thoedoric writes:
I would say that that is a very deceptive and dishonest comment. The video does exist. It has been pulled because of copyright issues.
ahh pedantic as usual, i would expect no less from the likes of you.
Please explain this comment.
RAZD was talking about guiliable ignorant people that idolize being guilible and ignorant. so I added one that he/she forgot, how is that hard to understand?
Classic wingnut response when anyone wants to have an America at all different than the wingnuts fantasy. Ever notice how liberals never seem to tell right wingers to leave the country.
ROFLMFAO! Classic liberal response to call someone a name who does not share a similar opinion.
Thoedoric's liberal definition of a wingnut - someone who disagrees with him.
Ever notice how liberals (and thoedoric especially) ALWAYS reverts to name calling?
Also you might notice those are some of the least populated states in the Union.
so what? YOU might notice feadandlothing was talking about Alaska, THE least 2nd populous state in the Union. I was on point, you as usual, are not. Why would I compare Alaska to say Rhode Island or Massachussets, I was comparing it to other low population states, that are run by consevatives. buy a clue.
Bullshit. Another in a long line of unfounded assertions.
Bullshit to your buillshit. I guess you have never heard of
Partus sequitur ventrem? here is the simple wiki on it:
quote:
From Wikipedia - Partus sequitur ventrem, often abbreviated to partus, in the British North American colonies and later in the United States, was a legal doctrine which the English colonists incorporated in legislation related to definitions of slavery. It was derived from the Roman civil law; it held that the status of a child followed that of his or her mother. It was widely adopted into the laws of slavery in the colonies and the following United States. The Latin phrase literally means "that which is brought forth follows the womb".
It was added to Virginia law in 1662.
In the US no matter if your mother or father was black, you were considered black. No matter how small the percentage you were still considered black. The thing is most mixed births during the slave era were of black mother and a white father. That is because the white father raped the mother. If a black man had sex with a white woman he would have probably been lynched whther it was consensual or not.
care to support this with evidence, or are you just making stuff up again?
Thanks.
Link? Afaik status was determined by the states, and they differed on that determination.
look above this text. or search Partus sequitur ventrem.
what you said is fair enough, I really do not know about the other states, being a resident of Virginia, I know how it was here, and my examples thus far have been from Virginia.
DrJones writes:
Really? So if we transported obama back to the segregated south would be able to eat at the same counter as his fellow whites, drink at the same water fountain, use the same restrooms, sit at the front of the bus?
I was born in the late 1970s, I have no idea. But I do not see why not, he is white. How were Hawaiians treated in the segregated south?
™ Version 4.2
