New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time

Page 5 of 7 First ... 34567 Last
  1. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.07%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Russianog View Post
    Maybe fair was less of the correct term, how about considerate and at the least logical.
    I understand everything about military culture, but me having an understanding of it, and disagreeing with it, are two different things.

    Funny how you put that, in the end all result, yes, do what you're told, when you're told to do it. Now, that seems like they are breeding slaves...

    What gets me is that somehow being human is thrown out the window here and a sense of entitlement gets embedded in people who are no better than their subordinates.

    The grand scheme of the military maybe hasn't changed in the last 100 years, but it most certainly changed on every smaller area within. If you don't think so, then I'm going to flat out describe you as IGNORANT, UNAWARE, and UNEDUCATED. If my job was to defend the constitution, I would gladly put a bullet in the brains of anyone who threatened it, however that's obviously NOT my job because you don't see me doing that.

    If my CO, who most likely never would even utter a word to me on a daily basis, wanted me to spit shine his boots... a bitch would go ahead and take care of that. A person who carries himself with respect, dignity, and pride would tell him that he can spit shine his own boots. Again, back to the sense of entitlement. The same goes for cross MOS and so forth.

    You seem to have a very historic and ancient point of view on the military.

    I have a soft spot for helping people and making a difference in the world, I thought this would be a adventurous 4 years in which I could accomplish those said goals. Neither of which was accomplished, pretty much wasted 4 years, which I do not regret only due to the small lessons learned and the 7 or 8 incredible people i've met that changed my life in a positive way, and vice versa.

    GI Bill lol... my parents were fortunate enough to climb above the pit of poverty and do well for themselves. They were prepared to fund any school I wanted to go to. And yes, the 10% at spencers is too good to pass up.

    on another note, wow this thread grew in the 9 hours I was gone lol
    God Damn.. who made you ****ing sign up?

    If you didn't know what you were getting into... you seem to be the one playing ignorant here.

    Your idea of telling your CO to do his **** when ordering you to really makes me laugh.

    All my years, I have never seen a Marine cry so much.

    And yes, my historic/ancient POV is all of 4 years old. You must be fighting your battles with pens and unicorns by now.
    The Historic PES Legend

  2. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Who sets traps in a fitness forum? Lol. Besides they put themselves in the air, I just kicked away the chair.
    If you really believe this you are in Wonderland. Or trolling.


    The bill of rights is a document, its intent is to protect individual civil liberties and for other US law to be checked against it. Jefferson was a man whose actions directly increased slavery, thereby decreasing civil liberty significantly.

    You and Jim were having some argument where evidently quoting the origins of the USA equaled a credible source. Jim quoted a document (not its author) intended to check current and future American law against, one that would go on to be admired by the world at large with few exceptions and that everybody in America is happy to have and too many have died for. All the facts in the world about the Madison, Virginia in the late 1780's or anything else will be irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

    You quoted a wealthy, slave owning president who directly spread the institution of slavery using US government money and spent like six pages arguing why Jefferson is a better source for a subjective discussion than the Bill of Rights and usually out of context, with the incorrect application or by editing replies to your liking.

    If that is kicking chairs, you absolutely win and you can have it.

    On the other hand, Jim's point was backed by a more credible piece of history than yours. But you still win, don't worry. Especially if one believes in the the institution of slavery over innate individual liberty because of course Jefferson would be a much better source in this event.

    But I suppose you can agree to disagree as a matter of principles and get back to the original argument now.

    And for the record, I have a hard time believing you actually put so much stock in to higher education, unless you actually are studying journalism. The only way you'd make it through even your basic undergrad courses is if you are going for an accredited bull****ter degree, which really cheapens legitimate programs that share a roof with such bull****, kinda like putting journalists on level with surgeons. Or maybe you are at a ****ty school or got lucky with professors heavily favoring multiple choice over essay or short answer tests.

    Or, more likely, you are a bored, lonely, generally underperforming individual and living a meager existence where the only real challenge you can give yourself is intentionally stirred up **** on the internet and you are failing here too, unless the stirring itself is the goal.

    There is no way you can actually believe you are "winning" anything but semantics, which no one else is interested in anyways.
  3. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Ugh riiiight. Feel free to respond to what I posted above.
    That is the response. The Bill of Rights, by your own admission, was a seperate document incorporated in to the constitution as an ammendment and basic tenent to protect individual liberties. And for the record, Madison didn't author it. It is the constitution of a much older organization he was a member of but that doesn't really change much here.

    Unfortunately individual people (Jefferson for one) chose not to apply its charges to all people, however this doesn't change the content of the document, which JimBuick was referencing.

    With that in mind, your copy paste job is irrelevent completely. It's just the same recycled garbage from last night.

    Jim was discussing the bill of rights, not the constitution of today, yesteryear and every where in between, not Madison, Not 1780 Virginia, not anhy other diatribe you felt like soap boxing.

