Do you know your A..B..C..s ?

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Mantra 23b, 7.

Mantra 23b, 7 = I am just regurgitating crap.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Buzzword fallacy (buzzword). Congratulations. You are the first person I've come across that uses 'buzzword' as a buzzword. This is where your word games has brought you.

Buzzword fallacy.

A Holy Link is someone using a link as a 'proof', never questioning the text the link points to, just using the link itself as a 'proof'.

A court is not the Constitution. No court has any jurisdiction over the Constitution. No court has authority to interpret, change, or delete the Constitution. You have also attempted to use a court to replace the Constitution.

Holy Link.
Into the Night cites the Constitution as proof but never questions the text of the Constitution. The Constitution clearly states "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution" and the Constitution also states "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;"
Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, judicial power extends to all cases where there is a question about the Constitution. Clearly the court has the power to interpret the Constitution just as they can interpret every other law.

Statistics is not random numbers (though it makes use of them).
Randu is a type of random number.

Are temperature readings random numbers in your view? The problem is that you use RandU as an argument for anything that is not random that you disagree with, temperature readings, poll responses, calculations for Stephen Boltzman for different types of materials.

Mantras 8b, 23b.

Mantras 8b, 23b. = I am just regurgitating crap.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Blatant lie.

Blatant lie.

Blatent lie = I am just regurgitating crap.

Clearly you have not provided the answer since no one has seen it and you can't point to the specific post where you did answer the question. RQAA is you trolling. It will always be you trolling since trolling is the only thing you are capable of doing. You clearly can't make any valid arguments supported with facts.

 

[IBDaMann]

Clearly breaking a window is perpetrating violence.

Nope. Damaging property is not violence. I acknowledge that he damaged property and should have to fix what he damaged.

Find me a video of someone perpetrating violence who was arrested.

 

[IBDaMann]

Into the Night cites the Constitution as proof

Nope. Into the Night knows what a proof is. You would be wise to learn as well.

Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, ...

... under the Constitution, which is under the States and the People, who retain power over the Constitution.

judicial power extends to all cases where there is a question about the Constitution.

Nope. You misread. Judicial power extends to all cases under the Constitution, to all matters of law under the Constitution. All matters about the Constitution go to the States. Only the States have the power to interpret the Constitution, to address matter about the Constitution or to modify the Constitution.

Clearly the court has the power to interpret the Constitution just as they can interpret every other law.

Any rational adult can see that this is not true. The Constitution is quite clear; any power not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States, or to We the People. The power to interpret is not granted to the Federal government. In fact, the word interpret does not even appear in the Constitution, therefore it is not granted to any part of the government, and is thus reserved for the States or the People.

Clearly.

Are temperature readings random numbers in your view? The problem is that you use RandU as an argument for anything that is not random that you disagree with, temperature readings, poll responses, calculations for Stephen Boltzman for different types of materials.

Mantras 8b, 23b. = I am just regurgitating crap.

You seem to be raving. Did you have a coherent point for which you'd like some help expressing?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. Damaging property is not violence. I acknowledge that he damaged property and should have to fix what he damaged.

Find me a video of someone perpetrating violence who was arrested.

And there it is. Denying that violence is violence. By your argument, the burning down of the police station in Minneapolis wasn't violence.

Meanwhile if we check the US legal code for the definition of violence

18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined

www.law.cornell.edu

18 U.S. Code § 16 - Crime of violence defined


The term “crime of violence” means—
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.


I clearly presented you with a video of someone perpetrating violence as defined by the law. You refuse to accept it.

 

[IBDaMann]

Into the Night's webpage is full of buzzwords. But I guess we can accuse you of violating #2 on his list by your claim that "none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned."

You are guilty of placing "destruction of furniture" under the category of "violence" ... but then again, reaching is all you have.

Let's find some of the buzzwords on that list.
"Holy Link" - buzzword that allows Into the Night to simply deny any evidence that someone links to.

