New Republican Idea: Punishing Rape Victims with Jail Time

jimbuick

jimbuick

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
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?
Are you Forrest Gump?

Where does it say that it doesn't extend to those people?

Note that I didn't ask when was it not applied to them, only that it was not written in a way that would exclude anyone.
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
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?
You mean per Jefferson. And no, per Jefferson they sure didn't.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
You mean per Jefferson. And no, per Jefferson they sure didn't.
No. My question is very specific. I'm speaking to your response specifically in regards to the B.O.R. Again, (just answer the 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?
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
No. My question is very specific. I'm speaking to your response specifically in regards to the B.O.R. Again, (just answer the 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?
It's supposed to and it sure came in handy when blacks were armed during the civil war and times of kkk.

If a minority is denied the 2nd amendment It's illegal.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Are you Forrest Gump?

Where does it say that it doesn't extend to those people?

Note that I didn't ask when was it not applied to them, only that it was not written in a way that would exclude anyone.
I guess you require a literal translation. Slavery is EXPLICITLY protected in the Constitution, of which was once again ratified prior to the B.O.R., which did nothing to lift, alter, change, modify that protection. Per your statement above, those groups were excluded until MANY years later. You're wrong and you continue be wrong, even willfully. Look at your own statement, only that it was not written in a way that would exclude anyone, however, it did.....

Article 4 is quite clear... 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.

That left slavery as a matter of states rights and slavery was still set in stone. Also free states no longer held the right to harbor fugitive slaves. If only the slaves of the day had a Captain Crunch secret decoder ring, they would have realized they were free all along and could just walk away from their slave masters some 70 years before waiting on the Emancipation Declaration or the even the 13th Amendment.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to Native Americans or to the Africans imported to labor as slaves in the South. Moreover, Congress and the Supreme Court often sanctioned pervasive inequalities. Per the following; In 1830, Congress approved the Indian Removal Act, which authorized the relocation of Native Americans west of the Mississippi River. And the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed at the end of the Civil War, excluded Native Americans even as it ostensibly extended citizenship and "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings" to all people.


The Bill of Rights did not apply to the slaves, who were totally excluded from citizenship and all rights attending it. When the slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was incorporated into the Bill of Rights to prohibit states from denying the vote, due process or equal protection of the laws on the basis of race. Which we know was not the case, following the Reconstruction period, which provided a brief respite for African Americans from systematic persecution, enactment of the "Black Codes" and "Jim Crow" laws, returning blacks to a status of mere nominal freedom. (So yes, the Bill of Rights completely set them free)



Women, too, were largely excluded from the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. Although the first American Women's Rights Convention, meeting in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848, demanded women's suffrage, 70 more years would pass before that demand would be met. Indeed, in 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the "law of the creator" required women to be wives and mothers not professionals because of their "natural and proper timidity and delicacy." In 1879, the Court reaffirmed state suffrage laws that disfranchised women.

Now does it implicitly state in the B.O.R. that blacks are free? No, it did not. If they were free, why did it take 70 years per the Emancipation Declaration. My point is (and it will be lost here I already know that) is that the B.O.R. did not offer blanket protections, period.Even if you require literal wording as evidence of such.
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
No. My question is very specific. I'm speaking to your response specifically in regards to the B.O.R. Again, (just answer the 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?
Jefferson did not allow the Bill of Rights to extend to all people. That's what I've been saying.

You are going off topic because you know you are wrong. You don't have an answer because the Bill of Rights does not endorse slavery. You can't show me where it does because it doesn't.

We can talk about Jefferson and others in power limiting the reach of the Bill of Rights to certain people if you want but it will only further show that Jefferson isn't the source the Bill of Rights is when using historical references to shape modern arguments.

The Bill of Rights, however, is a self-contained piece of literature with very explicit charges. Show me where it propagates slavery.

Unfortunately, America had to wait until Lincoln came around and used Jefferson's previous office to extend the content of the same Bill of Rights to all, and that tradition continues today. The Bill of Rights is still the Bill of Rights, however, and was even when the "powers that be (were)" failed to communicate it properly.

