Not knowing the "full force of the Constitution" which would have left "Nothing over for me"

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 02:37:20 PM
I had to answer your post before Boo's because in answering Boo's I intend to throw the full force of the Constitution at him, and there'd be noting leftover for you.

I Feel cheated. Trip sounded so tough. So Confident. So sure of himself. I thought he was awesome. The James Dean of the CPF. Unfortunately he is more like  Neville Chamberlain....

The full force of the constitution?  The constitution knows the force, or has a force?  Much too late to contemplate.  Night, Boo.

And to y'all. It was all Solar's fault. Everybody remember that later at the grand jury.

Boo is evidently unable to contain himself, even after my having previously answered him once,  he couldn't wait for me to answer a second time, and had to actually start another thread, imagining this is a suitable new topic.

Here is my second response to him.

Article V, which details the amendment process,  is the only way to legitimately alter the Constitution, and thus alter the limits on government... with "the vote" in no way playing a part in this. 

Boo really should have just slunk off and licked his wounds, but evidently he's not only immune to learning, but also up for the Darwin Award.


(And, yes, the Constitution does have a "force" about it, the force of law, the law of the land. Meanwhile voting has no real 'force' about it at all, much less being any sort of positive "right". )

Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 11:58:10 PM
Boo is evidently unable to contain himself, even after my having previously answered him once,  he couldn't wait for me to answer a second time, and had to actually start another thread, imagining this is a suitable new topic.

Here is my second response to him.

Article V, which details the amendment process,  is the only way to legitimately alter the Constitution, and thus alter the limits on government... with "the vote" in no way playing a part in this. 

Boo really should have just slunk off and licked his wounds, but evidently he's not only immune to learning, but also up for the Darwin Award.


(And, yes, the Constitution does have a "force" about it, the force of law, the law of the land. Meanwhile voting has no real 'force' about it at all, much less being any sort of positive "right". )

I hear a beaten little boy whimpering because nobody believes he didn't run away.

Go ahead, sonny. Cut and paste the Brittanica to prove me wrong.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
Not knowing the "full force of the Constitution" which would have left "Nothing over for me"

I Feel cheated. Trip sounded so tough. So Confident. So sure of himself. I thought he was awesome. The James Dean of the CPF. Unfortunately he is more like  Neville Chamberlain....

Yeah, Johnny Combat sure do love himself a mess of dead other people, taking back a country he's too young to understand.

Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 08:13:22 AM
I hear a beaten little boy whimpering because nobody believes he didn't run away.

Go ahead, sonny. Cut and paste the Brittanica to prove me wrong.

I'd already answered him on page 6 of the thread, and then the comment he quoted was me responding  to Mountainshield, where I gave him the answer to his question another time. so it really was an third time he got his answer.

Him being resistant to knowledge isn't me running.

But "go ahead", if you want to try and argue the idiotic idea that an election is actually the "attempt to enforce the Constitution".  You certainly can have your ass  handed to you too.

Or maybe you'd like to try  your hand at another question.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution itself, there was no sort of popular election, yet it still has the description,  "We, the people" and expresses our  government as being "of the people, by the people, and for the people".

How do you imagine it might be that they ignored the populist vote  if populist elections are somehow sacred?

Or, if you like,  you can keep an playing girlie personality games, and trying desperately to be a crutch for Boo, when nothing can hold up his position.  Your choice

Neville Chamberlain....or Neville Longbottom  ?

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 08:32:52 AM
bullshit

You know-nothing pimplepopping punk, you sashshay in here declaring YOU ALONE KNOW THE TRUTH. You malign others because to YOU they sound like communists. You lash out at anyone disagreeing with you.

The only drooler in this exchange is you, sonny.

Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 09:05:02 AM
You know-nothing pimplepopping punk, you sashshay in here declaring YOU ALONE KNOW THE TRUTH. You malign others because to YOU they sound like communists. You lash out at anyone disagreeing with you.

The only drooler in this exchange is you, sonny.

Naw, I never claimed I alone knew the truth.  I claimed that the founders knew the truth of how to maintain freedom, and that is what I presented.  What has happened since is some have shown they don't know the truth of those founders, which I've easily backed up with those founder's own words.

In the meantime, those arguing with me have used the words and arguments of the Progressive Socialist left -- which should highlight a problem to those  viewing the discussions objectively.   

And some rant about there being "RINOs"...

If you want to challenge me specifically about anything I've said regarding the Constitution, please do so.  So far I don't recall you having done so.

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 02:36:21 PM
Naw, I never claimed I alone knew the truth.  I claimed that the founders knew the truth of how to maintain freedom, and that is what I presented.  What has happened since is some have shown they don't know the truth of those founders, which I've easily backed up with those founder's own words.

In the meantime, those arguing with me have used the words and arguments of the Progressive Socialist left -- which should highlight a problem to those  viewing the discussions objectively.   

And some rant about there being "RINOs"...

And what words and arguments would those be?

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 02:39:39 PM
And what words and arguments would those be?

"Change"
"You want it so Blacks cant vote!"
"You want it so Women can't vote!"
"You want to take us back 200 years!"
"You want no government at all!" 
applying the constitution is extremist.
elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution".
elections determine what our government can do.
 

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 02:53:04 PM
"Change"
"You want it so Blacks cant vote!"
"You want it so Women can't vote!"
"You want to take us back 200 years!"
"You want no government at all!" 
applying the constitution is extremist.
elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution".
elections determine what our government can do.

Ah you mean the truth....


Got it...

Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 02:57:10 PM
Ah you mean the truth....


Got it...

That may be the "Truthiness that the Democrats present to the public about Conservatives, but it's not the truth of the Conservatives, nor me.

Do you actually believe that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution", and when we lose elections, then it means that the Constitution can be disregarded?

You do grasp that what is being done now by the federal government is unconstitutional, illegitimate, and in no way made otherwise by any populist vote, right?

Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 03:01:27 PM
That may be the "Truthiness that the Democrats present to the public about Conservatives, but it's not the truth of the Conservatives, nor me.

Do you actually believe that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution", and when we lose elections, then it means that the Constitution can be disregarded?

You do grasp that what is being done now by the federal government is unconstitutional, illegitimate, and in no way made otherwise by any populist vote, right?

Who upholds the Constitution?