No link is evidence, except that there is at least one other person who is equally confused and mistaken. But let's take this moment to ponder in amazed wonder your admission that you are one of those people who thinks that everything on the internet is true. We rational adults make fun of these people.

You should be embarrassed.

"use of court to replace the Constitution." - buzzword phrase that allows Into the Night to deny court rulings because he doesn't want to accept them.

You need to learn to read English. This fallacy quite clearly targets those who base their arguments about law on discarding the Constitution in deference to bad circuit court rulings that will be overturned.

No court case or court proceeding supercedes the Constitution. To argue otherwise is a fallacy.

"RandU" - buzzword that Into the Night uses to deny any statistics he disagrees with.

Once again you err. In this case you are guilty of hiding behind your claim of a buzzword just to EVADE the completely valid concept.

If I were to present to you a bunch of numbers to which I refer as my "data" supporting my argument, and you later discover that I made up every single one of those numbers, how would you respond? Would you congratulate me on my solidly constructed argument and concede defeat? ... or would you simply point out the fallacy of my numbers being arbitrarily selected, as Into the Night expresses as "RandU"? You should address the topic/idea and not the manner in which it is expressed.

Missing from his list is the fallacy fallacy, RQAA, and ipse dixit

@Into the Night, it appears that your list is deficient in the above and needs a few more entries/descriptions. Poor Richard Saunders was kind enough to extend to you the courtesy of reviewing your Official Mantra List and identify a few shortcomings. You should probably thank him for his candor.

. Into the Night is notorious for not providing any support for his positions. His list fails to include a failure to provide evidence when asked.

He is only "notorious" among those who repeatedly commit the fallacies mentioned and who, in their frustration, blame him for pointing out the logical flaws that nonetheless always worked so well for them in the past on stupid people. Into the Night only responds with "RQAA" after he has carefully explained the same concept twice and is being asked the exact same question a third time, or fourth, etc... In a court of law, you only get to ask once and thereafter you get an immediate "Asked and Answered! ... Sustained!" ... but Into the Night is much nicer and friendlier than, say, I am and he always waits until someone has asked multiple times before reaching for the "RQAA."

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nope. Into the Night knows what a proof is. You would be wise to learn as well.

A lovely example of the equivocation fallacy. You attempt to use a different definition of the word from the one that is being used in the argument.

... under the Constitution, which is under the States and the People, who retain power over the Constitution.


Nope. You misread. Judicial power extends to all cases under the Constitution, to all matters of law under the Constitution. All matters about the Constitution go to the States. Only the States have the power to interpret the Constitution, to address matter about the Constitution or to modify the Constitution.

It is you that misreads the Constitution. Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land or it is not. If you argue that it isn't then you need to show where the part of the Constitution I quoted is refuted or negated. You have not done so. There are 3 things listed that are the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, the laws created under the Constitution and treaties entered into. All 3 are considered the supreme law. Perhaps you are unclear how punctuation works in the English language. "Under the authority of the United States refers to the treaties. It is separated from the Constitution and the laws by a semicolon which would make it only apply to the treaty clause of the sentence. There is no authority of the United States to pass laws. The process laid out in the Constitution doesn't grant the United States authority to pass laws. Only Congress has the authority to pass laws so clearly the phrase "under the authority of the United States" can not refer to laws or the Constitution.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says states are the only ones with the power to interpret the Constitution. The amendment process gives states the power to amend the Constitution but even there the power is limited because only some of the states have to ratify any amendment. So a state can't interpret the Constitution on its own nor can they refuse to accept part of the Constitution they didn't ratify if 3/4 of the states do ratify it.

Any rational adult can see that this is not true. The Constitution is quite clear; any power not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States, or to We the People. The power to interpret is not granted to the Federal government. In fact, the word interpret does not even appear in the Constitution, therefore it is not granted to any part of the government, and is thus reserved for the States or the People.

Clearly.


You seem to be raving. Did you have a coherent point for which you'd like some help expressing?

You ignore the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and courts are given the power to decide all cases in the law. Clearly the courts are given the power to interpret the law or they would not be able to decide any question about an interpretation of the law. Since courts can interpret the law and the Constitution is merely a supreme law then the courts can interpret the Constitution.