And it doesn't support slavery, the basis of the contention here. You are wrong. Get over it. You can tie as many unrelated facts about period figures to the document as you want, the document is still a self contained piece of literature with very specific charges, none of which support your slavery angle.



And it turns out you do dance, and you aren't too shabby either! :dance: :toofunny:
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Jefferson did not allow the Bill of Rights to extend to all people. That's what I've been saying.

You are going off topic because you know you are wrong. You don't have an answer because the Bill of Rights does not endorse slavery. You can't show me where it does because it doesn't.

We can talk about Jefferson and others in power limiting the reach of the Bill of Rights to certain people if you want but it will only further show that Jefferson isn't the source the Bill of Rights is when using historical references to shape modern arguments.

The Bill of Rights, however, is a self-contained piece of literature with very explicit charges. Show me where it propagates slavery.

Unfortunately, America had to wait until Lincoln came around and used Jefferson's previous office to extend the content of the same Bill of Rights to all, and that tradition continues today. The Bill of Rights is still the Bill of Rights, however, and was even when the "powers that be (were)" failed to communicate it properly.

And it doesn't support slavery, the basis of the contention here. You are wrong. Get over it. You can tie as many unrelated facts about period figures to the document as you want, the document is still a self contained piece of literature with very specific charges, none of which support your slavery angle.



And it turns out you do dance, and you aren't too shabby either! :dance: :toofunny:

Right, "Jefferson did not allow the Bill of Rights to extend to all people." But you won't list sources supporting those contentions and HAVE FAILED TO DO SO THIS ENTIRE THREAD. So while I may in fact end up on Dancing With the Stars, it appears your next star turning performance will come in Captain Simple Jack II: The Return of Captain Simple Jack. Now smiley are faces are cute...for a fetus.When you're done with that, try listing some valid sources to support your argument.
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to Native Americans or to the Africans imported to labor as slaves in the South. Moreover, Congress and the Supreme Court often sanctioned pervasive inequalities. Per the following; In 1830, Congress approved the Indian Removal Act, which authorized the relocation of Native Americans west of the Mississippi River. And the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed at the end of the Civil War, excluded Native Americans even as it ostensibly extended citizenship and "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings" to all people.


The Bill of Rights did not apply to the slaves, who were totally excluded from citizenship and all rights attending it. When the slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was incorporated into the Bill of Rights to prohibit states from denying the vote, due process or equal protection of the laws on the basis of race. Which we know was not the case, following the Reconstruction period, which provided a brief respite for African Americans from systematic persecution, enactment of the "Black Codes" and "Jim Crow" laws, returning blacks to a status of mere nominal freedom. (So yes, the Bill of Rights completely set them free)



Women, too, were largely excluded from the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. Although the first American Women's Rights Convention, meeting in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848, demanded women's suffrage, 70 more years would pass before that demand would be met. Indeed, in 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the "law of the creator" required women to be wives and mothers not professionals because of their "natural and proper timidity and delicacy." In 1879, the Court reaffirmed state suffrage laws that disfranchised women.

Now does it implicitly state in the B.O.R. that blacks are free? No, it did not. If they were free, why did it take 70 years per the Emancipation Declaration. My point is (and it will be lost here I already know that) is that the B.O.R. did not offer blanket protections, period.Even if you require literal wording as evidence of such.
You yourself are separating the Bill of Rights from it's application here. Clearly it offers certain rights for specific people to be excluded from them (by another charge altogether). You just beat your own argument again!



:clap2:



Show me where the Bill of Rights supports slavery. I don't care about the Indian Removal Act or any other bull**** unrelated to the actual argument.
 
jimbuick

jimbuick

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I guess you require a literal translation. Slavery is EXPLICITLY protected in the Constitution, of which was once again ratified prior to the B.O.R., which did nothing to lift, alter, change, modify that protection. Per your statement above, those groups were excluded until MANY years later. You're wrong and you continue be wrong, even willfully. Look at your own statement, only that it was not written in a way that would exclude anyone, however, it did.....

