The constitution said all men.. not women

a reply to: Gothmog

It's one of these threads you'll need that pill to make sense of it...

Ever hear of the “dawn of man”. Man referencing the human species.

originally posted by: FreedomLost

also teu sayimg whats up man to the next girl you meet & see how that works. not oubluc contsensus bud

The funny part you are using "man" as gender neutral most of the time... How about Mankind?

"What's up man"
"The proper way to ask a man/woman what is happening in their life at the moment

originally posted by: FreedomLost
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

... so when a women comes to power. hold on to your pantyhoes. they might not mean to but you cant change evilution overnight. cause men were so mean for so long.

A woman has been in charge of one of the most aggressive empires ever in human history:

Margaret Thatcher (and the British Empire; if you do not consider the British Empire ending in the years after World War 2, as some people argue; when it merged or transformed into the Anglo-American empire, which has proven to be just as aggressive, ruthless and powerhungry* as its predecessor). *: seeking to control (by economic, corporate and militaristic influence or leverage) or 'rule' others ('rule' as in exerting such an influence and pressure or leverage, that it strongly affects policies, rules, laws and political alliances of other nations; there are different ways to 'rule', for example by the means of control and influence I just described, usually capitalistic/economic and corporate in this modern age, but war profiteering is a big aspect of that, so militaristic control and influence as well, supported by nationalistic war propaganda*)

She was a total b*tch, earning her the nickname: the Iron Lady. Hard, cold and no empathy for her victims or those of the British or Anglo-American Empire('s wars and invasions, past and present at the time).

Some time ago there was a thread on ATS about this subject:

The British Have Invaded 90 Percent of the Countries on Earth - The Atlantic

*: What Obstructs Universal Brotherhood? (Awake!—1981)

...

Nationalism

On this subject an amusing story is told about an army chaplain in Scotland who, at a new military camp, asked for volunteers to convert an old barn into a chapel. In the absence of the chaplain the volunteers painted in large letters above the altar: “Scotland forever and ever.” The surprised chaplain asked them to make the sign a bit more religious. They did. The inscription then read: “Scotland forever and ever. AMEN.”

Scotsmen are known for being very proud of their country. But they are not alone in this. For example, English children, especially in the days when the British Empire was dominant in the world, were fed nationalistic fervor from earliest childhood. They were taught to believe that ‘Britannia Rules the Waves,’ and that the English are a superior nation, blessed by God.

In every nation similar feelings are promoted by politicians who know that a strong nationalistic spirit serves their purposes well. But their purpose may not be in the best interest of people. In an article entitled “Nationalism Is Alien to True Patriotism,” columnist Sydney J. Harris observed: “Nationalism means ‘going along’ with a Hitler or a Stalin or any other tyrant who waves the flag, mouths obscene devotion to the Fatherland, and meanwhile tramples the rights of people.”

...

War—Why? (Awake!—1986)

...

The Role of Propaganda

...

... As Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt wrote: “Public opinion is formed by interest groups (politicians, arms manufacturers, the military) that deceive the electorate by giving them false or one-sided information.” In a similar vein, historian H. E. Barnes wrote: “Since the wars of the French Revolution . . . copious and compelling propaganda [has] been continued and greatly increased to protect warfare against popular dissent, opposition, and factual analysis of issues.”

As a consequence, “practically anybody can be persuaded and manipulated in such a way that he will more or less voluntarily enter a situation wherein he must kill and perhaps die.” (War, by Gwynne Dyer) Thus, by reason of their political and economic power, the “elite” can control the media in order to prepare the masses for the bloodbath.

...

... But what are the key elements in generating war fever?

...

Austrian economist Schumpeter wrote: “The orientation toward war is mainly fostered by the domestic interests of ruling classes but also by the influence of all those who stand to gain individually from a war policy, whether economically or socially.” These ruling classes have been defined as “elites [that] are at all times involved in trying to manipulate other elements of the population, or the public mood itself, so as to perpetuate themselves in power.”​—Why War? by Professors Nelson and Olin.

Every nation has its ruling class, even though that group may be divided into different political factions. However, many observe that the power of the military elite in every nation should not be underestimated. Former U.S. Ambassador John K. Galbraith describes the military establishment as “by far the most powerful of the autonomous processes of government.”

Sometimes the people are not in favor of a war. On what basis, then, can the rulers most easily persuade the population to support their aims? This was the problem that faced the United States in Vietnam. So, what did the ruling elite do? Galbraith answers: “The Vietnam War produced in the United States one of the most comprehensive efforts in social conditioning [adjusting of public opinion] in modern times. Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” And that points to the handiest tool for softening up a nation for war. What is it?