"Any rational adult" would be a violation under Into the Night's Mantras. Congratulations on the violation. Would you like to try to make your argument again without using so many logical fallacies?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You are guilty of placing "destruction of furniture" under the category of "violence" ... but then again, reaching is all you have.

You are guilty of thinking a window is furniture. I don't think we need to even look at the rest of your argument since it starts with nonsense.

Violence under the law includes damage to property which would include buildings and their windows and would also include furniture.


At this point you have been provided the evidence you asked for and rather than accepting the evidence, admitting you were wrong, you are striving to change the meanings of words so you can still be correct in your own mind.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nonsequitur. The only violence at the otherwise peaceful Jan 6th protest was at the hands of DNC infiltrators who perpetrated violence on cue. This is easily verified by noting that none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned, and there is absolutely no video of any violence from those who were arrested and imprisoned.


Nothing is true simply on your word.


The burden rests with you. Provide the video that captures the violence of someone who was arrested and imprisoned.

So let's start to look at others that actually attacked the police on video since you insist on being ignorant of the facts.

Brockhoff pled guilty and got 3 years in prison and 3 years supervised release for spraying police with a fire extinguisher among other crimes.

Kentucky Man Sentenced on Felony Charge for Actions During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

www.justice.gov

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nonsequitur. The only violence at the otherwise peaceful Jan 6th protest was at the hands of DNC infiltrators who perpetrated violence on cue. This is easily verified by noting that none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned, and there is absolutely no video of any violence from those who were arrested and imprisoned.


Nothing is true simply on your word.


The burden rests with you. Provide the video that captures the violence of someone who was arrested and imprisoned.

Another video of an attack on police that resulted in arrest, arraignment, conviction and jail time.

Ronald McAbee sentenced to 70 months for assaulting police officers.

Tennessee Man Sentenced to Prison on Multiple Felony Charges Related to Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

A Tennessee man was sentenced to prison today on six felony charges related to his conduct during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

www.justice.gov

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nonsequitur. The only violence at the otherwise peaceful Jan 6th protest was at the hands of DNC infiltrators who perpetrated violence on cue. This is easily verified by noting that none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned, and there is absolutely no video of any violence from those who were arrested and imprisoned.


Nothing is true simply on your word.


The burden rests with you. Provide the video that captures the violence of someone who was arrested and imprisoned.

Another video of a protestor attacking police

Reed Christensen got 40 months in prison

Oregon Man Sentenced to Prison on Felony and Misdemeanor Charges Related to Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

WASHINGTON – An Oregon man was sentenced to prison today after he was previously convicted of eight charges as a result of his conduct during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach. His actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the...

www.justice.gov

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nonsequitur. The only violence at the otherwise peaceful Jan 6th protest was at the hands of DNC infiltrators who perpetrated violence on cue. This is easily verified by noting that none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned, and there is absolutely no video of any violence from those who were arrested and imprisoned.


Nothing is true simply on your word.


The burden rests with you. Provide the video that captures the violence of someone who was arrested and imprisoned.

And yet another video that IBDaMann claimed doesn't exist.... It seems there are well over 100 of these.

Justin Jersey got 51 months in prison for attacking police.

Michigan Man Sentenced For Assaulting Officers During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

www.justice.gov

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nonsequitur. The only violence at the otherwise peaceful Jan 6th protest was at the hands of DNC infiltrators who perpetrated violence on cue. This is easily verified by noting that none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned, and there is absolutely no video of any violence from those who were arrested and imprisoned.


Nothing is true simply on your word.


The burden rests with you. Provide the video that captures the violence of someone who was arrested and imprisoned.

Another video of someone attacking the police on Jan 6th

Josiah Kenyon sentenced for 72 months.

