New member, liberal

Dune said:
I have no idea. I an neither a supreme court jurist nor a constitutional lawyer, though I asume you are since you have apparently judged it to not be.
I wish I were so wise.

I have a problem with the proviso that all must purchase, though I do understand why. If it turns out to be unconstitutional, it shall be overturned, that is the beauty of checks and balances.

If your absolutely bogus claim to be attempting to conserve the constitution were even remotely true, you would have an answer to my earlier questions and remarks about the damage done to the document earlier. Instead you try to distract with childish questions about Obamacare, which is already working it's way through the court system and will be settled in due time.
Click to expand...

How ironic, you claiming I'm trying to distract the issue of constitutionality by talking about constitutionality. Yet you tried to distract by discussing how evil Cheny is, and the Patriot Act, a policy that The Obama has continued.

You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to discuss the Constitution. It's a relatively simple, straightforward document.

So where in the Constitution is ObamaCare authorized?
 
Dune said:
You are goning to have a long wait pal. I will give you a clue though. Google
Click to expand...
As I predicted. You have no problem ax'ing me to provide a link yet you refuse to do so yourself, even after I proved that it is your responsibility to do so.

Why do liberals hate personal responsibility?
 
Damn Yankee said:
How ironic, you claiming I'm trying to distract the issue of constitutionality by talking about constitutionality. Yet you tried to distract by discussing how evil Cheny is, and the Patriot Act, a policy that The Obama has continued.

You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to discuss the Constitution. It's a relatively simple, straightforward document.

So where in the Constitution is ObamaCare authorized?
Click to expand...

Like I said, the Supreme Court, and ONLY the Supreme Court can decide that, no matter how simple you are.
 
Damn Yankee said:
As I predicted. You have no problem ax'ing me to provide a link yet you refuse to do so yourself, even after I proved that it is your responsibility to do so.

Why do liberals hate personal responsibility?
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one who made the idiotic claim. Therefore, I am not going to provide hundreds or thousands or millions of links since you can't understand them anyway.
 
Dune said:
Like I said, the Supreme Court, and ONLY the Supreme Court can decide that, no matter how simple you are.
Click to expand...
Awesome- I'm scoring insults from you on nearly every post now. That's proof you are unable to debate logically.

Tell me though, since you admit to being unable to comprehend the Constitution yourself, has the Supreme Court always been right? :)
 
Dune said:
I wasn't the one who made the idiotic claim. Therefore, I am not going to provide hundreds or thousands or millions of links since you can't understand them anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually, you did here:

Dune said:
Are you seriously going to try to pin the collapse of the entire global economy on one faggot?
Click to expand...

All I'm ax'ing for is one link to prove your claim, liberal homophobe. :)
 
Damn Yankee said:
Awesome- I'm scoring insults from you on nearly every post now. That's proof you are unable to debate logically.

Tell me though, since you admit to being unable to comprehend the Constitution yourself, has the Supreme Court always been right? :)
Click to expand...

You can keep posting in my thread as long as you want, but don't expect me to apreciate it.

I never said I couldn't comprehend the constitution, but rather, it is not my place (nor yours) to judge.

I don't always agree with the Supremes, but it is their job, not mine, so my opinion means little.
 
Dune said:
You can keep posting in my thread as long as you want, but don't expect me to apreciate it.

I never said I couldn't comprehend the constitution, but rather, it is not my place (nor yours) to judge.

I don't always agree with the Supremes, but it is their job, not mine, so my opinion means little.
Click to expand...
It is all of our "place" to judge. The document was written for us, so that we could jealously guard our freedoms and rights. It directly limits the government to specific powers, and in order to ensure our rights are not lost it behooves us to understand and judge, even if you don't want to. It's not just "those gun lovers" rights that might be trampled, nor just yours.

With those rights often come costs. We take on greater responsibility, and by extension risk, for our own lives. To me that cost is well worth it, and it always will be.
 
Damn Yankee said:
Actually, you did here:



All I'm ax'ing for is one link to prove your claim, liberal homophobe. :)
Click to expand...

O.K., I've said it every way I know how, I will not do your homework for you.

Tell ya what, I'll post a few links you can discredit and then MAYBE you will see why I don't want to waste my time.

http://www.ft.com/indepth/global-financial-crisis

http://www.ft.com/indepth/global-financial-crisis

http://www.globalissues.org/article/768/global-financial-crisis

O.K.? Go to town.
 
Dune said:
You can keep posting in my thread as long as you want, but don't expect me to apreciate it.

I never said I couldn't comprehend the constitution, but rather, it is not my place (nor yours) to judge.

I don't always agree with the Supremes, but it is their job, not mine, so my opinion means little.
Click to expand...

First you say its not your job to interpret the Constitution; it's the job of the Supremes. Then you say that you don't always agree with their interpretations. You can't have it both ways.

All elected officials must pledge to uphold the Constitution, and those officials choose the Supremes. Therefore it is the job of each voter to understand the Constitution that their candidates, if elected, must swear to uphold.

It may be convenient for you to try and avoid debate by pleading ignorance to the Founding Documents, but this just shows the weakness of your intellect.
 
Damocles said:
It is all of our "place" to judge. The document was written for us, so that we could jealously guard our freedoms and rights. It directly limits the government to specific powers, and in order to ensure our rights are not lost it behooves us to understand and judge, even if you don't want to. It's not just "those gun lovers" rights that might be trampled, nor just yours.

With those rights often come costs. We take on greater responsibility, and by extension risk, for our own lives. To me that cost is well worth it, and it always will be.
Click to expand...

As well written as my statement was poorly written. Thankyou.
Here is what I meant; It is not my job to Judge. I am not a Judge, and no one cares what determination I make. I did give my opinion that I disagree with the must purchase mandate, however, only the Supremes can change it, and unfortunately, if I disagree with their descision, there is little I can do to change it. I am far from happy with them deciding Corporations and Unions are people, but I am not going to take up arms over it. Thank you for your input.
 
Damn Yankee said:
First you say its not your job to interpret the Constitution; it's the job of the Supremes. Then you say that you don't always agree with their interpretations. You can't have it both ways.

All elected officials must pledge to uphold the Constitution, and those officials choose the Supremes. Therefore it is the job of each voter to understand the Constitution that their candidates, if elected, must swear to uphold.

It may be convenient for you to try and avoid debate by pleading ignorance to the Founding Documents, but this just shows the weakness of your intellect.
Click to expand...

It is certainly easier to insult me when you purposely change the meaning of my words. I apreciate your time and participation, but now have to go do something meaningful. Talk at ya later.
 
Damn Yankee said:
They appear to be doing well. Didn't you say "global" crisis?
Click to expand...

First of all, China is not without problems. @nd, you asked for one link, I gave you three. 3rd, China is one of over two hundred countries on the globe.

Thats like saying there was no WWI or WWII because ONE country wasn't involved. Gotta go. While I am gone, try to refute ONE item in any of the 3 links I gave you, if you can. Good luck.
 
Dune said:
So, global financial crisis or no?
Click to expand...
Again, China appears to be doing well. And I've been looking at Germany for investment opportunities, since it appears to be an island of security in the Euro mess.

But I'm letting you divert the topic from my original point, which is that Bwarney Fwank, the most liberal congressman from the most liberal state, your state, caused the US housing collapse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top