
>
>There is also his grammatical mistake of beginning a "sentence" with
>the word "But", which make it not a sentence but a fragment.

[chuckle]

Is it acceptable to begin a sentence with the word and or but?

The answer is yes. It is perfectly acceptable to start sentences with
the conjunctions and and but. However, it is slightly informal.
http://www.businesswritingblog.com/business_writing/2005/11/but_its_okay_an.html


Can You Start Sentences with "And" or "But"?
by Daniel Scocco
In the past, English teachers used to preach that one should never
start a sentence with conjunctions like and or but. Does this rule
still apply today?
Not entirely. It is already acceptable to start sentences with such
conjunctions. Some authorities, in fact, even defend that for some
cases conjunctions will do a better job than more formal
constructions.
http://www.dailywritingtips.com/can-you-start-sentences-with-%E2%80%9Cand%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cbut%E2%80%9D/

According to a usage note in the fourth edition of The American
Heritage Dictionary, "But may be used to begin a sentence at all
levels of style."

The same point was made over a century ago by Harvard rhetorician
Adams Sherman Hill: "Objection is sometimes taken to employment of but
or and at the beginning of a sentence; but for this there is much good
usage" (The Principles of Rhetoric, 1896). In fact, it has been common
practice to begin sentences with a conjunction since at least as far
back as the 10th century.
http://grammar.about.com/od/grammarfaq/f/butsentencefaq.htm

Looks like I'm your superior in grammar, too.

But we already knew that.

[Scout]

"RD Sandman" <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA10F685AB...@216.196.121.131...
> Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote in news:i2bfa8pg8jfmdunfbvlmpaavm6d7j8r8ji@
> 4ax.com:

>
>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:33:29 -0800, Klaus Schadenfreude
>> <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Laws were passed to track down and arrest runaway slaves because that
>>>>was "Stolen Property"
>>>>

>>>>That sure is "addressing"...
>>>
>>>Cool. All you have to do is provide a cite.
>>>
>>>Waiting......................................
>>
>> Ah, another ass-kicked winger who needs "Cites" for common, accepted
>> historical facts.
>
> Your claim.....support it.

If it's so common...then it should take less time to find a cite than he's
taken to bitch about being asked for one.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

And they should quit moving the goal posts while they're at it.

:: >Morgoth Bauglir <Mel...@Mordor.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
::
:: >The Constitution also recognized the right of white people to own black
:: >people.

::
:: Cite