Nevada Man Sentenced for Assaulting Officers During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

www.justice.gov

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Nonsequitur. The only violence at the otherwise peaceful Jan 6th protest was at the hands of DNC infiltrators who perpetrated violence on cue. This is easily verified by noting that none of the people perpetrating violence on any video were ever arrested and arraigned, and there is absolutely no video of any violence from those who were arrested and imprisoned.


Nothing is true simply on your word.


The burden rests with you. Provide the video that captures the violence of someone who was arrested and imprisoned.

ANd yet another video.. .How many of these are there? How did IBDaMann not see any of them? Willful ignorance? Or just outright lying?

Jonathon Munafo sentenced to 33 months in prison

New York Man Sentenced for Assaulting Law Enforcement During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

A New York man was sentenced today on two felony charges related to his actions during the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. His actions and the actions of others disrupted a joint session of the U.S. Congress convened to ascertain and count the electoral votes related to the 2020...

www.justice.gov

 

[IBDaMann]

A lovely example of the equivocation fallacy. You attempt to use a different definition of the word from the one that is being used in the argument.

You quite clearly explain why you are egregiously in error. Let's quote you ...

"Under the authority of the United States "

... does not refer to any treaties or laws. It refers to authority. The Constitution gets its authority from the States. The States are sovereign.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says states are the only ones with the power to interpret the Constitution.

Yes, I have already explained this to you. The Constitution clearly states that powers not expressly granted to the Federal government are reserved for the States, and to the People. The power to interpret is not granted to anyone, therefore it is reserved to the States.

The amendment process gives states the power to amend the Constitution

Correct!

So a state can't interpret the Constitution on its own nor can they refuse to accept part of the Constitution they didn't ratify if 3/4 of the states do ratify it.

That's not a limitation on the States as a union.

You ignore the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land

Nope. I acknowledge that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is not, however, as you would have us believe, the supreme authority, which is the sovereign States. This is why the name of the country is the United States.

... and courts are given the power to decide all cases in the law.

Nope. They are given the authority to try cases, but the rule of law shall decide the cases.

Clearly the courts are given the power to interpret the law

I can tell when you are getting desperate because you begin hiding behind the word "clearly" without adding anything new.

You have only one avenue to support your assertion, i.e. show in the Constitution where any court is granted the power to interpret anything. I await your response with great interest. It will prove an amazing trick since the word "interpet" does not appear in the Constitution at all.

... or they would not be able to decide any question about an interpretation of the law.

Correct. They don't interpret any laws. They try cases. This is why judges require both sides to support their cases with all relevant case law, because that law, existing law and case law, the courts apply the law and that decides the case. There is no interpreting, because that imputes the power to legislate, which is prohibited.

 

[IBDaMann]

Another video of someone attacking the police on Jan 6th

You haven't shown any videos of violence by anyone who was arrested.

Watch your video again. He didn't strike anyone. He was guilty of holding a stick. He was guilty of throwing a pylon (not in the video).

You are going to have to do better than that. Show some violence.

 

[IBDaMann]

So let's start to look at others that actually attacked the police on video since you insist on being ignorant of the facts.

The guy sprayed a fire extinguisher ... from a distance.

You have yet to show any violence.

 

[IBDaMann]

You are guilty of thinking a window is furniture.

Quibbling. OK, I grant you that a window isn't furniture. He broke some glass. That still isn't violence.

I don't think we need to even look at the rest of your argument since it starts with nonsense.

Quite the graceful escape.

Violence under the law includes damage to property which would include buildings and their windows and would also include furniture.

Nope. I've broken glass before. There was no violence involved. I have damaged furniture. There was no violence involved.

At this point you have been provided the evidence you asked for

Nope. I need a video of violence perpetrated by someone who was arrested and imprisoned for violence, not video of nonviolence that you are calling violence because you have nothing and are desperate.

I need to see violence, not the holding of a stick, not the harmless throwing of something, not the harmless spraying of a fire extinguisher from a distance, etc..

 

[IBDaMann]

Another video of an attack on police that resulted in arrest, arraignment, conviction and jail time.

Nope. Again, there was no violence. The man pointed his finger at the cops. For that, he was imprisoned for 70 months.