Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[Bern80]

uh exactly, PROVE IT. Show proof that there are NO exemptions and that ever person has to purchase it no matter what. This is what I am asking you to do. Prove you statement or retract it. BTW the same can be said about the MA of 1792. If you were a white male citizen you were required to purchase the necessary items. Or did you miss that??

The only exceptions would be those that can't afford it. Or already have coverage of some type.

Do you know what PROOF is?? I have to ask because you seem to believe that saying it is proving it. So can you PROVE there are no expemptions including the one that you listed??

AND as you pointed out below, it did NOT apply to every white male between the ages of 18-45. It ONLY applied to the militia

Sorry but that is NOT the case. Why don't you try READING the MA of 1792, it clearly says

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

It bascially drafted EVERY white male CITIZEN betwen those ages. Learn to read.

I did. You seem to not get how intellectually dishonest you are by basically saying 'see, see here's a time when a mandate applied to every citizen'. As if that is somehow a valid comparison when the term citizen was far more restrictive then it is now.

Maybe it's you that need to get their learn on. To make two things analogous they must be similar. We are trying to show what the MA would look like today if applied. The problem is the analogy is hard to hold constant because too many variables are different. citizen doesn't mean now what it did then. So the analogy between then and now falls apart as does the broader analogy of making all 'citizens' purchase something.

 

[JBeukema]

Then it's the law that becomes irrelevant when you believe something is right or wrong?

It's not the simple. One weighs the consequences of one's actions when making a decision. If it's legal, the likelihood of getting caught, etc.

So you morality depends on what society says? Then you have no principles. What is right remains right even when one is unable or unwilling to do what is right.

My point is what actions one believes to be right or wrong are irrelevant where the law is concerned because it is the law that ultimately determines your future.

If that were true, we'd never see regime changes or changes in the Law when people stood up against the La when it was wrong

Of course our militia's are voluntary now

No, they're not, you twit. I already cited the law. If you're a healthy male between 18 and 45, you're militia like it or not.

Then you are blind. The MA would have affected a mere fraction of the actual population at the time.

Only because blacks weren't considered human

ONLY men.

Because women were barely better than blacks in the eyes of the law

ONLY those in the militia.

Not a voluntary thing- as the MA states itself

ONLY able bodied.

So the useless were thrown aside. What's your point?

ONLY between ages of 18-48.

Underage were not full citizens and few lived beyond 58- and those who did were considered useless as far as the MA were concerned.

Over 48 doesn't mean you can't participate in the insurance program.

 

[Bern80]

So you morality depends on what society says? Then you have no principles. What is right remains right even when one is unable or unwilling to do what is right.

Not what I said at all. Please attempt a little honesty. My morality depends on what I believe to be right or wrong, just like you. My point, which you don't seem to not want to acknowledge, is that some of the actions one takes that are based on their own moral compass may be subject to legal ramifications. Which is why I find it ultimately ridiculous when you claim 'I live my life based on some old rag' (might be paraphrasing there, but that was about the gist of it). Of course I don't. The constitution is not where I take my queues as to what is morally right or wrong. That doesn't change the fact that my actions are subject to the laws based on it.

If that were true, we'd never see regime changes or changes in the Law when people stood up against the La when it was wrong

It depends on how many people are like minded and how far they are willing to go really and the issue involved.

No, they're not, you twit. I already cited the law. If you're a healthy male between 18 and 45, you're militia like it or not.

Never mind that is in word only.

Only because blacks weren't considered human

Because women were barely better than blacks in the eyes of the law

Not a voluntary thing- as the MA states itself

ONLY able bodied.

So the useless were thrown aside. What's your point?

ONLY between ages of 18-48.

Underage were not full citizens and few lived beyond 58- and those who did were considered useless as far as the MA were concerned.

Over 48 doesn't mean you can't participate in the insurance program.

My point is you and smith are kind of hung up on the word 'citizen'. It's kind of the lynch pin of your whole argument. You use it in a lame attempt to claim the MA is comparable to the health insurance mandate in that it makes all citizens purchase something. The fact is they aren't comparable. The MA did NOT apply to every citizen and a citizen then is not the same thing as a citizen now.

 

[JBeukema]

So you morality depends on what society says? Then you have no principles. What is right remains right even when one is unable or unwilling to do what is right.

Not what I said at all. Please attempt a little honesty. My morality depends on what I believe to be right or wrong, just like you. My point, which you don't seem to not want to acknowledge, is that some of the actions one takes that are based on their own moral compass may be subject to legal ramifications.

see the highlighted text

Which is why I find it ultimately ridiculous when you claim 'I live my life based on some old rag' (might be paraphrasing there, but that was about the gist of it). Of course I don't. The constitution is not where I take my queues as to what is morally right or wrong. That doesn't change the fact that my actions are subject to the laws based on it.

You also seem to have forgotten that I've stated repeatedly in this thread that Ii don't give a damn whether the mandate is 'constitutional' or not.