Professor Galbraith again supplies the answer: “Schools in all countries inculcate the principles of patriotism. . . . The conditioning that requires all to rally around the flag is of particular importance in winning subordination to military and foreign policy.” This systematic conditioning prevails in communist countries as it does in Western nations.

originally posted by: FreedomLost
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

wow thats cute. so you think women would have had more slaves?

May have already been pointed out, but, from the OP:

"If women had rights back then their would be no slavery in my opinion."

originally posted by: FreedomLost
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

haha # my email was late. i can see you were one of the last on the list cause you didnt get the side note. it said whoever bullies is screwed to the max for the next generation of theirs. sorry. i hope your next after will stop paying for your mistakes lol

What on earth are you talking about mate.

The truest post of the whole thread.

originally posted by: Proto88
Woe to man.

haha i was so drunk. its was fun but yall aint the brightest or nicest bunch huh. rhetorical. you kids are gon have some serious problems learning from people like some of you. my thread was just stating some facts & an opinion. i can tell which ones of you spend hours of each day on social media or news networks cause you have no original thought process. ive heard pretty much the same things from some other people, people that change nothing in life & just follow trends. im a trend setter. try it sometime its actually nice to be your own person.

im done with this thread cause it was just drunk fun but at least i shared some truth & fun. haha

originally posted by: FreedomLost
im a trend setter. try it sometime its actually nice to be your own person.

You trend setter, you. I'm gonna follow your lead.

im done with this thread cause it was just drunk fun but at least i shared some truth & fun. haha

a reply to: FreedomLost

Can't be done with this thread just yet, you should tell us what you were drinking!

(And then I will follow your lead)

im done with this thread cause it was just drunk fun but at least i shared some truth & fun. haha

a reply to: FreedomLost

Drunk Fun ?

Mate this thread is 3 days old , I mean I've heard of binge drinking but d*mn.

Perhaps in your moment of clarity you should seek help.

Maybe a United world of emasculated males and totalitarian governments in our future .

isnt this kinda of what everyone has been saying on here for a while now that masculinity and the warrior in men is being assaulted to erode the men in society who will stand up and fight for ideals

we are slowly replacing those types with less angry males , less hostile , less likely to take action against any oppressor

so likley they wouldnt even need a new constitution , because no one will be left who will actually have a spine and stand up for what is right and face head on what is wrong

a reply to: FreedomLost

I like you, I think you talk a lot of bollocks....but I like you.
I've had a bit of a chuckle to myself reading through this thread.

But I've just got to say;

ya there have been the 1% of women that could read throughout history but now the ither 90% have the chance to learn.

1% then the other 90%?

1% + 90% = 91%

Obviously that doesn't add up.

Keep trying though.
Perhaps you could trying microwaving a hot dog into non-existence like my all time favourite ATS member jedimiller.

Man/men is to woman what dog is to bitch.

All bitches are also dogs

All women are also men.

(And for those who find that complicated to understand: man/men can refer either to just the male, or both male and female, depending on context* )


* look it up in a dictionary, it's the most important word in the English language

a reply to: whereislogic

you mention margaret thatcher but then there were others before who were just as ruthless and cold blooded

wasnt there also a study done that found European female rulers were 27% more likley to goto war than the male counterparts.

the whole thing ties back into what that mark passio is talking about the master slave reality
ruling classes treat as nothing but slaves

as a proud scot myself I see my patriotism to the flag as my patriotism to freedom for all
that no man or woman should be a slave

WHA SAE BASE AS BE A SLAVE

a reply to: sapien82

The desire for freedom is a key button that is pushed in the process described by Professor Galbraith concerning the Vietnam war as: “Nothing was spared in the attempt to make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.”

After all, they were going over there to fight for freedom and democracy, as per their argumentation to “make the war seem necessary and acceptable to the American public.” It was the same with Iraq and Afghanistan and when they were supplying weapons and ammo to the freedom fighters in Syria (a lucrative endeavor for some, especially when those supplies end up in the hands of Isis, cause then they need to supply even more cause now the threat to freedom is bigger as well; they'll get paid either way, no matter where the weapons or supplies end up; I guess they're mostly Assad's now, or in the possession of his regime that is).

They change the constitution with new wordings just like they did with the ten commandments and then push it out the door. What the op is saying is true. People are neive even the constitution itself is not all that good because that is man's law. God's law is supreme. The 10th commandant is supposed to be mind your own business but evil people found that offensive. They dismissed you shall not lie and changed it to don't bare false witness. Because they love to lie. They are just straight up ignorant and there may be no way to get through to them. The best thing to do is just pray for them. But if they get way too out of hand you might have to go to war against them. Period