    While interesting and factual, your tangents are simply off topic and irrelevent.
    •   
       

  4. Pro Virili Parte
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    9,081
    Rep Power
    2849703
    Level
    81
    Lv. Percent
    72.56%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Re: New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time


    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    I was kidding. It's a line from...sigh never mind. All the information I provided above is factual. It's not my wording. There is a reason why they won't listen to me, or let's say someone else who use to post in here (here2study), it's because they have opposing viewpoints and they're sticking to it, regardless of whether or not you post accurate sources. It is what it is.
    John doesn't post here anymore?

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  5. New Member
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Age
    25
    Posts
    174
    Rep Power
    41645
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    76.28%

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    God Damn.. who made you ****ing sign up?

    If you didn't know what you were getting into... you seem to be the one playing ignorant here.

    Your idea of telling your CO to do his **** when ordering you to really makes me laugh.

    All my years, I have never seen a Marine cry so much.

    And yes, my historic/ancient POV is all of 4 years old. You must be fighting your battles with pens and unicorns by now.
    Hey great response, dickhead.
    Lol no one held a gun to my head... but if you think there was full disclosure upon signing up, you're dumber than I thought. And you know that we both aren't talking about the same disclosure. I could care less about the harsh realities of being a boot, in fact I agree with them. A certain level of discipline and training must take place. There is however a method to the madness. A well forgotten saying in todays time. There are other, probably more destructive problems within' the enlisted ranks.

    My idea of telling the CO to do that is a fair and accurate response. Something that most would probably say. You're the type of marine who would willfully bend over and let yourself get ****ed in the ass. Ignorant to your own rights... not even as a citizen, but as a human being.

    Lol and in all the years you were in, you never once encountered any problems?

    You consider this crying? no bitch, no tears are being shed. It's simply me, pointing out the truths in the situation, something that is rarely done. You of all people should realize how much can change in 4 years.
    Just throwing out a recent example of change... last year, it was unheard of that women would be allowed in combat situations, not to say they don't get engaged, but to be a part of a line company... no. It was introduced, and to everyones expectations, it wouldn't get far. however it did, and it's happening.
    Now that's a BIG change to occur, if we bring that back down to a battalion, company, platoon level... you get met with changes constantly.
  6. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    John doesn't post here anymore?

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy SII using Tapatalk 2
    No. He hasn't in quite a long time.
  7. Pro Virili Parte
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    9,081
    Rep Power
    2849703
    Level
    81
    Lv. Percent
    72.56%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Re: New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time


    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    No. He hasn't in quite a long time.
    Shows how much i pay attention

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  8. Pro Virili Parte
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    9,081
    Rep Power
    2849703
    Level
    81
    Lv. Percent
    72.56%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Re: New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time


    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    No. He hasn't in quite a long time.
    Read my link I posted above to the Faigan paper.

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  9. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    That is the response. The Bill of Rights, by your own admission, was a seperate document incorporated in to the constitution as an ammendment and basic tenent to protect individual liberties. And for the record, Madison didn't author it. It is the constitution of a much older organization he was a member of but that doesn't really change much here.

    Unfortunately individual people (Jefferson for one) chose not to apply its charges to all people, however this doesn't change the content of the document, which JimBuick was referencing.

    With that in mind, your copy paste job is irrelevent completely. It's just the same recycled garbage from last night.

    Jim was discussing the bill of rights, not the constitution of today, yesteryear and every where in between, not Madison, Not 1780 Virginia, not anhy other diatribe you felt like soap boxing.

    While interesting and factual, your tangents are simply off topic and irrelevent.
    Well since you're discussing education, I'm sure you're already aware that it's spelled "irrelevant, tenant,separate and amendment ." But kudos to you for attempting to nail me on education. Lol.

    Tangents aside, if we're discussing the Bill of Rights, I've already stated (with the direct wording/articles to support my points). The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change it . Now if you're as smart as you purport yourself to be, rather than attacking me (weak FYI) you'd attack the substance of my post, which again is direct wording (not interpretations as you so often seem to do) describing the intentions of the Bill of the Rights, when it was initially drafted. All the information you need is provided above. And here's the cool part. It's not my wording, nor is it my opinion.
  10. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    I was kidding. It's a line from...sigh never mind. All the information I provided above is factual. It's not my wording. There is a reason why they won't listen to me, or let's say someone else who use to post in here (here2study), it's because they have opposing viewpoints and they're sticking to it, regardless of whether or not you post accurate sources. It is what it is.
    Factual yet off topic and consequently irrelevent. It took me awhile to reply because while I did not get laid last night as Country pointed out (Aunt Flo is visiting), I did get a blowjob this morning while you were copy pasting facts that don't pertain to the discussion. But I'm back cupcake, don't worry.


    By the way, the sky is blue, grass is green and trees often house birds. Jefferson owned property under the sky, full of grass and containing trees he most likely propagated so these are all elements of the institution of slavery by default.

