It is unconstitutional to not return slaves to their owners

[tigerbob]

the point is not a strawman or manufactured argument. it is entirely valid as the question is....is there a time that it was right to violate the constitution. that is a very real situation and argument. prohibition and returning slaves. to drink and not return slaves were in fact a violation of the constitution.

you dismiss the point because you know to answer it blows your entire argument out the window.

My "entire argument" was that it is a bullshit point. As such there is no point answering it - to do so would imply it was not bullshit. So you are entirely correct. Well done.

 

[Yurt]

the point is not a strawman or manufactured argument. it is entirely valid as the question is....is there a time that it was right to violate the constitution. that is a very real situation and argument. prohibition and returning slaves. to drink and not return slaves were in fact a violation of the constitution.

you dismiss the point because you know to answer it blows your entire argument out the window.

My "entire argument" was that it is a bullshit point. As such there is no point answering it - to do so would imply it was not bullshit. So you are entirely correct. Well done.

how is it bullshit? are you saying that the constitution was correct in mandating that you return slaves and to not do so would in fact be a constitutional violation. so you would have been a good little citizen and returned the slaves....

you don't like the question or point because you don't like the reality of it as it destroys your constitutional argument regarding torture....so you bash the point instead of actually debating it...weak, really weak

 

[tigerbob]

the point is not a strawman or manufactured argument. it is entirely valid as the question is....is there a time that it was right to violate the constitution. that is a very real situation and argument. prohibition and returning slaves. to drink and not return slaves were in fact a violation of the constitution.

you dismiss the point because you know to answer it blows your entire argument out the window.

My "entire argument" was that it is a bullshit point. As such there is no point answering it - to do so would imply it was not bullshit. So you are entirely correct. Well done.

how is it bullshit? are you saying that the constitution was correct in mandating that you return slaves and to not do so would in fact be a constitutional violation. so you would have been a good little citizen and returned the slaves....

you don't like the question or point because you don't like the reality of it as it destroys your constitutional argument regarding torture....so you bash the point instead of actually debating it...weak, really weak

What reality? You don't know my constitutional argument regarding torture. You don't even know if I have one. You choose to think I have one purely because I treated the OP with disdain.

 

[Yurt]

My "entire argument" was that it is a bullshit point. As such there is no point answering it - to do so would imply it was not bullshit. So you are entirely correct. Well done.

how is it bullshit? are you saying that the constitution was correct in mandating that you return slaves and to not do so would in fact be a constitutional violation. so you would have been a good little citizen and returned the slaves....

you don't like the question or point because you don't like the reality of it as it destroys your constitutional argument regarding torture....so you bash the point instead of actually debating it...weak, really weak

What reality? You don't know my constitutional argument regarding torture. You don't even know if I have one. You choose to think I have one purely because I treated the OP with disdain.

so you have nothing to say...you did not need to post 3 or 4 times in this thread just to say nothing

 

[eots]

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned

..

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secess...onslavery.html

the main argument regarding torture is that it is unconstitutional and bush should be tried....i don't believe such a blind following of the constitution is a good thing for this country, the constitution is not a suicide pact. so those that say we cannot torture at all because of treaties which are the supreme law of the land vis a vis the constitution....would you also be good little citizens and return slaves to their rightful owners....

of course the 13th has done away that....still....you are arguing that you would not violate the constitution for to do so harms this country and makes the constitution worthless....so, you would all of course be good little citizens and return slaves, worth only 3/5 of a white person, to their rightful owners.

where my niggas at ???



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a81aBak6u6w&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Yurt]

is there not one person here who believes that returning slaves was the right thing to do....

or, what it seems to me, is that everyone agrees that violating the constitution was actually the right thing to do in that situation....

