email468
Well-Known Member
just for that no declarer title for you!i want in....you forgot about me bro
negative rep for you
Barack says yes to weed
- Thread starter jsgrwn
- Start date
medicineman
New Member
I declare this to be confusing, Thus declared, may it stand.just for that no declarer title for you!
shamegame
Well-Known Member
No way! Hello my brother in declaration! which was your graduating class? I was in the class of 2:00PM, March 4th, 2008!!!
LoudBlunts
Well-Known Member
Hey LB - no doubt the slaves had it shitty no arguing that (losing argument anyway) but it wasn't like every black was a slave. Hell - there were plenty of slave-owning blacks! Blacks served (along side whites) in the Revolutionary War as well as the French and Indian Wars. In fact, one of the folks who was killed at the Boston massacre was black. So you could build an argument that a black was one of the first (if not the first) person killed at the start of the war for independence. I think too often we think every black was treated as a second class citizen and every white was a wealthy slave holding land owner and that just wasn't the case.
It wasn't until the time before and after the Civil War that ALL blacks started getting stigmatized most likely because many folks were unjustly blaming them for the war. Now don't get me wrong, racism was rampant and out in the open but the whole social darwinism argument wasn't being made since Darwin didn't publish Origin of Species until 1859 - hmmm right around the time of the Civil War. So prior to that, things weren't recorded as being bad for free blacks. The slaves lives continued to suck of course.
so to answer your question of how would a black buy land? like anyone else, pay for it.
that comment was in reference to ccodaine response about the founding fathers tinkering with the idea of letting land/property owners vote ONLY, no one else but property owners. As well as this wouldnt be 'keeping the little man down'
you say a black man could buy land just like anybody else just by paying for it? i call bullshit.
we all know just how easy it was for a black man to own/purchase any property or land.
we also know there were STRICT laws PUT into place aka black codes aka jim crow laws to help suppress voting rights of blacks as well as property ownership.
to say that it wasnt would be like saying black codes/jim crow laws are imaginary!
email468
Well-Known Member
I don't think I expressed myself well, I apologize - I should have been more clear. My comments were strictly limited in time from the initial settling of colonies, through the Revolution and up to about the middle of the 19th century - just prior to the Civil War and Reconstruction with regard to property rights of free blacks. Voting for free blacks didn't start until after the Revolution obviously.
During and after the Civil War, absolutely correct - poll taxes, Jim Crow, KKK - anything to keep the blacks "in their place" and away from the ballot box. My point was the founding fathers did not do this - these policies did not begin until after their death.
Does that make sense?
LoudBlunts
Well-Known Member
oh yea, i know it did not start until after their deaths....
but regardless if it happened before or after their deaths. one has to be a fool to think you can set up a fool proof system and the people wont evolve and get smart.
if it happened shortly after their deaths, something tells me it wouldnt have matter if they had died or not. it was just a matter of time.
but regardless if it happened before or after their deaths. one has to be a fool to think you can set up a fool proof system and the people wont evolve and get smart.
if it happened shortly after their deaths, something tells me it wouldnt have matter if they had died or not. it was just a matter of time.
email468
Well-Known Member
And I should clarify my position even further by saying that unlike free blacks, slaves had no rights whatsoever. I am also not saying there wasn't any racism before the Civil War either - i'm not that naive. I don't see how you could own slaves - all of a different race from you - and not somehow justify it to yourself by thinking of them as inferior. What the black slave owners thought, i can not fathom.
But I did not intend to turn this into some kind of race issue anyway. If you're a dumbass that shouldn't be voting, I don't care what color you are and same goes if you are a rocket scientist perfecting non-polluting fuel sources - again don't care what color you are - but the dude who is working on the fuel source - i am arguing should have more of a vote than someone who is a useless scumbag - again, regardless of color.
But I did not intend to turn this into some kind of race issue anyway. If you're a dumbass that shouldn't be voting, I don't care what color you are and same goes if you are a rocket scientist perfecting non-polluting fuel sources - again don't care what color you are - but the dude who is working on the fuel source - i am arguing should have more of a vote than someone who is a useless scumbag - again, regardless of color.
email468
Well-Known Member
oh yeah - people twist things so the folks who always win will always win no doubt. And i'm sure my ideas would totally fuck shit up probably beyond repair. Fortunately, i am not supreme ruler and do not get to attempt my plan
medicineman
New Member
And just who are you to decide who is a useless scumbag? One man, one vote. That is the premis! Actually those that I'd guess you'd call useless scumbags, usually don't vote anyway.
email468
Well-Known Member
that is always the problem with any type of meritocracy - who decides.
email468
Well-Known Member
but i will point out that you ask me who i am to define useless scumbags and then you turn around and define them for yourself. That sir, is what as known as being hypocritical.
medicineman
New Member
Well scuuuse me. Please define them then. BTW Hypocritical: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion. (Mirriam Webster) I can't see this in my post, But I ask why you would exclude your version of scumbag which I would be interested in hearing about now that you brought it up. Please define scumbag.
email468
Well-Known Member
Oopsie my mistake. I misread you're post. You didn't say what I thought you said which would have made you a hypocrite.
scumbag - a bag filled with scum.
let's see - who shouldn't be voting? - i would say a good 90% of the population. Ill-informed consumers who voted us into this mess.
Let's see - who I would like to see not voting... sociopaths and psychopaths from voting (unless they are being successfully treated). Career criminals. The wealthy who got that way through inheritance. and anyone who disagrees with me.
how about you? who would you stop from voting?
medicineman
New Member
No-one, but I agree that a mis-informed voting public does only what the MSM tells them. I'm watching now to see which one they'll pick. They are still using exit polls, thats a good sign. The pessimists are saying that they'll do away with exit polls in the general. That will leave it up to Diebold and ES&S to flip the vote wherever there is a chance the chosen one will lose. I must say if the last two elections were done in Nicaragua and the sandanistas had won, we'd be screaming bloody murder about election engineering.Oopsie my mistake. I misread you're post. You didn't say what I thought you said which would have made you a hypocrite.
scumbag - a bag filled with scum.
let's see - who shouldn't be voting? - i would say a good 90% of the population. Ill-informed consumers who voted us into this mess.
Let's see - who I would like to see not voting... sociopaths and psychopaths from voting (unless they are being successfully treated). Career criminals. The wealthy who got that way through inheritance. and anyone who disagrees with me.
how about you? who would you stop from voting?
email468
Well-Known Member
and yet we say nothing about Diebold's voting shenanigans! What a crock electronic voting turned out to be (like we expected otherwise).
BIOHazard87
Active Member
JUST SAY NO.
boooky
Well-Known Member
Who cares really......I mean in all honestly who wants Hilary? Paris Hilton is voting Hilary and so is almost every other stupid 18 year old retarded highischool girl....Its just a pop cultcher now ower presidents are going for TV ratings and money. Politics = Flavor Flave......Its all a show im just dieing to see whos got there hand up mccains ass I bet its the DEA