First, I think I'll point out yet again that it is slightly humorous to hear you continually complaining about the length of my posts while you - yet again - quote every single word of one of them nasty, lengthy posts of mine in its entirety before starting your own. Particularly when your post then doesn't really relate to anything in my quoted post in the first place. But anyways... onward...
- mucker wrote:
- I'm guessing the reason you are so takin back by thouhtful arguments,is because they are rarely Black and White.
The core issue here is you and your fellow travellers seldom offer a thoughtful argument, much less one based on essential facts (like the wording of existing constitutions in the current topic of discussion). What you offer are your pronouncements, seldom thoughtful. They are not the same thing.
- Quote :
- If you were to argue a stick only has one value, and all other replies are useless and only show ignorance, would only show your lack of intelligence, ignorance and lack of patience for a healthy debate.
And it might illustrate the other side is indeed ignorant and incapable of healthy debate when (using the current topic here, son) they can't explain their defense of the comments from a Justice from SCOTUS saying there is no value in the US Constitution, but the Canadian constitution which allows for almost all your civil liberties to be removed by a simple majority vote is a fine example to look to. Particularly when that Justice has sworn an oath of allegiance to that constitution...
Why don't you try one of your thoughtful arguments in defense of that? It would be topical, yes?
- Quote :
- Black and White seems to be the vast majority of replies from the religious right...they have no patience or tolerance for the grey areas.
Smoothly transitioning towards your oft-expressed antipathy for those on the "religious right" like George Washington, Madison, Lincoln, et al... By the way, I'm an agnostic as I've mentioned a time or two, not an atheist and not religious. And I'm a constitutionalist, although you and others on the left generally lump everyone who isn't a Marxist/socialist/progressive/statist as "the right". So, with "religious right"... are you speaking about me personally or is it just a general off-topic opportunity to exercise your contempt and lack of respect for those who hold religious beliefs?
But there it is folks - the magic phrase: "religious right". Use of that phrase is what some would like to present as an example of a thoughtful argument.
If you're religious, then you gotta be on the right; have no patience for others and a complete lack of tolerance. However, there's no intolerance or lack of patience from people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, etc. Strong, socialist, "progressive" Democrats, every one of them. So far to the left you can't see the middle, much less the right, from where they're standing.
Is it a "thoughtful argument" for me to point out to you how narrow minded and intolerant - never mind factually incomplete - your comment is? Or am I being unfair and are we supposed to ignore what the religious left says?
"Religious left"... Why do the socialists/statists/mainstream media never sling that term around with the same frequency they natter about the "religious right"? I might even be the first person to ever use that. Maybe I should copyright it...
And would it also be unfair and not "thoughtful argument" to point out that the dedicated atheists like yourself consistently show contempt for those who do hold religious beliefs, demonstrating a lack of tolerance and patience in their own right?
- Quote :
- They will recite their perfect patterns that they have learned and suggest the only reason people could possibly have to argue those patterns is that they are ignorant...sounds kinda childish to me.
Like when folks like you use comments like "the religious right", you mean? Throw out the term "religious right" and... say no more, say no more, wink, wink. How could you possibly argue the implication that you must be intolerant and impatient once labelled "religious right" by somebody? Kinda like using the term "Neo-Con" (although I think the last Neo-Con I can recall was Ronald Reagan and he's dead) - we're supposed to dismiss anyone hit with that label. Simply no defense once that gets thrown out there.
Like when you suggest that the only way people can possibly hold religious beliefs is if they aren't smart enough to ask questions and the assorted other comments you've thrown out there in the Religion thread, you mean?
Is that the kind of recital of their childish, perfect patterns you're referring to in this thoughtful argument you're presenting?
- Quote :
- When we talk about how humans should best conduct themselves, that would be considered a grey area...
In the context of the current topic, you're dead wrong.
There is a written US constitution. It's history and intent are laid out by the writings of the Founders on what they intended, The Federalist Papers, etc.
