Rep. McDermott and the Silly Constitution

No description available.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• McDermott
• Congress
• Democrat
• Constitution

[Dotcom656]

I like the part where we take the quote out of context and jump to conclusions.

[btwall60]

@MooseOfReason 8 seconds is just long enough to see the lunatic Dem/Leftie/Nutjobs are out of their collective minds.

[Dotcom656]

@drollord You're still taking his quote out of context and jumping to conclusions.

[drollord]

@Dotcom656 Rep. McDermott appears to be afraid of the Constitution. I wonder why? There is nothing silly about reading and understanding the United States Constitution. I like the idea of having a special session in Congress to conduct an official reading of the Constitution. (Can anybody say Bachmann?)

[amitbarfs]

@GenMussolini

they owned slaves so in my book they are douches right off the bat.

[GenMussolini]

@amitbarfs Like I said...you need to learn history, not just what TV series tell you about Southern slave owners. A minority of them were despicably cruel, but it's still atrocious either way. Even Lincoln was for an Amendment that would legalize slavery forever... until he knew that he had to free the slaves as a strategical move in the war.

[amitbarfs]

@GenMussolini

lol at GW treating his slaves like family.

[nickvonmises]

Uh... you never read the constitution old man. I'm tired of incoherent morons occupying our government halls. Where are the scholars of social science? Where are the men of principle who stand on it even when it's not popular? The only one I see is Ron Paul.

[GenMussolini]

@amitbarfs Men like Washington saw his slaves as family (albeit like children) and they treated them as such.

Also, if they were FOR slavery, then why did they give blacks a political standing when they included representation for them? (albeit 3/4 per man)...which they were barely able to get in. And why did they impose a ban on the importation of slaves in the early 1800s?

[GenMussolini]

@amitbarfs Gramps? Ha! Actually, thank you. Most people tell me I look like a 17 yo.

I don't go to public schools. In fact I go to one of the only colleges that doesn't accept federal grants.

It's impossible to explain in full for you here, but yes, they owned slaves. Yes, they were against slavery. However, it was looked at EXTREMELY differently back then. For instance, what would the slaves have done if they were freed? That's right, they couldn't do anything whatsoever.

[amitbarfs]

@GenMussolini

your comment is dripping with flop sweat, gramps. maybe back in your day they taught you that the founding enslavers opposed slavery, but in historically accurate and unbiased books (i.e. not ones approved by your government schools) it is a well-researched fact that the founding whippers owned slaves and had no qualms about it.

next you will tell me you suck cock but are against fellating men.

[GenMussolini]

@amitbarfs No, you're just a complete moron. Don't try to flaunt it as not being politically correct. You're just politically inaccurate and rude.

The simple statement "were against slavery but owned slaves themselves" in and of itself is true, but a true understanding of the times and history (as you certainly don't have) would allow for clearly mitigating circumstances.

FYI I don't read history books. I listen to lectures and read historical documents written by great men in history.