zappasguitar
Well-known member
So now you're going to pretend the Declaration of Independence is all about the origin of our rights?
Congressional Budget Office On Obama-Care
- Thread starter Robo
- Start date
So now you're going to pretend the Declaration of Independence is all about the origin of our rights?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Let the record show that partisan clown Right-eeTightie again resorts to outright lies when he's losing the debate.
He can't/won't honestly address the facts, so lies are the only response he can come up with.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Not emotional at all.
Enjoying yet another chance to highlight to everyone just how petty you truly are.
You lost the debate about where our rights come from PAGES ago, so this latest attempt at diversion is particularly enjoyable.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Unfortunately for you, "said so" proves nothing.
The Founders also wrote that a black man was only 3/5ths of a human being...was that particular belief also the inspired word of God?
... which meets the standard of proof required in any civil court.
THEY DID? Where?
zappasguitar
Well-known member
THEY DID? Where?
The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution which reads:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Except we're not IN civil court, now are we?
You can't prove what you claim and moreover, you're not even man enough to admit it.
Gee, Zippy, that doesn't say anything like "a black man was only 3/5ths of a human being."
You really fucked up that interpretation. No wonder you hate the Constitution so much.
The standards of civil court are the same as the standards for civil debate, Zippy.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Who do you think the bold portion was referring to?
Denying what's right in front of you certainly makes responding easier.
More diversionary nonsense from DY.
How sad you still can't just man up and admit you are wrong.
It means that representation would be counted less for folk "bound into service". It doesn't mean that those bound are 3/5 of a person. You really fucked up that interpretation. No wonder you hate the Constitution so much.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Oh okay...so it doesn't say they ARE 3/5ths of a person, just that they should be COUNTED as 3/5ths of a person.
Yeah, there's a HUGE difference there...ROTFLMAO!
I NAILED that interpretation and right on cue here comes DBDY, ready with another lie to further confuse the issue.
Yes, it's another matsterful job of DY being the obfuscatory little douchebag everyone knows so well.
This we agree on. Nice to see you man-up and admit I'm "Right" yet again.
So yes, the 3/5 compromise was to convince the slave-holding states to join the Union, without giving them full credit for representation for folks that they had enslaved.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
You got nothing "right", you simply engaged in the same tired grammatical gymnastics those who are "right" resort to when cornered.
You can't even quote my prior comment honestly because to do so would highlight your double standard.
I was RIGHT, you were WRONG and you simply could not bring yourself to admit as much...no problem.
You don't think words have meanings ?....It says what it says, not what you want it to say....and the explanation of WHY it says what it says is in 117....
do you think giving the southern states greater votes in congress because of their holding slaves would have helped the cause of the slaves.