The graphic comes from the mother Jones piece, from the part where it is discussing the 'coming for your guns'. Specifically nestled in a bit where they say
Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
So I'd wager the myth he is contradicting his own previous assertions that the population can't fight the military.
Nothing is perfect in life and there are millions of guns out there that will continue to be misused but here are my thoughts. You need to be logical and even if one life is saved its worth it. Enforce the laws on the books until better ones are on the books.
Close all loop holes. Its crazy the type of weapons you can buy at these guns shows from dudes that are not dealers. You could just have been released from prison for a gun related crime and go and get a gun. Thats nuts. If you buy a gun it comes with a title just like a car. If you want to sell your gun privately, you and the would be buyer have to transfer the title and once the new owner clears a background check the sale and transfer of title would be cleared.
Smart background checks are also important. Meaning all crimes and violent mental health issues are stored in one place. Its relatively cheap and easy to host data. With technology this should not be a huge burden and easy access is key. Get rid of all the red tape when dealing with criminals and people who have mental health issues with violent tendencies.
Take a 15 hour class and learn about all types of guns. In the class work with live bullets and see the power of the weapon. This class must teach people the responsibility that comes with owning a gun. Once you have completed the class you will have a license that allows you to be a gun owner. Think of it like a drivers education class and then receiving your drivers license. If people have cleared the background checks and have taken the class I don’t see a issue if they want to own a AR-15 with a 50 round clip or 50 guns. We just have to be responsible and understand that America is not what it use to be. None of this is perfect but its better than nothing.
The problem is that history has proven that for each life saved via "gun control", far more are lost. Violent crime rates invariably go up when gun control is implemented because it empowers the criminals over their victims. So for every "life saved" by "gun control", many more are lost or permanently damaged.
Even worse, is what else "gun control" enables: Democide.
Time to repeat another comment I've left before:
----------
You keep trying to claim that we're evil for not grovelling at your feet over the evil committed by one man.
The problem is that you insist on closing your eyes to the evils enabled by gun control.
I could go on and on and on showing you the results of evil. There is one attribute shared all of these victims. They were unable to resist their murders. They had all been disarmed and "for their safety" is a common excuse.
Remember:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." — Adolph Hitler
You claim we are evil because we won't throw down our arms at the death of 20 children. What does it say about you that you demand we make ourselves defenseless given the cold blooded slaughter of MILLIONS of children and their families?
To think we can magically wipe the self-evident lessons of history from our minds is sheer madness. You might as well ask us to think that gravity is a figment of our imagination.
that doesn't mean we should ignore the qualitative analysis of these crimes.
You want "qualitative"? I got your "qualitative" right f****n' here. Look through that archive then try your "qualitative" bullshit again, you evil bastard.
All I can is wow! My god man you live in a fucked up version of reality. I will never understand the amount of fear that some people live with. Is this stuff coming from the guy that quotes bible versus? Holy shit if Jesus were alive I think he would lay his hands upon you and pray for you to have peace.
That God doesn't allow that kind of thing? So those events all over the world must not have actually happened.
Faith in people who are saying we'll be fine? Since Bible verses were brought up, I'll share a few relevant ones:
Then I said: “Ah, Lord GOD, behold, the prophets say to them, ‘You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you assured peace in this place.’” And the LORD said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who prophesy in my name although I did not send them, and who say, ‘Sword and famine shall not come upon this land’: By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed. — Jeremiah 14:13–15
This was right before Israel was taken into captivity. (The one Daniel was part of.) The false prophets were promising peace and safety. They lied.
You are promising peace and safety in the teeth of history and human nature.
While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. — 1 Thessalonians 5:3
Godwin's Law
Cargo culting much, Mark?
Bubba, what's your claim? That such things cannot happen in this country?
That Is The Point of this question that Mark has been running away from:
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (18 days and counting)
Can you answer it?
(Note: That question is actually far older than 18 days. It's more like years that he's been playing Brave Sir Marky with it. That's only how long it's been since he undermined his own attempted answer.)
Aw, whatsa matter Mark? You don't like questions you can't answer? Are the monsters getting too close? Having trouble supporting your assertions? Is it too frustrating that there are people who won't gullibly swallow your pablum?
You can't even answer "Faith in what"?
Yep, there's "reality based" thinking for you.
You claim to be able to admit when you're wrong. Here's your chance.
And that would be why I don't generally engage in discussions with you any longer.