    Substitute Madison for Jefferson and we have another interesting point. In your mind, because the bill of rights was introduced by Madison and Madison owned slaves, the bill of rights itself is connected to slavery in the same way that a man who leveraged personal power to increase slavery directly is connected to slavery. Complete bull**** but whatever. By tying the bill of rights and Jefferson's direct presidential charges together in your mind, and then discrediting the bill of rights, you have also discredited your own "on par" source or at the very least given Jim's the same credibility you give your own (sad).

    Your facts are off topic, your logic within your own off topic argument is now circular and your deductive reasoning skills are at about a third grade level. This has simply gotten ridiculous.
  11. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    Read my link I posted above to the Faigan paper.

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy SII using Tapatalk 2
    I am as we speak. Thanks.
  12. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Factual yet off topic and consequently irrelevent. It took me awhile to reply because while I did not get laid last night as Country pointed out (Aunt Flo is visiting), I did get a blowjob this morning while you were copy pasting facts that don't pertain to the discussion. But I'm back cupcake, don't worry.


    By the way, the sky is blue, grass is green and trees often house birds. Jefferson owned property under the sky, full of grass and containing trees he most likely propagated so these are all elements of the institution of slavery by default.

    Substitute Madison for Jefferson and we have another interesting point. In your mind, because the bill of rights was introduced by Madison and Madison owned slaves, the bill of rights itself is connected to slavery in the same way that a man who leveraged personal power to increase slavery directly is connected to slavery. Complete bull**** but whatever. By tying the bill of rights and Jefferson's direct presidential charges together in your mind, and then discrediting the bill of rights, you have also discredited your own "on par" source or at the very least given Jim's the same credibility you give your own (sad).

    Your facts are off topic, your logic within your own off topic argument is now circular and your deductive reasoning skills are at about a third grade level. This has simply gotten ridiculous.
    I explained to you how it was directly connected to slavery. Again, see above. You left the foolish station awhile back, now you're just bordering on something else entirely.
  13. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.07%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Russianog View Post
    Hey great response, dickhead.
    Lol no one held a gun to my head... but if you think there was full disclosure upon signing up, you're dumber than I thought. And you know that we both aren't talking about the same disclosure. I could care less about the harsh realities of being a boot, in fact I agree with them. A certain level of discipline and training must take place. There is however a method to the madness. A well forgotten saying in todays time. There are other, probably more destructive problems within' the enlisted ranks.

    My idea of telling the CO to do that is a fair and accurate response. Something that most would probably say. You're the type of marine who would willfully bend over and let yourself get ****ed in the ass. Ignorant to your own rights... not even as a citizen, but as a human being.

    Lol and in all the years you were in, you never once encountered any problems?

    You consider this crying? no bitch, no tears are being shed. It's simply me, pointing out the truths in the situation, something that is rarely done. You of all people should realize how much can change in 4 years.
    Just throwing out a recent example of change... last year, it was unheard of that women would be allowed in combat situations, not to say they don't get engaged, but to be a part of a line company... no. It was introduced, and to everyones expectations, it wouldn't get far. however it did, and it's happening.
    Now that's a BIG change to occur, if we bring that back down to a battalion, company, platoon level... you get met with changes constantly.
    Because you didnt ask a previous troop what is was like is your own problem. Could have went to any VFW to get stories from previous enlisted, but instead you sign up, then complain about the culture. There is not truth you are sharing here. There are plenty of Vet's and Active on this forum that served, and can guarantee not one of them agree with you. Not with your slavery comparison (Didn't know slaves could opt in), not with your complaint about culture, or how different it is today than just a handful of years ago.

    Women served in combat roles well before you know. Plus, the Combat Exclusion Policy really had no bearing on women actually seeing combat it both theaters.

    No sense in carrying on.
    The Historic PES Legend
  14. Pro Virili Parte
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    9,081
    Rep Power
    2849703
    Level
    81
    Lv. Percent
    72.56%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Re: New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time


    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    I am as we speak. Thanks.
    Feel free to PM me your thoughts if you don't want to post here. I'm genuinely interested what your take is

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  15. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Well since you're discussing education, I'm sure you're already aware that it's spelled "irrelevant, tenant,separate and amendment ." But kudos to you for attempting to nail me on education. Lol.

    Tangents aside, if we're discussing the Bill of Rights, I've already stated (with the direct wording/articles to support my points). The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change it . Now if you're as smart as you purport yourself to be, rather than attacking me (weak FYI) you'd attack the substance of my post, which again is direct wording (not interpretations as you so often seem to do) describing the intentions of the Bill of the Rights, when it was initially drafted. All the information you need is provided above. And here's the cool part. It's not my wording, nor is it my opinion.
    The bill of rights is intended to provide protection for civil liberties and provide specific limitations to governmental power, nothing more or less.

