Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: ansel12
A Time in America! Hey history buff, America has been around 236 years. The world has been around for several thousand years. I would love to know your nationality for this, but it is not important.

There was a time in America that blacks were "defined" as 2/3rds of a person and they could not be free. I wonder what your post would have looked like when they changed that.

There was a time in America that blacks could not go to school, sit in the front of the bus, eat in a diner, drink out of a public water fountain ... all because they were "defined" as 2/3rds of a person. I guess your recollection or history studies have taught you that the homosexual/Islamic agenda came to the rescue. And now all people are a whole people.

Women were not allowed to vote, and then the homosexual/Islamic agenda changed that.

In the early 1900s when my family came here from Ireland signs were posted "No Irish Need Apply" because they were "defined" as dirty.

What history have you studied. Our founding fathers [really Thomas Jefferson] had great vision. He was not perfect. He was one of the men that "defined" blacks as 2/3rds of a person, and he owned slaves. Tell me, was his definition correct? You would be well served to actually study some history. It would make for a better conversation.

Give me a quick snapshot of what your post would have looked like when they "re-defined" blacks to be a whole person from 2/3rds. Just for the entertainment!

190 posted on 09/08/2012 7:45:36 PM PDT by Why So Serious (There is no cure for stupidity!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies ]


To: Why So Serious

You are much farther left, and more anti-American than I realized.

Which country’s marriage laws is it that you wanted America to adopt at it’s beginnings, that did not define marriage as one man, one woman?


191 posted on 09/08/2012 7:51:12 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Aug. 27, 2012-Mitt Romney said his views on abortion are more lenient than the Republican Platform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

zot


193 posted on 09/08/2012 8:02:28 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

206 posted on 09/08/2012 8:44:46 PM PDT by Stonewall Jackson ("I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious; 230FMJ; 50mm; A.Hun; abigailsmybaby; AFPhys; Aircop_2006; AliVeritas; Allegra; ...
How about a little history lesson from the Viking Kitties...

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.

210 posted on 09/08/2012 9:46:42 PM PDT by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious; TheOldLady; Old Sarge
Then, any one can have a civil union [man/lady, lady/lady, man/man, mom/son, dad/daughter, brother/sister, person/multiple people]

(There is no cure for stupidity!!!)

Well, you've certainly managed to conclusively demonstrate the truth of that, by golly.


213 posted on 09/08/2012 10:17:30 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("If you're not fiscally AND socially conservative, you're not conservative!" - Jim Robinson, 9-1-10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious; 50mm; darkwing104; Arrowhead1952; Darksheare; TheOldLady; Lady Jag; Chode; ...

THOU HAST FELT THE FURY OF ROB,
AND ART NOW CONSIGNED TO THE FLAMES!!

214 posted on 09/08/2012 11:05:35 PM PDT by Old Sarge (We are now officially over the precipice, we just havent struck the ground yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious; Old Sarge; TheOldLady; darkwing104; Darksheare; 50mm
Where to begin... OK, I'll start at the end. You're gone. Whoopee!!!! Time for a little celebrating. What I don't get. though, is why you're so serious and argumentative. You sure didn't live up to your screen name. But then again, I suspect you had "issues" that just won't let you alone. Oh, well...

Photobucket

Satchmo ZOT!!

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

220 posted on 09/09/2012 5:17:26 AM PDT by bcsco (Bourbon gets better with age...I age better with Bourbon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious
Your handle fit your Tagline, troll. Your 'American history' is a bit off, so I'd try reading other books on the subject.
But all that's moot as you dared tweak the nose of the FR gods (which never ends well) and you: Got The Zot.

So ... as we FReepers say to trolls on their departure....


224 posted on 09/09/2012 5:55:26 AM PDT by Condor51 (Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious; kingattax; 50mm; darkwing104; Arrowhead1952; Darksheare; onyx; TheOldLady; ...
Why So Serious, the Viking Kitties will dine on your carcass!!

236 posted on 09/09/2012 8:36:08 AM PDT by DarthVader (Politicians govern out of self interest, Statesmen govern for a Vision greater than themselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

I just noticed your tagline.

(There is no cure for stupidity!!!)


239 posted on 09/09/2012 12:31:06 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Psalm 14. 1. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

Hmm.


241 posted on 09/09/2012 3:26:46 PM PDT by Darksheare (Try my coffee, first one's free.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

To: Why So Serious

(Guy’s been zotted, but I can’t resist)

As to your reference to blacks being defined as 2/3 of a person: You appear not to realize that the “2/3” reflects a compromise between (and IMO largely FAVORING) southern-colony slaveholders on the one hand, and non-slave-holding northerners.

It was the SOUTHERNERS (slaveholders) who wanted to count their black slaves as full “persons” for purposes of electoral votes and apportionment of congressional districts. Of course, the slaves would not get to vote, but that just gave slaveholders all the more power.

It was the NORTHERNERS who wanted slaves not to be counted, recognizing that the slaves weren’t going to be allowed to vote (a decision made by southern colonists) in any event.

The 2/3 was the compromise. It would have ironically been LESS racist, in context, to have counted them at zero, for the reasons explained above: If you’re not gonna let them vote in the first place, then don’t count them for other power-grabbing purposes.


253 posted on 09/10/2012 12:41:42 PM PDT by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson