I could just let this thread die and you'd probably stop talking anyway but alright buddy. Bring your supplies? Sharpen your pencil and pay close attention to the blackboard. After class you can puff my erasers outside.

The pledge of allegiance (with liberty and justice for all) was written in the late 1800's, well after the civil war took place. In case you were thinking that guaranteed the rights of every human being as a human.

The 13th amendment, which guarantees the rights of all humans as a human in America, was added on december 18th, 1865, following Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. The north wanted to guarantee freedom in all western states where they were rushing over to occupy, while the south didn't want that. The south depended on slavery to survive because it's not easy work being a farmer, dickhead, and america needed crops or else America wouldn't go very far in trading or anything else.

13th amendment:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

All of this took place well after the founding fathers freaking died, dude.

So your only point(s) to use against the FOUNDING FATHERS are void.

Liberty and Justice for all


they didn't write that huh?

they didn't intended that all men are born equal and free?

hmmm.....

continue on, teacher.

No, they intended that the british (white men) colony that founded the colony in the nation would thus be ran by british white men that founded the nation.

Therefore british white men had all the power for a long time, to change and edit rules.

They set up their system of government so that the people in generality would not be suppressed by the british white men, and that although only british white men could be in power (or AMERICANS AS THEY WERE SO BORN IN THE COUNTRY THEREAFTER (not obama)) there would be no suppression of the people, and the british white men would serve the people.

Now look at us. Black guy running against a female and the black guy was probably born in Kenya.

Not only that but we get taxed for our labor (income tax) and the taxes are now reaching the percent of taxes that are comparable to slaves or ancient british serfs.

Lmfao. All through manipulation of words due to an oligarchy of "I have more money than you so im gonna see how much money your daughter will accept to suck the shit off of my dick after i put it in her butt."

now your going off on obama....and speculating things that aren't proven

good job. you idiot.

don't blame me for you asking questions about what I had already answered

"they didn't write that huh"

Nope, fucker, end of 1800's..

Did they intend that all men be born equal and free?

Yes, they intended that all men who had the means to travel to the U.S. and receive the property which was then thus promised to them for coming to our land, to farm, be free and treated as a citizen by law.

This didn't specifically include freaking slaves sold to our citizens from another country which was offering.

How the fuck did that get into your head?

any other questions

no no, stop going off about things that aren't relevant to the point that they are hypocrites

They said all men are created equal, and should be able to be treated equally and free.

So, how is that appilicable and ok with slavery? explain to me that. how can you apply that concept to slavery, and still see slavery as a means to an end? You know you can't win that argument, becuase they didn't treat everyone equal. Plain and simple.

so kick rocks.

YES it was okay and applicable to slavery because black people were always allowed to own land here. Only a certain select few areas in certain states, a black men was not preferred to own property because they'd get fucking murdered.

It comes along with our form of government.

Everyone had the right to go to court, but not everyone got the same treatment. When re-evaluating what the forefathers wanted and expected, it became certain that slavery could and should be entirely abolished, but it was decided many years after the fact.

In other words, some people thought slaves were property if bought and thus did not have rights, "that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property", in other words: If a man was property, a man could not own property.

While the opposed to that view could use the SAME EXACT QUOTE in the opposed case, that all men were created equal, yet did that really mean that some men couldn't be property? After much evaluation it was decided that if a man, even though being property -- could not own property, then that was against American values itself, but even LINCOLN understood the need for slaves in America during rough times.

There was simply not the... and here, open your eyes for this one:

Right amount of money to be payed for labor.

So paying almost nothing for labor = slavery which = country thriving.


However in modern day, there's simply not the right amount of money in the hands of the working class because they're all freaking slaves too. Where did our money go? You think we honestly have ourselves to blame?

Nope. sorry, blame them, the government, and our stupid asses for getting emotional.

YEA KILL THOSE MUSLIMS

THEY LIVE IN ANOTHER WORLD.

now look at us, broke as shit due to a government scheme that the people couldn't see through. Now look at us, here again -- going to Afghanistan. When will the imperialism stop? Oh yea, I strayed again

cry fuckhead..

because in the end everything about america can be dragged down to the people.. who, like the ones following our forefathers were not able to decide which part of the quote mattered more.

So we have you saying that the central bank is wonderful and constitutional
and me saying it's not.

yet the forefathers are hypocrites

and im changing the subject

lol

i dont think i said that. i just said that our central banking system isn't as bad as you think it is. becuase it allows for the use of credit.

dumbass.

and yes, regardles, the forefathers were hypocrites, they owned slaves and preched freedom. that is hypocricy.

so keep typing out long rants of crap that prove nothing. :thumbup:

I just perfectly explained to you the concept of slaves as property and slaves as people.

There's a difference cockspine.

So your saying that the genius founding fathers are and should be able to use slaves in the context of property...because???? it was socially acceptable? that still doesn't make it right or ok. Great people do things against the ideas of society, its what makes them great. Their still hyproctes, cumlover

I didn't say that, I said something completely different.

alright man, go take some acid and live in the world of freeedooom!!

thats an insult?


get your fucken head right. there is nothing wrong with LSD. fuck ya.

you ARE whats wrong with LSD, you dumbass addict.