Conquer Club

They're not valid if there is no answer that I can give that will satisfy them 'for your perspective.' I don't understand how you could think that there's nothing to be done about gun violence?

Juan_Bottom wrote:yet the founding fathers had no intentions of freeing the slaves

Completely false. Most recognized the need to free the slaves when writing the Constitution, but they knew they could never get the Constitution ratified if they tried as the Constitution was already too much of a federal-centric governance for some. So instead, they put mechanisms in place to keep the slave-owning states from becoming too powerful until the time they could outlaw slavery.

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:yet the founding fathers had no intentions of freeing the slaves

Completely false. Most recognized the need to free the slaves when writing the Constitution, but they knew they could never get the Constitution ratified if they tried as the Constitution was already too much of a federal-centric governance for some. So instead, they put mechanisms in place to keep the slave-owning states from becoming too powerful until the time they could outlaw slavery.

So as he said, they had no intentions of freeing the slaves.

AAFitz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:yet the founding fathers had no intentions of freeing the slaves

Completely false. Most recognized the need to free the slaves when writing the Constitution, but they knew they could never get the Constitution ratified if they tried as the Constitution was already too much of a federal-centric governance for some. So instead, they put mechanisms in place to keep the slave-owning states from becoming too powerful until the time they could outlaw slavery.

So as he said, they had no intentions of freeing the slaves.

How dense can you be? They had the intent of freeing the slaves, but they couldn't do so AND ratify the Constitution. If they had continued to push for outlawing slavery then, they would have never passed the Constitution that later DID outlaw slavery.

Night Strike wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:yet the founding fathers had no intentions of freeing the slaves

Completely false. Most recognized the need to free the slaves when writing the Constitution, but they knew they could never get the Constitution ratified if they tried as the Constitution was already too much of a federal-centric governance for some. So instead, they put mechanisms in place to keep the slave-owning states from becoming too powerful until the time they could outlaw slavery.

So as he said, they had no intentions of freeing the slaves.

How dense can you be? They had the intent of freeing the slaves, but they couldn't do so AND ratify the Constitution. If they had continued to push for outlawing slavery then, they would have never passed the Constitution that later DID outlaw slavery.

I suppose that depends upon my weight.

In any case, I agree the founding fathers expected us to amend the constitution rationally, as society changed, and our needs changed.

Im glad you see that now, and I was dense enough for you to essentially argue the main point for me, and all it took was a little prod.

Ya, no, they never had any intentions of freeing the slaves, even though the issue came up right at the start.
Far below half of the actual founders from the first Congresses were abolitionists. The only founder who had write an intent was John Adams, with his notes and his Massachusetts Constitution. That's it. How many state Constitutions outlawed slavery? (1) - Vermont
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_ ... y_timeline

Our founding fathers and the members of the first Congresses after independence actually bent over backward to give slave owners more representative power. That's why we had the 3/5ths compromise, and why prior to the Civil War most of our presidents came from the South even though the North was far more populous.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Our founding fathers and the members of the first Congresses after independence actually bent over backward to give slave owners more representative power. That's why we had the 3/5ths compromise, and why prior to the Civil War most of our presidents came from the South even though the North was far more populous.

PLEASE, I BEG of you, just take a few minutes to actually learn the truth about American history. As has been stated numerous times on this very forum, the 3/5ths clause was included in the Constitution because slave-owning states wanted to count slaves as full people without allowing any of them freedom or votes. This would have caused the slave states to have guaranteed slavery-supporting majorities in the House of Representatives, meaning there would have never been a chance to abolish slavery. The 3/5ths clause hastened the abolition of slavery.

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Our founding fathers and the members of the first Congresses after independence actually bent over backward to give slave owners more representative power. That's why we had the 3/5ths compromise, and why prior to the Civil War most of our presidents came from the South even though the North was far more populous.

PLEASE, I BEG of you, just take a few minutes to actually learn the truth about American history. As has been stated numerous times on this very forum, the 3/5ths clause was included in the Constitution because slave-owning states wanted to count slaves as full people without allowing any of them freedom or votes. This would have caused the slave states to have guaranteed slavery-supporting majorities in the House of Representatives, meaning there would have never been a chance to abolish slavery. The 3/5ths clause hastened the abolition of slavery.

No it did not. Where did you learn this?

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Our founding fathers and the members of the first Congresses after independence actually bent over backward to give slave owners more representative power. That's why we had the 3/5ths compromise, and why prior to the Civil War most of our presidents came from the South even though the North was far more populous.

PLEASE, I BEG of you, just take a few minutes to actually learn the truth about American history. As has been stated numerous times on this very forum, the 3/5ths clause was included in the Constitution because slave-owning states wanted to count slaves as full people without allowing any of them freedom or votes. This would have caused the slave states to have guaranteed slavery-supporting majorities in the House of Representatives, meaning there would have never been a chance to abolish slavery. The 3/5ths clause hastened the abolition of slavery.

No it did not. Where did you learn this?

Because I'm not going to spend more time doing research for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[7]

You should have read it. The 3/5 compromise clearly helped the South to continue their slave practices.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio", had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.[7]

You should have read it. The 3/5 compromise clearly helped the South to continue their slave practices.

Assuming the northern states' plan where slaves were not counted at all. Remember, the southern states wanted to FULLY count each slave, which would have given them even more power. Perhaps even a permanent super-majority (I don't know the exact size of each Congress).

