Vaccine

One big happy Native American family who would never think of something as awful as slavery? Hardly.

The Cherokee? They owned slaves. Apache? Owned slaves, and conducted their own slave raids to get more.

Or look at the satellite states of the Aztec or Cahotia. Tribal leaders didn't just offer their people up for slavery. Tribal leaders offered them up to be sacrificed.

People are just people. Same faults everywhere. It's up to us to rise above it.
Oh, so everyone could be a slave in their own tribes? I feel you and I agree. What is a slave then?
 
I broke away from being a white slave. Jealousy is what this all comes down too and race baiters who use color codes to insight hate and war. This is text book 101 on how to start a war and make billions. I will NOT take jabs. Let's see WHO is free and who will become a real magnet that can be told what to do, where to go and what to believe. Stop before you become a magnet!!!
 
Fair point, but the alternative is to effectively have LA and NYC determine our president. There is no perfect solution, but I prefer the electoral college.
Wasn't it Rand Paul who said that the GOP would be screwed for Pres without the electoral college? A system that allows a minority to select the Pres, and the minority to control the Senate, which in turn allows the minority to control the judiciary is problematic IMO.
 
If we didn't have a senate, the larger states would run rough shod over the smaller states.

The reason why we have a senate today is maybe even more important than before.

The 17th amendment did more harm than good.

Now the senate is less responsive to their state which has in turn helped the fed gov grow.

If you dare to look back at what was actually said in the discussions forming the Constitution, the 2 Senators per state idea was put in to keep the lower population states (mostly in the south) from being overruled by the higher population states (mostly in the north). The southern states also wanted to count their slaves toward the population census that determined the number of representatives in the House; thus the 3/5 compromise. Otherwise, the southern states weren't going to sign up.
 
If you dare to look back at what was actually said in the discussions forming the Constitution, the 2 Senators per state idea was put in to keep the lower population states (mostly in the south) from being overruled by the higher population states (mostly in the north). The southern states also wanted to count their slaves toward the population census that determined the number of representatives in the House; thus the 3/5 compromise. Otherwise, the southern states weren't going to sign up.
You've got a fish on using race bait, must be a @MacCarp, well done Mary.
 
One big happy Native American family who would never think of something as awful as slavery? Hardly.

The Cherokee? They owned slaves. Apache? Owned slaves, and conducted their own slave raids to get more.

Or look at the satellite states of the Aztec or Cahotia. Tribal leaders didn't just offer their people up for slavery. Tribal leaders offered them up to be sacrificed.

People are just people. Same faults everywhere. It's up to us to rise above it.
One big happy Native American family who would never think of something as awful as slavery? Hardly.

The Cherokee? They owned slaves. Apache? Owned slaves, and conducted their own slave raids to get more.

Or look at the satellite states of the Aztec or Cahotia. Tribal leaders didn't just offer their people up for slavery. Tribal leaders offered them up to be sacrificed.

People are just people. Same faults everywhere. It's up to us to rise above it.
So did African Americans for a while until the south started requiring freed men to leave the south for fear of sparking a rebellion (it’s a central plot point of “roots”)

so who then occupies the most aggrieved group in the grievance hierarchy? I had assumed it was native Americans because they were partially genocided (and African Americans participated) but you just made the case it’s African Americans because of slavery. I’m so confused now.
 
What did I get wrong?
You hit the nail on the head for the 3/5 compromise but New Jersey Delaware rhode island Connecticut and New Hampshire all had lower electoral counts than the Carolinas Virginia or Maryland. The issue was New York Pennsylvania Maryland Virginia the Carolinas and Georgia all claimed the land from the sea to the Mississippi. The other states were landlocked away from such claims (masachusetts had Maine). The northwest ordinance and the admission of Kentucky and tennesse resolved such issue.
 
This thread sure took a left turn. Alphabet boys, conservatives in the state department. CRT, unicorns in flight.

I have been for years generally non-partisan, but the extremes of t's behavior made me a Democrat for a day.
Fair reply.

I'm curious as to what specific behvior pushed you away and what specific behaviour from the democrats drew you in. Both parties are severely tainted. Why democrat for a day, why not democrat always.
 
