Seriously, GOP? Really?

[dannubis]

Closest to Dutch is Norwegian and Swedish. I can actually read their newspapers and understand what they are saying. German less so, but that is because they have the annoying habit of inventing words on the spot...

[Dinner]

BTW this all started because Ogie said this:

Belgians always were German wannabe's.

I responded "I thought that was the Dutch" because the Dutch were such happy little Nazis in WW2. They had more volunteers joining the German military than any other occupied country; more of their volunteers ended up in the SS too. How that little reference turned into this big thread jack I have no idea.

[Dr Strangelove]

So what would happen if muslims in Switzerland started building chuches complete with square bell towers, but the bell towers would actually be radio towers broadcasting the call to prayer to their follower's cell phones?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

How that little reference turned into this big thread jack I have no idea.

Likely because it is a far more entertaining diversion than the OP. Seeing as that has run its course. Afterall how many times can you say Mitt is a bland heartless heathen, Santorum is s wingnut, Newt is insane and roundly hated to boot, and Paul is a racist nutter.

[dannubis]

1 more time, or so it seems...

[regexcellent]

Yes, it is called sarcasm. For the intellectually challenged ones I will use the *wink* more in the future.

You made a blatantly anti-semitic comment about Jews being racists, with no indication of sarcasm. I suppose anti-semitism isn't new to you euros though.

[Dauphin]

Well, let this be a lesson for the next time someone makes a thread declaring the United States a backwards third world country because Tennessee allows counties to eschew fire departments.

Well, they'd be right, but for the wrong logic.

[Dauphin]

You made a blatantly anti-semitic comment about Jews being racists, with no indication of sarcasm. I suppose anti-semitism isn't new to you euros though.

I blame the Jews for anti-semitism. If they didn't exist there'd be no anti-semitism.

[dannubis]

You made a blatantly anti-semitic comment about Jews being racists, with no indication of sarcasm. I suppose anti-semitism isn't new to you euros though.

Dude, since obviously you aren't the fastest of the bunch I'll spell it out for you this one time:

Kuci Jr.'s accusation was that Europeans are all anti-semites. So I gave him what he was asking for: a remark about his Jewish decendency.

OTOH we all know that he himself is blatantly racist towards Palestinians, to which I alluded as well.

So yes, sarcasm.

I hope this didn't fuse your brain though.

[Hauldren Collider]

On the contrary, dannubis, I never accused all Europeans of being antisemites. That doesn't mean I can't draw a few broad strokes about European culture. I'm sorry, but you've got much more of a history of anti-semitic comments and insinuations than I do against palestinians. As I recall, I once made a "goat ****er" troll at Moby which fell flat, and that is the extent of my alleged "racism".

[giblets]

Great, now offer two examples of Dannubis making anti-semitic comments in order to prove your point.

[Boris Godunov]

Point taken; my memory isn't perfect. The point remains: the matter was deliberately avoided by the drafters of the Constitution. Even at that time people were discussing the possibility of a civil war or split as a result of slavery. It neither expressly legalised or abolished slavery--it left it to the States to do that. Each of the States had a different policy and laws on the subject. Slavery was not codified in the American Constitution as it was enacted. Equally the Constitution did not deny citizenship to blacks: the Supreme Court did in Dred Scott. If lawlessness judicial decision-making is an immeasurable good then what is the Dred Scott case? Or is it only lawlessness when you disagree with the political effect of the decision?

This time Oerdin is correct in that you've no idea what you're talking about.

In addition to the 3/5ths clause, slavery was codified in the Constitution in other places: Article I, Section 9 expressly forbade the prohibition of importing slaves until 1808. Also, you've conveniently ignored the Fugitive Slave Clause, which stated that states had to return escaped slaves to their masters in other states.

While Massachusetts had abolished slavery at the time the Constitution was drafted, there was no wide-spread abolitionist movement in the U.S at that time nor for decades later. It wasn't until the 1830s that there arose a serious movement to end slavery. Your assertion that there was a "possible civil war" over it in 1787 is nonsense. Bear in mind that at that time, the most prominent philosophical opponents of slavery were almost all slave owners themselves (Washington, Jefferson and Franklin being the most famous).

[dannubis]

On the contrary, dannubis, I never accused all Europeans of being antisemites. That doesn't mean I can't draw a few broad strokes about European culture. I'm sorry, but you've got much more of a history of anti-semitic comments and insinuations than I do against palestinians. As I recall, I once made a "goat ****er" troll at Moby which fell flat, and that is the extent of my alleged "racism".

Saying that while rejoicing the fact that Israel prepares a strike on Iran doesn't make you look very consistent.

Of course it is not racism on which your point of view is based in this matter...

[dannubis]

Great, now offer two examples of Dannubis making anti-semitic comments in order to prove your point.

Define anti-semitic

[regexcellent]

Saying that while rejoicing the fact that Israel prepares a strike on Iran doesn't make you look very consistent.

Of course it is not racism on which your point of view is based in this matter...

You accused him of being racist against Palestinians. Iranians aren't Palestinians, nor are they even Arabs.

The most reasonable explanation for him being in favor of a strike on Iran is to halt Iran's nuclear program so that a hostile country cannot get nuclear weapons. That is a perfectly reasonable and non-racist reason for being in favor of such an action. Moreover, this opinion is not at all out of the mainstream of American politics.