Article 4 is quite clear... 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.

That left slavery as a matter of states rights and slavery was still set in stone. Also free states no longer held the right to harbor fugitive slaves. If only the slaves of the day had a Captain Crunch secret decoder ring, they would have realized they were free all along and could just walk away from their slave masters some 70 years before waiting on the Emancipation Declaration or the even the 13th Amendment.
You're the only one talking about that.

I'm talking about the Bill of Rights. When taken as written the Bill of Rights applied to everyone, even in the 1800's. Just because they didn't heed the words, AS WRITTEN, doesn't mean they aren't written in a way that would apply to black/native Americans/anyone else.

The 2nd amendement (or any in the B.O.R really) do not exclude anyone. No where in the Bill of Rights (not an obscure article from a completely separate document) does it make a distinction for which races or creeds the laws apply to.
 
jimbuick

jimbuick

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
The Bill of Rights was never intended to apply to Native Americans or to the Africans imported to labor as slaves in the South. Moreover, Congress and the Supreme Court often sanctioned pervasive inequalities. Per the following; In 1830, Congress approved the Indian Removal Act, which authorized the relocation of Native Americans west of the Mississippi River. And the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed at the end of the Civil War, excluded Native Americans even as it ostensibly extended citizenship and "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings" to all people.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the slaves, who were totally excluded from citizenship and all rights attending it. When the slaves were emancipated and granted citizenship after the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was incorporated into the Bill of Rights to prohibit states from denying the vote, due process or equal protection of the laws on the basis of race. Which we know was not the case, following the Reconstruction period, which provided a brief respite for African Americans from systematic persecution, enactment of the "Black Codes" and "Jim Crow" laws, returning blacks to a status of mere nominal freedom. (So yes, the Bill of Rights completely set them free)

Women, too, were largely excluded from the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights. Although the first American Women's Rights Convention, meeting in Seneca Falls, New York in 1848, demanded women's suffrage, 70 more years would pass before that demand would be met. Indeed, in 1873 the Supreme Court ruled that the "law of the creator" required women to be wives and mothers not professionals because of their "natural and proper timidity and delicacy." In 1879, the Court reaffirmed state suffrage laws that disfranchised women.

Now does it implicitly state in the B.O.R. that blacks are free? No, it did not. If they were free, why did it take 70 years per the Emancipation Declaration. My point is (and it will be lost here I already know that) is that the B.O.R. did not offer blanket protections, period.Even if you require literal wording as evidence of such.
Interesting that you bring up the E.P. considering it didn't free anyone.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
You're the only one talking about that.

I'm talking about the Bill of Rights. When taken as written the Bill of Rights applied to everyone, even in the 1800's. Just because they didn't heed the words, AS WRITTEN, doesn't mean they aren't written in a way that would apply to black/native Americans/anyone else.

The 2nd amendement (or any in the B.O.R really) do not exclude anyone. No where in the Bill of Rights (not an obscure article from a completely separate document) does it make a distinction for which races or creeds the laws apply to.
Bill of Rights did not exclude anyone. I wonder why the slaves at the time didn't get the memo. They could have just walked away and saved themselves 70 years...
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
You're the only one talking about that.

I'm talking about the Bill of Rights. When taken as written the Bill of Rights applied to everyone, even in the 1800's. Just because they didn't heed the words, AS WRITTEN, doesn't mean they aren't written in a way that would apply to black/native Americans/anyone else.

The 2nd amendement (or any in the B.O.R really) do not exclude anyone. No where in the Bill of Rights (not an obscure article from a completely separate document) does it make a distinction for which races or creeds the laws apply to.

Notice your wording, "applied to everyone." Except it didn't...
 
jimbuick

jimbuick

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
You yourself are separating the Bill of Rights from it's application here. Clearly it offers certain rights for specific people to be excluded from them (by another charge altogether). You just beat your own argument again!