And why is that? Is there some obvious level of dishonesty in his discussion? Logical fallacy? Incoherent rambling?
Because I can't see anything in what MNM says or asks that is unreasonable in the context of said conversations.
No, what is unreasonable, dishonest, incoherent and logically fallacious appears to be your side of the so-called discussion. And you just keep reinforcing that perception.
Yeah, nice try in baiting me, GD, but experience has taught me otherwise:)
As I've said all along, I'm willing to engage in any lengthy discussion if Boaz's 14 points (along with Sorkin's characterizations) are not employed. Thus far, that's the only way you guys know how to have a debate so I don't hold out much hope for change. And change you must if you want more than just a few responses here and there.
Meanwhile, I had a regular reader and non commenter email me this as a reminder regarding NMN's behavior
http://www.netlingo.com/word/troll.php
The reader expressed frustration at how NMN spams posts that have no relation to his cut and pastes and wondered why I put up with it. I told him that I had an open policy on commenting (no xanax spam or porn, though...unless it's homemade porn) and was honestly thankful as NMN saves me a lot of work in illustrating how batshit the Right are these days.
"obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic"
That's all the questions you keep asking.
"to "troll" means to allure, to fish, to entice or to bait."
That's all the questions you keep asking.
"Internet trolls are people who fish for other people's confidence and, once found, exploit it. "
That would be all of you from Kevin's site, excluding juris, and especially you.
The baiting in all of your questions is really the central characteristic. That, and the fact that answering them triggers your psychosis and makes it worse.
But I'll tell you what, NMN. Post the question regarding the Constitution here.
http://debate.org/
Answer it in the affirmative or the negative (wherever you stand on this issue...I don't really know because you're being such a fucking weasel about it), making your argument clearly in a few paragraphs, and then challenge me to a debate and I will be happy to answer it. I say we let some unbiased observers judge each one of us in an arena that requires each person to actually do their work...as opposed to what you do on here which is trolling.
You've turned me down once before on this challenge. No problem if you do so again but that really doesn't give you much credibility when you say I "refuse" to answer your questions. I'd like to see how well you do without your collective to back you up.
"obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic"
That's all the questions you keep asking.
Reading comprehension fail....
ex·ag·ger·ate: to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately: to exaggerate the difficulties of a situation.
Asking you answer questions DIRECTLY RELATED to your own posts is not exaggeration. Having to repeatedly ask them because YOU FAIL TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION is not exaggeration either.
en·tice: to lead on by exciting hope or desire; allure; inveigle
Only if you consider the enticement offered to be disagreement with your position. Do you feel that MNM is alluring you with sweet nothings?
Answer it in the affirmative or the negative (wherever you stand on this issue...I don't really know because you're being such a fucking weasel about it), making your argument clearly in a few paragraphs, and then challenge me to a debate and I will be happy to answer it.
Says the biggest weasel I've ever seen.....
You've turned me down once before on this challenge
No. You simply pointed us to the site without saying ANYTHING about you actually participating.
You've also left unanswered the why? Why do you need to debate there, where the focus is on 'winning the debate' when you decry that very same idea and demonize us for just wanting to 'win'?
This would be why it's really a drag to have discussions with most of you these days. I answered that question in the above comment. Seriously, it's like talking to my grandmother and her friends in the old folks home. And anyone who doesn't see anything unbalanced about this comment...
I already handed you that answer on a silver platter over a week ago.
Great. If you are so confident in it, post it on debate.org and challenge me to a debate just as you posited the question here. "Is the Constitution law?" Support your argument with evidence. I'll do the same. No sycophants around either. Actually, you can post any of the other questions if you like...just as you wrote them...and just me and you, dude.
GD, I thought of another reason why debate.org would be a great place to discuss some of these issues: site traffic. I simply don't have the numbers here that they do there. Both you and NMN claim that I am illogical and incapable of critical thinking in my support of the various assertions I have made on here. Let's see what a wider audience thinks. NMN's reluctance to go there more or less confirms what I have been saying all along. Adolescent bullies require a collective (ironic, no?)and can't stand on their own. It's obvious why:)
And, since you two feel that you have "won" something by chasing off reasonable and rational commenters (note: it's not 2004 anymore and John Kerry is not a French war criminal. He's the Secretary of State), it only makes sense that you wouldn't want to leave your little cocoon.
