Comment: In the interest of knowing better.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: So there would not have been.... (see in situ)

In the interest of knowing better.

Please don't play games with the claims of falsehoods.

The falsehood I pointed out was not ambiguous, specious, coy, misleading, funny, unspecified, half true, anonymous, dishonest, relatively untrue, or mysterious.

The Constitution was a usurpation as pointed out by enough well established authorities on the subject to leave no room for reasonable doubt.

If you have a problem with me, separate your problem with me from the message offered, please.

As to the question asked, concerning slavery, I think you, and anyone else, caring to know better, aught to find a competitive answer here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8&list=PL463AA90FD0...

It is a long history lesson, of some measurable value, and the answer offered to the question offered on slavery had to do with wives of slave owners figuring out how the slave babies are made.

Furthermore, as to the often employed word games, labeling someone an "anarchist" or "terrorist", if there is any affiliation at all, between me and "anarchism" it is my definition of the word, as I understand it to mean exactly what it means, and not anything other than that, but for those wanting to know the facts, knowing better, and for those not depending upon false translations of the word, please, consider reading this:

http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

That was offered to anyone, I found it, from someone on this forum.

Here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2981026

Is the label meant to discredit or credit? Is the label meant to falsify or clarify? If the label maker means to deceive, the label maker will find a way to reach that goal.

Joe