 

[tigerbob]

how is it bullshit? are you saying that the constitution was correct in mandating that you return slaves and to not do so would in fact be a constitutional violation. so you would have been a good little citizen and returned the slaves....

you don't like the question or point because you don't like the reality of it as it destroys your constitutional argument regarding torture....so you bash the point instead of actually debating it...weak, really weak

What reality? You don't know my constitutional argument regarding torture. You don't even know if I have one. You choose to think I have one purely because I treated the OP with disdain.

so you have nothing to say...you did not need to post 3 or 4 times in this thread just to say nothing

I did have something to say. To recap, it was "who gives a fuck?". You're the one that kept coming back to it and making assumptions.

I do have a view regarding torture, and it's not as far from your own as you might imagine. But drawing a parallel with returning slaves so that you can demonstrate the flawed thinking of what you euphemistically call the left regarding torture is a rather tortuous (excuse the pun) way of trying to make your case.

In brief, my argument was with the way you were trying to make your point, not really with the point itself.

But I can take a hint and I'll bother you no further on this matter.

 

[eots]

I found one of yours ..he will be coming home tonight

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFY2kJ96jNY[/ame]

 

[Yurt]

What reality? You don't know my constitutional argument regarding torture. You don't even know if I have one. You choose to think I have one purely because I treated the OP with disdain.

so you have nothing to say...you did not need to post 3 or 4 times in this thread just to say nothing

I did have something to say. To recap, it was "who gives a fuck?". You're the one that kept coming back to it and making assumptions.

I do have a view regarding torture, and it's not as far from your own as you might imagine. But drawing a parallel with returning slaves so that you can demonstrate the flawed thinking of what you euphemistically call the left regarding torture is a rather tortuous (excuse the pun) way of trying to make your case.

In brief, my argument was with the way you were trying to make your point, not really with the point itself.

But I can take a hint and I'll bother you no further on this matter.

another nothing post....you didn't say a single thing except rants without anything to back up your lame assertion.

glad you are done in this thread

 

[Anguille]

answer the question:

would you have returned the slaves or would you have pissed on the constitution by not returning the slaves?

simple really

refusing to return the slaves would not have been pisssing on the Constitution. It would have been conscientious objection.

 

[Yurt]

answer the question:

would you have returned the slaves or would you have pissed on the constitution by not returning the slaves?

simple really

refusing to return the slaves would not have been pisssing on the Constitution. It would have been conscientious objection.

uh, no, it would have been a direct violation of the constitution

there is no conscientious objector status for that, nice try...but i am glad to know that you agree that at times it is proper to violate the constitution, maybe you can extend that to those who waterboarded, hey, they would just objecting....yeah, thats it...

 

[Bullypulpit]

the question is valid...you claim one should never violate the constitution

obviously you now admit that there was a time that violating the constitution was actually the right thing to do.

it is clear that you now state that at one time violating the constitution was right. how can you reconcile that belief and yet froth at the mouth over torture? either it is always right to obey the constitution or as you now admit, there are times when violating the constitution is proper.

You're also ignoring the fact that private citizens cannot violate the Constitution. Only the government, or those individuals acting with the authority of the government can violate the Constitution or its provisions.

Your argument is not only a straw-man, but utter bullshit as well.

 

[Yurt]

the question is valid...you claim one should never violate the constitution

obviously you now admit that there was a time that violating the constitution was actually the right thing to do.

it is clear that you now state that at one time violating the constitution was right. how can you reconcile that belief and yet froth at the mouth over torture? either it is always right to obey the constitution or as you now admit, there are times when violating the constitution is proper.

You're also ignoring the fact that private citizens cannot violate the Constitution. Only the government, or those individuals acting with the authority of the government can violate the Constitution or its provisions.

Your argument is not only a straw-man, but utter bullshit as well.

you're obviously scared shitless of your answer....

you would not have found a violation for not returning slaves, so you have admitted that at one time it was OK to violate the constitution...you cannot now turn around and claim moral superiority regarding torture

you lose bully and you know full well my point is not about the technicality of private citizens moron, it has always been about your hypocrisy regarding that the constitution should never be violated. face it, you're intellectually dishonest and my point caught you in your dishonesty and that is why you so desperately want to trash my point.