I take that's still a "No" on debate.org? Consider it an open challenge...any time, NMN.
Here's my issue with your questions. Take a look again at the definition of troll.
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
That's are all your questions in a nutshell. You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
As I have said previously, you're very predictable. It's not the questions that I refuse to answer, NMN. It's you I refuse to answer. You are the problem in that your behavior is very poor, troll like, and well, we're getting close to this, aren't we?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.795
Specifically, #3. I'm a nice guy so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and state that we aren't quite there yet but you are treading pretty close.
In addition to making conservatives look just plain awful, continuing to allow you to post here serves this purpose as well. The way I see it, you have a choice. You can continue as you have been doing which only serves to hinder, not help, your cause, or you can change. This means no more Boaz's 14 points and you contributing 50 percent of whatever we discuss rather than the troll-like behavior.
What can be said about such total fail? Nothing, except "there it is, folks. That is actually what this guy thinks."
You just rejected the most basic level of logic there is and admitted that your ideology is based on rejecting reason. There is nothing that can be added to that. Congratulations.
The only folks that are reading this comment section are the five of us.
My apologies. I forgot to include why I won't answer your other troll question regarding the militia. Aside from the perpetual baiting, you omitted the rest of the remarks by both me and Alexander Hamilton in order to steer the argument in your favor, specifically the part about national authority.
What? And make you read through them every time? That's what links are for, and why I include them.
Arguing with you is like arguing with the shopkeeper in the dead parrot sketch, which is why it is necessary to stay after you about basic (and obvious) facts you keep trying to ignore (like the dog in Mahrer's quote).
Apprently I also need to remind you that I have asked you for alternative methods (38 days ago) for dealing with "I don't wanna learn" syndrome—more than once—but you have never suggested a different, more effective approach.
What are "Boaz's 14 points"? Somehow it doesn't sound like a technique for discovering truth. An oblique reference to something obscure certainly doesn't come across as an answer to anything.
So M, you just don't care if Congress passes unConstitional laws - as long as they are ones that have a progressive intent. Is that what you just said?
My not caring, juris, revolves around your interpretation of the Constitution and the imperial orders you issue regarding it, not the document itself. I'd say that's pretty much my number one gripe with the Right in general so at least you are in good company:)
Juris, they have been arguing over the Constitution from the day it was written. To assume that you have some sort of corner market on its true meaning, as most on the Right do and ALL of you from Kevin's site bloviate (see: hubris, Mt. Everest), is grade A horseshit. You don't. Neither do I nor very many other people, most especially fucking commenters on a blog.
they have been arguing over the Constitution from the day it was written.
But I can see why you don't even bother arguing, you just hide behind the fact that there are legitimate debates to obscure that you don't have any reasonable argument. Virtually all of the progressive program would be flushed down the shitter and you can't tolerate that.
You could of course advocate in favor of amending the Constitution - but that is hard. Much easier to claim there are disputes and use that as a shield of ignorance to advance your desires.
I'm sure we could find plenty of tort before the progressive era began that you would deem unconstitutional. Presser v. Illinois?
Both Medicare and Social Security are Constitutional as Congress has the power to tax. Or are you arguing that the 16th amendment is not Constitutional? That wouldn't make much sense given what you said above about amendments.
Regarding police power, Mack and Printz v. United States is the last word, right? Yet, local authorities are voluntarily complying with background checks and the database so the issue of federal power here is moot. Since the states are doing it anyway, there's no reason to argue about it.
You think that is a tort relevant to the Progressive era? Do you just pull shit out of your ass thinking I (or anyone else) will be impressed?
Both Medicare and Social Security are Constitutional as Congress has the power to tax.
Correct - that is exactly the grounds on which SS was upheld, the power to tax. What that does NOT do is connect your future collection of benefits to what you paid in, a la an annuity.
Regarding police power, Mack and Printz v. United States is the last word, right?
Hardly.
Yet, local authorities are voluntarily complying with background checks and the database so the issue of federal power here is moot.
Not at all. California may do such because it has the requisite police power (and is not otherwise prohibited by federal preemption). That hardly makes the issue moot. Would you seriously teach that to your students?
Since the states are doing it anyway, there's no reason to argue about it.
So, you support the California law that bans gay marriage. It must be okay since the state is doing it.
42 comments:
Soooooo,
What are you saying now.
Are you still sticking by you statement that civilians can't beat the military?
