return slaves to their rightful owner

[Yurt]

you would have "pissed" on the constitution if you did not return slaves to their rightful owners. you would have pissed on the constitution if you counted blacks as equal to whites.

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

of course the 13th has done away that...but you would have been pissing on the constitution if you did not return slaves.....

let's give a big hand to moderate democrat for praising people returning slaves to their rightful owners....

[Jeff]

you would have "pissed" on the constitution if you did not return slaves to their rightful owners. you would have pissed on the constitution if you counted blacks as equal to whites.

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

of course the 13th has done away that...but you would have been pissing on the constitution if you did not return slaves.....

let's give a big hand to moderate democrat for praising people returning slaves to their rightful owners....

Seems the laws only count when certain people want them to.

[Classact]

There were a lot of white people covered by the Constitution... at some periods up to 70% of white Americans had been at some time in their lives an Indentured Servant... this was a common means of slavery to pay for the boat ride from the Old World.

[moderate democrat]

Tell me yurt, do you think that Thomas Jefferson would have approved of slaves being returned to their rightful owners? I imagine he would. I also imagine that, if Thomas Jefferson were living today, he would have a different view on slavery than he did 200 years ago. I am quite sure that, if he WERE living today, he would support and defend the constitution in its current revision. As do I.

Similarly, if I had lived two hundred years ago, I am sure my views on slavery would have been different than they are today... just as I am sure that I would have had different views on many things - medical practices, for example. I undoubtedly would have allowed "doctors" to practice bloodletting on me to cure me of disease... but I certainly would not support the use of such treatment now.

Again... this seems to be a case of faux outrage for you. If you really believe so strongly that the United States should be able to torture our prisoners at will, why have you not spoken out in favor of our abrogating the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? You know as well as I do that it is the supreme law of the land. Why wouldn't you, as an officer of the court, want to see our laws upheld?

[Yurt]

what a wimp cop out by MD...also, i told you to leave my profession out of this, i don't talk about yours, you don't talk about mine. real simple.

faux outrage....lol, i have always held this stance and stop lying that i want wholesale torture or at will, so claim i said that is flat out lie. i have specifically laid out precisely when and where...

jefferson actually publically advocated against slavery while hypocritically amassing more slaves....

there were people back then who were against slavery and who did not return slaves to their rightful owner, so to say you would think differently only shows me that you are racist slave owning lover...

the fact is, many people believed it was not right to follow that constitutional order and i have no doubt government officials violated it. then you have prohibition....gee, how many people listened to that...you claim that when people start violating the constitution our country weakens, yet prohibition weakened the country not the other way around.

the fact is you now admit you would have returned slaves to their rightful owner...

[moderate democrat]

what a wimp cop out by MD...also, i told you to leave my profession out of this, i don't talk about yours, you don't talk about mine. real simple.

faux outrage....lol, i have always held this stance and stop lying that i want wholesale torture or at will, so claim i said that is flat out lie. i have specifically laid out precisely when and where...

jefferson actually publically advocated against slavery while hypocritically amassing more slaves....

there were people back then who were against slavery and who did not return slaves to their rightful owner, so to say you would think differently only shows me that you are racist slave owning lover...

the fact is, many people believed it was not right to follow that constitutional order and i have no doubt government officials violated it. then you have prohibition....gee, how many people listened to that...you claim that when people start violating the constitution our country weakens, yet prohibition weakened the country not the other way around.

the fact is you now admit you would have returned slaves to their rightful owner...

I admit no such thing. I admit that the world is diffferent now than then... things change... attitudes change... the constitution changes... I cannot say what my opinion about slavery would have been if I had lived two hundred years ago, and neither can you. I can say that, if I were a patriotic American then, as I am now, I would support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I would work in the political arena, if necessary, to change the constitution, if I felt it needed changing.

Your profession is well known and it was willingly revealed by you yourself. I have not divulged my profession, nor do I intend to. Your profession is germane to this question and I am concerned why you avoid answering simple questions such as the one posed to you.

[Yurt]

I admit no such thing. I admit that the world is diffferent now than then... things change... attitudes change... the constitution changes... I cannot say what my opinion about slavery would have been if I had lived two hundred years ago, and neither can you. I can say that, if I were a patriotic American then, as I am now, I would support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I would work in the political arena, if necessary, to change the constitution, if I felt it needed changing.