    Regarding spelling, I'm on a phone and typos happen. I earned an MBA from a top tier university and quit school to make money. Had a doctorate in my field come with a bigger price tag, I would've pursued that too but it doesn't so I didn't. You can attack typos all day long but I promise it won't mean much to me.

    You, on the other hand, are still off topic and consequently irrelevant.
  16. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by JudoJosh View Post
    Feel free to PM me your thoughts if you don't want to post here. I'm genuinely interested what your take is

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy SII using Tapatalk 2
    Will do and thanks again for the link, appreciate it.
  17. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    I explained to you how it was directly connected to slavery. Again, see above. You left the foolish station awhile back, now you're just bordering on something else entirely.
    Yet you are simply wrong. They don't match. There is nothing to reply to.

    A document that doesn't once mention slavery vs. a man who directly expanded the institution is the discussion. You are off base.

    I can see you will hold your bull**** tie-in in your mind though and if you have come to that point fine, but you know it's bull**** too. You are trying to win an argument that can't be won on topic for you. I've been sitting in the sensible boarding station next to the foolish station watching you sprint down the dumbass tracks for quite a while now.

    Show me where, in the bill of rights (the point of discussion), slavery is supported.
  18. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    The bill of rights is intended to provide protection for civil liberties and provide specific limitations to governmental power, nothing more or less.

    Regarding spelling, I'm on a phone and typos happen. I earned an MBA from a top tier university and quit school to make money. Had a doctorate in my field come with a bigger price tag, I would've pursued that too but it doesn't so I didn't. You can attack typos all day long but I promise it won't mean much to me.

    You, on the other hand, are still off topic and consequently irrelevant.
    You keep saying I'm off topic, yet you won't say why. Just because you keep repeating something to yourself doesn't exactly make it true, even if you are deluding yourself. Read again, The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change that. <----Now refer back to your statement (blanket at that without context) about the Bill of Rights and how it's connected to slavery. Then reread the direct articles posted from the Constitution, direct wording. You're either being obtuse or more likely simply a lost cause.
  19. New Member
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Age
    25
    Posts
    174
    Rep Power
    41645
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    76.28%

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Because you didnt ask a previous troop what is was like is your own problem. Could have went to any VFW to get stories from previous enlisted, but instead you sign up, then complain about the culture. There is not truth you are sharing here. There are plenty of Vet's and Active on this forum that served, and can guarantee not one of them agree with you. Not with your slavery comparison (Didn't know slaves could opt in), not with your complaint about culture, or how different it is today than just a handful of years ago.

    Women served in combat roles well before you know. Plus, the Combat Exclusion Policy really had no bearing on women actually seeing combat it both theaters.

    No sense in carrying on.
    HAHA the only people that you'd most likely encounter talking to at any VFW are the motivated retired prior enlisted who did well in the marine corp, only because that lifestyle fit them. They are far too proud to say some ill words. Ill but truthful. The majority of people don't mesh well with the lifestyle of the marine corp nor with the culture as you call it.

    It's sad to see people like you, clearly brainwashed acting as if there is nothing wrong, but hey no problem, I only got a little bit of time left, finish out this deployment, sit in RBE and get some college done and be on my way. Meanwhile if anyone has any questions about what it's really like, or whether or not it's a good choice for them, ill be glad to answer them... with zero bias.

    I am actually curious to see how many here would go ahead and polish up their CO's footwear. We know you would because you're all about that life.

    OH and don't spin this like i'm ****ting on the enlisted of today by demeaning or bringing shame to the marine corp. I do my job, and I do it well. I very well respect people left and right of me, and certain individuals who have demonstrated the qualities and capabilities of a leader... But there is a lot I do not respect, and do not agree with, and I can vouch for probably 70% of my battalion/company as they would agree with me.
  20. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Yet you are simply wrong. They don't match. There is nothing to reply to.

    A document that doesn't once mention slavery vs. a man who directly expanded the institution is the discussion. You are off base.

    I can see you will hold your bull**** tie-in in your mind though and if you have come to that point fine, but you know it's bull**** too. You are trying to win an argument that can't be won on topic for you. I've been sitting in the sensible boarding station next to the foolish station watching you sprint down the dumbass tracks for quite a while now.

    Show me where, in the bill of rights (the point of discussion), slavery is supported.
    It really requires a literal translation for you. Despite its seemingly inclusive wording, the Bill of Rights did not apply to all Americans—and it wouldn’t for more than 130 years. At the time of its ratification, the “people” referenced in the amendments were understood to be land-owning white men only. Blacks only received equal protection under the law in 1868, and even then it was purely on paper. Women couldn’t vote in all states before 1920, and Native Americans did not achieve full citizenship until 1924. <------These are facts, what more do you need to deduce that the B.O.R did not offer blanket protection to all Americans, despite you being willfully obtuse.
  21. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,483
    Rep Power
    1057412
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    58.07%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Russianog View Post
    HAHA the only people that you'd most likely encounter talking to at any VFW are the motivated retired prior enlisted who did well in the marine corp, only because that lifestyle fit them. They are far too proud to say some ill words. Ill but truthful. The majority of people don't mesh well with the lifestyle of the marine corp nor with the culture as you call it.

