Democrats exist to undermine and violate the Constitution

[Into the Night]

Milquetoast Macaw is clueless. Does he still have the bird? I have him on ignore so I can't see it.

 

[Into the Night]

Blatantly false. Acknowledging that state and local laws cover murder, regardless of who the victim is, while also acknowledging that the Constitution can only logically apply to American citizens (Canadians can't sue for their gun rights back based on OUR 2nd Amendment) is not at all contradictory. You acting like these two things in any way contradict each other...THAT'S the only thing that's irrational here.

Paradox. You are still being irrational. Which is it, dude?

We're a Judeo-Christian country. They can get over it.

So you expect to force them into a belief in the Theory of Creation so you can justify where rights come from??????

Or they can just supplant the God part of it with, "by virtue of simply BEING a human being, you are automatically entitled to rights X, Y, and Z."

Fair enough.

Still irrationally mistaking two wholly compatible concepts as contradictory.

No, you are ignoring the contradiction in your argument.

Murdering anyone is illegal (unless it's a baby).

Murdering a baby is illegal too. Did you know there are no murder laws mentioned in the Constitution?

Restraints on the Federal Government's ability to violate gun rights can only logically be applied to American citizens.

The Constitution do not apply to citizens.

We cannot go into Canada and stop them from violating someone's gun rights based on OUR Constitution.

The Constitution do not apply to citizens.

Obviously, it only applies to Americans.

Constitutions do not apply to Americans. Did you know that Canadians are Americans too?

There is no paradox, no matter how many times you say it (ad nauseum fallacy). The two contentions are completely compatible.

You can't deny the paradox you've made. There is only one way to clear a paradox. You must choose ONE of the conflicting arguments and utterly discard the other. Until you do so, you are locked in paradox.

This error in your logic wasn't valid when you repeated it over everything being said the first ten times, and it still isn't now.

The error is in YOUR logic. Inversion fallacy.

So we've reached the part of the debate where you just dig in, shut down, and start repeating yourself no matter how clear it becomes that your logic is flawed.

Bulverism fallacy.

Sigh. Moving on.

Ignoring your paradox is not going to clear your paradox.

 

[artichoke]

Paradox. You are still being irrational. Which is it, dude?

So you expect to force them into a belief in the Theory of Creation so you can justify where rights come from??????

Fair enough.

No, you are ignoring the contradiction in your argument.

Murdering a baby is illegal too. Did you know there are no murder laws mentioned in the Constitution?

The Constitution do not apply to citizens.

The Constitution do not apply to citizens.

Constitutions do not apply to Americans. Did you know that Canadians are Americans too?

You can't deny the paradox you've made. There is only one way to clear a paradox. You must choose ONE of the conflicting arguments and utterly discard the other. Until you do so, you are locked in paradox.

The error is in YOUR logic. Inversion fallacy.

Bulverism fallacy.

Ignoring your paradox is not going to clear your paradox.

You don't debate. You close your eyes and mindlessly repeat erroneous labels, even after they are debunked right in front of you. You should register as a Democrat. I told you, I'm not going around in any more circles with you on this. I refer you to the last time I debunked this falsehood.

Deal with it.

 

[Into the Night]

1) This contains no counterpoints. Just spazzing out like a triggered lunatic.

Nifty does that.

No one's DISPUTING who is responsible for counting votes, illiterate crack-smoker. Bringing that up doesn't even make sense.

Actually, that IS in dispute. According to the Constitution only the legislature of each State can choose its electors.

3) Ever notice how the people whose logic always turns out to be complete trash are always the ones quickest to insult other people's intelligence for being more informed than them?

Since YOU are denying logic at the moment, and I do see you insult other people, yeah...I've noticed.

4) Please, by all means, if it is so crystal clear how Biden took stole the lead, then explain how someone who:

-comes in last place with humiliatingly abysmal numbers in every presidential race,

Actually, he took first place in the primaries...at least for Democrats.

-picked the LEAST popular running mate possible according to virtually every single poll,

Polls are completely meaningless.

-hid in his basement and never campaigned,

That WAS an interesting campaign strategy!

-is the most well-documented establishment crook, racist, and child-groping creep ever to run for president,

Hmmmm. What about Jackson? Clinton? I think there is close competition here.

-LOST almost every county Obama gained,

The was entertaining!

-LOST tons of black votes,

Unknown.

-LOST tons of Latino votes,

Unknown.

-had Democrats LOSING in Congress (indicating strong Republican turnout)...

Actually, Democrats picked up a couple of seats. Same fraud?

...gets more votes than any person in history...even more than Obama (20 million more votes than voters, in fact).

Neither Nifty nor any other Democrat can explain this anomaly.

Give. Me. A. Fucking. Break.

I don't think they will.

