LMAO, Now the righties are complaining that no bible was used at 2nd swearing in

evince said:
who got ot vote first black men or women?
Click to expand...
There were Free Blacks that could vote long before the Civil War, I'm saying Women for $200, Alex. Considering women couldn't vote until the 20th century...

That being said, the numbers belie their "minority" status. As a group there are more women than men in the US.
 
evince said:
who got ot vote first black men or women?
Click to expand...

Black men, and I said quite a few times during the primaries when we didn't know who would win, that if we used history as our guide, we were going to get a black male president before a woman president. But, because the woman was Hillary Clinton, I wasn't sure we wouldn't break precident. But we did not.
 
Damocles said:
There were Free Blacks that could vote long before the Civil War, I'm saying Women for $200, Alex. Considering women couldn't vote until the 20th century...

That being said, the numbers belie their "minority" status. As a group there are more women than men in the US.
Click to expand...

There were more blacks in S africa but they still lived under apartheid, so that's not a good argument.

The fact is, we have had 43 white male Presidents, 0 women, and of course Obama who has shattered one barrier, which is good for us all.
 
Darla said:
There were more blacks in S africa but they still lived under apartheid, so that's not a good argument.

The fact is, we have had 43 white male Presidents, 0 women, and of course Obama who has shattered one barrier, which is good for us all.
Click to expand...
They couldn't be called a minority when they were the majority.

They could be called oppressed, but blacks in S. Africa were not the minority.

The only point was calling women a 'minority' would be inaccurate, not that they aren't given the short end.
 
Superfreak said:
completely irrelevant to todays situation.
Click to expand...

Women aren't a "minority" if you take the definition literally and try to obtusely ignore all societal context to the word (a tactic which conservatives use annoyingly often). But that would be utterly retarded and pedantic.

This is like when Damo tried to argue that antisemitic didn't exclusively refer to Jews because if you ignore all the context and meaning behind the word, and literaly interpret "anti" and "semite", you get against the arab people. Which is, again, utterly retarded and pedantic. A linguist would slap you in the face.
 
Semitic people are Arabs. the meaning of the word has been skewed over the years by the joos but you can still find that it does indeed mean anti arabic.
 
ib1yysguy said:
I checked it out because USC said it was linked there, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Since I can't read what he wrote I didn't know he said to look there. If you look in the lower right hand side of the sight they have archives where you can find old headlines. It may be there.
 
It was the big headline this morning with BIG letters and all.
Matt must have read my thread and got embaressed.
 
uscitizen said:
LMAO this is so great and predictable.
Headline on Drudge.
Click to expand...

So WHERE is anyone complaining about "no bible"

Just making shit up again as usual ???

Don't confuse anything USCitizen says with the truth....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top