Democrats exist to undermine and violate the Constitution

[Into the Night]

do you think you, as a citizen, have the right to know if I own a pokeball?

Ooooh. Now yer gettin' dangerous! Do you know what damage a pokeman can do???

 

[Into the Night]

you simply cannot be taken seriously when you do nothing but spout paradoxical bullshit. fix it.

He so far has chosen to try to deny his way out of his paradoxes. Obviously, that won't work. The only way to clear a paradox is to choose one argument and utterly discard the other.

That takes a bigger bit of courage than he apparently has.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Democrats oppose every right that can be found specifically spelled out in the Constitution (free speech, free religious exercise, freedom of assembly, gun rights, due process, cruel and unusual punishment, state sovereignty), while treating everything that cannot be found mentioned or even implied anywhere in it as a legitimate right or federal power (abortion, homosexual marriage, racist preferential treatment for minorities at everyone else's expense, etc.) like it were some kind of sacred founding pillar of Western Civilization. Their entire identity seems to revolve around war on the Constitution. What other conclusion does a reasonable person reach with literally all the evidence pointing in this direction?

You don't know diddly dick about poodilly squat- MUCH LESS ABOUT DEMOCRATS!

BUT NOW THAT YOU MENTIONED IT, YOU MUST BE Talking about REPUBLICANS!

YOU DESCRIBED THEM PERFECTLY!

GET A MIRROR YOU HYPOCRITICAL LYING BASTARD!

 

[Into the Night]

[SIZE=3[/QUOTE]
Your shouting is annoying. Use a normal font.

1) Says the guy directly contradicting THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.

He has not contradicted anything in any constitution. Void authority fallacy. Quote this so-called text.

Let's see, how can the Constitution pertain the same to citizens as it does non-citizens while it specifically, by name, in clear, plain English, bans non-citizens from certain privileges and protections?

Privileges do not come from a constitution. Rights do not come from a constitution. Constitutions do not apply to people at all. They apply to governments.

2) No one can produce a shred of evidence to date showing ANY of the Founders in ANY of their debates at the constitutional convention, the Federalist Papers, their letters, ANYTHING...indicating that what is in the Constitution was intended to apply to foreigners.

You don't get to quote the dead. They are dead. You don't speak for the dead.

You condescending self-appointed "experts" literally just decided that based on nothing,

Inversion fallacy. Paradox A.

which makes you no better than the left on making up whatever you feel like about the Constitution.

Inversion fallacy. Paradox A.

3) We CAN produce TONS of evidence showing that the crafting of the Constitution revolved entirely around keeping this new Federal Government we were creating from trampling the God-given rights of the states and citizens, with literally zero mention, or even implication, of protecting foreigners.

Do you have multiple personality disorder? Who is this 'we'? You don't get to speak for the dead. Constitutions apply to governments, not people.

4) There are obvious, gigantic logistical issues

Yes there are. They are yours. YOU made the paradoxes. Only YOU can clear them.

with applying the Constitution to foreigners,

Constitutions are not applied to foreigners or citizens. They do not apply to people.

which we have already identified,

There's your multiple personality disorder showing again. Who is this 'we'?

which is why SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that you're wrong,

SCOTUS does not have any authority to interpret or change any constitution. See Article III.

and that the Founders clearly never intended or authorized what you are claiming.

You don't get to speak for the dead.

5) If you rob a gas station, that violates no federal law, only state/local law.

So?

There's nothing wrong with that.

So?

It's not a "paradox."

Contextomy fallacy. You currently have three paradoxes:

A1) The Constitution does not apply to the people.
A2) The Constitution does apply to the people.

B1) The Constitution applies to Americans.
B2) The Constitution applies to US citizens only.

C1) Jurisdiction is not
C2) Rulership.

You MUST clear your paradoxes. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.

It's just the difference between one jurisdiction and another.

Paradox C.

I've tried multiple times to stop this fucking retarded misunderstanding of yours

Inversion fallacy. Paradox A.

from taking over the thread,

This is the topic of the thread.

but you insist on continuing to pick this fight while providing zero evidence,

The Constitution is the only authoritative reference of the Constitution. It is self-evident.

offering zero refutation of the evidence

I am not refuting the Constitution or any constitution. You are.

proving that you are wrong,

Attempted proof by negative. Argument of ignorance fallacy.

and acting like a condescending douche bag

Insult fallacy.

to the people proving you wrong at every turn.

You are not 'the people'. You are only you. You seem to have a problem with a multiple personality disorder. You don't get to speak for other people. You only get to speak for yourself.

So from here on out, I am going to refer you back to this post to remind you of all the ways your provably idiotic misinterpretation has already been dismantled and exposed as garbage logic

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Paradox A.

with no actual research behind it.

