Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 03:42:18 PM
I have posted what you actually said, and repeatedly.

You indicated that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution".

When I pointed out that this is nowhere what elections are about, that the application of the Constitution is not determined by elections, and that what you've presented is entirely the  position of the Socialist Democrats,  you ignored it and repeated your fucking astonishing ignorance.

What's even more amazing is such ignorant assholes call themselves Conservatives.

Why haven't you written any legislation to right the wrongs?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 04:49:02 PM
Why haven't you written any legislation to right the wrongs?

I was going to respond the first time you wrote this brillaint comment, but I decided to let up on you.  Evidently that was a mistake.

Nothing I indicated  anywhere even remotely involves that a citizen might go into D.C. and write legislation. 

I'm not sure why you think this is so important that you should bring it up once, much less a second time. It's a strawman argument.

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 04:57:27 PM
I was going to respond the first time you wrote this brillaint comment, but I decided to let up on you.  Evidently that was a mistake.

Nothing I indicated  anywhere even remotely involves that a citizen might go into D.C. and write legislation. 

I'm not sure why you think this is so important that you should bring up once, much less a second time. It's a strawman argument.

Why can't any citizen write legislation?

Quote from: The Fallen on August 13, 2013, 05:04:21 PM
If you want to propose a bill to Congress, you need to have the ear of your congressional representative or someone on the representative's staff. Only a member of Congress can propose a bill on the floor of Congress. After a bill is introduced, it has the possibility of becoming a law if it wins enough votes from members of Congress.

http://www.ehow.com/how_4841458_propose-bill-congress.html

Yes I know. That was my point.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 04:59:08 PM
Why can't any citizen write legislation?

Baaaaa............  they cannot write legislation and then expect Congress to vote on it.  But really, we should not have any non-elected people writing legislation and then forcing it under Congress' nose to vote on, unread, but that's what we had with Climate Change,  Health Care,  Immigration, and many other bills as well.

Beyond that, writing legislation, or "a bill" is not the means to compel adherence to the Constitution any more so than it is a legitimate means to license disregard for the Constitution.

I've an idea.  Instead of trying to make an implied argument by asking a series of questions, why don't you actually directly phrase the argument, comparison, or analogy, or whatever else you might be trying to do.   

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 05:08:19 PM
Baaaaa............  they cannot write legislation and then have the Congress expect them to vote on it.  But really, we should not have any non-elected people writing legislation and then forcing it under Congress' nose to vote on, unread, but that's what we had with Climate Change,  Health Care,  Immigration, and many other bills as well.

Beyond that, writing legislation, or "a bill" is not the means to compel adherence to the Constitution any more so than it is a legitimate means to license disregard for the Constitution.

I've an idea.  Instead of trying to make an implied argument by asking a series of questions, why don't you actually directly phrase the argument, comparison, or analogy, or whatever else you might be trying to do.

QuoteAll Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Game
Set
Match

Thanks for playing...

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 04:00:52 PM


I have had no case to prove. What I have said, reduced to its simplest terms, is that not standing results in the Constitution no longer being upheld.   That's just a fundamental truth of logic.

You don't walk shit. You walk the talk, but you got no substance in your argument. Every single one of your responses has involved you making strawman claims that were nowhere a part of my argument, all for you to dishonestly validate the disregard for the Constitution. 

Yet nowhere do you provide any plan how going from not applying the Constitution, to only asking for a bit more of it back, progressively, somehow serves to validate the Constitution, which you yourself originally indicated was the ideal goal!

The problem is that reality and human nature prohibit going  from a partial restoration beck to any full restoration.  The fact that you would have allowed a partial restoration itself validates whatever degree of application of the Constitution might exist, and dismisses the full application of the Constitution as the only form of legitimate government.

Yet the Constitution itself  powerfully indicates that whenever the government exceeds that Constitution's boundaries, then it is no longer pursuant to the Constitution, no longer the law of the land,  and no longer legitimate.

And you're breathing proof that idiots in the Republican party calling themselves Conservatives are every bit as much a threat to our freedoms as the Democrat Progressives.  You just want to get to our demise slower, with only subjective "less government" and "less taxes", and only give ignorant lip-service to the Constitution.

Those of us who actually know what is going on call such persons RINOS.

I've no doubt that you can't even definitively answer what you're actually conserving as a Conservative. 

You've already repeatedly failed to provide the specifics of your plan,

... repeatedly failed to state what should be asked to be restored first, and why that aspect might be more important than other aspects.

... And repeatedly failed to answer how long your plan needs to get to full restoration of the Constitution ..... 

What you DID indicate was that the complete restoration of the Constitution  would be unreasonable as it would deny women the vote, deny blacks the vote, and involve going back 200 years,  so it is a reasonable recognition that actually restoring the Constitution fully isn't really any goal of your plan at all.

Your 'plan' is nothing more than "Hoping for change".

Anyone have a flyswatter handy?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 05:14:18 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Game
Set
Match

Thanks for playing...

Naaw, that's more than a little squirrely

You make up something has nothing to do with my argument, and somehow you imagine that you scored a point? 

You're living in your own private Idaho, arencha?

Another day in town all day.  Another day of coming home and reading 2 hrs. of I would lock this but I know I would be wasting my time.      But that's just my way of thinking.

Quote from: walkstall on August 13, 2013, 08:28:23 PM
Another day in town all day.  Another day of coming home and reading 2 hrs. of I would lock this but I know I would be wasting my time.      But that's just my way of thinking.

I put an end to it. I'm done with this idiot. I think Solar is to. He can continue to argue with himself. The rest of us will move on...