Juan_Bottom wrote:New York Has Gun Deal, With Focus on Mental Ills

Congratulations New York on giving yourselves fewer Constitutional rights as citizens of other states as well as killing jobs in your state. By the way, how is forcing people to sell any magazine that holds 8 or more bullets not a violation of the Fifth Amendment? There are WAY more violations here than simply violating the Second Amendment.

EDIT: Exactly how many lives will be saved by forcing people to renew gun licenses every 5 years (don't forget about all the extra money private citizens have to turn over to the government)? Exactly how many lives will be saved by making penalties stiffer for those who have guns at schools? Exactly how many lives will be saved by arbitrarily deciding that people may only have 7 bullets in a magazine instead of 8? ALL of these laws punish law abiding citizens while doing absolutely nothing to actually save lives.

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/23872 ... capitalism

Did BBS write this article?

thegreekdog wrote:http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/238720/guns-walmart-and-crony-capitalism

Did BBS write this article?

Nope, but I'm glad to see journalists like that.

I hope that some liberals will not turn to superficial excuses in order to dismiss the article, but then again the "Democrat-Big Business Collusion" story does not sync well with their naive assumptions about Democrats.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/238720/guns-walmart-and-crony-capitalism

Did BBS write this article?

Nope, but I'm glad to see journalists like that.

I hope that some liberals will not turn to superficial excuses in order to dismiss the article, but then again the "Democrat-Big Business Collusion" story does not sync well with their naive assumptions about Democrats.

Yeah, but if the liberals in question post a chart, doesn't that take out the rent-seeking argument? I mean, c'mon man, it's a fucking chart!

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/238720/guns-walmart-and-crony-capitalism

Did BBS write this article?

Nope, but I'm glad to see journalists like that.

I hope that some liberals will not turn to superficial excuses in order to dismiss the article, but then again the "Democrat-Big Business Collusion" story does not sync well with their naive assumptions about Democrats.

Yeah, but if the liberals in question post a chart, doesn't that take out the rent-seeking argument? I mean, c'mon man, it's a fucking chart!

46% of scientists vote Democrat
Therefore, your wrong.

Did you know, some docs suspect that the Sandy Hook maniac was suffering from Lyme Disease complications? Apparently Lyme disease can attack the nervous system in such a manner to cause "Lyme Rage" - at least four death row inmates are diagnosed as having committed their acts under Lyme Rage.

http://www.angelfire.com/biz/romarkaraoke/Lymerage.html

Robert C. Bransfield, MD wrote:What can we do now to prevent a possible future epidemic of violence? Suggestions include high index suspicion for Lyme disease in rageful people, adequate testing for Lyme disease in those who are enraged, adequate treatment of LD, continued LD advocacy efforts, research into the link between aggression and LD, evaluation of violent offenders who demonstrate some of the aggressive patterns seen with LD prior to their release into the community, and vaccinations. When regional epidemics of violence occur, LD and other causes of encephalopathy should be considered. We should exercise every option to prevent crime with medical treatment.

Gee, we're back to mental/medical issues, not the inanimate gun.

The bacteria that causes Lyme, Borrelia burgdorferi is very similar to the bacteria that causes syphilis (they're both spirochetes) and can indeed affect the nervous system after enough time of chronic infection. It can also hide in biofilms, making detection difficult.

This is actually a very interesting topic; there are a lot of deniers of Chronic Lyme Disease and even of B. burgdorferi's ability to cause other symptoms than the typical ring and intitial fever, aches, etc., and this leads to denial of treatment under many insurance policies. Here in Oregon, there are many docs who refuse to treat anything other than the intitial infection because of fear of reprisal. There was a documentary that followed the careers of a few docs who specialized in CLD who were brought up under malpractice charges because they attempted to treat the disease which was counter to standard practice.

/offtopic

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:The bacteria that causes Lyme, Borrelia burgdorferi is very similar to the bacteria that causes syphilis (they're both spirochetes) and can indeed affect the nervous system after enough time of chronic infection. It can also hide in biofilms, making detection difficult.

This is actually a very interesting topic; there are a lot of deniers of Chronic Lyme Disease and even of B. burgdorferi's ability to cause other symptoms than the typical ring and intitial fever, aches, etc., and this leads to denial of treatment under many insurance policies. Here in Oregon, there are many docs who refuse to treat anything other than the intitial infection because of fear of reprisal. There was a documentary that followed the careers of a few docs who specialized in CLD who were brought up under malpractice charges because they attempted to treat the disease which was counter to standard practice.

/offtopic

-TG

Aye well if the article above is anything to go by pedophilia and shoplifting are given as caused by Lyme disease. I don't think you'll find many more liberal posters than me, but that raises some big question marks for me.

I think that's totally on topic.



Details emerge on gun control proposal coming Wednesday
Executive orders again to the forefront, but absolutely no word on the Gun Insurance that CeaseFire allegedly discussed with Biden. I cannot wait to find out the details.

By a 51%-45% margin, Americans questioned in a new Pew Research Center poll said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights.

And by a 52%-35% margin, a new ABC News/Washington Post survey indicates the public says it is more likely to support some forms of gun control after last month's massacre. However, the polls showed continuing divisions on political and gender lines.

Sym do I have to battle you to see who's more Liberal?

Juan_Bottom wrote:Sym do I have to battle you to see who's more Liberal?

Oh no- you would win, my heart bleeds for you. Sorry to have brought this up.

Awwww... my heart bleeds for your loss.... you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna raise taxes to fund your next abortion.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Awwww... my heart bleeds for your loss.... you know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna raise taxes to fund your next abortion.

I give up- you win.