@cavalierpatriot The Civil War had LITERALLY NOTHING to do with slavery. The people who see one old letter or article talking about it as proof are doing it to hide the reality.
Wasn't State rights either.
It was a constitutional question on trade, specifically the interstate commerce clause.
@Malfoid As the Sorting Hat was placed on the girls's head it began grumbling.
'Potter House? That's not a thing.' twisting its face, again 'What is the magic doing, this makes no se---', cut off the Hat begins blurting out until then would be nonsense: "Potter House, Housewife!"
@JoelWebbon And there it is, an otherwise based account posting a fully jewish take.
It may not happen now, but it happens with every single allegedly based account.
@MattPalumbo12@politico If he owns it, why is he paying rent to someone who doesn't own it?
Oh. Right, because the US is a slave state and slavery now, in 2026, is orders of magnitude worse than in the 17th - 19th centuries.
@politico The number of jewish shill accounts in these comments, arguing for property tax, is the most hilarious part.
You do not hate generation X nearly enough.
@tawnniee Taxes on citizens are wrong and fully unconstitutional, the takings clause supersedes an amendment.
"inalienable" means things, post 10 amendments can not modify, restrict, remove or in any way change the first 10.
@creation247 Instead, can I invert the result & not resurrect 3 but erase their existence? If so, I struggle to prune it from 4 to 3(ordered):
karl marx
Martin Luther
Che Guevara
Ronald Reagan
Likely Reagan, but I think the gain of not having to ever hear republicucks idolizing that commie.