:clap2:

Show me where the Bill of Rights supports slavery. I don't care about the Indian Removal Act or any other bull**** unrelated to the actual argument.
Ill post some fact for you, because I know he'll get butt sore since you didn't.


http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#amendments

Check them first ten and show me where they exclude any minority.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
You yourself are separating the Bill of Rights from it's application here. Clearly it offers certain rights for specific people to be excluded from them (by another charge altogether). You just beat your own argument again!



:clap2:



Show me where the Bill of Rights supports slavery. I don't care about the Indian Removal Act or any other bull**** unrelated to the actual argument.
And yet you still fail to PROVIDE NOT EVEN ONE SOURCE TO BACKUP YOUR POINTS.But, hey, you're proficient at smiley faces. Awesome.
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
Right, "Jefferson did not allow the Bill of Rights to extend to all people." But you won't list sources supporting those contentions and HAVE FAILED TO DO SO THIS ENTIRE THREAD. So while I may in fact end up on Dancing With the Stars, it appears your next star turning performance will come in Captain Simple Jack II: The Return of Captain Simple Jack. Now smiley are faces are cute...for a fetus.When you're done with that, try listing some valid sources to support your argument.
How about the Louisiana Purchase for starters. And all the posts you've made showing the Bill of Rights was refused to certain people in Jefferson's time.

The real argument was still the Bill of Rights upholding slavery vs. Jefferson upholding slavery, however. I suppose I could post the entire Bill of Rights to show that it does not, in fact, uphold slavery but that would be pretty silly for such a well versed dancing queen as yourself.

Regarding fetal humor, you were the first to introduce smileys to the conversation, Simple Jack.

:toofunny:

Edit: Looks like Jim did link the Bill of Rights. Read them and show me where they support slavery.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Ill post some fact for you, because I know he'll get butt sore since you didn't.


U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Constitution of the United States

Check them first ten and show me where they exclude any minority.
I stated before that while it does NOT implicitly state that blacks were not free/equals in B.O.R., it did nothing to offer them equal protections under the law, per the Constitution which was ratified prior to the B.O.R. "Now tell me, where in the B.O.R. does it state denial of rights towards slaves, blacks, women." I offered the articles per the Constitution protecting slavery. Read them. While the B.O.R. is considered its own document, it's simply the collective name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Which did nothing to offer protections upheld in the Constitution, per the articles that I had listed.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
How about the Louisiana Purchase for starters. And all the posts you've made showing the Bill of Rights was refused to certain people in Jefferson's time.

The real argument was still the Bill of Rights upholding slavery vs. Jefferson upholding slavery, however. I suppose I could post the entire Bill of Rights to show that it does not, in fact, uphold slavery but that would be pretty silly for such a well versed dancing queen as yourself.

Regarding fetal humor, you were the first to introduce smileys to the conversation, Simple Jack.

:toofunny:

Edit: Looks like Jim did link the Bill of Rights. Read them and show me where they support slavery.
Okay, tell you what, you're right. Blacks were free per the B.O.R., it just took them 70 years to walk away and figure it out. By the way did you read the link (I already know the answer) that JudoJosh provided?
 
jimbuick

jimbuick

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
I stated before that while it does NOT implicitly state that blacks were not free/equals in B.O.R., it did nothing to offer them equal protections under the law, per the Constitution which was ratified prior to the B.O.R. "Now tell me, where in the B.O.R. does it state denial of rights towards slaves, blacks, women." I offered the articles per the Constitution protecting slavery. Read them. While the B.O.R. is considered it's own document, it's simply the collective name for the first ten amendment to the Constitution.
The B.O.R excludes no one (which you finally admit)


So what's your point again, originally you argued that they exclude certain minorities when in fact it was the people applying them who were excluding minorities and not the B.O.R.

Which was my point all along.

Now if only you could admit you were wrong without trying to act like you were right the whole time.
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
Notice your wording, "applied to everyone." Except it didn't...
The fact you have to edit a quote down to isolate a phrase that you then pull out of context should tell you that you have no basis to argue the actual content of the conversation.

