Do you think many on the right even understand what the Founding Fathers did?

[LV426]

ignoratio elenchi fallacy (irrelevant conclusion). Logic hasn't changed.

Yes it has, I literally just showed how it has changed for you in the 230+ years since the Constitution.

You don't shit in a hole you dug in the ground anymore, do you?

You don't cross long distances by horse and buggy, do you?

You don't use leeches as health care, do you?

You don't use the rain to bathe, do you?

You don't use carrier pigeons to take messages to people, do you?

So since you live your life according to a 21st century standard, why do you want 18th century governance?

 

[LV426]

Switching subjects twice to try and end up at a complex question fallacy makes the whole exercise irrelevant.

The only fallacy here is yours...

You live your personal life according to a 21st century standard, yet you want to apply an 18th century standard to governance.

That's the fallacy at the heart of your argument that you haven't solved for, you've just tried to dismiss because of how detrimental it is to you argument.

So instead of defending your compulsion to apply an 18th century standard to 21st century society, you seek to dismiss it.

You can't defend it and you realized that pointing out the fallacy at the heart of your case completely undermines all of it.

 

[LV426]

Logical fallacy, affirming the consequent. There doesn't have to be as many public offices today as there are. In fact, most of the federal government could be eliminated and make really little difference to the nation. One might start by completely removing the Department of Education for example. There is ZERO need for federal involvement in what is purely a local matter.



ignoratio elenchi fallacy (irrelevant conclusion). Logic hasn't changed. Switching subjects twice to try and end up at a complex question fallacy makes the whole exercise irrelevant.



ignoratio elenchi fallacy in the form of a complex question.



ignoratio elenchi fallacy in the form of a complex question.



Non sequitur and a false equivalence fallacy.

Again, the only fallacy that exists here is the one at the heart of your argument:

You think we should apply 18th century governance to 21st century society, of which you are a part.

So the question remains entirely relevant because it gets to the heart of what you are arguing; that we should apply 18th century standards and thinking to 21st century governance, but nothing else.

Boy, once we drill down into your stupid position, it's crystal clear how flawed the whole thing is.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So kids in Texas learn a different kind of Algebra than kids in Massachusetts?

What algebra is that, specifically?

Irrelevant to the question of whether we need a federal department of education or not.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Again, the only fallacy that exists here is the one at the heart of your argument:

You think we should apply 18th century governance to 21st century society, of which you are a part.

So the question remains entirely relevant because it gets to the heart of what you are arguing; that we should apply 18th century standards and thinking to 21st century governance, but nothing else.

Boy, once we drill down into your stupid position, it's crystal clear how flawed the whole thing is.

We are applying 18th Century governance today. We use the same basic system set up by the Founders today. States use very similar systems as well. Certainly details in law have changed, but the overall practice of governance hasn't.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Yes it has, I literally just showed how it has changed for you in the 230+ years since the Constitution.

You don't shit in a hole you dug in the ground anymore, do you?

You don't cross long distances by horse and buggy, do you?

You don't use leeches as health care, do you?

You don't use the rain to bathe, do you?

You don't use carrier pigeons to take messages to people, do you?

So since you live your life according to a 21st century standard, why do you want 18th century governance?

Irrelevant based on a false equivalence. Changes in technology do not equate to a need for dramatic changes in governance.

 

[LV426]

A failing caused in great part by two things:

Democrats moving to the Left

and

The 17th Amendment.

Who controls SCOTUS right now? You clowns do. So...what are you talking about? You're incoherent.

 

[LV426]

you did exactly what I said you would do.....thanks

You insisting something isn't proof of anything, so grow the fuck up and stop being a crybaby.

 

[LV426]

Irrelevant to the question of whether we need a federal department of education or not.

So you say that states should control education, but you don't say why, and when you are pressed with details, like what kind of math are kids in TX learning that kids in MA aren't, you choke and seek an escape hatch.

So why do you think states should control education?

 

[LV426]

We are applying 18th Century governance today.

NOT ACCORDING TO YOU.

You just screamed half a dozen posts ago that we should basically abolish the 17th amendment because Conservatives can't win elections anymore.

Make up your fucking mind.

 

[LV426]

We use the same basic system set up by the Founders today. States use very similar systems as well. Certainly details in law have changed, but the overall practice of governance hasn't.

What a goalpost shift!

Just half a dozen posts ago, you were screaming that the 17th Amendment ruined America because the gerrymandered state legislatures can't pick Senators anymore.

So then you start shifting and moving goalposts...you were absolutist about this, and now you're hedging and I know exactly why.

So America has been ruined because it doesn't follow 18th century governance, except when it does, but it also when it doesn't.

Incoherent babble.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[LV426]

Irrelevant based on a false equivalence. Changes in technology do not equate to a need for dramatic changes in governance.

Since you live your life according to a 21st century standard, why do you want 18th century governance?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You mean the one that fucked over your #TangerineTyrant last November, that you've been denying ever since? That electoral college thing?

I'm not denying the electoral college.....I am denying the legality of the election in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin where the state government violated the constitution by changing the election laws from those set by the state legislatures.....

 

[LV426]

Did anyone else notice how I killed this thread? The whiny, little bitches have stopped responding in it because they have no defense to what's been posted...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So you say that states should control education, but you don't say why, and when you are pressed with details, like what kind of math are kids in TX learning that kids in MA aren't, you choke and seek an escape hatch.

So why do you think states should control education?

Because as the constitution puts it, what isn't specifically spelled out as a federal function in it is reserved to the states, or the people. There isn't a goddamned thing in the constitution about the feds running education.

So, states should run education in its entirety. The feds should have ZERO role in that. If different states approach education differently, that's fine. If you or anybody else doesn't like how your state does it, move to one that does do it the way you like or get your state to change its system.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Who controls SCOTUS right now? You clowns do. So...what are you talking about? You're incoherent.

The nine justices on the bench, just like always.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What a goalpost shift!

Just half a dozen posts ago, you were screaming that the 17th Amendment ruined America because the gerrymandered state legislatures can't pick Senators anymore.

So then you start shifting and moving goalposts...you were absolutist about this, and now you're hedging and I know exactly why.

So America has been ruined because it doesn't follow 18th century governance, except when it does, but it also when it doesn't.

Incoherent babble.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The 17th ruined the Senate. State legislatures or governors picked the senators to represent THE STATE, not the people (that's the function of the House), nor the nation (President). By going to a direct popular vote for senators, the Senate is now a carbon copy of the House only with longer terms in office.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The 17th ruined the Senate. State legislatures or governors picked the senators to represent THE STATE, not the people (that's the function of the House), nor the nation (President). By going to a direct popular vote for senators, the Senate is now a carbon copy of the House only with longer terms in office.

liberals will defend the 17th because popular vote will always win out for people promised money, even though their elected reps become millionaires on the backs of their constituency..............they will deny that of course, but we all know they are lying through their collective teeth

 

[T. A. Gardner]

liberals will defend the 17th because popular vote will always win out for people promised money, even though their elected reps become millionaires on the backs of their constituency..............they will deny that of course, but we all know they are lying through their collective teeth

Yes, yes, yes... The Left loves a good dictatorship. That's why the set them up whenever they can. Taking the power to appoint senators from the states was a way to consolidate power in the hands of the mob.

 

[Into the Night]

So kids in Texas learn a different kind of Algebra than kids in Massachusetts?

What algebra is that, specifically?

There is no such thing as a 'different kind of algebra'.