Every day it gets tougher to be black

Thank you for summing up many of my thoughts on the matter, more eloquently than I have been able to.:up:

 

I thought it was much funnier to leave you standing there in the middle of the room with your detonator engaged, wondering why the fuck you didn't blow up after yelling "allah akbar!"

 

Where's the kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth shattering kaboom!

Silencers are illegal, btw.

 

For what, Daffy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRxohDs2-UM

 

Wabbit season

 

He went all Internet Bad Ass, complete with offer of teeth extraction on someone he doesn't know, and the classic "I'll gladly take the ban for this. See ya!" And every time he opened his eyes and looked around, he was still here.

 

You're cruel, Papa.

 

Poor bastard. He had big plans for his 72 virtual virgins.

 

Damn skippy!

Virtual priapism. :up:

 

Ya, all 72 of those guys were standing there just waiting to pop your butt cherry.

 

In an effort to shine a little light on the slavery/civil war connection, with regards to whether or not the North was fighting to end slavery only, it seems that there were plenty of slave states in the North from the beginning. All original colonies were slave colonies even going back to 1620 in the European settlement. The earliest records of slavery in the Northern states dates back to N.Y and N. Jersey in 1626. The South wasn't even settled yet.

Finally Vt. ended slavery in 1777, the earliest, with N. Jersey ending it at the latest in 1865 with the passage of the 13th Amendment. Even though the official end of slavery in the North was in the late 1700s most of the states practice of slavery didn't actually end until some 30 to 60 or so years later in the 1840s.

William Henry Seward, Lincoln's anti-slavery Sec. of State during the Civil war, grew up in Orange County New York in a slave owning family, amid neighbors who owned slaves when they could afford them, and even Lincoln himself grew up in a slave owning family. By the mid 1850s or so they, at least, were getting on board the anti slave train.

In a previous response I mentioned the Mason/Dixon line. That line was originally established to separate Pennsylvania from Maryland to settle a property line dispute but ended up becoming the dividing line between the Northern states and the Southern states. (Dixie) That was in the late 1760s.

Without being even more wordy what I intend to do is point out that the reasons for the civil war/war between the states was complicated with no single issue dictating it's existence unless the North, being guilty of slavery also, and on the liberal side of politics, were being hypocrites as liberals often are.

Sorry, I just had to get a zing in there.

 

That's a helluva assumption that it's still intact...

























I've dealt with the irs. :down:

 

Yes, it was damn complicated, not to mention the issue of people's loyalty to family and local/state entities. Then there was also the complication of the attempt to spread slavery to the new territories/states, leading to more violence, bad feelings, and hostility.

But here's the deal regarding 'free (non-slave) states': NJ, CT, PA, MA, NH, NY, RI, VT, OH (by 1804); IN, IL, ME, MI, IA, WI (by 1848); and CA, OR, MN, and KS (by 1850).

 

And that's where the issue of States Rights comes into it. All states have equal rights according to the Constitution right?

So how could the Govt declare that some new states could decide whether or not to allow slavery but other states could not decide for themselves?

Doesn't really sound like all states had the same rights or received equal treatment under the law.

 

i am. though i am i benign despot, and will freely grant secession to rebellious gastric by-products

for those interested, the question of whether a state gov't entity is protected by the first amendment against the federal gov't is not really settled. but here's an interesting piece that discusses it.

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...099018105122082114121097093006&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2

 

Here's an interesting piece also.

The Cultural Cleansing of the Southern States Begins

 

To make a very long story very short, federal law trumps state law; 'rights' accorded by federal statutes or federal courts must be followed by the states.
do we have any argument about that?

 

Okay, someone 'splain this to me:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ght-to-display-confederate-flag-in-dorm-room/

 

Only for those powers explicitly granted by the constitution.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2411573/posts

 

Of course we have an argument about that. It's true that Federal law trumps state law but the law must be applied equally and fairly to every state.

The Feds can declare that nobody in the US is allowed to own a car but they can not declare that people in Ohio can own a car but people across an arbitrary line can't own one just because they live in Kentucky or some other state.