The fact is they aren't comparable. The MA did NOT apply to every citizen

So it's fine if we make it subject to institutionalized racism and let the elderly and infirm remain without insurance while subjecting only the healthy to the new law?

and a citizen then is not the same thing as a citizen now.

 

[Bern80]

see the highlighted text

You also seem to have forgotten that I've stated repeatedly in this thread that Ii don't give a damn whether the mandate is 'constitutional' or not.

Yes. What's your point? Are you so hell bent on being disagreeable that you can't see we agree on this? I don't need someone to tell me what's right and wrong is anymore than you do. The fact remains what is right is occasionally in conflict with the law. This discussion isn't about morality. It's about what our government has the power to make people do. You said before you think the mandate is wrong and that you don't need the constitution to tell you that. Fine. That doesn't change the fact, that if it becomes law you'll have to abide by it.

So when it gets to the point sometime when your morality is in conflict with what some congressman wants to make you do, it's nice to have some legal precedent to fall back on rather than just your own say so as to what you think is right or wrong. The truth may very well be on your side, your future is just going to be rather inconvenienced if the law isn't.

The fact is they aren't comparable. The MA did NOT apply to every citizen

So it's fine if we make it subject to institutionalized racism and let the elderly and infirm remain without insurance while subjecting only the healthy to the new law?

You're missing the point. The point is, is the MA of 1792 really analgous the insurance mandate? To determine that somehow we have to set the two side by side, keeping as many variable the same as possible. There are all kinds of ways to do that. Do we try to see what the health care mandate would look like if applied then? Do we try to see what the MA of 1792 would look like if applied now? Whichever of those we apply, don't we have to keep certain variables the same, like what constitutes a citizen? Because it seems rather UNanalogous to compare what a group (termed citizens) is required by government to do, if citizen is now defined differently.

 

[Binky]

A bill that requires one to carry one? They've got to be kidding me. While I believe peoples should have the right to carry and use a weapon, I don't think there should be a law forcing people to do so. I do think tho' that if we are expecting or letting people carry them then those people should have to go thru proper safety classes which also teaches them HOW to shoot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Clapping for a new form of taxation?
Just as long as you are not required to buy govt mandated health ins.

the hypocrites think it's ok to be forced to buy a gun but it's not ok to have to buy health insurance... because heaven forbid you do anything that would benefit other people.

You'll note that your response does not in any way address the argument to that effect.

But, given that you haven't the capacity to fathom, much less counter, that argument, your typically ineffectual sniping is... well... expected.

Tell us again about the only crime specified in the Constitution.

 

[drsmith1072]

OK now please go back and address my post in it's FULL and COMPLETE context. I will respond to your baseless sidestepping and out of context spin when you show that you can be an adult and respond to my posts properly.

I did respond to it. You're either too dense to get that or you just don't like the answer.

NO you did not. You only responded to PART of it that you didn't cut out and ingore. Go back and look at my original post and then look at the excerpt that you chose to respond to as you took it out of the context of the whole.

Face it, you go called out for taking my comments out of context in a desperate attempt at a gotcha moment and now instead of having the integrity to admit it you would rather continue the same dishonest tactics and cherry picking as you try to CYA so you avoid an argument that you know you arleady lost.

Furthermore you really need to learn how to quote.

 

[drsmith1072]

Once again do you know what PROOF is?? It's a GUESS that is all that it is. Claiming it's educated when it is ONLY based on your opinion proves nothing.

Yeah take out women. Since they had no real rights comparable to white males and could barely count as a citizen at that time. Excluding them was done back then so it's only appropriate not to include them in this discussion.

In case you missed it the MA of 1792 mandated that every white male CITIZEN between the ages listed was required to be in their states' militia. That is pretty much a mandate that all white male citizens have to buy their equipment if they don't already have it.

No it's not a guess. It's math you idiot.

the problem is that your numbers are made up. You made up the claim of 25% and provided nothing to back it up even as you pretended it was an "educated guess". Here is some news for you, it's still JUST a guess.

We are attempting to create an analogy here.

was that before or after you took my comments out of context??

The simple fact is, it is most convenient for your argument to talk simply about citizens and ignore what constitutes one.

actually that is your OPINION and that is all it is. Once again you confuse fact and opinion.

But you're not so stupid as to not know what constituted a citizen then was far more restrictive than what constitutes one now.

more restrictive?? really. I hadn't thought of that despite the fact that I mentioned it in earlier statements. LOL

So like I said, it's very convenient to say the MA mandate at the time covered almost every citizen.

Convenient and based on the facts concerning the more restrictive requirements of being a citizen, true.

And you'll conveniently sweep under the rug the fact that 'citizen' was a mere fraction of the population then.

No the MA of 1792 did not apply to non-citizens and I never claimed as much. So are you trying to argue that the HC mandate applies to non-citizens?? It would seem that is what you are now trying to argue but can you PROVE IT??

So don't lecture me about intellectual dishonesty.

Since you are the one being intellectual dishonest, it is you who deserves to be lectured.

And fraction of the population is not an opinion.