Get off it. You are looking not only dumb but desperate to prove yourself to people on an internet forum who already think you look dumb to begin with.

When you are wrong you are wrong. The Bill of Rights does not support slavery, Jefferson did, and in the matter of political opinion that kicked this whole thing off, between the two sources, the Bill of Rights will carry much heavier reference weight than a wealthy, slave owning guy leveraging government power to expand the institution of slavery.

You're going from a misguided, stubborn guy defending a poor choice of historical reference to a downright head-in-ass full on retard the longer you go.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
The fact you have to edit a quote down to isolate a phrase that you then pull out of context should tell you that you have no basis to argue the actual content of the conversation.

Get off it. You are looking not only dumb but desperate to prove yourself to people on an internet forum who already think you look dumb to begin with.

When you are wrong you are wrong. The Bill of Rights does not support slavery, Jefferson did, and in the matter of political opinion that kicked this whole thing off, between the two sources, the Bill of Rights will carry much heavier reference weight than a wealthy, slave owning guy leveraging government power to expand the institution of slavery.

You're going from a misguided, stubborn guy defending a poor choice of historical reference to a downright head-in-ass full on retard the longer you go.
Keep in mind appearing dumb to either yourself or Buick isn't exactly a high standard. Carry on...
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
Okay, tell you what, you're right. Blacks were free per the B.O.R., it just took them 70 years to walk away and figure it out. By the way did you read the link (I already know the answer) that JudoJosh provided?
The Bill of Rights alone has nothing to do with the people in charge taking heed.

We aren't discussing their ethics or integrity, we are discussing the Bill of Rights itself in relation to slavery vs. Jefferson in relation to slavery. For the 100th time. And I'm not interested in adding yet another semantical tangent to your tangled web of bull****.

The discussion is about the Bill of Rights itself upholding slavery vs. Thomas Jefferson upholding slavery for the 101st time.

You're off. Come off it.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
The B.O.R excludes no one (which you finally admit)


So what's your point again, originally you argued that they exclude certain minorities when in fact it was the people applying them who were excluding minorities and not the B.O.R.

Which was my point all along.

Now if only you could admit you were wrong without trying to act like you were right the whole time.
I stated that while it does not IMPLICITLY state as such, it did so in application. Now if it did not exclude anyone, wouldn't that then infer just the opposite to be the case? Now the sources I provided is the exact wording taken from scholarly papers written on the subject at length. Now while you and TX can circle jerk each other over youtube videos and smiley faces, I'd say my sources carry more weight. And FYI - JudoJosh shut this whole thing down, when he posted his paper on the entire subject. So while you may think that I am wrong, that doesn't preclude you from being delusional.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
The Bill of Rights alone has nothing to do with the people in charge taking heed.

We aren't discussing their ethics or integrity, we are discussing the Bill of Rights itself in relation to slavery vs. Jefferson in relation to slavery. For the 100th time. And I'm not interested in adding yet another semantical tangent to your tangled web of bull****.

The discussion is about the Bill of Rights itself upholding slavery vs. Thomas Jefferson upholding slavery for the 101st time.

You're off. Come off it.
Bill of Rights upheld slavery because it did nothing to strip away articles of Constitution protecting slavery, which was the intent. If you don't get that by now, and if I'm a dancer you're Chris Brown except you're punching yourself in the face.
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
Keep in mind appearing dumb to either yourself or Buick isn't exactly a high standard. Carry on...
While I'm sure you hold yourself in the highest esteem, you are sadly mistaken about the superiority of your self image. I can not convince your ego to be realistic with itself I'm sure so I won't even venture in to that losing battle but understand that objectively speaking, you are coming off as a desperate, wrong, retard unwilling to fold'em while losing all his tokens for the sake of empty pride on the internet.