The Constitution is not 'research'. It is a document. The Constitution is the only authoritative reference of the Constitution. Constitutions apply to governments, not people.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Is that so?

Without a doubt.

 

[Into the Night]

SIZE=3]

Your shouting is annoying. Use a normal font. Shouting does not make your argument any different.

I refer you back to where this idiotic "different jurisdictions having different rules must be a paradox" fallacy was already debunked.

You can't 'debunk' a paradox. You MUST clear your paradoxes.

As has already been repeatedly demonstrated, we agree on this (try to comprehend it this time).

You don't get to speak for anyone else. You only get to speak for you.

The Constitution is about what the Federal Government can and cannot do...and it has a jurisdiction...and that jurisdiction does not just magically override that of other countries. It only applies to U.S. jurisdiction, FUCKING OBVIOUSLY.

Paradox A.

So go back to the 10th or 11th time I explained all this out with proof

A paradox is not a proof. You are being irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

(notice how you provided zero proof while I repeatedly backed my claims up with specifics?),

Attempted force of proof in open system fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Circular argument fallacy. A paradox is not a 'specific'.

right here, and keep reading it until you grasp it.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Paradox A.

Continuing to try to take everyone in this circle will just get you referred back to the post that already proved this bullshit wrong.

A paradox is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

 

[Into the Night]

the leaps and bound you must have to make in your own brain pan to help you make such moronic claims is incredible

It's getting worse, too. He is arguing like a Democrat.

 

[Into the Night]

SIZE=3]

Stop shouting.

The debunked misinformation

You cannot 'debunk' a paradox. You must CLEAR your paradox. There is only one way to do it.

you are trying to prop up

It is YOU trying to argue both sides of paradoxes. You MUST clear them. You are being irrational.

with empty insults

It is YOU throwing insults. Inversion fallacy.

has already been dismantled in five separate ways

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Argument from randU fallacy. Paradox A.

right here[/B].

Paradox A. Argument by repetition fallacy.

Try actually comprehending what you read.

He does. He sees the same paradoxes I do. You can't argue both sides of a paradox. It is irrational.

 

[AProudLefty]

Why? Properties adjacent to army munitions depos are not worthless.

Because of the radioactivity and the fear factor.

 

[AProudLefty]

do you think you, as a citizen, have the right to know if I own a pokeball?

Can it produce a mushroom cloud? Or a real radioactive fire breathing dragon?

 

[Into the Night]

Because of the radioactivity and the fear factor.

Your hoplophobia is not my problem. It's yours.
There is no radioactivity if the weapon is stored properly. Again, that's the owner's responsibility, and he is liable for improper storage or use of any weapon. It is no different for any weapon.

 

[AProudLefty]

Your hoplophobia is not my problem. It's yours.
There is no radioactivity if the weapon is stored properly. Again, that's the owner's responsibility, and he is liable for improper storage or use of any weapon.

LOL. My hoplophobia? I am not afraid of weapons.

 

[Into the Night]

Can it produce a mushroom cloud? Or a real radioactive fire breathing dragon?

I can produce a mushroom cloud with nothing more than gasoline. Great fun.
There are no dragons in a nuclear bomb...fire breathing or otherwise.

Define 'real'.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. My hoplophobia? I am not afraid of weapons.

You are. You just said so. What's it gonna be, dude? You can't argue both side of a paradox. It's irrational.

 

[AProudLefty]

You are. You just said so. What's it gonna be, dude? You can't argue both side of a paradox. It's irrational.

I never said I was afraid of weapons. Quote me saying that.

 

[AProudLefty]

I can produce a mushroom cloud with nothing more than gasoline. Great fun.
There are no dragons in a nuclear bomb...fire breathing or otherwise.

Define 'real'.

Real as in real.

 

[Into the Night]

I never said I was afraid of weapons. Quote me saying that.

Denying your own argument again? Okay. I'll assume you have no problem with neighbors owning nukes.

 

[Into the Night]

Real as in real.

Circular definition. You can't define a word with itself. Try again. Define 'real'.

 

[AProudLefty]

Circular definition. You can't define a word with itself. Try again. Define 'real'.

Again. Real as in real. Here's the definition:

re·al1
/ˈrē(ə)l/

adjective
1.
actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
"Julius Caesar was a real person"

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Your shouting is annoying. Use a normal font. Shouting does not make your argument any different.

You can't 'debunk' a paradox. You MUST clear your paradoxes.

You don't get to speak for anyone else. You only get to speak for you.

Paradox A.

A paradox is not a proof. You are being irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Attempted force of proof in open system fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Circular argument fallacy. A paradox is not a 'specific'.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Paradox A.

A paradox is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

but you think corporations are people. so.....dum.