And also explain how Biden defied every law of statistics to be the first guy in history to get literally 100% of the suddenly "discovered" truckloads of votes in the middle of the night (really, not a single even ACCIDENTAL Trump vote? That doesn't happen. Ever. Without cheating.

Probability, actually. The math ignored here is probability math, not statistical math.

If you're going to lie, at least make it look convincing).

They are actually pretty good at doing just that to many people.

Follow the science.

There is no science here.

Or the math, in this case.

A valid point.

Reconcile this obviously mathematically impossible narrative if you want anyone here to even begin to entertain the notion that Biden isn't a blatantly illegitimate usurper who committed treason.

They can't. They deny math, for one thing (they also deny science, when it comes to things like physics).

For the record, just the one form of Democrat cheating alone (the coordinated suppression of the bombshell Hunter Biden scandal) altered the outcome, confirming that the American people had to be lied to and cheated in every possible way for Biden to "win," and that he is not supposed to be in office.

The Democrat coup was successful (for the time being).

THEN there was:

-four years straight of Democrat terrorists violently intimidating everyone out of their rights with rioting, arson, looting, vandalism, assault, and murder

That still goes on.

-the 24/7 plethora of constant fake scandals and witch hunts (how many votes does it cost a person for the entire establishment to lie about them being a secret Russian agent?)

That still occurs too.

-Google's unprecedented banning of only conservative sources from its search engines for months leading up to the election, so only the Democrat side of the story could be found

That still occurs too.

-all the social media platforms' unprecedented censoring and silencing of only conservatives for what they now acknowledge were accurate posts

That still occurs too. It's why these companies are facing hard financial times. They've screwed themselves. People are leaving them.

-the unprecedented collusion between Democrats and corporations (detailed by TIME Magazine) to rig and steal the election

Certainly not unprecedented. This have been happening for many decades.

-all the unprecedented voter fraud that Democrats spent years telling us would happen if we ever fell for the mail-in voting scam that they later reversed course on (they tried to force it through even BEFORE COVID, and like all Democrat ideas, it was widely rejected as a corrupt abuse of power, so then they used COVID to argue that you can shop and dine in public, but somehow voting was just too dangerous)

Both voter fraud and election fraud. Yes...they are different.

If you are fucking stupid enough to look at this much evidence

Even this small amount of evidence that you have given here is quickly denied. Not by stupidity, by desperation.

all proving that Biden was not legitimately elected

Correct. Biden was installed, not elected.

 

[artichoke]

Since YOU are denying logic at the moment, and I do see you insult other people, yeah...I've noticed.

I refer you to the last time this was debunked.

 

[Into the Night]

"We the people of the United States," obviously.

Nope. The Constitution of the United States does NOT apply to the people.

Murders are handled at the state and local levels.

Murders are handled by the individual(s) committing the murder.

The Federal Government has nothing to do with that.

They murder too. See Hillary's 'accidental death' list as an example.

The Federal Government, which was only ever authorized to be a coalition of sovereign states with a narrowly defined and enumerated set of extremely confined powers (the opposite of what leftists have done to it) is expressly restrained by the Constitution from violating the rights of the states and of the citizens.

Nope. Just a few of those rights are mentioned at all.

Those restraints can only logically apply to...states and citizens.

No constitution applies to people. The Constitution of the United States does apply to the States in certain sections of it.

The only part of the Constitution that applies to foreigners

The Constitution does not apply to foreigners or to citizens.

is the part where Congress is given the power to determine naturalization and immigration policy.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? Does it apply to Congress or to foreigners?

State and local laws, as well as federal LEGISLATION, dictates what can and cannot be done to foreigners, while the CONSTITUTION dictates what can be done to citizens and states by the Federal Government (federal legislation does as well, but it is only valid if it complies with the Constitution).

The Constitution does not apply to citizens or foreigners.

Comprehend it yet?

Obvious, you don't.

The purpose of a constitution is to define and declare a government. It describes it's structure, gives it certain specific powers and authorities, and acts like a contract among the owners of that constitution in creating and defining that government.

The owners of the Constitution of the United States are the States. Only they can interpret it, change it, or destroy it completely (thus dissolving the federal government).
The owners of the constitution of each State are the citizens of that State. Only they can interpret it, change it, or destroy it completely (thus dissolving that State government).

No constitution applies to the owners of that constitution. The constitution applies ONLY to the government created by that constitution (with the exception of certain specific agreements among the owners).

 

[Into the Night]

You don't debate. You close your eyes and mindlessly repeat erroneous labels,

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

even after they are debunked right in front of you.

Assumption of victory fallacy. You are locked in paradox. You cannot debunk anything with a paradox. It is irrational.

You should register as a Democrat.

No thanks. I do not support fascism or communism. I support republics as a form of government and only republics.

I told you, I'm not going around in any more circles with you on this.