Your profession is well known and it was willingly revealed by you yourself. I have not divulged my profession, nor do I intend to. Your profession is germane to this question and I am concerned why you avoid answering simple questions such as the one posed to you.

you have not divulged your profession....is that the god's honest truth? how fortunate for you....

then you would have returned slaves to their rightful owners...that is a fact and it is a lame copout to say you don't know how you would have thought, others back then did NOT follow the constitution....then you are claiming that they pissed on the constitution by not returning slaves.

that is a fact. and all the people who drank also pissed on the constitution. you have a warped view of patriotism.

[moderate democrat]

you have not divulged your profession....is that the god's honest truth? how fortunate for you....

then you would have returned slaves to their rightful owners...that is a fact and it is a lame copout to say you don't know how you would have thought, others back then did NOT follow the constitution....then you are claiming that they pissed on the constitution by not returning slaves.

that is a fact. and all the people who drank also pissed on the constitution. you have a warped view of patriotism.

I support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I took an oath to do so and I will not break it. As I said, neither you, nor I, KNOW how we would have felt about slavery if we had lived two centuries ago... to claim otherwise is idiotic. To run away from the simple question about abrogation is cowardly on your part, imo.

[Yurt]

I support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I took an oath to do so and I will not break it. As I said, neither you, nor I, KNOW how we would have felt about slavery if we had lived two centuries ago... to claim otherwise is idiotic. To run away from the simple question about abrogation is cowardly on your part, imo.

you lying sack of cow dung...i've already told you i want the charter abrogated...thats two lies on thread... why do you lie so much? you want to call me a coward for not answering a question, why are you cowardly running away about your profession? is that the god's honest truth that you have never divulged your profession on this site...ever...?

fact remains that you would return the slaves, it doesn't matter one single wit that it was two centuries ago, FACT is it was an immoral law wouldn't you agree? you are the coward who keeps ignoring the prohibition and all those who drank. you are a coward that hides behind an alleged i don't know what i would have thought 200 years ago. it doesn't matter, it matters that there were people who believed it was patriotic to violate the constitution.

why don't you try being honest for a change. you believe that those people who did not return slaves pissed on the constitution. you believe those that drank pissed on the constittuion.

[moderate democrat]

you lying sack of cow dung...i've already told you i want the charter abrogated...thats two lies on thread... why do you lie so much? you want to call me a coward for not answering a question, why are you cowardly running away about your profession? is that the god's honest truth that you have never divulged your profession on this site...ever...?

fact remains that you would return the slaves, it doesn't matter one single wit that it was two centuries ago, FACT is it was an immoral law wouldn't you agree? you are the coward who keeps ignoring the prohibition and all those who drank. you are a coward that hides behind an alleged i don't know what i would have thought 200 years ago. it doesn't matter, it matters that there were people who believed it was patriotic to violate the constitution.

why don't you try being honest for a change. you believe that those people who did not return slaves pissed on the constitution. you believe those that drank pissed on the constittuion.
so you agree that abrogation is the appropriate method for dealing with the issue? thank you. so do I. I think that, if the American people think that torturing is an activity that we should embrace, then abrogration is the appropriate response. I would not support such a movement, but if it happened, I would not consider torture to be a violation of the supreme law of the land... I'd be disappointed, but I would accept the fact that it would then be legal.

And as I said, I have not revealed my profession on this site, and do not intend to do so. You, on the other hand, have proudly announced your status as an attorney and I applaud you for that. It is an honorable profession. Being an officer of the court has got to be a very uplifting experience.

And...I was not alive during slavery. I was not alive during prohibition. I have no idea what it was like to be an American during those periods. I know what I believe today. I believe in the constitution of the united states and I took an oath to defend it... I took that oath after slavery was abolished... after prohibition was repealed... after the end of segregation... Were I to have lived at any other time in American history, I would like to think that I would have stood up for the constitution then, just as I do now.

[Yurt]

i did not "proudly" proclaim it liar...someone asked me.

you're being intellectually dishonest on this matter and you are also continually lying about me. it is clear you have no desire to honestly discuss this....

according to you, those who did not return slaves PISSED on the constitution, those who drank PISSED on the constitution...

i do not share your views and my being an officer of the court would not stop me from not returning slaves...i don't care if i swore an oath to uphold the constitution and i don't care if you swore an oath, an oath is a promise and how many times have you broken promises? obama promised to not vote for FISA, he did....

the fact is i have shown that the constitution is not perfect and that it was patriotic for those people to return slaves. that is a fact, or are you going to stop being a coward and flat out say what you're really saying....that it would have been patriotic to return slaves.