    It's sad to see people like you, clearly brainwashed acting as if there is nothing wrong, but hey no problem, I only got a little bit of time left, finish out this deployment, sit in RBE and get some college done and be on my way. Meanwhile if anyone has any questions about what it's really like, or whether or not it's a good choice for them, ill be glad to answer them... with zero bias.

    I am actually curious to see how many here would go ahead and polish up their CO's footwear. We know you would because you're all about that life.

    OH and don't spin this like i'm ****ting on the enlisted of today by demeaning or bringing shame to the marine corp. I do my job, and I do it well. I very well respect people left and right of me, and certain individuals who have demonstrated the qualities and capabilities of a leader... But there is a lot I do not respect, and do not agree with, and I can vouch for probably 70% of my battalion/company as they would agree with me.
    Of course I didn't like everything about my time in.. but I most certainly didn't go on a public forum and complain about it, or damn well didn't compare it to slavery, or tout that insubordination is the cool thing to do these days in the "New Military".
    The Historic PES Legend
  22. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    And if you're just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, read - https://www.dropbox.com/s/11fx10q2it...c%20Racism.PDF
  23. New Member
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Age
    25
    Posts
    174
    Rep Power
    41645
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    76.28%

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    Of course I didn't like everything about my time in.. but I most certainly didn't go on a public forum and complain about it, or damn well didn't compare it to slavery, or tout that insubordination is the cool thing to do these days in the "New Military".
    So you just let other people go ahead and sign up and learn the hard way? I'd rather just let them know the facts, and they can join if they want based on what they are really getting themselves into. Again, if you try and compare it DIRECTLY to slavery as it was 130 years ago... you will run into inconsistencies. If you compare it to the very broad idea of slavery. Discipline and structure can only go so far... In the end, you end up feeling like you're either in prison, or a slave. Due to the simple fact that the freedom of thought is looked down upon. People are placed in leadership roles, that should not be there. the list goes on... but i wont anger you any further with it... TBH i'm tired of having this discussion with you, you can continue it civilly in PM's if you want, or another thread... but I, like everyone else, do warrant my opinion and outlook on the situation. Don't be quick to call it insubordination. Insubordination in the eyes of some document meant to "justify" disciplinary action by those who can't even make a character judgement about someone. Who are reading off an SRB as to describe the individual.

    Deuces
  24. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You keep saying I'm off topic, yet you won't say why. Just because you keep repeating something to yourself doesn't exactly make it true, even if you are deluding yourself. Read again, The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change that. <----Now refer back to your statement (blanket at that without context) about the Bill of Rights and how it's connected to slavery. Then reread the direct articles posted from the Constitution, direct wording. You're either being obtuse or more likely simply a lost cause.
    Amend:
    1: to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
    2a : to change or modify for the better : improve <amend the situation>
    b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a constitution>

    Yes, the text of one documnt was added to. The intent of the addition was to protect individual civil liberties and limit government power. Your ties are irrelevant for like th tenth time.

    Irregardless, the Bill of Rights is a specific group of constitutional amendments with a specific purpose. This document is what Jim was referencing.

    I've said why you are off topic in almost every post this morning, let me make it clear for you though.

    You are off topic because the conversation is the Bill of Rights (alone) vs. Jefferson as a proponent of slavery; spinning off of which makes the most credible historical source.

    Show me where the Bill of Rights supports slavery.
  25. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    It really requires a literal translation for you. Despite its seemingly inclusive wording, the Bill of Rights did not apply to all Americans—and it wouldn’t for more than 130 years. At the time of its ratification, the “people” referenced in the amendments were understood to be land-owning white men only. Blacks only received equal protection under the law in 1868, and even then it was purely on paper. Women couldn’t vote in all states before 1920, and Native Americans did not achieve full citizenship until 1924. <------These are facts, what more do you need to deduce that the B.O.R did not offer blanket protection to all Americans, despite you being willfully obtuse.
    And once again (maybe twice again?), the fact individuals in power chose not to apply the content of the Bill of Rights to all doesn't nullify the bill of rights itself, which is the discussion point. Nobody is discussing the false or absent application of the bill, but the bill itself, from the first post. You are trying to spin this topic because you know you are wrong.