Show me where the Bill of Rights supports slavery, in the Bill of Rights itself. When you do can discredit everything I've said. Until then, you are a ****ing idiot for holding out on an empty argument and you know it.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
While I'm sure you hold yourself in the highest esteem, you are sadly mistaken about the superiority of your self image. I can not convince your ego to be realistic with itself I'm sure so I won't even venture in to that losing battle but understand that objectively speaking, you are coming off as a desperate, wrong, retard unwilling to fold'em while losing all his tokens for the sake of empty pride on the internet.

Show me where the Bill of Rights supports slavery, in the Bill of Rights itself. When you do can discredit everything I've said. Until then, you are a ****ing idiot for holding out on an empty argument and you know it.
Since once again, rather than attacking the substance of my sources, you'd rather attack me. Keep in mind, not bothered it amuses me somewhat. Since we're doing that again and you referenced having a Master's Degree in bullshi*t in one of your prior posts, the correct word usage is "cannot" not...can not. I'm sure that degree will come in handy at some point....some point. :)
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
Bill of Rights upheld slavery because it did nothing to strip away articles of Constitution protecting slavery, which was the intent. If you don't get that by now, and if I'm a dancer you're Chris Brown except you're punching yourself in the face.
Show me where the Bill of Rights upholds slavery. I'm not asking for some bullsh!t, round-a-bout answer from your as$hole.

The Bill of Rights is a charge, and is what Jim was referencing. He was not referencing the failure of Jefferson and company to apply it as it was written, for the 102nd time.

It is an inanimate object, relying on people to carry its charges out as written. They did not, which is the problem with your argument and attempt to uphold Jefferson.


:dance: Keep it up! You could use the practice, big star.
 
jimbuick

jimbuick

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Brb correcting spelling because I have no valid argument...



18986_581241678557041_841714248_n.jpeg



Thanks SP!
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
Since once again, rather than attacking the substance of my sources, you'd rather attack me. Keep in mind, not bothered it amuses me somewhat. Since we're doing that again and you referenced having a Master's Degree in bullshi*t in one of your prior posts, the correct word usage is "cannot" not...can not. I'm sure that degree will come in handy at some point....some point. :)
Lol, read the post again. An MBA is pretty self explanatory. And for what it's worth, I took the Bachelor of Science route beforehand. You know, the real degrees that give institutions positive reputations other guys piggy back off of with **** like journalism, english lit or even history. I think art degrees are even offered in some places. Imagine that, a guy making clay pots claiming the same credentials as a guy with a degree in Geothermal Engineering!

I've covered typos with you, it's cool though, that's all you have and I understand.

On topic though, you're wrong, and the perception you are building for yourself is simply there for you to acknowledge or not. It's going to be your reputation around the boards though, so if you want to be perceived as an illogical, off base dip****, bent on ramming off topic points in to conversations and nitpicking the low hanging typo fruits on a casual forum, then by all means, continue on.

You are being a clown though, and will be respected as such. It appears this is already the case for many. You started out decently interesting and seemingly well versed enough for conversation but unless it's a slow day in general and around the site, I can tell you that you are only worth a cheap thrill after this roller coaster of a conversation that is still looping around the actual point of contention.


And please let me know if you do make it to Dancing With the Stars. Not my cup of tea generally but I would love the cheap thrill of watching you literally dance too. I'm sure it will be fabulous.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Show me where the Bill of Rights upholds slavery. I'm not asking for some bullsh!t, round-a-bout answer from your as$hole.

The Bill of Rights is a charge, and is what Jim was referencing. He was not referencing the failure of Jefferson and company to apply it as it was written, for the 102nd time.

It is an inanimate object, relying on people to carry its charges out as written. They did not, which is the problem with your argument and attempt to uphold Jefferson.


