Glenn Beck smears Obama's 11-year-old daughter

[Liability]

You know.........you ain't got a clue about this. People in meetings could tell if a speaker was on a dry bender just by listening to the things that they said.

You didn't really have to know a great deal about them, it was evidenced by their behavior, and yes, most AA people would say that Beck is on a dry bender.

By the way for another lie, wanna talk about him telling everyone that people were paying 10 bucks to immigrate here, when in actuality it was a slave tax.

Telling false things is a lie. Lying about the Constitution on a national television show is worse.

So you speak for all AA members. That's interesting. maybe it's just the AA meetings you attend and it's possible that you yourself is a "dry drunk" or simply an idiot.

I'd like to see the transcript of the show your speaking about in which Beck made that statement you're referring to.

Or is it just more BS you picked up from mediamatters, huffinton post or dailykos?

Well, I recall Beck getting that tax thing wrong, too.

(Normally I hesitate before citing or refrain from citing "MediaMatters" on the principle taht they are a dishonest biased bunch of scum. But since they got this one right, I will use them as the quick link):

Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"? | Media Matters for America

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You know.........you ain't got a clue about this. People in meetings could tell if a speaker was on a dry bender just by listening to the things that they said.

You didn't really have to know a great deal about them, it was evidenced by their behavior, and yes, most AA people would say that Beck is on a dry bender.

By the way for another lie, wanna talk about him telling everyone that people were paying 10 bucks to immigrate here, when in actuality it was a slave tax.

Telling false things is a lie. Lying about the Constitution on a national television show is worse.

So you speak for all AA members. That's interesting. maybe it's just the AA meetings you attend and it's possible that you yourself is a "dry drunk" or simply an idiot.

I'd like to see the transcript of the show your speaking about in which Beck made that statement you're referring to.

Or is it just more BS you picked up from mediamatters, huffinton post or dailykos?

Well, I recall Beck getting that tax thing wrong, too.

(Normally I hesitate before citing or refrain from citing "MediaMatters" on the principle taht they are a dishonest biased bunch of scum. But since they got this one right, I will use them as the quick link):

Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"? | Media Matters for America

I don't see where he got anything wrong. Because he didn't specifically mention slaves? Neither does Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. It states "migration" or "importation" of such persons....I'd argue that importing people doesn't exclusively mean slaves.

 

[Yukon.]

Beck says that he's self educated.

No wonder his facts are all fucked up.

...I must be drunk myself...I agree with the Biker.

 

[Liability]

So you speak for all AA members. That's interesting. maybe it's just the AA meetings you attend and it's possible that you yourself is a "dry drunk" or simply an idiot.

I'd like to see the transcript of the show your speaking about in which Beck made that statement you're referring to.

Or is it just more BS you picked up from mediamatters, huffinton post or dailykos?

Well, I recall Beck getting that tax thing wrong, too.

(Normally I hesitate before citing or refrain from citing "MediaMatters" on the principle taht they are a dishonest biased bunch of scum. But since they got this one right, I will use them as the quick link):

Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"? | Media Matters for America

I don't see where he got anything wrong. Because he didn't specifically mention slaves? Neither does Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. It states "migration" or "importation" of such persons....I'd argue that importing people doesn't exclusively mean slaves.

We import products, goods and raw materials. We don't import visitors. There is no mystery about the meaning of that provision of the Constitution. It was the end-product of much debate related to the handling of the slavery issue. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well, I recall Beck getting that tax thing wrong, too.

(Normally I hesitate before citing or refrain from citing "MediaMatters" on the principle taht they are a dishonest biased bunch of scum. But since they got this one right, I will use them as the quick link):

Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"? | Media Matters for America

I don't see where he got anything wrong. Because he didn't specifically mention slaves? Neither does Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. It states "migration" or "importation" of such persons....I'd argue that importing people doesn't exclusively mean slaves.

We import products, goods and raw materials. We don't import visitors. There is no mystery about the meaning of that provision of the Constitution. It was the end-product of much debate related to the handling of the slavery issue. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

I know that when my forefather arrived here in 1750 and established a homestead he in fact sent for his family to be brought here from Ireland, I'd argue he imported his family here. I'd also argue that employee based visas are akin to importation of labor. In fact the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a yearly minimum of 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas. The importation of this labor force is not slavery.

 

[Liability]

I don't see where he got anything wrong. Because he didn't specifically mention slaves? Neither does Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. It states "migration" or "importation" of such persons....I'd argue that importing people doesn't exclusively mean slaves.

We import products, goods and raw materials. We don't import visitors. There is no mystery about the meaning of that provision of the Constitution. It was the end-product of much debate related to the handling of the slavery issue. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

I know that when my forefather arrived here in 1750 and established a homestead he in fact sent for his family to be brought here from Ireland, I'd argue he imported his family here. I'd also argue that employee based visas are akin to importation of labor. In fact the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a yearly minimum of 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas. The importation of this labor force is not slavery.

Sorry but this one is beyond "debate." The specific Constitutional provision was designed to attend to the then thorny issue of "slavery." That's just a simple historical fact. It is what it is.

For example, :

LII / Legal Information Institute

CRS Annotated Constitution


Article I -- Table of Contents
ARTICLE I
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 9. Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
POWERS DENIED TO CONGRESS

General Purpose of Section 9

This section of the Constitution (containing eight clauses restricting or prohibiting legislation affecting the importation of slaves, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the enactment of bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the levying of taxes on exports, the granting of preference to ports of one State over another, the granting of titles of nobility, et cetera) is devoted to restraints upon the power of Congress and of the National Govern[p.345]ment,1683 and in no respect affects the States in the regulation of their domestic affairs.1684

The above clause, which sanctioned the importation of slaves by the States for twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when considered with the section requiring escaped slaves to be returned to their masters, Art. IV, Sec. 1, cl. 3, was held by Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford,1685 to show conclusively that such persons and their descendants were not embraced within the term “citizen” as used in the Constitution. Today, this ruling is interesting only as an historical curiosity.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag8_user.html#art1_sec9cl1

 

[Lonestar_logic]

We import products, goods and raw materials. We don't import visitors. There is no mystery about the meaning of that provision of the Constitution. It was the end-product of much debate related to the handling of the slavery issue. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

I know that when my forefather arrived here in 1750 and established a homestead he in fact sent for his family to be brought here from Ireland, I'd argue he imported his family here. I'd also argue that employee based visas are akin to importation of labor. In fact the Immigration and Nationality Act provides a yearly minimum of 140,000 employment-based immigrant visas. The importation of this labor force is not slavery.

Sorry but this one is beyond "debate." The specific Constitutional provision was designed to attend to the then thorny issue of "slavery." That's just a simple historical fact. It is what it is.

For example, :

LII / Legal Information Institute

CRS Annotated Constitution


Article I -- Table of Contents
ARTICLE I
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 9. Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
POWERS DENIED TO CONGRESS

General Purpose of Section 9

This section of the Constitution (containing eight clauses restricting or prohibiting legislation affecting the importation of slaves, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the enactment of bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the levying of taxes on exports, the granting of preference to ports of one State over another, the granting of titles of nobility, et cetera) is devoted to restraints upon the power of Congress and of the National Govern[p.345]ment,1683 and in no respect affects the States in the regulation of their domestic affairs.1684

The above clause, which sanctioned the importation of slaves by the States for twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when considered with the section requiring escaped slaves to be returned to their masters, Art. IV, Sec. 1, cl. 3, was held by Chief Justice Taney in Scott v. Sandford,1685 to show conclusively that such persons and their descendants were not embraced within the term “citizen” as used in the Constitution. Today, this ruling is interesting only as an historical curiosity.

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution Article I

Show me when and where slaves migrated to the US and then you and Cornell may have a point, It's clear they are only focusing on the one word " importation", which doesn't exclusively mean slaves. I firmly disagree with Cornell's and your interpretation of this clause.

 

[paperview]

Liability is right, Lone-cell Logic.

You can't even begin to debate the fact: Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 IS about Slavery.

Should you attempt any further refutation it ISN'T about Slavery, you will look even more foolish than you already do. If that's possible.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Liability is right, Lone-cell Logic.

You can't even begin to debate the fact: Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 IS about Slavery.

Should you attempt any further refutation it ISN'T about Slavery, you will look even more foolish than you already do. If that's possible.

Sure I can, just because you share his opinion doesn't make you, him or Cornell right. The fact is all of you are overlooking the word "migration" in Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution of which you all insist is devoted to slavery. Now, no slaves ever migrated to this country to my knowledge, if you can show when and where they in fact have, then you may indeed have a point.

 

[paperview]

THIS is what Beck said:

Reread the clause again. IMPORTATION is referred to in regards to the tax:

"...but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Now, follow me. Read only the bolded words if the language is too tough for you, Lil' Logic:

[SIZE=+3]Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1[/SIZE]​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Document 15[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]26 July 1788[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1] <-------------------!!
Elliot 4:100--102 [/SIZE][/FONT]

Mr. J. M'[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Dowall[/SIZE][/FONT] wished to hear the reasons of this restriction.
Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Spaight[/SIZE][/FONT] answered, that there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then, and that, in the mean time, some tax or duty might be laid on.

Mr. M'[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Dowall[/SIZE][/FONT] replied, that the explanation was just such as he expected, and by no means satisfactory to him, and that he looked upon it as a very objectionable part of the system.

Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Iredell[/SIZE][/FONT]. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to those of the gentleman from Craven. For my part, were it practicable to put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give me the greatest pleasure; for it certainly is a trade utterly inconsistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great cruelties have been exercised.

When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous mind, and every friend of human nature; but we often wish for things which are not attainable. It was the wish of a great majority of the Convention to put an end to the trade immediately; but the states of South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider, then, what would be the difference between our present situation in this respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will be if we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the evil? No, sir, we do not.

For if the Constitution be not adopted, it will be in the power of every state to continue it forever. They may or may not abolish it, at their discretion. But if we adopt the Constitution, the trade must cease after twenty years, if Congress declare so, whether particular states please so or not; surely, then, we can gain by it.

...
Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Spaight[/SIZE][/FONT] further explained the clause. That the limitation of this trade to the term of twenty years was a compromise between the Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and Georgia wished to extend the term.
The Eastern States insisted on the entire abolition of the trade. That the state of North Carolina had not thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation of slaves, and therefore its delegation in the Convention did not think themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it.
Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Iredell[/SIZE][/FONT] added to what he had said before, that the states of Georgia and South Carolina had lost a great many slaves during the war, and that they wished to supply the loss.

Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Galloway[/SIZE][/FONT]. Mr. Chairman, the explanation given to this clause does not satisfy my mind. I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to. But in case it be thought proper to continue this abominable traffic for twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the tax on the importation extended to all persons whatsoever. Our situation is different from the people to the north. We want citizens; they do not. Instead of laying a tax, we ought to give a bounty to encourage foreigners to come among us. With respect to the abolition of slavery, it requires the utmost consideration.

The property of the Southern States consists principally of slaves. If they mean to do away slavery altogether, this property will be destroyed. I apprehend it means to bring forward manumission. If we must manumit our slaves, what country shall we send them to? It is impossible for us to be happy, if, after manumission, they are to stay among us.

Mr. [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Iredell[/SIZE][/FONT]. Mr. Chairman, the worthy gentleman, I believe, has misunderstood this clause, which runs in the following words: "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

Now, sir, observe that the Eastern States, who long ago have abolished slaves, did not approve of the expression slaves; they therefore used another, that answered the same purpose.

The committee will observe the distinction between the two words migration and importation. The first part of the clause will extend to persons who come into this country as free people, or are brought as slaves. But the last part extends to slaves only. The word migration refers to free persons; but the word importation refers to slaves, because free people cannot be said to be imported.

The tax, therefore, is only to be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who migrate.

I further beg leave to say that the gentleman is mistaken in another thing. He seems to say that this extends to the abolition of slavery. Is there any thing in this Constitution which says that Congress shall have it in their power to abolish the slavery of those slaves who are now in the country? Is it not the plain meaning of it, that after twenty years they may prevent the future importation of slaves? It does not extend to those now in the country. There is another circumstance to be observed. There is no authority vested in Congress to restrain the states, in the interval of twenty years, from doing what they please. If they wish to prohibit such importation, they may do so. Our next Assembly may put an entire end to the importation of slaves.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]The Founders' Constitution[/SIZE][/FONT]
Volume 3, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1, Document 15
[SIZE=-1]http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s15.html
The University of Chicago Press[/SIZE]
Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d.

 

[paperview]

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

EVERY CITATION BELOW IS A LINK:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]1.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Thomas Jefferson, Bill to Prevent the Importation of Slaves, 16 June 1777

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]2.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Pirate v. Dalby[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]3.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Records of the Federal Convention[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]4.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Tench Coxe, An Examination of the Constitution, Fall 1787[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]

5.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]A Federal Republican, 28 Oct. 1787[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]

6.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention, 3--4 Dec. 1787[/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]7.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]A Countryman, 13 Dec. 1787

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]8.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Luther Martin, Genuine Information, 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]9.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Joshua Atherton, New Hampshire Ratifying Convention, 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]10.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Debate in South Carolina House of Representatives, 16--17 Jan. 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]11.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Debate in Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 18, 25--26, 30 Jan. 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]12.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Madison, Federalist, no. 42, 281--82, 22 Jan. 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]13.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Consider Arms, Malichi Maynard, and Samuel Field, Reasons for Dissent, 16 Apr. 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]14.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 15 June 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]15.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 26 July 1788

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]16.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Madison, Import Duty on Slaves, House of Representatives, 13 May 1789

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]17.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]House of Representatives, Slave Trade, 23 Mar. 1790

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]18.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 290, 1803

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]19.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]John Jay to Elias Boudinot, 17 Nov. 1819

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]20.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Madison to Robert Walsh, 27 Nov. 1819

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]21.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Walter Lowrie, Senate, 20 Jan. 1820

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]22.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Madison to James Monroe, 10 Feb. 1820

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]23.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Charles Pinckney, House of Representatives, 14 Feb. 1820

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]24.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Gibbons v. Ogden

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]25.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]The Antelope

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]26.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]James Kent, Commentaries 1:179--87, 1826

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]27.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Hunter v. Fulcher

[/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]28.[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=-1]Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1327--31, 1833
=================

Beck & Li'l Logic: Hopelessly, hopelessly WRONG.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief, you must have a lot of time on your hands.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Ever hear of the triangle trade No Logic?