    Individuals in power who chose not to apply the bill to all, such as Jefferson, are not the bill of rights themselves but were shady characters in many respects and are not the credible source the bill of rights is for American philosophical discussion such as the conversation you and jim were having. You are only discrediting Jefferson further by acknowledging the fact he ignored the bill of rights for a large portion of the population.
  26. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,474
    Rep Power
    1251928
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.87%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    You keep saying I'm off topic, yet you won't say why. Just because you keep repeating something to yourself doesn't exactly make it true, even if you are deluding yourself. Read again, The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change that. <----Now refer back to your statement (blanket at that without context) about the Bill of Rights and how it's connected to slavery. Then reread the direct articles posted from the Constitution, direct wording. You're either being obtuse or more likely simply a lost cause.
    So you can say the Constitution protected slavery, fine....but the Bill of Rights eliminated slavery and granted legal freedoms to all slaves. Those who continued slavery were simply breaking law as the Bill of Rights did not give freedoms to any particular exclusive group.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  27. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,474
    Rep Power
    1251928
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.87%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Russianog View Post
    So you just let other people go ahead and sign up and learn the hard way? I'd rather just let them know the facts, and they can join if they want based on what they are really getting themselves into. Again, if you try and compare it DIRECTLY to slavery as it was 130 years ago... you will run into inconsistencies. If you compare it to the very broad idea of slavery. Discipline and structure can only go so far... In the end, you end up feeling like you're either in prison, or a slave. Due to the simple fact that the freedom of thought is looked down upon. People are placed in leadership roles, that should not be there. the list goes on... but i wont anger you any further with it... TBH i'm tired of having this discussion with you, you can continue it civilly in PM's if you want, or another thread... but I, like everyone else, do warrant my opinion and outlook on the situation. Don't be quick to call it insubordination. Insubordination in the eyes of some document meant to "justify" disciplinary action by those who can't even make a character judgement about someone. Who are reading off an SRB as to describe the individual.

    Deuces
    This is silly, I know if you join a High School football team or wrestling team there are alot of things happening behind the scenes that are simply not discussed when you sign up.

    Im not trying to knock you, yes I know things can be rough but you should just suck it up, finish your contract and then get into politics if you really want to change anything. Ranting slavery doesnt really look good to people.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  28. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    So you can say the Constitution protected slavery, fine....but the Bill of Rights eliminated slavery and granted legal freedoms to all slaves. Those who continued slavery were simply breaking law as the Bill of Rights did not give freedoms to any particular exclusive group.
    And now comes the civil war, where application was considered.
  29. New Member
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Age
    25
    Posts
    174
    Rep Power
    41645
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    76.28%

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    This is silly, I know if you join a High School football team or wrestling team there are alot of things happening behind the scenes that are simply not discussed when you sign up.

    Im not trying to knock you, yes I know things can be rough but you should just suck it up, finish your contract and then get into politics if you really want to change anything. Ranting slavery doesnt really look good to people.
    LOL you can't even compare the politics of highschool football or wrestling to those of the marine corp.

    It's not like it's rough on my emotions and i'm whining like a little girl... it's just not all it's made out to be. I don't care what doesn't look good to people, i know what me and my peers see this as.

    I already said that I have no problem with finishing the contract... and i've thought about an entry in politics, i prefer the field of science over it.
  30. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,474
    Rep Power
    1251928
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.87%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Russianog View Post
    LOL you can't even compare the politics of highschool football or wrestling to those of the marine corp.

    It's not like it's rough on my emotions and i'm whining like a little girl... it's just not all it's made out to be. I don't care what doesn't look good to people, i know what me and my peers see this as.

    I already said that I have no problem with finishing the contract... and i've thought about an entry in politics, i prefer the field of science over it.
    I know the Marine's is a whole different ball game. The point is you never really get in life what you sign up for. That high school football experience is just an example.

    So whats the top beef your having? Just wondering, I did read your posts but I want to be clear on your top issues.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  31. Diamond Member
    jimbuick's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    10,669
    Rep Power
    7887093
    Level
    100
    Lv. Percent
    37.8%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigcountry08 View Post
    You know ax1, jim, southpaw, and tex all had naked chicks sitting next to them last night while they were all flaming on each other.

    chick : can we go to bed now, I want to have sex.

    Guys : No! Im about to burn this guy good, just 12 more posts till I lead him into my trap.
    Jokes on you, I did have sex last night.



    On a more related note:

    Even though its been pointed out by others (many times), the Bill of Rights doesn't exclude anyone. You even said it was UNDERSTOOD to exclude certain people but that is not the fault of the Bill itself but the fault of those who were implementing it at the time.
    Body Performance Solutions Representative

    Check out our products at www.bpsnutrition.net
    Check out our FaceBook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/Body-Performance-Solutions/191322614238042
  32. Advanced Member
    Bigcountry08's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  255 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    665
    Rep Power
    336131
    Level
    30
    Lv. Percent
    76.88%
    Achievements Activity Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post

    Factual yet off topic and consequently irrelevent. It took me awhile to reply because while I did not get laid last night as Country pointed out (Aunt Flo is visiting), I did get a blowjob this morning while you were copy pasting facts that don't pertain to the discussion. But I'm back cupcake, don't worry.