:dance: Keep it up! You could use the practice, big star.
I've explained it ad nauseum, numerous times. You require as proof a literal statement of such. If it's too complicated for you connect the dots, because it requires one to think through these things, then on both sides this is a clear waste of time. There are many others that are in agreement with me. JudoJosh posted a link to a scholarly paper which you willfully ignored. Let's pretend for a second that I'm wrong, and using poor examples as you've asserted many times. What about Josh's link?
 
jimbuick

jimbuick

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Lol, read the post again. An MBA is pretty self explanatory. And for what it's worth, I took the Bachelor of Science route beforehand. You know, the real degrees that give institutions positive reputations other guys piggy back off of with **** like journalism, english lit or even history. I think art degrees are even offered in some places. Imagine that, a guy making clay pots claiming the same credentials as a guy with a degree in Geothermal Engineering!

I've covered typos with you, it's cool though, that's all you have and I understand.

On topic though, you're wrong, and the perception you are building for yourself is simply there for you to acknowledge or not. It's going to be your reputation around the boards though, so if you want to be perceived as an illogical, off base dip****, bent on ramming off topic points in to conversations and nitpicking the low hanging typo fruits on a casual forum, then by all means, continue on.

You are being a clown though, and will be respected as such. It appears this is already the case for many. You started out decently interesting and seemingly well versed enough for conversation but unless it's a slow day in general and around the site, I can tell you that you are only worth a cheap thrill after this roller coaster of a conversation that is still looping around the actual point of contention.

And please let me know if you do make it to Dancing With the Stars. Not my cup of tea generally but I would love the cheap thrill of watching you literally dance too. I'm sure it will be fabulous.
He dances in a ring, I can't imagine it lasts very long if his boxing is anything like his debating. But it's still a bit of a dance :laugh:
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Lol, read the post again. An MBA is pretty self explanatory. And for what it's worth, I took the Bachelor of Science route beforehand. You know, the real degrees that give institutions positive reputations other guys piggy back off of with **** like journalism, english lit or even history. I think art degrees are even offered in some places. Imagine that, a guy making clay pots claiming the same credentials as a guy with a degree in Geothermal Engineering!

I've covered typos with you, it's cool though, that's all you have and I understand.

On topic though, you're wrong, and the perception you are building for yourself is simply there for you to acknowledge or not. It's going to be your reputation around the boards though, so if you want to be perceived as an illogical, off base dip****, bent on ramming off topic points in to conversations and nitpicking the low hanging typo fruits on a casual forum, then by all means, continue on.

You are being a clown though, and will be respected as such. It appears this is already the case for many. You started out decently interesting and seemingly well versed enough for conversation but unless it's a slow day in general and around the site, I can tell you that you are only worth a cheap thrill after this roller coaster of a conversation that is still looping around the actual point of contention.


And please let me know if you do make it to Dancing With the Stars. Not my cup of tea generally but I would love the cheap thrill of watching you literally dance too. I'm sure it will be fabulous.
[email protected] on a fitness forum. I'm actually friends offsite with quite a few of these guys, but awesome keep fighting for that online rep. My degrees aren't in the arts, FYI. :)
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
[email protected] on a fitness forum. I'm actually friends offsite with quite a few of these guys, but awesome keep fighting for that online rep. My degrees aren't in the arts, FYI. :)
Good, good and good. I don't care about your offline friends, mine are most likely cooler than yours although if you are a dancer we more than likely gauge cool much differently.

I have as much invested here as you do, by participation. Your participation is viewed as one of a clown. If that's cool with you, good. You can always always find comfort in a real life friend.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Good, good and good. I don't care about your offline friends, mine are most likely cooler than yours although if you are a dancer we more than likely gauge cool much differently.