Yet you continue to do so. These are YOUR paradoxes. You MUST clear them. You cannot ignore them.

I refer you to the last time I debunked this falsehood.

You didn't. You entered another paradox here. You MUST clear your paradoxes. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.

Deal with it.

My advice to you. Deal with your paradoxes. They weaken your arguments.

 

[artichoke]

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself.

Assumption of victory fallacy. You are locked in paradox. You cannot debunk anything with a paradox. It is irrational.

No thanks. I do not support fascism or communism. I support republics as a form of government and only republics.

Yet you continue to do so. These are YOUR paradoxes. You MUST clear them. You cannot ignore them.

You didn't. You entered another paradox here. You MUST clear your paradoxes. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.

My advice to you. Deal with your paradoxes. They weaken your arguments.

Ad nauseum fallacy. Repeating your already debunked logic does not make it less debunked.

I refer you to the last time this imaginary paradox claim was proven untrue. Try again.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

"We the people of the United States," obviously.

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?

Murders are handled at the state and local levels. The Federal Government has nothing to do with that. The Federal Government, which was only ever authorized to be a coalition of sovereign states with a narrowly defined and enumerated set of extremely confined powers (the opposite of what leftists have done to it) is expressly restrained by the Constitution from violating the rights of the states and of the citizens.

View attachment 20231

Those restraints can only logically apply to...states and citizens. The only part of the Constitution that applies to foreigners is the part where Congress is given the power to determine naturalization and immigration policy. State and local laws, as well as federal LEGISLATION, dictates what can and cannot be done to foreigners, while the CONSTITUTION dictates what can be done to citizens and states by the Federal Government (federal legislation does as well, but it is only valid if it complies with the Constitution).

Comprehend it yet?

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

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yelling fire in a theater would be an example of "incendiary" speech.

I suggest you read the following article

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Milquetoast Macaw is clueless. Does he still have the bird? I have him on ignore so I can't see it.

pity, you could learn something from him.

 

[artichoke]

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?

1) Empty posturing and ad hominem fallacies will get you nowhere.

2) Your ignorance of basic civics is not an issue with anyone else's education.

3) Leftists are on YOUR side here, genius. THEY are the ones who try to argue your asinine logic in court and get every enemy we capture on the battlefield an ACLU attorney, 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.

Way to think it through. Your name is hilariously ironic.

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

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.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

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. Correctly comprehending jurisdiction is not asserting rulership.

Do I need to break out the crayons or do you comprehend it yet?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Show me where I said the Constitution exists to restrain the American people.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...iolate-the-Constitution&p=4510841#post4510841

"Those restraints can only logically apply to...states and citizens."

 

[artichoke]

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...iolate-the-Constitution&p=4510841#post4510841

"Those restraints can only logically apply to...states and citizens."

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. Like the 2nd Amendment keeps the Federal Government from violating gun rights, but only for AMERICAN STATES and AMERICAN CITIZENS. I am a constitutionalist through and through. I would never mistake the Constitution as being a restraint against the American people. You're literally misinterpreting what is being said.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

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.

no, it's not even close to accurate.

Like the 2nd Amendment keeps the Federal Government from violating gun rights, but only for AMERICAN STATES and AMERICAN CITIZENS. I am a constitutionalist through and through. I would never mistake the Constitution as being a restraint against the American people. You're literally misinterpreting what is being said.
View attachment 20239

I'm interpreting the Constitution just fine, like James Madison intended it. Why the liberals and conservatives have to decide it means differently is simply a matter of them not liking the amount of restraint it applies to government when they want it to be used against a demographic they don't agree with. If you were really a Constitutionalist, you'd see that even non americans get to enjoy rights and freedom when they are in this country.

 

[artichoke]

no, it's not even close to accurate.

So the 2nd Amendment makes it illegal for Canada to violate a Canadian's gun rights?

Sorry, but that's just fucking idiotic on its face, and I feel zero need to debate something this unbelievably retarded any further.

It turns out you aren't even smarter than most of the leftists on here. Piss off.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So the 2nd Amendment makes it illegal for Canada to violate a Canadian's gun rights?

Sorry, but that's just fucking idiotic on its face, and I feel zero need to debate something this unbelievably retarded any further.

It turns out you aren't even smarter than most of the leftists on here. Piss off.

you're being seriously obtuse.........did you even catch the part where I stated IN OUR NATION??????

you're obviously not equipped to debate me........you're better off trying to swim in bleach

 

[artichoke]

you're being seriously obtuse........

Just stop.

This monumentally stupid derailment of this thread is officially over. Wave goodbye to it.

 

[Legion]

Just facts. Remember the links.

You think links are facts?

 

[AProudLefty]

I suggest you read the following article

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/

The case is cited as one of the worst decisions.