Or have you changed your mind?
Or are you simply talking out of both sides of your mouth?
What exact myth is this supposedly deconstructing?
The graphic comes from the mother Jones piece, from the part where it is discussing the 'coming for your guns'. Specifically nestled in a bit where they say
Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.
So I'd wager the myth he is contradicting his own previous assertions that the population can't fight the military.
How many citizens (gun owners) own nuclear powered sub's, aircraft carriers, f-16's, nuclear weapons, etc? Zero
So if people on this blog think that some dudes with an AR-15 have a chance go do something useful today like serving dinner at a soup kitchen.
nuclear powered sub's, aircraft carriers, f-16's, nuclear weapons, etc?
And those would be useful against a citizen uprising... how?
Oh Juris, I'm sorry that you can't see the satire in my comment. LOL
I'm wondering what Bubba's views are on guns these days with all the paranoia from the Right. What does a liberal gun owner think?
Mark's use of paranoia.
It's only been 42 days. Are we learning yet?
A gun owners perspective-
Nothing is perfect in life and there are millions of guns out there that will continue to be misused but here are my thoughts. You need to be logical and even if one life is saved its worth it. Enforce the laws on the books until better ones are on the books.
Close all loop holes. Its crazy the type of weapons you can buy at these guns shows from dudes that are not dealers. You could just have been released from prison for a gun related crime and go and get a gun. Thats nuts. If you buy a gun it comes with a title just like a car. If you want to sell your gun privately, you and the would be buyer have to transfer the title and once the new owner clears a background check the sale and transfer of title would be cleared.
Smart background checks are also important. Meaning all crimes and violent mental health issues are stored in one place. Its relatively cheap and easy to host data. With technology this should not be a huge burden and easy access is key. Get rid of all the red tape when dealing with criminals and people who have mental health issues with violent tendencies.
Take a 15 hour class and learn about all types of guns. In the class work with live bullets and see the power of the weapon. This class must teach people the responsibility that comes with owning a gun. Once you have completed the class you will have a license that allows you to be a gun owner. Think of it like a drivers education class and then receiving your drivers license. If people have cleared the background checks and have taken the class I don’t see a issue if they want to own a AR-15 with a 50 round clip or 50 guns. We just have to be responsible and understand that America is not what it use to be. None of this is perfect but its better than nothing.
even if one life is saved its worth it
The problem is that history has proven that for each life saved via "gun control", far more are lost. Violent crime rates invariably go up when gun control is implemented because it empowers the criminals over their victims. So for every "life saved" by "gun control", many more are lost or permanently damaged.
Even worse, is what else "gun control" enables: Democide.
Time to repeat another comment I've left before:
----------
You keep trying to claim that we're evil for not grovelling at your feet over the evil committed by one man.
The problem is that you insist on closing your eyes to the evils enabled by gun control.
Evils like this.
And this.
And this
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
And this.
I could go on and on and on showing you the results of evil. There is one attribute shared all of these victims. They were unable to resist their murders. They had all been disarmed and "for their safety" is a common excuse.
Remember:
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
— Adolph Hitler
You claim we are evil because we won't throw down our arms at the death of 20 children. What does it say about you that you demand we make ourselves defenseless given the cold blooded slaughter of MILLIONS of children and their families?
To think we can magically wipe the self-evident lessons of history from our minds is sheer madness. You might as well ask us to think that gravity is a figment of our imagination.
that doesn't mean we should ignore the qualitative analysis of these crimes.
You want "qualitative"? I got your "qualitative" right f****n' here. Look through that archive then try your "qualitative" bullshit again, you evil bastard.
All I can is wow! My god man you live in a fucked up version of reality. I will never understand the amount of fear that some people live with. Is this stuff coming from the guy that quotes bible versus? Holy shit if Jesus were alive I think he would lay his hands upon you and pray for you to have peace.
Agreed, Bubba. It's because his faith is weak. Accepting Christ into your heart means that you are free from that sort of thing.
And Goodwin's Law much?
Faith? Faith in what, Mark?
That God doesn't allow that kind of thing? So those events all over the world must not have actually happened.
Faith in people who are saying we'll be fine? Since Bible verses were brought up, I'll share a few relevant ones:
Then I said: “Ah, Lord GOD, behold, the prophets say to them, ‘You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you assured peace in this place.’” And the LORD said to me: “The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who prophesy in my name although I did not send them, and who say, ‘Sword and famine shall not come upon this land’: By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed.