It is provided as a set of rules for how Americans were to conduct themselves as far as governance goes. It provided a mechanism for changing that constitution if and when Americans decided the situation had changed and they wanted a new set of rules - including changing the mechanism for invoking change.
That is not grey. So we're left asking ourselves why the leftists and statists run to the courts when they want change, rather than going to the people asking for an Amendment - of which there have been many in the Constitution's history.
- Quote :
- if your only replies are Black and White and seemingly beyond criticism, then I suggest you are just repeating the same old dogma that has made you comfortable, as opposed to adding your incite in an honest, intelligent and artful way.
Like throwing around terms like "religious right", you mean. That kind of comfortable old dogma?
Why is it that folks like you always fall back on catch phrases like "religious right" rather than dealing with the framework of governance we're supposed to be using i.e. the constitution? Particularly in threads that deal with governance?
This is the kind of pronouncement you want us to accept as being a "thoughtful argument"?
- Quote :
- Jag has many posts on this forum, I usually try to catch them all...and have never, ever seen him even slightly consider anything that even slightly resembles a comment from the left, as having any merit. I would even suggest that Jag could not even state a name of a person, even left leaning that he has respect for...especially their intelligence.He has made it very clear here, that he sees no usefulness in the left at all...finite.
Well here's a test for you, as I'm apparently badly abusing you poor Marxists and statists out there. Am I missing something?
How about you suggest the name of a left-leaning/socialist that I should have respect for? The biggest hurdle (current thread subject matter again) would be that their thinking and policies would meet the test of the US Consitution i.e. small central government with narrow and defined powers, focus in individual liberty and freedom, etc.
So give me a name and their ideas/policies/concepts that I should agree have merit and have woefully overlooked. Keep in mind that I am a constitutionalist, not a Democrat nor a Republican, so that will be the first hurdle for your candidate right there.
In fact, I'm tempted to make that question a thread. But let's see what you've got...
Unfortunately, there are all too many intelligent Marxists/socialists out there. "Rules for Radicals" - just one example - has pretty much helped teach Obama how to go about his proclaimed task of fundamentally changing America without going anywhere near a constitutional amendment. While dividing Americans and putting them against each other while doing so. Oh no... there's intelligent Marxists, socialists, and "progressives" out there. That much we've learned to our sorrow...
- Quote :
- Not to mention the way people on here reply with quotes, point by point, only fuels the errors of people taking things out of context.
Curiously, some people find it more useful and focusing to quote each point you intend to deal with and then reply, rather than a massive quote of the entire post as you do - particularly when the bulk of the post you quote you don't even reply to.
Frankly, I find your manner of quoting overwhelmingly useless other than the fact it gives a basic indication of what you hope to talk about. But that might just be me.
- Quote :
- Maybe I am no genius, but if you suggest, that because, I don't carry around my flawless copy of the new world constitution in my back pocket, I am somehow unworthy to criticise yours or i guess anything and everything up to this point. I would say that gives more reliable info about you, than me.
What it says is, yes, you are sufficiently woefully ignorant of the constitution (current topic, remember) that you really don't know what you are talking about for the most part. Of course, in that you are not unique. And it's what makes shooting down your pronouncements about as difficult as clubbing baby seals. You don't need a copy of the constitution in your back pocket, nor a copy of the Federalist Papers, nor Madison's writings to the Constitutional Convention on what he intended when he constructed the constitution that they voted on.
But when you make pronouncements that fly in the face of all of that history and those historical documents, it indicates a lack of knowledge that really does say something about you. Why wouldn't it?
- Quote :
- So no worries...Im not easily offended and I do like a challenge.
Awesome... so meet the challenge of explaining why Bader-Ginsberg was right to say the US Constitution has no value in writing a constitution today, but the Canadian constitution which allows almost all civil rights to be removed by a simple majority vote in government, and does not contain the property rights the US Constitution has, is a great start. That's topical.
Find me a socialist whose policies and ideas fit within the framework of the US Constitution the Founders gave us. And that relates to your post.
That should keep you busy for awhile...
Home 
Latest images 
