Democrats exist to undermine and violate the Constitution

Ad nauseum fallacy. Repeating your already debunked logic does not make it less debunked.
Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy. You can't ignore your paradoxes. You MUST clear them. It's the only way.
I refer you to the last time this imaginary paradox claim was proven untrue. Try again.
You can't clear your paradoxes by ignoring them. You made them. Only you can clear them.
 
how can people, who have supposedly graduated high school, have such immense comprehension problems? or is that actually what the leftist indoctrination centers are teaching you now?


The Constitution was written to restrain the government, not restrain the people. Comprehend that.

It is what the high school and colleges (indoctrination centers) are teaching now. They have for quite some time.
You get it. You know what a constitution is and what it does.

While I support Arminius in many respects, he still doesn't get what a constitution is or what it does. He is still going off the crap they told him in school. It has put him in a couple of paradoxes which he refuses to clear. These weaken his argument, unfortunately, and the liberals take advantage of it.

These schools are run by liberals. They also teach:

The U.S. is a democracy (it isn't).
The Constitution is outdated (it isn't).
The Supreme Court has the power to override the Constitution (it doesn't).
Oil comes from dinosaurs (it doesn't).
Tomatoes are vegetables (they aren't).
Science uses supporting evidence (it doesn't).
Science uses a voting bloc called 'peer review' (it doesn't).
A magick gas somehow has the ability to warm the Earth (no such thing).
We can measure the temperature of the Earth (we can't).
That masks somehow can filter out a virus (they can't).
...and on...and on...and on.

In other words, the Democrat narrative.
 
SIZE=3]
1) Empty posturing and ad hominem fallacies will get you nowhere. :nono:
Inversion fallacies.
SIZE=3]
2) Your ignorance of basic civics is not an issue with anyone else's education. :bs:
This is not about 'civics'. It's about the Constitution. Straw man fallacy.
SIZE=3]
3) Leftists are on YOUR side here, genius.
No. They completely deny the Constitution. They do not recognize the Constitution of the United States no any State constitution.
SIZE=3]
THEY are the ones who try to argue your asinine logic
No. They argue in favor of implementing fascism and communism, using an oligarchy to do it.
SIZE=3]
in court
No one is talking about any court but you. Straw man fallacy.
SIZE=3]
and get every enemy we capture on the battlefield an ACLU attorney,
They are enemy combatants. They do not get attorneys.
SIZE=3]
as if they should be processed as U.S. citizens who've committed a mere crime, rather than as foreign terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield.
They are enemy combatants. They do not get attorneys.
SIZE=3]
Way to think it through. Your name is hilariously ironic.
Insult fallacy.
SIZE=3]
No one is arguing otherwise. Once again, the only person here failing to comprehend what they are reading is YOU. Show me where I said the Constitution exists to restrain the American people.
Post #137. You also argued the opposite...hence your paradox which you STILL have not cleared.
SIZE=3]
I'm pretty sure what you're failing to comprehend THIS TIME is that correctly identifying the United States' jurisdiction as being over the American states and citizens in no way implies that the Constitution is a restraint on the American people.
Paradox A. You can't argue both sides of a paradox, dude. It's irrational.
SIZE=3]
Correctly comprehending jurisdiction is not asserting rulership.
Then...what is it? I will call this paradox C.
SIZE=3]
Do I need to break out the crayons or do you comprehend it yet?
No need to give away your crayons.

You need to learn what a constitution is and what it does.

A constitution is a contract. It defines and declares a government. It gives that government specific powers and authorities. It does not rule over the owners, giving or protecting rights. It applies ONLY to the government it creates.
 
SIZE=3]

That's not arguing that the Constitution RESTRAINS states and citizens. It's saying the restraints placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution only PERTAIN TO states and citizens. Which is 100% accurate.

Into the Night said:
I usually don't bother to look up what people have said since they deny they said it anyway.
QED. And another example of paradox A.

Like the 2nd Amendment keeps the Federal Government from violating gun rights, but only for AMERICAN STATES and AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Paradox B.
SIZE=3]
I am a constitutionalist through and through.
You may think you are, but you are not. You still do not know what a constitution is.
SIZE=3]
I would never mistake the Constitution as being a restraint against the American people.
Paradox A.
SIZE=3]
You're literally misinterpreting what is being said.
No. YOU are in multiple paradoxes. YOU must clear your own paradoxes. Only YOU can clear them. You must utterly forsake one conflicting argument and claim the other. It's the only way out, dude.
 
SIZE=3]
So the 2nd Amendment makes it illegal for Canada to violate a Canadian's gun rights?
Pivot fallacy. He is talking about the United States, not Canada. This is the core of your paradox B.
SIZE=3]
Sorry, but that's just fucking idiotic on its face, and I feel zero need to debate something this unbelievably retarded any further.
You cannot debate using paradoxes. This is not a debate anyway. It's a conversation. No one is restricting your typing time. No one is organizing any argument or counterargument.

You MUST clear your paradoxes.
SIZE=3]
It turns out you aren't even smarter than most of the leftists on here. Piss off. [/SIZE]
Insult fallacy...a habit of leftists. You are lowering yourself to their level of conversation. Don't do this. You are better than this.
 
Insult fallacy...a habit of leftists. You are lowering yourself to their level of conversation. Don't do this. You are better than this.

:rofl2:

tenor.gif
 

AProudLefty

Black Kitty Ain't Happy
This message is hidden because AProudLefty is on your ignore list.
Today, 12:09 PM

AProudLefty

Black Kitty Ain't Happy
This message is hidden because AProudLefty is on your ignore list.
Today, 12:18 PM

AProudLefty

Black Kitty Ain't Happy
This message is hidden because AProudLefty is on your ignore list.


Butthurt stalker is busy today. :laugh:

:fap:
 
Yet all your arguments point to this belief.
Do you think the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Constitution?

The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. And yes they have made illegal or stupid decisions in the past. I agree.

Do you think that some guns should be made illegal?

No. The 2nd makes that clear.

Do you think owning a nuclear bomb should illegal?

That's something different. If my neighbor owns a nuclear bomb in his basement, I'd want to know.
 
The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution.
Then you deny the Constitution. SCOTUS has NO power over the Constitution. It MUST operate UNDER the Constitution. See Article III.
No. The 2nd makes that clear.
The word 'gun' does not appear in the 2nd amendment. The right to bear 'arms' means the right to ANY weapon.
That's something different. If my neighbor owns a nuclear bomb in his basement, I'd want to know.
No. No different at all. A nuclear bomb is an 'arm'...in other words, a weapon.

Again, you deny the Constitution of the United States.
The U.S. government has NO authority to infringe on ANY weapon.
Neither does any State. They agreed to this when they joined the Union.

It is why you will find similar wording in their own constitutions.
 
Then you deny the Constitution. SCOTUS has NO power over the Constitution. It MUST operate UNDER the Constitution. See Article III.

The word 'gun' does not appear in the 2nd amendment. The right to bear 'arms' means the right to ANY weapon.

No. No different at all. A nuclear bomb is an 'arm'...in other words, a weapon.

Again, you deny the Constitution of the United States.
The U.S. government has NO authority to infringe on ANY weapon.
Neither does any State. They agreed to this when they joined the Union.

It is why you will find similar wording in their own constitutions.

Do the US citizens have the right to know if their safety is compromised when someone owns a nuclear device in private?
 
The SCOTUS interprets the Constitution. And yes they have made illegal or stupid decisions in the past. I agree.

The Constitution does not give the government any power to define the limits of their own power.....therefore SCOTUS cannot interpret the Constitution. That document belongs to us, we the people
 
Back
Top