Apparently it's not history.
>>17002
Ok, what do you want to discuss?
>>17002
>muh objectively wrong bait thread is not history
Ftfy
>>17015
I wanted to discuss the three-fifths compromise and copy rights, but I was warned and my thread nuked for trying to do so.
>>17047
Thanks for your input, glorious censor.
Please don't delete my post.
>>17065
Probably because that's more fitting for discussion at /pol/. If you want this thread to keep going, why not try to take a stab at asking or saying something like the history that led to those parts being developed, or how they've subsequently been taken, or the political philosophy underlying them or something.
>>17194
I don't care about this thread's persistence, and I don't care to bend to your stupid demands.
The thread I originally posted was not against the rules and it was deleted. It was not a /pol/ thread. Fuck you for suggesting so. Fuck you for being a coward, too.
>>17002
It itself is not history, as it is still in use today, and discussion of it's contents is more of a political issue.
The drafting itself and the facts surrounding it would qualify, though.
Hitler was a good man.
>>18043
>Hitler was a great man
ftfy
>>17822
Literally a historical document
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED LIBSHITS
>>18083
He didn't do anything wrong. He even went to church.
>>18150
He even let's make Germany great again!
Would it be appropriate to discuss what the British did to make the founding fathers think the 4th Amendment was a good idea, and the founding father's thoughts on the 4th amendment? Who supported it, who opposed it, etc.?
>>18228
> it's a historical document that holds political significance today
It could be argued that a lot of documents, even older, fall under this guide line.
That sounds like a good way to stifle discourse.
>>18348
Apparently not, since any political document will be too frightening and cause too much trouble.
>>17002
not quite yet but it will be soon.
>>18043
and he was a good friend.