— Jeremiah 14:13–15
This was right before Israel was taken into captivity. (The one Daniel was part of.) The false prophets were promising peace and safety. They lied.
You are promising peace and safety in the teeth of history and human nature.
While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.
— 1 Thessalonians 5:3
Godwin's Law
Cargo culting much, Mark?
Bubba, what's your claim? That such things cannot happen in this country?
That Is The Point of this question that Mark has been running away from:
Given your reasoning that any "inconvenient" check and balance can now be discarded to deal with the current crisis du jour, what makes tyranny Not Possible in this country? (18 days and counting)
Can you answer it?
(Note: That question is actually far older than 18 days. It's more like years that he's been playing Brave Sir Marky with it. That's only how long it's been since he undermined his own attempted answer.)
And that would be why I don't generally engage in discussions with you any longer.
Aw, whatsa matter Mark? You don't like questions you can't answer? Are the monsters getting too close? Having trouble supporting your assertions? Is it too frustrating that there are people who won't gullibly swallow your pablum?
You can't even answer "Faith in what"?
Yep, there's "reality based" thinking for you.
You claim to be able to admit when you're wrong. Here's your chance.
Are the monsters getting too close?
Wow.
I'm trying to remember what just- Dave's mom used to say about crazy people.
And that would be why I don't generally engage in discussions with you any longer.
And why is that? Is there some obvious level of dishonesty in his discussion? Logical fallacy? Incoherent rambling?
Because I can't see anything in what MNM says or asks that is unreasonable in the context of said conversations.
No, what is unreasonable, dishonest, incoherent and logically fallacious appears to be your side of the so-called discussion. And you just keep reinforcing that perception.
Hitler was a christian.
That's off topic, so I'll limit my response to this:
Like most things, Hitler lied about that in public.
Yeah, nice try in baiting me, GD, but experience has taught me otherwise:)
As I've said all along, I'm willing to engage in any lengthy discussion if Boaz's 14 points (along with Sorkin's characterizations) are not employed. Thus far, that's the only way you guys know how to have a debate so I don't hold out much hope for change. And change you must if you want more than just a few responses here and there.
Meanwhile, I had a regular reader and non commenter email me this as a reminder regarding NMN's behavior
http://www.netlingo.com/word/troll.php
The reader expressed frustration at how NMN spams posts that have no relation to his cut and pastes and wondered why I put up with it. I told him that I had an open policy on commenting (no xanax spam or porn, though...unless it's homemade porn) and was honestly thankful as NMN saves me a lot of work in illustrating how batshit the Right are these days.
What specifically makes my comments "trolling" or "spam"?
Well, let's see we've got...
"obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic"
That's all the questions you keep asking.
"to "troll" means to allure, to fish, to entice or to bait."
That's all the questions you keep asking.
"Internet trolls are people who fish for other people's confidence and, once found, exploit it. "
That would be all of you from Kevin's site, excluding juris, and especially you.
The baiting in all of your questions is really the central characteristic. That, and the fact that answering them triggers your psychosis and makes it worse.
But I'll tell you what, NMN. Post the question regarding the Constitution here.
http://debate.org/
Answer it in the affirmative or the negative (wherever you stand on this issue...I don't really know because you're being such a fucking weasel about it), making your argument clearly in a few paragraphs, and then challenge me to a debate and I will be happy to answer it. I say we let some unbiased observers judge each one of us in an arena that requires each person to actually do their work...as opposed to what you do on here which is trolling.
You've turned me down once before on this challenge. No problem if you do so again but that really doesn't give you much credibility when you say I "refuse" to answer your questions. I'd like to see how well you do without your collective to back you up.
You could just have been released from prison for a gun related crime and go and get a gun.
Funny how the BATF research says that is very much the exception.
Why the obsessive focus on gun shows, hmmm?
"obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic"
That's all the questions you keep asking.
Reading comprehension fail....
ex·ag·ger·ate: to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately: to exaggerate the difficulties of a situation.
Asking you answer questions DIRECTLY RELATED to your own posts is not exaggeration. Having to repeatedly ask them because YOU FAIL TO DEFEND YOUR POSITION is not exaggeration either.
en·tice: to lead on by exciting hope or desire; allure; inveigle
Only if you consider the enticement offered to be disagreement with your position. Do you feel that MNM is alluring you with sweet nothings?
