New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time

Page 6 of 9 First ... 45678 ... Last
  1. Registered User
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Reside: Cali | Located: Afghan
    Age
    25
    Posts
    176
    Rep Power
    41641

    If we're talking about slavery in early development stages of america, it wasn't the bill of rights that excluded them, it was the misinterpretation by some of the population that excluded them.

  2. ax1
    ax1 is offline
    Registered User
    ax1's Avatar
    Stats
    4'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    북한 Democratic People's Republic of North Korea
    Posts
    5,379
    Rep Power
    1092777

    Quote Originally Posted by Russianog View Post
    If we're talking about slavery in early development stages of america, it wasn't the bill of rights that excluded them, it was the misinterpretation by some of the population that excluded them.
    And even to this day the Bill of Rights applies only when the current regime wants to apply it.
    나는 2000년 10월 매들린 올브라이트 전 미 국무장관 매들린 사랑, 그 중 한 뜨거운 젠장!
  3. Pro Virili Parte
    Board Sponsor
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    29
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    2057355

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


    Some fun reading

    http://db.tt/S7WkNEbb

    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    Bigcountry08's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  255 lbs.
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    665
    Rep Power
    336127

    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.
    Bigcountry's Getting a little smaller: Epi/Stano Log

    http://anabolicminds.com/forum/cycle-info/231194-bigcountrys-getting-little.html
  5. Registered User
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    188233

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    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. Per Article 4:
    Quote:

    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due. This simply meant all runaway slaves could no longer hope making it to a free state equated to freedom. Now was there ANYTHING in the Bill Of Rights that repealed this section of Article 4?


    What about Article 1?


    Quote:

    Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.


    ^^^ That wasn't repealed either.


    The power to end slavery, it remained purely a matter of states rights and the Bill Of Rights did NOTHING to amend away existing provisions of the Constitution OR enlarge the powers of the federal government to abolish it. Not one of the first ten amendments did ANYTHING to repeal the sections of the Constitution that protected slavery but further set in stone the doctrine of states rights which could be used as a legal basis to perpetuate it, per the following:


    The U.S. Constitution, as ratified in 1788 …

    • Forbade Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves for the following 20 years.
    • Mandated that a “person held to service or labor” in one state be “delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be due.”
    • Enacted an uneasy compromise designed to end a long debate over whether to count slaves in population totals that would affect taxes and representation in Congress. Slaves, who had no rights whatsoever under the Constitution, were each counted as three fifths of a person for the purpose of these totals. The clause was the first of a long line of uneasy official compromises between white southerners and white northerners regarding slavery.

    Obstacles and Opportunities

    In 1793, Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law to enforce the U.S. Constitution's demand that runaway slaves be returned to their masters; the law permitted those who owned slaves to cross state lines in order to regain physical control of their escaped “property.” Some Northern legislatures passed laws ensuring pursued slaves the right to trial by jury and the right to give testimony in court in these disputes.


    • Mandated that a “person held to service or labor” in one state be “delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor shall be due.”
    • Enacted an uneasy compromise designed to end a long debate over whether to count slaves in population totals that would affect taxes and representation in Congress. Slaves, who had no rights whatsoever under the Constitution, were each counted as three fifths of a person for the purpose of these totals. The clause was the first of a long line of uneasy official compromises between white southerners and white northerners regarding slavery.


    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.


    ^^^Factual (sorry they're not opinions Buick)...Exhausted...goodnight .
    JimBuick quoted the Bill of Rights, not the entire constitution.
  6. Registered User
    Ballesteri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    471
    Rep Power
    1769573

    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.
    Nah, I think they were prolly desperately seeking advise from their sig. others. Females are the kings of setting "traps"
  7. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    Quote Originally Posted by Ballesteri View Post
    Nah, I think they were prolly desperately seeking advise from their sig. others. Females are the kings of setting "traps"
    Who sets traps in a fitness forum? Lol.
  8. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    JimBuick quoted the Bill of Rights, not the entire constitution.
    Ugh riiiight. Feel free to respond to what I posted above.
  9. Registered User
    Ballesteri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    471
    Rep Power
    1769573

    Quote Originally Posted by southpaw23 View Post
    Besides they put themselves in the air, I just kicked away the chair.
    Perhaps if you had helped them down without the kicking some would be more apt to listen to your point of view.
  10. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    Quote Originally Posted by Ballesteri View Post
    Perhaps if you had helped down without the kicking some would be more apt to listen to your point of view.
    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.
  11. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    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
  12. Registered User
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    188233

    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.
  13. Registered User
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    188233

    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.
  14. Pro Virili Parte
    Board Sponsor
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    29
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    2057355

    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
  15. Registered User
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Reside: Cali | Located: Afghan
    Age
    25
    Posts
    176
    Rep Power
    41641

    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.
  16. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    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.
  17. Pro Virili Parte
    Board Sponsor
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    29
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    2057355

    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
  18. Pro Virili Parte
    Board Sponsor
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    29
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    2057355

    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
  19. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    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.
  20. Registered User
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    188233

    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.
  21. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    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.
  22. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    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.
  23. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    31
    Posts
    7,397
    Rep Power
    700725

    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
  24. Pro Virili Parte
    Board Sponsor
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Age
    29
    Posts
    8,761
    Rep Power
    2057355

    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
  25. Registered User
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    188233

    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.
  26. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    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.
  27. Registered User
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    796
    Rep Power
    188233

    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.
  28. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    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.
  29. Registered User
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Reside: Cali | Located: Afghan
    Age
    25
    Posts
    176
    Rep Power
    41641

    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.
  30. Registered User
    southpaw23's Avatar
    Stats
    5'11"  165 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    1387262

    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.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Need new routine idea's
    By Chemist63 in forum Exercise Science
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-18-2005, 08:00 AM
  2. New PCT idea...
    By ManBeast in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-10-2004, 01:07 PM
  3. New cycle idea
    By Sanosuke in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2003, 04:15 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

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.