Democrats exist to undermine and violate the Constitution

[AProudLefty]

Bingo. Can you produce the philosophical argument to define what 'real' means? Remember, you must present your own argument, you cannot present anyone else's argument as your own. Go ahead.

I cannot prove that the a creature coming out STY's Pokeball is real or not. You're correct.

 

[Scut Farkus]

hey bro, don't fall in to that trap.........you are going to lose.

rights come from you simply being a human being..........government has no power or authority to grant rights. rights do not come from government. rights are inherent. If you read the Bill of Rights, you'll see that they make no statement at all about giving the people these rights. It says quite clearly that government shall not infringe on them or make laws that restrict them.

this is about the whole argument of even having laws at all. I believe we should.

restricting government activity is a de facto ATTEMPT to preserve rights.

of course there's corruption.

of course when the legal approach fails there should be the blood of tyrants in the street.

all we are saying, is give peace a chance.

 

[Scut Farkus]

come from versus preserve is a bit of hair splitting.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Bingo. Can you produce the philosophical argument to define what 'real' means? Remember, you must present your own argument, you cannot present anyone else's argument as your own. Go ahead.

you're a fucking idiot.

 

[AProudLefty]

you're a fucking idiot.

The sad thing is that he doesn't know that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

this is about the whole argument of even having laws at all. I believe we should.

restricting government activity is a de facto ATTEMPT to preserve rights.

of course there's corruption.

of course when the legal approach fails there should be the blood of tyrants in the street.

all we are saying, is give peace a chance.

 

[Scut Farkus]

The sad thing is that he doesn't know that.

libertarians get weird, and start leaning towards might makes right, and straight up fascism.

I used to be there.

of course in a cynical sense there is some truth in these things, but why have ideas if you're not going to be an idealist?

why evolve to cooperation and love, if in the end you reject these core human evolutionary elements?

 

[Scut Farkus]

deal.

then i'll fall back and get you covered.

 

[Into the Night]

I cannot prove that the a creature coming out STY's Pokeball is real or not. You're correct.

Very good. So 'real' is not a proof, is it?

What then, exactly, is 'real'? Define 'real'. Remember you just still use your own arguments and reasoning for it.

 

[Into the Night]

this is about the whole argument of even having laws at all. I believe we should.

restricting government activity is a de facto ATTEMPT to preserve rights.

of course there's corruption.

of course when the legal approach fails there should be the blood of tyrants in the street.

all we are saying, is give peace a chance.

So you want to pivot away from your claim. Fine. I will consider your argument abandoned.

 

[Into the Night]

you're a fucking idiot.

An insult is not a valid argument. Maybe AProudLefty can do better. He's already way ahead of you on this.

 

[Into the Night]

libertarians get weird, and start leaning towards might makes right, and straight up fascism.

I used to be there.

of course in a cynical sense there is some truth in these things, but why have ideas if you're not going to be an idealist?

why evolve to cooperation and love, if in the end you reject these core human evolutionary elements?

Fascism is government manipulation of markets. Libertarians want smaller government. Your comment makes no sense.

 

[Scut Farkus]

Fascism is government manipulation of markets. Libertarians want smaller government. Your comment makes no sense.

you're a reductionist fascist moron.

 

[Scut Farkus]

An insult is not a valid argument. Maybe AProudLefty can do better. He's already way ahead of you on this.

you're not even honest about what words mean.

you're just a globalist corporate bootlicker and a traitor to humanity and goodness.

 

[Scut Farkus]

So you want to pivot away from your claim. Fine. I will consider your argument abandoned.

I'll consider you a fascist moron.

 

[artichoke]

Stop shouting like a moron. Use normal font.

Shouting is all caps. Using text big enough not to get crowded out by the multimedia isn't shouting. Calm down and stop getting all triggered over nothing.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. See Article III.

No one is arguing otherwise.

Hint: Don't act like it's a basic civics fact which everyone should know that constitutional protections and privileges apply to foreigners the same as citizens...when it is written in plain English in the Constitution itself that they are to be treated differently, and when you still cannot produce a single shred of evidence that the Founders meant the opposite of what they wrote in plain English in the Constitution.

Constitutions do not apply to people.

Ad nauseum and non-sequiter fallacy.

Repeating the already debunked garbage logic that the Constitution expressly treating foreigners differently than citizens somehow cannot co-exist with the Constitution being the authorized structure for the Federal Government...won't make it less debunked or illogical.

Try again.