    By the way, the sky is blue, grass is green and trees often house birds. Jefferson owned property under the sky, full of grass and containing trees he most likely propagated so these are all elements of the institution of slavery by default.

    Substitute Madison for Jefferson and we have another interesting point. In your mind, because the bill of rights was introduced by Madison and Madison owned slaves, the bill of rights itself is connected to slavery in the same way that a man who leveraged personal power to increase slavery directly is connected to slavery. Complete bull**** but whatever. By tying the bill of rights and Jefferson's direct presidential charges together in your mind, and then discrediting the bill of rights, you have also discredited your own "on par" source or at the very least given Jim's the same credibility you give your own (sad).

    Your facts are off topic, your logic within your own off topic argument is now circular and your deductive reasoning skills are at about a third grade level. This has simply gotten ridiculous.
    Good on you Texasguy !!! Get it where you can ! I lucked out last night myself actualy.
    Bigcountry's Getting a little smaller: Epi/Stano Log

    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/cycle-info/231194-bigcountrys-getting-little.html
  33. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    And once again (maybe twice again?), the fact individuals in power chose not to apply the content of the Bill of Rights to all doesn't nullify the bill of rights itself, which is the discussion point. Nobody is discussing the false or absent application of the bill, but the bill itself, from the first post. You are trying to spin this topic because you know you are wrong.

    Individuals in power who chose not to apply the bill to all, such as Jefferson, are not the bill of rights themselves but were shady characters in many respects and are not the credible source the bill of rights is for American philosophical discussion such as the conversation you and jim were having. You are only discrediting Jefferson further by acknowledging the fact he ignored the bill of rights for a large portion of the population.
    All of the founders ignored the Bill of Rights, since it was NOT applied to protect those mentioned in my examples. Who's discussing "nullification?" The discussion point here is the application thereof. You're making a broad interpretation and disregarding its application.The two go hand-in-hand. Upon its initial application, the B.O.R did nothing to alter, nor did it seek to protect the freedoms of those examples I had listed above. We can discuss peripherally the intentions, motivations or interpretations etc, still does alter the facts. The B.O.R. did nothing to change what was already ratified in the Constitution.

    Let me pose the question this way and please respond and be specific. Did it or did it not offer blanketed protections to those examples that I had listed? I could write freedom for all on a wall and if it's not applied to ALL, doesn't that then change the context of the statement/guarantee? Or are you just interested in making your own broad interpretations? I listed the actual articles in the Constitution, of which were ratified prior to the B.O.R.

    The Constitution was signed on September 1787 and sent to the Congress. Eleven days later, it was submitted to the states for ratification. The Constitution included a set of specific guarantees, chief among them, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law and freedom from governmental search and seizure. The people ratified the Constitution only after its framers pledged to add to it such protections. Congress added those protections in 1789, and in 1791 two-thirds of the states ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights however, did not end the enslavement of blacks and their descendents, nor did it uphold the rights of Native Americans, women, children, gay people, prisoners, the mentally and physically disabled, and others, all of which CAME MANY YEARS LATER. Those are facts. Now you keep asking me where does it implicitly state that blacks were not free in the Bill of Rights? The facts are clear, as they were not offered protections (equal protections under the law) per the articles that I had listed a few quotes back, which is the actual wording...NOT MY OWN.
  34. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,474
    Rep Power
    1251928
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.87%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post

    The Constitution was signed on September 1787 and sent to the Congress. Eleven days later, it was submitted to the states for ratification. The Constitution included a set of specific guarantees, chief among them, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law and freedom from governmental search and seizure. The people ratified the Constitution only after its framers pledged to add to it such protections. Congress added those protections in 1789, and in 1791 two-thirds of the states ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights however, did not end the enslavement of blacks and their descendents, nor did it uphold the rights of Native Americans, women, children, gay people, prisoners, the mentally and physically disabled, and others, all of which CAME MANY YEARS LATER. Those are facts. Now you keep asking me where does it implicitly state that blacks were not free in the Bill of Rights? The facts are clear, as they were not offered protections (equal protections under the law) per the articles that I had listed a few quotes back, which is the actual wording...NOT MY OWN.
    The Bill of Rights doesnt not belong to an exclusive club, there is absolutely zero evidence of it. It's fault of man for violating Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Rights. Just because you found some obscure comments in the original document, or found that some of the founding fathers has slaves doesnt amount to anything specifically in regards that the Bill of Rights exempts minorities.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  35. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,474
    Rep Power
    1251928
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.87%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    The Constitution was signed on September 1787 and sent to the Congress. Eleven days later, it was submitted to the states for ratification. The Constitution included a set of specific guarantees, chief among them, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law and freedom from governmental search and seizure. The people ratified the Constitution only after its framers pledged to add to it such protections. Congress added those protections in 1789, and in 1791 two-thirds of the states ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights however, did not end the enslavement of blacks and their descendents, nor did it uphold the rights of Native Americans, women, children, gay people, prisoners, the mentally and physically disabled, and others, all of which CAME MANY YEARS LATER. Those are facts. Now you keep asking me where does it implicitly state that blacks were not free in the Bill of Rights? The facts are clear, as they were not offered protections (equal protections under the law) per the articles that I had listed a few quotes back, which is the actual wording...NOT MY OWN.
    Does the Constitution even specify that blacks are to be the sole slaves? Did you know hundreds of thousands of Irish (the forgotten slaves) have been sold as slaves in the past as well?
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  36. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,474
    Rep Power
    1251928
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.87%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Does the Constitution even specify that blacks are to be the sole slaves? Did you know hundreds of thousands of Irish (the forgotten slaves) have been sold as slaves in the past as well?
    And Southpaw....doesnt the goverment take away the fruits of your labor or suffer sever consequences? You are 1/4 slave yourself. You spend 25% of your entire labor life being a slave.

