Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then you would agree that, that portion of the constitution doesn't specify or differentiate bewtween an african slave or an indentured servant.
You really are an idiot ain't ya Drugstore Cowboy?
Dim Bulb/No Logic, I see that you are as stupid as Blech. You're probably a racist as well.
The gaybiker speaks. What's wrong you need your ass kicked again? You can call me an idiot, but this idiot has already kicked your teeth in and I can do it again.
I don't think insulting him with derogatory epithets such as "queer cowboy" is useful, nor are remarks on threats of violence --You really are an idiot ain't ya Drugstore Cowboy?
Dim Bulb/No Logic, I see that you are as stupid as Blech. You're probably a racist as well.
The gaybiker speaks. What's wrong you need your ass kicked again? You can call me an idiot, but this idiot has already kicked your teeth in and I can do it again.
You ain't done a single thing except reported me to mods because I told you if you ever showed up where I was I'd beat your ass.
Your logic is non existent, your arguments are crappy, and I think Paperview is right, she'd have better luck discussing this with her 9 year old neighbor.
Go ahead ya queer cowboy, try to come up with some other lame shit.
I'm beginning to think I would have more success in discussing the matter with my 9 year old neighbor.
You really are an idiot ain't ya Drugstore Cowboy?
Dim Bulb/No Logic, I see that you are as stupid as Blech. You're probably a racist as well.
The gaybiker speaks. What's wrong you need your ass kicked again? You can call me an idiot, but this idiot has already kicked your teeth in and I can do it again.
You ain't done a single thing except reported me to mods because I told you if you ever showed up where I was I'd beat your ass.
Your logic is non existent, your arguments are crappy, and I think Paperview is right, she'd have better luck discussing this with her 9 year old neighbor.
Go ahead ya queer cowboy, try to come up with some other lame shit.
I don't think insulting him with derogatory epithets such as "queer cowboy" is useful, nor are remarks on threats of violence --The gaybiker speaks. What's wrong you need your ass kicked again? You can call me an idiot, but this idiot has already kicked your teeth in and I can do it again.
You ain't done a single thing except reported me to mods because I told you if you ever showed up where I was I'd beat your ass.
Your logic is non existent, your arguments are crappy, and I think Paperview is right, she'd have better luck discussing this with her 9 year old neighbor.
Go ahead ya queer cowboy, try to come up with some other lame shit.
however, it is clear he lacks even the most basic comprehension skills.
If you think you won this one, then it is clear you will claim victory over any gibberish that emanates from your keyboard & wave the crusty flag of poor reasoning skills & "Lonestar Logic."I'm beginning to think I would have more success in discussing the matter with my 9 year old neighbor.
That's probably the only way you'll win an argument.
If you think you won this one, then it is clear you will claim victory over any gibberish that emanates from your keyboard & wave the crusty flag of poor reasoning skills & "Lonestar Logic."I'm beginning to think I would have more success in discussing the matter with my 9 year old neighbor.
That's probably the only way you'll win an argument.
Let's try again to see if you can clarify precisely what in the hot holy hay-ell point you trying to make...
It is you contention that Article I, Section 9 does NOT refer directly to the Slave Trade?
Is that it?
And if you think it does, but also includes "Immigrants" --
I note you never answered these two questions I asked previously:
Who do you think "such persons" refers to?
Did you really think the Constitution was making an allowance for congress to prohibit immigrants after 1808?
"...limits on Congress's powers"If you think you won this one, then it is clear you will claim victory over any gibberish that emanates from your keyboard & wave the crusty flag of poor reasoning skills & "Lonestar Logic."That's probably the only way you'll win an argument.
Let's try again to see if you can clarify precisely what in the hot holy hay-ell point you trying to make...
It is you contention that Article I, Section 9 does NOT refer directly to the Slave Trade?
Is that it?
I'm saying the notes you presented had nothing to do with Article 1 section 9. I have already stated that this portion did apply to slavery, however the main gist of section 9 is providing limits on Congress's powers. You really should pay attention.
No, you never answered it - and if you can show where you did, then I will apologize.And if you think it does, but also includes "Immigrants" --
I note you never answered these two questions I asked previously:
Who do you think "such persons" refers to?
Did you really think the Constitution was making an allowance for congress to prohibit immigrants after 1808?
Asked and answered.
No, you never answered it - and if you can show where you did, then I will apologize.And if you think it does, but also includes "Immigrants" --
I note you never answered these two questions I asked previously:
Who do you think "such persons" refers to?
Did you really think the Constitution was making an allowance for congress to prohibit immigrants after 1808?
Asked and answered.
I feel confident I won't have to though.
Will you apologize if you are not able to provide a link to where you answered those questions?
In. Your. Words. Posting a guy that goes by the name "Barefoot'' 3-foot long blog page doesn't count.
How bout a direct answer? From you. Is it that hard?