[Yurt]

according to you, those who did not return slaves PISSED on the constitution, those who drank PISSED on the constitution...

since you have not denied this....it is true, you believe those people pissed on the constitution...

[bullypulpit]

So you're peddlin' that sorry crap here too? No surprise dat.

[bullypulpit]

you would have "pissed" on the constitution if you did not return slaves to their rightful owners. you would have pissed on the constitution if you counted blacks as equal to whites.

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

of course the 13th has done away that...but you would have been pissing on the constitution if you did not return slaves.....

let's give a big hand to moderate democrat for praising people returning slaves to their rightful owners....

1.Your reasoning is as flawed as that of Bybee and Yoo. Unless you're attempting reductio ad absurdium to prove that torture IS unconstitutional. And since no one is actually challenging the constitutionality of Title 18, Chapter 113C of the US Code, your argument is irrelevant.

2. Your argument is a straw-man, and most straw-man arguments are simple. Rather like the minds of those who formulate them. And it seems to me that only someone with the mentality of a slave-owner would find this, or any other argument, in favor of torture palatable.

3. And yes, your argument IS a straw man as the constitutionality of US law, Title 18, Chapter113C , is not in question. Nor is that of the treaties banning torture to which the US is signatory to as they carry the full weight and authority of US law as set forth in the Constitution.

An equally valid question for you to answer then would be, "Have you stopped torturing your slaves?"

4. 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.

5. 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 "<i>L'etat c'est moi</i>"...A notion which is fundamentally contrary to the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.

[Yurt]

1. laughable you come here to argue a point you lost on another board


bullypulpit;365499]1.Your reasoning is as flawed as that of Bybee and Yoo. Unless you're attempting reductio ad absurdium to prove that torture IS unconstitutional. And since no one is actually challenging the constitutionality of Title 18, Chapter 113C of the US Code, your argument is irrelevant.

no, it is relevent only in that, you and maineman etc...argue that the torture done is unconstitutional...hence MM arguement that you piss on the constitution if you don't follow it always..... i made this clear to you on the other board without the MM example....but you know that and think that by coming here with your numbered arguments that you will somehow make your point. you had your chance, and too funny that you have to come here to make it.


2. Your argument is a straw-man, and most straw-man arguments are simple. Rather like the minds of those who formulate them. And it seems to me that only someone with the mentality of a slave-owner would find this, or any other argument, in favor of torture palatable.

a strawman argument is an argument you did not bring up....please educate yourself on "analogy" .....oh wait, you lost that argument on the other board, so you bring it to another board.



3. And yes, your argument IS a straw man as the constitutionality of US law, Title 18, Chapter113C , is not in question. Nor is that of the treaties banning torture to which the US is signatory to as they carry the full weight and authority of US law as set forth in the Constitution.

"and yes"...you already said it was...why are you talking to yourself?



An equally valid question for you to answer then would be, "Have you stopped torturing your slaves?"

again, as i said, irrelevent to my point....


4
. 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.

dude, you argued this and lost...are you weird? hello.....i post on the other board as well.....funny you hit a board i rarely post at... to make your points....

the rest....

you think coming to a different board makes your point? you're more weak than i thought.

[bullypulpit]

1. laughable you come here to argue a point you lost on another board



no, it is relevent only in that, you and maineman etc...argue that the torture done is unconstitutional...hence MM arguement that you piss on the constitution if you don't follow it always..... i made this clear to you on the other board without the MM example....but you know that and think that by coming here with your numbered arguments that you will somehow make your point. you had your chance, and too funny that you have to come here to make it.



a strawman argument is an argument you did not bring up....please educate yourself on "analogy" .....oh wait, you lost that argument on the other board, so you bring it to another board.




"and yes"...you already said it was...why are you talking to yourself?




again, as i said, irrelevent to my point....


4

dude, you argued this and lost...are you weird? hello.....i post on the other board as well.....funny you hit a board i rarely post at... to make your points....

the rest....

you think coming to a different board makes your point? you're more weak than i thought.