Answer it in the affirmative or the negative (wherever you stand on this issue...I don't really know because you're being such a fucking weasel about it), making your argument clearly in a few paragraphs, and then challenge me to a debate and I will be happy to answer it.
Says the biggest weasel I've ever seen.....
You've turned me down once before on this challenge
No. You simply pointed us to the site without saying ANYTHING about you actually participating.
You've also left unanswered the why? Why do you need to debate there, where the focus is on 'winning the debate' when you decry that very same idea and demonize us for just wanting to 'win'?
This would be why it's really a drag to have discussions with most of you these days. I answered that question in the above comment. Seriously, it's like talking to my grandmother and her friends in the old folks home. And anyone who doesn't see anything unbalanced about this comment...
Are the monsters getting too close
...is a poor judge of mental stability.
I already handed you that answer on a silver platter over a week ago.
Great. If you are so confident in it, post it on debate.org and challenge me to a debate just as you posited the question here. "Is the Constitution law?" Support your argument with evidence. I'll do the same. No sycophants around either. Actually, you can post any of the other questions if you like...just as you wrote them...and just me and you, dude.
GD, I thought of another reason why debate.org would be a great place to discuss some of these issues: site traffic. I simply don't have the numbers here that they do there. Both you and NMN claim that I am illogical and incapable of critical thinking in my support of the various assertions I have made on here. Let's see what a wider audience thinks. NMN's reluctance to go there more or less confirms what I have been saying all along. Adolescent bullies require a collective (ironic, no?)and can't stand on their own. It's obvious why:)
And, since you two feel that you have "won" something by chasing off reasonable and rational commenters (note: it's not 2004 anymore and John Kerry is not a French war criminal. He's the Secretary of State), it only makes sense that you wouldn't want to leave your little cocoon.
Support your argument with evidence.
You didn't even click the link, did you?
I'll do the same.
You have evidence that the Constitution is not law?
Ummmm… oookkkkaaaayyyy…
I take that's still a "No" on debate.org? Consider it an open challenge...any time, NMN.
Here's my issue with your questions. Take a look again at the definition of troll.
Online it originally meant the act of posting a message in a newsgroup (and later on a blog) that is obviously exaggerating something on a particular topic hoping to trick a newbie into posting a follow-up article that points out the mistake.
That's are all your questions in a nutshell. You begin with your hubris (as most right wing douches do) by assuming that all liberals are naive idiots. That's why you asked the questions the way you did. Take the Constitution question, for example. If I answer "yes," you can then proceed on to the next phase of your trollness and "show me" how all the laws that liberals have passed violate the Constitution (gun laws, health care etc). By answering "no" (and one can, given how you worded the question), you can then accuse me of being a traitor or some other bit of psychotic nonsense. Of course, what's interesting here is how someone who believes so strongly in state's rights is taking such an absolutist position on federal power. What happened? But I really don't think you've thought it through that much. Nor have you likely thought about how things like a photo ID law or laws against gay marriage (two laws you do support) are in violation of the document that is absolute law, given the nature of those laws. So, your contention that the Constitution is absolute law rings completely hollow considering your previously stated ideology. That's why answering this question leads to more madness.
It's the same thing with Joe Biden (a Fox news like characterization of his statements), the tyranny question (any answer allows you to continue your trollness), the false-truth question (again, I recently heard a 10 year old ask this question), and the ER question (I answer that we have to treat everyone, you say it's really the government's fault, then, I ask you if you would let people die, you ignore that and then spout latin or some dime store logic and the madness continues). Sadly, I have no doubt that even this engagement will perpetuate the psychosis.
As I have said previously, you're very predictable. It's not the questions that I refuse to answer, NMN. It's you I refuse to answer. You are the problem in that your behavior is very poor, troll like, and well, we're getting close to this, aren't we?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.795
Specifically, #3. I'm a nice guy so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and state that we aren't quite there yet but you are treading pretty close.
In addition to making conservatives look just plain awful, continuing to allow you to post here serves this purpose as well. The way I see it, you have a choice. You can continue as you have been doing which only serves to hinder, not help, your cause, or you can change. This means no more Boaz's 14 points and you contributing 50 percent of whatever we discuss rather than the troll-like behavior.
What can be said about such total fail? Nothing, except "there it is, folks. That is actually what this guy thinks."