You hit the nail on the head for the 3/5 compromise but New Jersey Delaware rhode island Connecticut and New Hampshire all had lower electoral counts than the Carolinas Virginia or Maryland. The issue was New York Pennsylvania Maryland Virginia the Carolinas and Georgia all claimed the land from the sea to the Mississippi. The other states were landlocked away from such claims (masachusetts had Maine). The northwest ordinance and the admission of Kentucky and tennesse resolved such issue.

That's an interesting way to look at it. The Northwest Ordinance (one of the few lasting actions by Confederation) allowed the creation of new States and also banned slavery in those states. Perhaps that banning alerted the southern states to what could happen in Congress.

And your history lesson forgot the Massachusetts claim based on its original sea-to-sea charter (ceded in 1784), and the Connecticut claim to a strip of land formed by running the Connecticut boundaries due west to the Mississippi. Connecticut ceded most of their claim in 1n 1786, but held onto and administered the Western Reserve in Northeast Ohio until 1800. I also don't see how the admission of Kentucky and Tennessee in 1792 and 1796 (after the admission of Vermont in 1791) could have had any effect on the actions of 1787.
 
This thread sure took a left turn. Alphabet boys, conservatives in the state department. CRT, unicorns in flight.


Fair reply.

I'm curious as to what specific behvior pushed you away and what specific behaviour from the democrats drew you in. Both parties are severely tainted. Why democrat for a day, why not democrat always.

I agree that both parties are tainted. I've been saying that for years.

Democrat on election day, because of t, as I already stated.
 
...imagine going from being forced to sit in the back of the bus, to forcing those who don't look like you off the bus...who had the "power"?

...congrats @MacDre , this is what "anti-racism" racism looks like.

 
Does white privilege exist? Here’s a dedication from your pal:
Your cultural ambassador is a convicted sexual assailant who got himself killed in a gangsta rap drug war?

You must be trying to win some prize for most predictable stereotype reinforcement.
 
Your cultural ambassador is a convicted sexual assailant who got himself killed in a gangsta rap drug war?

You must be trying to win some prize for most predictable stereotype reinforcement.
Or maybe you keep taking the bait and proving my point. Thanks Pal.
 
That's an interesting way to look at it. The Northwest Ordinance (one of the few lasting actions by Confederation) allowed the creation of new States and also banned slavery in those states. Perhaps that banning alerted the southern states to what could happen in Congress.

And your history lesson forgot the Massachusetts claim based on its original sea-to-sea charter (ceded in 1784), and the Connecticut claim to a strip of land formed by running the Connecticut boundaries due west to the Mississippi. Connecticut ceded most of their claim in 1n 1786, but held onto and administered the Western Reserve in Northeast Ohio until 1800. I also don't see how the admission of Kentucky and Tennessee in 1792 and 1796 (after the admission of Vermont in 1791) could have had any effect on the actions of 1787.
Fair but the practical reality for both Massachusetts and Connecticut is they were physically blocked off from their claims by ny which is why I didn’t put them on the list.
 
Or maybe you keep taking the bait and proving my point. Thanks Pal.
Glad to help. As long as it's negative stereotype day....

After reviewing my old Notorious LPs, maybe I'll head over to the annual Al Capone spaghetti night fundraiser at the Italian Cultural Center. Then send a couple quid to the real IRA, down some pints at Finnegan's, get in a fight and take my customary ride home in the Paddy wagon.

Apologies to anyone I forgot to offend there. I didn't mean to leave you out.
 
More mask insanity!

Government has created ranks of these psychos throughout the country, and they're saying it's parents who are the domestic terrorists. Imagine what is going undiscovered and unreported.

From this bullshit to CRT the time has come to take back direct control of schools.

NOTE: @espola (AKA: nutless wonder) save your "What is CRT" question for your circle jerk teammates.

 
Glad to help. As long as it's negative stereotype day....

After reviewing my old Notorious LPs, maybe I'll head over to the annual Al Capone spaghetti night fundraiser at the Italian Cultural Center. Then send a couple quid to the real IRA, down some pints at Finnegan's, get in a fight and take my customary ride home in the Paddy wagon.

Apologies to anyone I forgot to offend there. I didn't mean to leave you out.
You forgot to invite @Grace T. over for popcorn and to watch Chappelle's latest Netflix gig "The Closer" [wink] Love you GT!
 
Back
Top