Want to Be Class President in Mississippi? You Need to Be White

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by KSGregman

Apparently they were "people" enough for the man who wrote those words to carry on a common law marriage with a black woman after promising his wife on her deathbed that he would never re-marry.

People enough for his common law wife to bear him numerous children.

And yet not people enough to be anything more than "common law"?

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Just about everyone is useless out of their element.
Being able to adapt is what counts. Doesn't matter if you are a city nmouse or country mouse.

When the shit hits the fan, the guy who can sell shit covered fans, wins everytime.

JC

[Avatard]

Anyone wanna buy a shit covered fan?

[Rangerscott]

I wonder what the IQ to population ratio is?

[Rangerscott]

Why throw shit into fans when you can eat da poo poo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGGt-...eature=channel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On3etueeGIg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYoSL...eature=related

[Avatard]

Jesus fucking christ man, I don't even wanna know what you were searching for in order to find that...

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Written at a time when Blacks weren't "people."

Yes they were. Just only 3/5ths of a person

US Constitution. Article 1 section 2

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Yes they were. Just only 3/5ths of a person

US Constitution. Article 1 section 2

Sorry, but you are incorrect. "Bound to service" doesn't refer to slaves, but rather those people bound as indentured servants for a period of time. This was a common practise in order to, among other things, satisfy debts that could not otherwise be repaid through normal means. Being "bound" was not the same as being owned.

[Smittie61984]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Sorry, but you are incorrect. "Bound to service" doesn't refer to slaves, but rather those people bound as indentured servants for a period of time. This was a common practise in order to, among other things, satisfy debts that could not otherwise be repaid through normal means. Being "bound" was not the same as being owned.

I didn't refer to those "bound by service", I referred to "other persons".

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

I didn't refer to those "bound by service", I referred to "other persons".

I will admit that you have me there, as The Constitution is mute on what constitutes an "other person." It could quite reasonably be assumed to include slaves, barring notation to the contrary.