You just rejected the most basic level of logic there is and admitted that your ideology is based on rejecting reason. There is nothing that can be added to that. Congratulations.
The only folks that are reading this comment section are the five of us.
My apologies. I forgot to include why I won't answer your other troll question regarding the militia. Aside from the perpetual baiting, you omitted the rest of the remarks by both me and Alexander Hamilton in order to steer the argument in your favor, specifically the part about national authority.
What? And make you read through them every time? That's what links are for, and why I include them.
Arguing with you is like arguing with the shopkeeper in the dead parrot sketch, which is why it is necessary to stay after you about basic (and obvious) facts you keep trying to ignore (like the dog in Mahrer's quote).
Apprently I also need to remind you that I have asked you for alternative methods (38 days ago) for dealing with "I don't wanna learn" syndrome—more than once—but you have never suggested a different, more effective approach.
Yes, I have. In fact, I did it two comments ago.
no more Boaz's 14 points and you contributing 50 percent of whatever we discuss rather than the troll-like behavior.
Like I have been saying, engagement means more madness...
What are "Boaz's 14 points"? Somehow it doesn't sound like a technique for discovering truth. An oblique reference to something obscure certainly doesn't come across as an answer to anything.
So M, you just don't care if Congress passes unConstitional laws - as long as they are ones that have a progressive intent. Is that what you just said?
My not caring, juris, revolves around your interpretation of the Constitution and the imperial orders you issue regarding it, not the document itself. I'd say that's pretty much my number one gripe with the Right in general so at least you are in good company:)
Boaz's 14 points, mentioned previously.
http://www.straight.com/news/dr-cynthia-boaz-14-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-brainwash-americans
revolves around your interpretation of the Constitution
Plain words have plain meanings Humpty Dumpty. Without that, language communicates nothing.
Juris, they have been arguing over the Constitution from the day it was written. To assume that you have some sort of corner market on its true meaning, as most on the Right do and ALL of you from Kevin's site bloviate (see: hubris, Mt. Everest), is grade A horseshit. You don't. Neither do I nor very many other people, most especially fucking commenters on a blog.
they have been arguing over the Constitution from the day it was written.
But I can see why you don't even bother arguing, you just hide behind the fact that there are legitimate debates to obscure that you don't have any reasonable argument. Virtually all of the progressive program would be flushed down the shitter and you can't tolerate that.
You could of course advocate in favor of amending the Constitution - but that is hard. Much easier to claim there are disputes and use that as a shield of ignorance to advance your desires.
Virtually all of the progressive program would be flushed down the shitter and you can't tolerate that.
As in...?
I've got over 200 years of tort that says that's a completely inaccurate statement.
I've got over 200 years of tort that says that's a completely inaccurate statement.
Funny, since the Progressive era only started 120 years or so ago, and the key jurisprudence in the matter didn't happen until well into the New Deal.
Certainly redistribution of income is not part of the Constitutional pact, and you are deeply concerned with income inequality.
The general police power - to enforce background checks on gun sales by private parties - is not a part of the Constitution either, is it?
I'm sure we could find plenty of tort before the progressive era began that you would deem unconstitutional. Presser v. Illinois?
Both Medicare and Social Security are Constitutional as Congress has the power to tax. Or are you arguing that the 16th amendment is not Constitutional? That wouldn't make much sense given what you said above about amendments.
Regarding police power, Mack and Printz v. United States is the last word, right? Yet, local authorities are voluntarily complying with background checks and the database so the issue of federal power here is moot. Since the states are doing it anyway, there's no reason to argue about it.
Presser v. Illinois?
You think that is a tort relevant to the Progressive era? Do you just pull shit out of your ass thinking I (or anyone else) will be impressed?
Both Medicare and Social Security are Constitutional as Congress has the power to tax.
Correct - that is exactly the grounds on which SS was upheld, the power to tax. What that does NOT do is connect your future collection of benefits to what you paid in, a la an annuity.
Regarding police power, Mack and Printz v. United States is the last word, right?
Hardly.
Yet, local authorities are voluntarily complying with background checks and the database so the issue of federal power here is moot.
Not at all. California may do such because it has the requisite police power (and is not otherwise prohibited by federal preemption). That hardly makes the issue moot. Would you seriously teach that to your students?
Since the states are doing it anyway, there's no reason to argue about it.
So, you support the California law that bans gay marriage. It must be okay since the state is doing it.
Post a Comment