 

[SW2SILVERQUASI]

I have a shorter answer. Who gives a fuck?

I care! (that doesn't include an obscenity, but neither does the Constitution. ) Oh yes, the Constitution, that holy document handed down from Mount Sanctimonious. Written by a bunch of rich white dudes that owned slaves. And they hated the English crown dictating tariffs or taxes? Or abolishing slavery, even. The nerve of those Brits. Now we got Nafta and illegal aliens with guns, ain't life ironic?

 

[Bullypulpit]

the question is valid...you claim one should never violate the constitution

obviously you now admit that there was a time that violating the constitution was actually the right thing to do.

it is clear that you now state that at one time violating the constitution was right. how can you reconcile that belief and yet froth at the mouth over torture? either it is always right to obey the constitution or as you now admit, there are times when violating the constitution is proper.

You're also ignoring the fact that private citizens cannot violate the Constitution. Only the government, or those individuals acting with the authority of the government can violate the Constitution or its provisions.

Your argument is not only a straw-man, but utter bullshit as well.

you're obviously scared shitless of your answer....

you would not have found a violation for not returning slaves, so you have admitted that at one time it was OK to violate the constitution...you cannot now turn around and claim moral superiority regarding torture

you lose bully and you know full well my point is not about the technicality of private citizens moron, it has always been about your hypocrisy regarding that the constitution should never be violated. face it, you're intellectually dishonest and my point caught you in your dishonesty and that is why you so desperately want to trash my point.

What's to be afraid of...? I mean besides you dragging the rest of the gene-pool down with you? You've made a spurious argument based on your willingness to accept torture as a standard of practice for America. And, of course, you must first have a point to 'trash', which you don't.

The philosophical difference between those who reject torture and those who accept it is stark. Those who reject torture accept the spirit and letter of the law and limits on the power and authority of government as outlined in the Constitution. Those who blandly accept the use of torture also accept the Bush administration claim for the Executive Branch which amounts to little more than "L'etat c'est moi"...A notion which is fundamentally contrary to the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.

 

[Yurt]

i don't think you have any room to talk to about upholding the constitution. you have already said that you would not have returned slaves, thus (of course assuming you work for the government) you would have willingly violated the constitution and supported any other government official in violating the constitution.

your false moral superiority is a joke. you incorrectly believe i support torture wholesale, i don't. only in grave circumstances if lives can be saved and the torture is minimal. just as you would willingly violate the constitution in not returning slave because you of course believe that to be immoral, i believe it is moral to use minimal torture in grave circumstances.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

.i don't believe such a blind following of the constitution is a good thing for this country,

Right. So you believe in something more like this:

the constitution is not a suicide pact.

no one is asking anyone to commit suicide.

so those that say we cannot torture at all because of treaties which are the supreme law of the land vis a vis the constitution....would you also be good little citizens and return slaves to their rightful owners....

Have you ever heard of the 13th amendment? You are aware that an amendment to the constitution actually changes the constitution, right? Or are you a fucking retarded person?

 

[Yurt]

.i don't believe such a blind following of the constitution is a good thing for this country,

Right. So you believe in something more like this:

the constitution is not a suicide pact.

no one is asking anyone to commit suicide.

so those that say we cannot torture at all because of treaties which are the supreme law of the land vis a vis the constitution....would you also be good little citizens and return slaves to their rightful owners....

Have you ever heard of the 13th amendment? You are aware that an amendment to the constitution actually changes the constitution, right? Or are you a fucking retarded person?

spider....are you a retarded person....in its the OP the very next words right after you cut my post off

of course the 13th has done away that.

the entire point is...at one time bully and probably you would have agreed that it was OK to violate the constitution....and just so you don't end up like bully after a few posts and think you've hit jackpot....of course i know a private citizen can't violate the constitution (unless of course acting in concert...etc), the point is you would support violating the constituion rather than returning slaves.

it is really not that difficult to understand, but you and bully are so partisan that you refuse to admit the truth of your hypocrisy