How many more??? [W:611]

[Federalist]

When it violates the US Constitution.

Which, coming from you, means "never". Okay gotcha.

 

[Federalist]

So now all you have to do is
1- present quotes from me where I took the position that the federal government has the right to pass every law it wants to pass, and

So what, in your opinion, would prevent the federal government from imposing any law it wishes to impose?

 

[haymarket]

Cute. Care to list how much of the 20th century legislation was enumerated in the constitution? I'll wait.

You can wait a long long time since you are first and next in line to first prove your allegations made against me ad based on past experience I am 99% sure you will present nothing in the way of verifiable evidence. Change that to 99.99% sure you will not.

I notice that you atribute certain views to me but are utterly impotent to actually present those views with quotes from me. You falsely allege that I believe the federal government has the right to pass "every law it wants to" but you FAIL to present any post where I said that.

You then allege that I believe that "states don't have rights". And you are also unable to present any quotes from me where I state that is my position.

Engaging in debate is NOT simply making wild accusations about other people. If you claim I believe something or have taken a specific position on issues as you have done here - it is always incumbent upon you as the maker of these charges to offer verifiable evidence for your charges. Failure to do so simply turns you into a person just screaming slurs to try to damage somebody.

So now all you have to do is
1- present quotes from me where I took the position that the federal government has the right to pass every law it wants to pass, and
2- that states have no rights.

Or you can simply man up right now and apologize for the use of these tactics.

 

[haymarket]

Considering that instead of taking things as they are, we have folks who resort to "interpreting" the wording of amendments.. it's hard to argue "violations" when people can change the meaning based on their opinions.

Pretty sure most people don't accept others' "interpretations" of what they say.

Thankfully we have a branch of government with that responsibility.

 

[Shewter]

Thankfully we have a branch of government with that responsibility.

You say thankfully, I say unfortunately.

Once again, I'm pretty sure that most people don't accept others' "interpretations" of what they say. Personally I don't feel that any interpretation was really necessary with the 2nd amendment at any point in our history, it's VERY clear wording. But.. where there's a will there's a way..

Never mind the fact that the restrictions placed on the 2nd amendment are unlike the punishments attached to the rest of our rights should they be misused.

 

[haymarket]

So what, in your opinion, would prevent the federal government from imposing any law it wishes to impose?

The US Constitution and the Supreme Court....... as well as the will of the American people.

 

[haymarket]

Which, coming from you, means "never". Okay gotcha.

Again, you insist on engaing in the intellectual fraud of attributing views and positions to me but do nto have the decency to document where I have taken those positions.

 

[dnsmith]

When it violates the US Constitution.

If that were the case we would have to negate every law relative to gun control.

 

[haymarket]

If that were the case we would have to negate every law relative to gun control.

Obviously there ae people in positions of responsibility and authority who do not see it as you do.

 

[LaMidRighter]

You can wait a long long time since you are first and next in line to first prove your allegations made against me ad based on past experience I am 99% sure you will present nothing in the way of verifiable evidence. Change that to 99.99% sure you will not.

Oh, I'm sure I'll be waiting a long time, has nothing to with me though, but rather that you KNOW you can't back it up.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Obviously there ae people in positions of responsibility and authority who do not see it as you do.

And they are wrong. Nice fallacy though.

 

[Federalist]

The US Constitution and the Supreme Court....... as well as the will of the American people.

The federal judiciary, eh? So, the federal government prevents the federal government from imposing any law it wishes.

 

[dnsmith]

Obviously there ae people in positions of responsibility and authority who do not see it as you do.

I know that, and guess what, THAT IS ONE REASON I ABSOLUTELY INSIST OF KEEPING MY GUNS, AND READY TO USE, NOT LOCKED IN SOME SAFE.

 

[haymarket]

Oh, I'm sure I'll be waiting a long time, has nothing to with me though, but rather that you KNOW you can't back it up.

I do NOT have anything to back up. You however do from your post 685 as follows

You really don't know how the federal constitutional republic was supposed to work do you? Even the first people who encroached on the federalist model with the exact bull**** you just spewed were worried they wouldn't get it through. You think FDR wanted to pack SCOTUS because he thought he was in the right? You think Wilson actually respected proper protocols................of course you do, you think the federal has the right to pass every law it wants to and the states don't have any rights.How about read that copy of the constitution you claim to have right in front of you again, in full. If you don't see how wrong you are read it again.

. You are proving me right when I said this just a short time ago regarding your undocumentd slurs against me:

You can wait a long long time since you are first and next in line to first prove your allegations made against me and based on past experience I am 99% sure you will present nothing in the way of verifiable evidence. Change that to 99.99% sure you will not.

I notice that you atribute certain views to me but are utterly impotent to actually present those views with quotes from me. You falsely allege that I believe the federal government has the right to pass "every law it wants to" but you FAIL to present any post where I said that.

You then allege that I believe that "states don't have rights". And you are also unable to present any quotes from me where I state that is my position.

Engaging in debate is NOT simply making wild accusations about other people. If you claim I believe something or have taken a specific position on issues as you have done here - it is always incumbent upon you as the maker of these charges to offer verifiable evidence for your charges. Failure to do so simply turns you into a person just screaming slurs to try to damage somebody.

So now all you have to do is
1- present quotes from me where I took the position that the federal government has the right to pass every law it wants to pass, and
2- that states have no rights.

Or you can simply man up right now and apologize for the use of these tactics.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I do NOT have anything to back up. You however do from your post 685 as follows

That's all we need to here, no need to make excuses. Than you for the concession.

 

[haymarket]

And they are wrong. Nice fallacy though.

You need to get to a dictionary an look up the difference between a FALLACY and REALITY.

