Democracy

Yes, because they believed that. Most of the founding fathers didn't believe slavery was sustainable and many even believed it to be wrong. Not every slave owner treated their slaves like dogs.

No, they didn't. Angliman males are a different species, or did you not know?

Not a single person in the history of ever ever treated a slave as a dog. Slaves are treated as slaves, which is why they are slaves.

If any of those ancestors of today's inbred racist cretins believed slavery was wrong, they wouldn't have owned any. Because math is a thing, as well as principles.

I believe keeping pets - or what I call, "slave animals" - is wrong. Want to hazard a guess as to how many I don't own?

So I slipped on some ice yesterday. Knocked my self silly. I think I was knocked out for about 5-10 seconds.
When I got my bearings back, I noticed my purse was gone!!

OH MY GOSH!!! BAd enough you get hurt, but some shitter robs you while you're outr? Dafuq shit is that?

Well Jack, I'm glad you asked...
When I got up and recovered.
I noticed I had slipped on....
Black ice. :/

Black ice, huh?

So is this like a joke you heard today?

Yes

Well, glad to hear nothing happened to you.

Parts of the US where they ain't used to it, 1/10th inch of snow, and everyone is skidding and drowning in puddles n losing their ears n toes to frostbite.

So how are you now? Did you get checked?

Excuse me, Aristocratic Angliman males

I studied the history and the writings. They knew the tension. Your PC/Soviet ideological framework is a false imposition on reality. Many of them wanted out, but it was not as easy as you make it, though many of them made commendable efforts.

"Angliman"? Please get serious.

Instead of farting blithering idiocy wrapped in cutsey designer trigger PC.comMIE (you forgot SJW) labelzzz designed to impale nothing but your jizz on your forehead, state some facts, or anything, other than citing your imaginary PhD as you already did with your alt.

Ooh, troll got triggered. I guess you're not literate enough to recognize facts, or manufacture a straw-man allusion to PhD. Sorry, your troll post speaks for itself. 'Nuff right there.

Yes, I'm so triggered by boring cliches aimed at whom?

Now feel free to state the facts instead of phony (almost) appeal to (no) authority.

Already did, but if I kept at it, it would be to a guy who taunted someone else for spelling goofs, and then kept spelling amendment with two m's. Nope, I know what I'm dealing with and am satisfied with it.

P.S. Humility is generally your friend on the internet.

Still waiting for your 'facts' on how they were so eager to not own slaves that they released them regardless of the Civil War and the terms of "surrendur," as your alt claimed, in the 13th, 14th, & 15th Ammmmendments and the Emancipation Proclamation only a mere short century later.

Or is my "naevety" too much, comrade?

PS: I let " surrendur" slide how many times as a meme and a printed comment? And was it not only after you referred to my "naevety" did I point the irony of that spelling error out?

No, you stated nothing other than a false claim to knowledge you don't have.

You forgot to call me, snowflakkke, btw

Just what I expected.

Nice deflection there, Mr ReadWhatTheySaid.

Still waiting for them facts tha aren't your straw man "aMMendment" one.

Idiot. (Ooops, did I just ad hominem you?)

But meme is good :D

Do y'all think sausages are gay? If a man eats a sausage, they basically eating an erect dingdong and I think it gay.

Dude, it's just a food.

They both are MEAT! You eat one and you beat one... VERY SIMILAR!

I know lots of countries that destroyed their democracy with rewriting it

Nicolas Cage crashes through door
"OH YEAH!"

You might want to reevaluate your understanding on this.......

The constitution was written in such a way that made it possible to eradicate slavery. The founding fathers knew that slavery would not last and that freedom for all men would be soon to come. If it weren't for the constitution, slavery would probably still be thing in this country today.

Believe it or not (and I'm sure you don't, as many people today have no real clue to this time period in American history and how people lived), but not all white people owned slaves or believed in slavery as a means of the American way of life. Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, but didn't believe it to be a sustainable way of life. And many didn't believe slavery was right. The civil war happened because of the constitution, which was written by slave owners.

You're absolutely right, the Constitution was written in such a way that makes it possible to right original wrongs. Believe it or not (and I'm sure you don't), I am fully aware of that time period in American history. The “check and balances” system, the lawmaking process, and the ability to amend, is what I give the founding fathers credit for.

I figure you know something about it, given your meme I upvoted.

You're basically a conservativity warrior. Keep up the good work. :)

It made it possible, but extremely difficult and unlikely. It took the bloodiest civil war on earth to make some of those changes. Most people think of everything as it is now. But in the beginning being gay was 100% illegal, marriage was only legal for white people, slavery was specifically legal, cocaine, opium and heroin were legal, guns of all kinds were legal and school was not required because most children had to work more than 40 hours a week so their families didn’t starve to death.

