- Joined
- Mar 31, 2018
- Messages
- 60,821
- Reaction score
- 6,492
- Location
- Norcross, Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
In your repeated asking the same question. Now go away and educate yourself.
More of your pathetic hypocrisy.
In my first or second reply to you I pointed out facts from the link to you...
It is worth as much as your opinion...
The blatant hypocrisy in your posts is there for anyone to see.Someone doesn't know what hypocrisy means
Is that why YOU started throwing insults in our exchange?"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - Socrates
No doubt because you can not quote the part of the Constitution that according to Story prohibits secession.You my friend are the clear loser
That is why your opinion is dismissed by all here.The opinions of ignorant hypocrites are worthless
Yet you can not quote anything from them.That might be so but at least I have read what scholars have said over the years
You know nothing about me, but make up moronic crap to divert from your failure.unlike you
The blatant hypocrisy in your posts is there for anyone to see.
No doubt because you can not quote the part of the Constitution that according to Story prohibits secession.
That is why your opinion is dismissed by all here.
Yet you can not quote anything from them.
You know nothing about me...
So it shouldn't be hard for even someone like you with little education to identify
Except you won't
"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the losers." - attributed to Socrates
No, because you won't read the link provided
You offer just your worthless opinion
It's not my opinion, it is that of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story and all constitutional scholars since
Who do you think those links referred to ???
You were given the link that quotes Story
A link you refuse to read, nor would understand even if you did
I know enogh about you my friend. You have no evidence, no sources who back you up...you have the weight of all learned opinion against you, yet you claim to know more than every constitutional scholar combined.
You. Some nameless, ignorant guy off the internet.
Is there anything left to know ?
You still can't quote the language in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving the union?
Former justice Story did in the link you refuse to educate yourself with.
No he didn't. He didn't cite the language in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving the union. Because, as I said earlier, there is no such language.
So did you read the link or not ?
I did and what the **** would someonw like you know about education in general much less about someone you do not know?So it shouldn't be hard for even someone like you with little education to identify
The link has nothing to do with your inability to quote the part of the Constitution that either prohibits secession or is interpreted as such by Story. It has everything to do with your dishonesty.No, because you won't read the link provided
I offered no opinion, only the fact that the Constitution does not contain an y language regarding secession.You offer just your worthless opinion
You know jack ****.I know enogh about you my friend.
Yet you still have to lie because you can not quote ANYTHING in the Constitution that addresses secession.You have no evidence
No more than you are.Some nameless, ignorant guy off the internet.
No, the lack of integrity and relevant knowledge on your part is amply demonstrated.Is there anything left to know ?
Nope. Didn't read it at all.
And, as I said, the constitution contains no language prohibiting any state from leaving the union.
No he didn't. He didn't cite the language in the constitution that prohibits any state from leaving the union.
I did and what the **** would someonw like you know about education in general much less about someone you do not know?
The link has nothing to do with your inability to quote the part of the Constitution...
I offered no opinion...
The again all you have been able to do is lie, deflect and deny...
You know jack ****.
Then how do you claim:
If you didn't read it ?
You have just been caught out in a lie.
Goodbye, this debate is over until you educate yourself. I've no interest in a pantomime contradiction contest
OR your personal opinion.
Do not delude yourself, you know jack **** and your posts are ample proof of that.I know what constitutional scholars say - you don't
I know that personal opinion is worthless - you don't
More of your lies.Only that in YOUR opinion all constitutional scholars are wrong and that a state can secede legally under the Constitution
Just because you can not quote what you have been repeatedly asked to do.End of debate.
Goodbye.
Do not delude yourself, you know jack **** and your posts are ample proof of that.
More of your lies.
I challenged you to quote the part of the Constitution that prohibits secession or the part that Story interprets as such, You simply CAN NOT but lie and deflect instead.
Just because you can not quote what you have been repeatedly asked to do.
You lie. Quote the ****ing language instead of posting moronic diversions.You have the link, which you refuse to read, which gives you the language in the Constitution that prohibits secession - as stated by former SC justice Story.
You have the link, which you refuse to read, which gives you the language in the Constitution that prohibits secession - as stated by former SC justice Story.
I'm not going to entertain a pantomime repetition.
To those who feel they need proof that the Constitution prohibits secession, read the comments of former Supreme court Justice, Joseph Story.
Should the senate be eliminated because it gives unequal representation to people of the several sovereign states?
Should the senate be eliminated because it gives unequal representation to people of the several sovereign states?
You have the link, which you refuse to read, which gives you the language in the Constitution that prohibits secession - as stated by former SC justice Story.
You lie. Quote the ****ing language instead of posting moronic diversions.
Moderator's Warning: |
You two need to stop the back and forth and return to the discussing the "Should the Senate be Eliminated". |
Should the senate be eliminated because it gives unequal representation to people of the several sovereign states?
No but I do believe we need a "fourth branch" of government that is solely made up of a panel of bipartisan Experts/SME's ("Subject Matter Experts") in economics, finance, law (Constitutional and non Constitutional), military, education, healthcare, etc. who give "The People" the appropriate information based on: 1) who wants it (lobbyist, corp, group, public); 2) why its national necessity (or not); and 3) how much it will cost (actual tax dollars). If a bill is passed, they are responsible for 'bench marking' it with milestones and costs to determine if its having a national benefit (money spent is adding national value or personal value). For instance, if we are spending 2 billion on a program that is failing at what point do we stop and keep throwing good money after bad??? Sadly, The Public has become so politically myopic and the budget over 8,000 pages to the point we are spending trillions of dollars on too many programs, many of which no progress is being made yet we keep bleeding good money for someone's political folly. We sorely need an ACCOUNTABILITY BRANCH!
Like they say "a form of insanity is doing the same thing over, and over, and over again, yet expecting a different result." Time to end the insanity.
No but I do believe we need a "fourth branch" of government that is solely made up of a panel of bipartisan Experts/SME's ("Subject Matter Experts") in economics, finance, law (Constitutional and non Constitutional), military, education, healthcare, etc. who give "The People" the appropriate information based on: 1) who wants it (lobbyist, corp, group, public); 2) why its national necessity (or not); and 3) how much it will cost (actual tax dollars). If a bill is passed, they are responsible for 'bench marking' it with milestones and costs to determine if its having a national benefit (money spent is adding national value or personal value). For instance, if we are spending 2 billion on a program that is failing at what point do we stop and keep throwing good money after bad??? Sadly, The Public has become so politically myopic and the budget over 8,000 pages to the point we are spending trillions of dollars on too many programs, many of which no progress is being made yet we keep bleeding good money for someone's political folly. We sorely need an ACCOUNTABILITY BRANCH!
Like they say "a form of insanity is doing the same thing over, and over, and over again, yet expecting a different result." Time to end the insanity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?