 

[LaMidRighter]

You need to get to a dictionary an look up the difference between a FALLACY and REALITY.

Nope. You issued a great one for all to see though, that would be the
appeal to authority logical fallacy, i.e., you have chosen to use the opinions of those deemed to be in a position of authority as more relevant than the facts at hand, i.e., the prohibitions against governmental interference. In other words, you are saying because an elected official and their appointees have deemed themselves to have interpretive powers over plainly written languages then it must be so. Thus, a fallacy.Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

 

[haymarket]

That's all we need to here, no need to make excuses. Than you for the concession.

Why do you say nonsensical and outright ridiculous things in reply to my post?

There is no excuse.

There is no concession.

You made slurs against me in post 685 and you have exhibited nothing but outright impotence to prove any of it.

You really don't know how the federal constitutional republic was supposed to work do you? Even the first people who encroached on the federalist model with the exact bull**** you just spewed were worried they wouldn't get it through. You think FDR wanted to pack SCOTUS because he thought he was in the right? You think Wilson actually respected proper protocols................of course you do, you think the federal has the right to pass every law it wants to and the states don't have any rights.How about read that copy of the constitution you claim to have right in front of you again, in full. If you don't see how wrong you are read it again.

You atribute certain views to me but are utterly impotent to actually present those views with quotes from me. You falsely allege that I believe the federal government has the right to pass "every law it wants to" but you FAIL to present any post where I said that.

You then allege that I believe that "states don't have rights". And you are also unable to present any quotes from me where I state that is my position.

Engaging in debate is NOT simply making wild accusations about other people. If you claim I believe something or have taken a specific position on issues as you have done here - it is always incumbent upon you as the maker of these charges to offer verifiable evidence for your charges. Failure to do so simply turns you into a person just screaming slurs to try to damage somebody.

So now all you have to do is
1- present quotes from me where I took the position that the federal government has the right to pass every law it wants to pass, and
2- that states have no rights.

Or you can simply man up right now and apologize for the use of these tactics.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Why do you say nonsensical and outright ridiculous things in reply to my post?

There is no excuse.

There is no concession.

You made slurs against me in post 685 and you have exhibited nothing but outright impotence to prove any of it.



You atribute certain views to me but are utterly impotent to actually present those views with quotes from me. You falsely allege that I believe the federal government has the right to pass "every law it wants to" but you FAIL to present any post where I said that.

You then allege that I believe that "states don't have rights". And you are also unable to present any quotes from me where I state that is my position.

Engaging in debate is NOT simply making wild accusations about other people. If you claim I believe something or have taken a specific position on issues as you have done here - it is always incumbent upon you as the maker of these charges to offer verifiable evidence for your charges. Failure to do so simply turns you into a person just screaming slurs to try to damage somebody.

So now all you have to do is
1- present quotes from me where I took the position that the federal government has the right to pass every law it wants to pass, and
2- that states have no rights.

Or you can simply man up right now and apologize for the use of these tactics.

Every time we see a stupid law passed by a Democrat you take the line that the states don't have a right to argue. No excuses Haymarket.

 

[haymarket]

Nope. You issued a great one for all to see though, that would be the
appeal to authority logical fallacy, i.e., you have chosen to use the opinions of those deemed to be in a position of authority as more relevant than the facts at hand, i.e., the prohibitions against governmental interference. In other words, you are saying because an elected official and their appointees have deemed themselves to have interpretive powers over plainly written languages then it must be so. Thus, a fallacy.Logical Fallacies» Appeal to Authority

You really do not know what you are talking about. The fallacy of Appeal To Authority enters in when somebody says - this is an authority and they agree with my argument thus I am also correct. I told you and others that we have recognized authorities in our nation whose duty and job it is to interpret the Constitution. That is a statement of fact and has nothing at all to do with any fallacy and you presented the idea. Learn from your own link for heavens sake.

read before you post and read your own links.

However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony

Read your own links before you post something which you clearly do not understand.

 

[haymarket]

Every time we see a stupid law passed by a Democrat you take the line that the states don't have a right to argue. No excuses Haymarket.

And you are impotent to present evidence to prove that charge also.

 

[LaMidRighter]

And you are impotent to present evidence to prove that charge also.

Not playing this game with you, everyone can see it.

 

[dnsmith]

Why do you say nonsensical and outright ridiculous things in reply to my post?

There is no excuse.

There is no concession.

You made slurs against me in post 685 and you have exhibited nothing but outright impotence to prove any of it.



You atribute certain views to me but are utterly impotent to actually present those views with quotes from me. You falsely allege that I believe the federal government has the right to pass "every law it wants to" but you FAIL to present any post where I said that.

You then allege that I believe that "states don't have rights". And you are also unable to present any quotes from me where I state that is my position.

Engaging in debate is NOT simply making wild accusations about other people. If you claim I believe something or have taken a specific position on issues as you have done here - it is always incumbent upon you as the maker of these charges to offer verifiable evidence for your charges. Failure to do so simply turns you into a person just screaming slurs to try to damage somebody.

So now all you have to do is
1- present quotes from me where I took the position that the federal government has the right to pass every law it wants to pass, and
2- that states have no rights.

Or you can simply man up right now and apologize for the use of these tactics.

For the most part, he is right and you are wrong. Deal with it!

 

[dnsmith]

Not playing this game with you, everyone can see it.

Keep up the good work. He is getting more and more shrill in his attempts to obfuscate the real issues.

 

[Federalist]

Keep up the good work. He is getting more and more shrill in his attempts to obfuscate the real issues.

Going forward, you will find that haymarket invariably supports empowering the federal government to exercise authority over the people and governments of the individual states.