No, there was nothing for me to lose. You simply showed yourself for the ass you are, and your willingness to throw the Constitution and the rule of law under the bus for the sake of feeling more secure. You are a moral coward, lacking the courage of your convictions, finding the responsibility of living in a Constitutional Republic too great to bear. You, and your fellow travelers, want nothing more than to be told what to do by an authoritarian father figure, the consequences be damned. You want to be able to say "But I was only doing what I was told!" and relieved of the responsibility for your actions. Fortunately the world has already discredited that defense as untenable and irrelevant. The Nuremberg Trials and the International Military Tribunal for the Far East settled that by hanging many who claimed that they "were just following orders."

[Yurt]

lmao...moral coward lacking the courage to stand by my convictions...

my view is in the minority regarding this issue, so you're a lying sack of meadowmuffins bully. i would not have returned slaves regardless of the fugitive act or the constitution...you would have returned the slaves because the law said so...you would thrown your conscience to the wind, your morals out the door and blindly obeyed the law.

i'm still laughing that you had to come to this board after getting pounded silly on the other board regarding this same matter.

[bullypulpit]

lmao...moral coward lacking the courage to stand by my convictions...

my view is in the minority regarding this issue, so you're a lying sack of meadowmuffins bully. i would not have returned slaves regardless of the fugitive act or the constitution...you would have returned the slaves because the law said so...you would thrown your conscience to the wind, your morals out the door and blindly obeyed the law.

i'm still laughing that you had to come to this board after getting pounded silly on the other board regarding this same matter.

Ummm...not so much. Your bravado rings hollow, much like your arguments on this particular issue. You set up a straw-man, knocked it down and proclaimed yourself victorious. The only thing more pathetic is your willingness to betray everything our forebearers fought and died for to secure this nation and the rule of law for a little security. You sir, are a coward of the worst sort.

[Yurt]

Ummm...not so much. Your bravado rings hollow, much like your arguments on this particular issue. You set up a straw-man, knocked it down and proclaimed yourself victorious. The only thing more pathetic is your willingness to betray everything our forebearers fought and died for to secure this nation and the rule of law for a little security. You sir, are a coward of the worst sort.

you do realize that you are saying that the framers fought and died so that we should forego our morals and conscience for a document. a constitution. that morals and conscience be damned, our loyalty is to the constitution.

bravado....more silly nonsense. you just hate the fact that someone speaks their mind, no matter how unpopular their beliefs are. you mock me because i stand up for what i believe in. you mock me because i do not blindly follow a document made by man. you mock me because you don't understand that the founders of this country sought to create a country that would not blindly follow a charter or a king or any one particular religion. the constitution is not infallible....why do you believe it to be infallible?

do you even realize the idiocy of your arguments? i have no doubt that the british or the colonial loyalists would have made your same mocking arguments against the traitorious, soon to be, americans.

[82Marine89]

:popcorn:

[bullypulpit]

you do realize that you are saying that the framers fought and died so that we should forego our morals and conscience for a document. a constitution. that morals and conscience be damned, our loyalty is to the constitution.

bravado....more silly nonsense. you just hate the fact that someone speaks their mind, no matter how unpopular their beliefs are. you mock me because i stand up for what i believe in. you mock me because i do not blindly follow a document made by man. you mock me because you don't understand that the founders of this country sought to create a country that would not blindly follow a charter or a king or any one particular religion. the constitution is not infallible....why do you believe it to be infallible?

do you even realize the idiocy of your arguments? i have no doubt that the british or the colonial loyalists would have made your same mocking arguments against the traitorious, soon to be, americans.

Odd, I've yet to see you take constitutional originalists on the right to task for their insistence on foregoing "... our morals and conscience for a document. a constitution".

But you're dancing around the real issue here, and a bonnie reel it is, which is your creating the straw man of a past evil, slavery...abolished since the Emancipation Proclamation...and posing it as a moral dilemma for a contemporary society <i>vis a vis</i> the current evil of torture authorized under the Bush administration. You then proclaim any who call your argument the straw-man that it is, to be morally deficient and willing to throw the Constitution under the bus. You then make the baseless claim of victory in the argument.

Let it go lad...your clip is empty and, intellectually...and morally, you're firing on an empty chamber.