They imported slaves here via that.

Ever hear of the Amistad?

 

[paperview]

I don't expect "Logic" to show his face in this thread again.

Maybe he'll wait for a few pages to pass and he can pretend like no one saw his numbskullery.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Ever hear of the triangle trade No Logic?

They imported slaves here via that.

Ever hear of the Amistad?

I don't doubt that slaves were imported here, I've never contested that fact. My contention is with the exact wording of the clause and those that only see what they want to see from it and not take into consideration the fact it mentions "migration". To my knowledge no slaves "migrated" to the US, therefore the clause cannot be exclusively directed at slavery, as some contend. Wise up!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't expect "Logic" to show his face in this thread again.

Maybe he'll wait for a few pages to pass and he can pretend like no one saw his numbskullery.

Hey stupid, I don't have a problem being in disagreement on this issue. You and others believe you're right and I disagree. Can't get any more simplier than that ya dumbass!

 

[paperview]

I don't expect "Logic" to show his face in this thread again.

Maybe he'll wait for a few pages to pass and he can pretend like no one saw his numbskullery.

Hey stupid, I don't have a problem being in disagreement on this issue. You and others believe you're right and I disagree. Can't get any more simplier than that ya dumbass!

To say you have a disagreement about whether the 'importation' and tax levied portion in that Clause of the Constitution being in reference to slaves is the equivalent of saying you have a disagreement with those that say the earth is a globe, or that cow flatulence is odoriferous.

It's one thing to be wrong, so often, and on so much, but I gotta say Lone-cell Logic, you break the barriers of spectacular! when it comes to being wrong.

What a hoot.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't expect "Logic" to show his face in this thread again.

Maybe he'll wait for a few pages to pass and he can pretend like no one saw his numbskullery.

Hey stupid, I don't have a problem being in disagreement on this issue. You and others believe you're right and I disagree. Can't get any more simplier than that ya dumbass!

To say you have a disagreement about whether the 'importation' and tax levied portion in that Clause of the Constitution being in reference to slaves is the equivalent of saying you have a disagreement with those that say the earth is a globe, or that cow flatulence is odoriferous.

It's one thing to be wrong, so often, and on so much, but I gotta say Lone-cell Logic, you break the barriers of spectacular! when it comes to being wrong.

What a hoot.

So now you're going to change the scope of your argument. How convenient.

In post #348 you stated that Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 is about slavery, now you seem to be saying that only a "portion" of it relates to slavery. Ok, if that's true then what does the other "portion" speak to? Specifically the "migration" portion.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "

 

[paperview]

Hey stupid, I don't have a problem being in disagreement on this issue. You and others believe you're right and I disagree. Can't get any more simplier than that ya dumbass!

To say you have a disagreement about whether the 'importation' and tax levied portion in that Clause of the Constitution being in reference to slaves is the equivalent of saying you have a disagreement with those that say the earth is a globe, or that cow flatulence is odoriferous.

It's one thing to be wrong, so often, and on so much, but I gotta say Lone-cell Logic, you break the barriers of spectacular! when it comes to being wrong.

What a hoot.

So now you're going to change the scope of your argument. How convenient.

In post #348 you stated that Article 1 Section 9 Clause 1 is about slavery, now you seem to be saying that only a "portion" of it relates to slavery. Ok, if that's true then what does the other "portion" speak to? Specifically the "migration" portion.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. "

Do you recall how this whole subject came up?

I'll remind you. It's because of Glenn Becks remarks.

And here is what you said: "I don't see where he got anything wrong. Because he didn't specifically mention slaves? Neither does Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. It states "migration" or "importation" of such persons....I'd argue that importing people doesn't exclusively mean slaves."

Yes, it does. I have shown it with a myriad of citations from the Founders own words and debates at the time.

I have shown that the reference was to the $10.00 Tax levied on imported persons was a direct reference to the slaves.

I provided you with 28 different links which explain it - and STILL - your logic is reduced to one cell.

Holy crap. Why do I even bother Arguing With Idiots.

 

[nraforlife]

Who in their right mind picks on an 11 year old to make political points?

Who in their right mind INVITES making their pickaninny a target by using the kid to score political points???????