    As we can see the fault of man, not the Bill of Rights even to this day are in violation. Its all from people.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  37. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    Does the Constitution even specify that blacks are to be the sole slaves? Did you know hundreds of thousands of Irish (the forgotten slaves) have been sold as slaves in the past as well?
    We're spinning our wheels here. Look I don't know how to make it more clear, perhaps you can refer to Josh's link.
  38. Elite Member
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,474
    Rep Power
    1251928
    Level
    61
    Lv. Percent
    22.87%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    We're spinning our wheels here. Look I don't know how to make it more clear, perhaps you can refer to Josh's link.
    How about instead of reading a book just reading the Bill of Rights and clearly seeing there is no exemption to race.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  39. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    812
    Rep Power
    200687
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    75.21%

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    All of the founders ignored the Bill of Rights, since it was NOT applied to protect those mentioned in my examples. Who's discussing "nullification?" The discussion point here is the application thereof. You're making a broad interpretation and disregarding its application.The two go hand-in-hand. Upon its initial application, the B.O.R did nothing to alter, nor did it seek to protect the freedoms of those examples I had listed above. We can discuss peripherally the intentions, motivations or interpretations etc, still does alter the facts. The B.O.R. did nothing to change what was already ratified in the Constitution.

    Let me pose the question this way and please respond and be specific. Did it or did it not offer blanketed protections to those examples that I had listed? I could write freedom for all on a wall and if it's not applied to ALL, doesn't that then change the context of the statement/guarantee? Or are you just interested in making your own broad interpretations? I listed the actual articles in the Constitution, of which were ratified prior to the B.O.R.

    The Constitution was signed on September 1787 and sent to the Congress. Eleven days later, it was submitted to the states for ratification. The Constitution included a set of specific guarantees, chief among them, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, due process of law and freedom from governmental search and seizure. The people ratified the Constitution only after its framers pledged to add to it such protections. Congress added those protections in 1789, and in 1791 two-thirds of the states ratified the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights however, did not end the enslavement of blacks and their descendents, nor did it uphold the rights of Native Americans, women, children, gay people, prisoners, the mentally and physically disabled, and others, all of which CAME MANY YEARS LATER. Those are facts. Now you keep asking me where does it implicitly state that blacks were not free in the Bill of Rights? The facts are clear, as they were not offered protections (equal protections under the law) per the articles that I had listed a few quotes back, which is the actual wording...NOT MY OWN.
    The discussion is the Bill of Rights upholding the institution of slavery vs. Thomas Jefferson upholding the institution of slavery.

    Please show me where, in the Bill of Rights, the institution of slavery is upheld.

    All you can show is that certain individuals (including Jefferson) in power did not allow the Bill of Rights to extend to certain groups. This is exactly what I've been saying. The Bill of Rights does not uphold slavery at all but Thomas Jefferson did by exercising power outside of the Bill of Rights to prevent certain people from enjoying the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights. His decision to exclude certain people, although supported by the majority during his time, doesn't add content to the Bill of Rights.

    The addendum of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, by definition, was simply added text, text intended to grant certain personal liberties (ignored by Jefferson) and limit government power. It is not an endorsement of slavery.

    You are off your own base and don't even know it.

    Now staying on topic, show me where in the Bill of Rights slavery is upheld.
  40. Professional Member
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387266
    Level
    57
    Lv. Percent
    13.48%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by ax1 View Post
    How about instead of reading a book just reading the Bill of Rights and clearly seeing there is no exemption to race.
    Lol right. Here's a question... "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," did this right ALSO extend to slaves/blacks, per the Bill of Rights?
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Need new routine idea's
    By Chemist63 in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-18-2005, 10:00 AM
  2. New PCT idea...
    By ManBeast in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-10-2004, 03:07 PM
  3. New cycle idea
    By Sanosuke in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2003, 06:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in