It was nothing at all like today. Kids were literally worked to death in factories and mines and that was perfectly good and legal in 1776.

I never said it was the same as today. There were a lot of things that needed to change and did change. Thanks to the constitution, these changes were able to take place over time.

This is true. Otherwise, we’d still have public hangings, firing squads and women would have to be married by 20 so they could become a man’s property.

The Civil War wasn't exactly a Constitutional Convention.

Believe it or not (and I'm sure you don't), the Civil War was a civil war.
Pretty much.

Sorry. But you do not know history. I know, what we are taught. But if you believe any politician from any slave state would ever vote for any off these without a gun to their head, I admire your naevety. If it weren’t a war that continued for so many years, they’d all have passed at the same time. The war continued on through the “passing” of the final term of surrendur, the 15th Amendment.

1965, 1968, & 1970.

Goodness, is EVERYTHING you say a lie?

Or just all of it?

You don't know even know how to spell "surrender" nor "naiveté" for starters.
And you have no clue to the difference between terms of surrender and ammendments.

Because words do mean things.

You don't even know that I WAS AGREEING WITH THE POINTS YOU WERE MAKING CONTRARY TO THOSE OF SPUR'S AND WAS ADDRESSING HIM, you silly twit.

I'm bored with this ignorant nonsense. Read a booK or two, starting with the dictionary, my dear esteemed Constitutional Law scholar.

Oh, and please try and not allow your comments to be upvoted as soon as their posted. Looks a tad suspicious.

I give up.

No more flagant bullshit?

Do you really believe everyone else is a lying idiot like your faux-PhD self?

Forget the history buff pretend crap and just look up the words, you confounded idiot.

If you were at all correct, by this point in history neither of us would even know what racism was.

Due to my minority member parentage from people born in despised lands 6000 miles and a hemisphere apart, I got the pleasure of experiencing racism first hand thank you very much.

Gosh damn, I wish I didn't know.

Not all reality and knowledge comes from your imaginary research.
Take a walk outside and LOOK whilst on the way to the library to read some REAL books.

Stupid f**ktard.

I have a doctorate in this. From a very good school.

Of course you do.
What school did you get your lying degree in, btw?

The truth is they were terms of surrendur, personally authored by Abraham Lincoln. There was no supermajority of Congress and no supermajority of votes by the States. That fact has been erased from the history books for the sake of political correctness. I can prove this without doubt. You can search the world, but you will never find any record of where the voting on these amendments took place and who voted which way. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO VOTE. These were 100% absolutely, positively imposed an ALL states by President Lincoln.

Still no. Those are NOT terms of surrender. Those are RIGHTS henceforth granted to Americans regardless of...

You are confusing Lincoln's thumbing the South in the eye (as with the prior Emancipation Proclemation and later Reconstruction, as well as those Ammendments) of the South with changing rights granted by the Constitution.

Seems to be some further confusion here as to whom my initial reply was a reply to, as well as my attitude and intent.

I understand completely. There's a difference between rewrite and amend.

ARISTOCRATIC white men, for that matter.

The Electoral College was concieved of as a compromise between only landed gentry males being allowed to vote and the masses - whom the founding fathers thought of as incapable ignoramuses who would only muck things up - the right for which they revolted against the British Crown for.

That's not the reason for the origin of it.
That's in effect the function since of it.

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.....the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself...When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors.” BUSH v GORE.

All politics aside, this was alway the law in America. And this was exactly how the founding fathers designed it.

The Supreme Court's modern day interpretation is not the law itself, nor was it written by the Founding Fathers.

{{psssst. We were actually in a agreement. You're arguing with the wrong fella, k?}}

I agree 100% that the quote above from bush v gore is exactly what the Constitution says.

Wait, lemme guess, you and I once had a disagreement over some insignificant issue which burned your butt so badly that you had take this grand oppurtunity to get me back, yes? Was THAT what this ridiculous exercise in stupidity about?

Ok, I agree that you're still upset about something that wasn't worth remembering for me, and if could kiss that boo boo, I wouldn't, but still.

Have a nice night.

If you believe that racist southerners in the 1800’s would vote in favor of equal protection, you just believed what a teacher taught you because they worked in a school. Common sense dictates that that could not possibly be true.

That's very silly, lying lie that.

Next time look at the source when you c/p.

I'm done.

This is a direct quote. I’m sorry, but you are reading made up interpretations. This is what the Constitution says and was intended to say when it was written. The easiest way to look like a lying idiot is to post direct quotes from the source.

“The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.....the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself...When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors.” BUSH v GORE.

MSM LIES!

MSM LIES!

MSM LIES!

Keep wallowing in your stupidity, you look adorable.