Actually it was John Adams who nominated the first president. I forget who seconded it but it was definitely Washington.

Yea I have noticed many w****s mixed in the crowds. I don't think that would be the case if they were pushing it as a race thing. They wouldn't be safe. That is what the media has been told to push though. It takes the eyes off the real problem and that is the growing distance in wealth e******y. Shhhhh don't want any one to think that and join forces against the 1% of the the 1%ers though.

Not to worry DHS says all we need is a good pair of scissors and a sturdy desk.
Being a woman I also have the pee my pants option open to me also. Don't be jealous Ed.

America's first s***e owner was a black man.



Actual drawing of Anthony Johnson, the first s***e owner in the colonies.

According to colonial records, the first s***e owner in the United States was a black man.

Prior to 1655 there were no legal s***es in the colonies, only indentured servants. All masters were required to free their servants after their time was up. Seven years was the limit that an indentured servant could be held. Upon their release they were granted 50 acres of land. This included any Negro purchased from s***e traders. Negros were also granted 50 acres upon their release.

Anthony Johnson was a Negro from modern-day Angola. He was brought to the US to work on a tobacco farm in 1619. In 1622 he was almost k**led when Powhatan Indians attacked the farm. 52 out of 57 people on the farm perished in the attack. He married a female black servant while working on the farm.

When Anthony was released he was legally recognized as a “free Negro” and ran a successful farm. In 1651 he held 250 acres and five black indentured servants. In 1654, it was time for Anthony to release John Casor, a black indentured servant. Instead Anthony told Casor he was extending his time. Casor left and became employed by the free white man Robert Parker.

Anthony Johnson sued Robert Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654. In 1655, the court ruled that Anthony Johnson could hold John Casor indefinitely. The court gave judicial sanction for b****s to own s***e of their own race. Thus Casor became the first permanent s***e and Johnson the first s***e owner.

W****s still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite s***e until 1670. In that year, the colonial assembly passed legislation permitting free w****s, b****s, and Indians the right to own b****s as s***es.

By 1699, the number of free b****s prompted fears of a “Negro i**********n.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed b****s back to Africa. Many b****s sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free b****s back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black s***es.

However, black s***e owners continued to thrive in the United States.

By 1830 there were 3,775 black families living in the South who owned black s***es. By 1860 there were about 3,000 s***es owned by black households in the city of New Orleans alone.

Yep. I guess things have ssure changed since he was editor at the Wall Street Journal. Is surprising though that he wouldn't mention it.

Biggest l**ter in history.

MF Global Corzine.

Ive been reading this thread hijack and have kept my mouth shut but if you want to have any credibility here then trying to use the Bundy thing as an analogy to l**ting and burning business then you are way off base. The only damage that was done there was by the B*M. There are no similarities at all. By the way the one k*****g most b****s are the mothers of the unwanted babies. That is the reason why Sanger created Planned Parenthood and it originated in Harlem. That one is yours so own it.

Margaret Sanger Founder of Planned Parenthood

Me to. Im a light weight.

Thriving isn't having to have the tax payers bail you out with 25 billion. At that time derivative bets were about 40 trillion in the top 5 banks they are over 200 trillion now. Do you call that thriving? The bank cartels are running worse odds than Vegas and are only held up by federal reserve "printing" (QE)
Why don't you read the article that was written by the guy who created the subject you are unsuccessfully trying to debate? If you aren't interested in facts then don't waste peoples time with your incorrect opinions.

Yep and the nail in that coffin was NAFTA in slick Willies quest for a united North America.

After reading the first sentence of your article it is exactly as I just stated to you.
"Remember how the country was sold the idea of “trickle down” economics? “Oh, if we just give the wealthy more, they will create wealth for the poor and middle classes by increasing spending, investing in new factories, hiring more workers, etc, etc, etc"
Reagans supply side economics program had nothing to do with cutting taxes for the rich. Bush did that and Obama expanded on it.
Please read the article written by the man who created Reagans supply side economics policy before further embarrassing yourself.
Psst by the way JP Morag has been dead a very long time.

I actually had a cop tell me that way back when I was still single and having a stalker issue. He told me. "Don't forget to hose off the porch, we wont ask why the porch is wet"

He will never understand the issue until he understand whjat a marginal tax rate is. If you tax less on peoples over time people will work more hours and leisure time becomes more "expensive.
People working more and able to keep more of their earnings means more production, more consumerism and less out of control inflation. That is what supply side economic(trickle down) is in a nut shell. It had nothing to do with tax breaks for the rich as the left as been easily led to believe. Huffington Post, give me a break.
Here Raylan, straight from the horses mouth. Quit buying into the economic handicapped college graduates who were all taught Keynesian economics even though it has a 100% failure rate were taught.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02/03/supply-side-economics-paul-craig-roberts/

If I was still able to move and someone had beat me with a bat. I would shot to k**l.

The author doesn't seem to have a clue what he is even talking about. Trickle down or supply side economics was first introduced into congress in the late 70's by the democrats.
"The first official government endorsement of supply-side economics was in the late 1970s by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress under the chairmanship of Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

The Joint Economic Committee under Senator Bentsen’s leadership put out Annual Reports two years in a row calling for a supply-side policy. As the p**********l e******n approached that put Ronald Reagan in the White House, the majority Democrats in the Senate had a meeting to decide whether to pass the supply-side tax rate reductions prior to the p**********l e******n, thus pulling the rug out from under Reagan on his main plank. The Senate Democrats were inclined to move forward with the tax rate reductions, but the Senate Majority Leader convinced them that it would look like an endorsement of Reagan over their own party’s candidate (Jimmy Carter). The Senate Majority Leader said that immediately after the e******n, the Democrats would take control of the issue and pass the marginal tax rate reductions. The great surprise of the e******n was that the Democrats lost control of the Senate.

There was more opposition to Reagan’s tax bill from Republicans than from Democrats. Republicans believed that budget deficits ranked with the Soviet threat and were more willing to raise taxes than to reduce them. The Republican opposition was so strong that I had a hard time getting the tax bill out of the Reagan administration so that Congress could v**e on it. In those days the great bogyman for Republicans was budget deficits, and deficits were what Treasury’s projections showed. Although the Treasury was, for the most part, committed to the President’s policy and believed that some part of the lost revenues from marginal tax rate reduction would be recovered, which is also what Keynesians believed, the Treasury’s revenue forecast was based on the traditional static revenue model that every dollar of tax cut would lose a dollar of revenue."

Paul Craig Roberts Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and drafter of Reagans supply side economics.