I have as much invested here as you do, by participation. Your participation is viewed as one of a clown. If that's cool with you, good. You can always always find comfort in a real life friend.
Viewed by whom? Lol. Your online persona and web friends. Cool. Lol. remind me to change that someday when I have time. I'll save you the time to respond, "hey SP you're a !!!!- smiley face - youtube video - effing jpeg." Funny thing is, like I do with Buick (which is hardly respond to him because it's boring) you keep responding to someone that you refer to as a clown, which doesn't say much about you. :)
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
I've explained it ad nauseum, numerous times. You require as proof a literal statement of such. If it's too complicated for you connect the dots, because it requires one to think through these things, then on both sides this is a clear waste of time. There are many others that are in agreement with me. JudoJosh posted a link to a scholarly paper which you willfully ignored. Let's pretend for a second that I'm wrong, and using poor examples as you've asserted many times. What about Josh's link?
I've explained, "ad nauseum, numerous times" (redundancy is your forte) that your ad nauseum explanations are off topic, yet you ignore that completely. We are discussing the charges of a document upholding slavery or not vs. Jefferson carrying out those charges or not. He didn't for a large portion of the population as you have mentioned. This is the conversation. I don't care about your red herrings, circular reasoning or straw men. These have been your entire basis and they are invalid.

I'm starting to spin with you in this weird and repetitive dance though and I don't dance, so I'm stepping off the carousel until you either admit your example to Jim's is a poor one and we can get back to the original topic and move it forward, or you show me where, specifically, the Bill of Rights supports slavery as opposed to it's handlers of sorts refusing to carry out its charges; in which case I will apologize for being wrong and we can get back to the original argument with yours and Jim's examples being on par with one another. Kind of.

I want a specific piece of text from the Bill of Rights, not an inferred logical fallacy from your as$hole. The Bill of Rights is on the chopping block here, not your as$hole, which I'm sure is bottomless.
 
Ballesteri

Ballesteri

Member
Awards
0
I don't have a limitless supply!
Lol......you have gone though all the images in the vortex of the internet which does have its limits... I can only suggest that you get handy with a camera to bring in some fresh stuff
 

TexasGuy

Active member
Awards
0
Viewed by whom? Lol. Your online persona and web friends. Cool. Lol. remind me to change that someday when I have time. I'll save you the time to respond, "hey SP you're a !!!!- smiley face - youtube video - effing jpeg." Funny thing is, like I do with Buick (which is hardly respond to him because it's boring) you keep responding to someone that you refer to as a clown, which doesn't say much about you. :)
A bigger, smarter, more athletic and on point guy with cooler friends than you for starters. Who are my web friends and what makes a web friend? So far Jim is a participant in an open conversation who shares similar views. I don't know anything about him but he seems like he'd probably be a good dude IRL. Your douche factor even permeates the matrix though.

And cool " I don't give a f#ck" story, bro. You're so awesome you are just blessing the forum with your presence for our benefit, amiright? But deep down inside you just don't give a fu*k, it's all so blaise and you're really only controlling people and sht, except not really because it doesn't matter. Just spending time not giving a fu#k and sh!t.

Take it for what it is like I said, but when we happen to be on the same website at the same time, you are a clown and your posts are a waste of time, outside of cheap entertainment online. Because I don't give a f$ck, bro.

And yeah, I did post after I said I wouldn't post but, in my defense, you didn't mention the actual topic so you aren't exactly trolling successfully. For the unimportant record and all.
 

southpaw23

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
A bigger, smarter, more athletic and on point guy with cooler friends than you for starters. Who are my web friends and what makes a web friend? So far Jim is a participant in an open conversation who shares similar views. I don't know anything about him but he seems like he'd probably be a good dude IRL. Your douche factor even permeates the matrix though.

And cool " I don't give a f#ck" story, bro. You're so awesome you are just blessing the forum with your presence for our benefit, amiright? But deep down inside you just don't give a fu*k, it's all so blaise and you're really only controlling people and sht, except not really because it doesn't matter. Just spending time not giving a fu#k and sh!t.

Take it for what it is like I said, but when we happen to be on the same website at the same time, you are a clown and your posts are a waste of time, outside of cheap entertainment online. Because I don't give a f$ck, bro.

And yeah, I did post after I said I wouldn't post but, in my defense, you didn't mention the actual topic so you aren't exactly trolling successfully. For the unimportant record and all.
^^^Cool rant. Lol.
 
ax1

ax1

Legend
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Legend!
  • Established
Southpaw when are you going to prove your point using the text itself?
 

Similar threads


Top