The problem you got into was that you tried to present a specific number with nothing real to back it up. You presented your OPINION that only 25% of the population back then were able-bodied and between the ages of 18 and 45 and failed to substantiate that claim. Claiming it's an educated guess does not make it valid.

The population is who we are talking about. How many people in our society the mandate effects. We KNOW in 1798 it was AT LEAST less than half the population. Woman didn't count. We KNOW it has to be less than 50% of the population because YOU would have to be truly dishonest to try to think that the remaining 50% is comprised entirely of able bodied white men between 18-45.

So women didn't count and yet here you are trying to include them. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. LOL Furthermore, what is truly dishonest is claiming that the MA of 1792 only applied to 25% of the alleged 50% of the citizens left over after you exclude women who didn't count anyway, especially when you have provided NOTHING of substance to support said claim. You made up a number and then pretend that claiming it's an educated guess is enough to prove it. LOL

You continue to make claims about what is mandated in the HC bill and yet I am still waiting on you to provide PROOF of what is NOT excluded or exempt from the HC mandate. You made the argument that it was unconditional meaning that "whether one has to make the purchase is not conditinal upon any choice on the part of the individual." now PROVE IT.

You tell me. I would personally love to know what choice I, a 30 year old white male, could make that would not require to purchase health insurance when the mandate takes effect. As far as I can tell the only choice I can make is to be poor in which case the government will provide it for me.

It's YOUR claim how about you try proving something instead of asking me to prove you wrong? Funny how that works. You make a claim, are asked to prove it and then fail miserably at doing so.

 

[drsmith1072]

The only exceptions would be those that can't afford it. Or already have coverage of some type.

Do you know what PROOF is?? I have to ask because you seem to believe that saying it is proving it. So can you PROVE there are no expemptions including the one that you listed??



Sorry but that is NOT the case. Why don't you try READING the MA of 1792, it clearly says

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act.

It bascially drafted EVERY white male CITIZEN betwen those ages. Learn to read.

So are you going to provide proof of your claims concerning the HC mandate and who is actually mandated and that there are no exemptions or am I to take your avoidance as an admission that you can't prove your claims?

I did.

you did what??

You seem to not get how intellectually dishonest you are by basically saying 'see, see here's a time when a mandate applied to every citizen'. As if that is somehow a valid comparison when the term citizen was far more restrictive then it is now.

Funny but wasn't that the point of the gun mandate in the first place?? Claiming that if the HC mandate was good then so should the gun mandate?? Did you miss that from earlier on in this thread?? The fact that state and fed mandate are different and not comparable aside that was the point. So is every right winger that responded in this thread in support of such a comparison intellectually dishonest??.

The point is to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate and that is the argument that YOU tried to make earlier. However, now that this type of comparison actually runs counter to your spin you wish to discard it. Sorry but you rung the bell on comparing fed mandate to a fed mandate now it can't be unrung. LOL

Maybe it's you that need to get their learn on. To make two things analogous they must be similar.

In case you missed it, you already showed that to be the case with your earlier fed mandate to fed mandate comparison. All that you required in your earlier comparison was that the fed was mandating a purchase and that exists in both the MA of 1792 and the HC mandate. So why are you changing your argument NOW??

We are trying to show what the MA would look like today if applied.

That may be your NEW spin but please don't try to put words in my mouth. YOU were the one that wanted a fed mandate to fed mandate comparison and you got it. Trying to change the argument now just further exposes your dishonesty.

The problem is the analogy is hard to hold constant because too many variables are different.

I am sure it is confusing to you but then it's a good thing that you do have that master's degree to fall back on. LOL

citizen doesn't mean now what it did then. So the analogy between then and now falls apart as does the broader analogy of making all 'citizens' purchase something.

and that is why you use the definition at the time to make such a comparison. A fed mandate in the past that applied to almost every person that counted as a citizen back then is quite comparable to a fed mandate that applies to almost every person who counts as a citizen now. Why is that so hard for you to grasp??

 

[Bern80]

I did respond to it. You're either too dense to get that or you just don't like the answer.

NO you did not. You only responded to PART of it that you didn't cut out and ingore. Go back and look at my original post and then look at the excerpt that you chose to respond to as you took it out of the context of the whole.

Face it, you go called out for taking my comments out of context in a desperate attempt at a gotcha moment and now instead of having the integrity to admit it you would rather continue the same dishonest tactics and cherry picking as you try to CYA so you avoid an argument that you know you arleady lost.

Furthermore you really need to learn how to quote.

Which post?

The rest of your posts I'm not going to respond to. They're irrelevant. When you can come up with a position of your own (as opposed to your lame ass claim about what someone else's position should be). YOUR problem is you are piss poor communicator. You simply try to spin and spin and spin until you've lost your opponent. Not gonna work here. Few people here have typed so many words and said so little of any import. So grow a pair, make fucking point and we'll continue. Until then shut the fuck up.

 

[drsmith1072]

NO you did not. You only responded to PART of it that you didn't cut out and ingore. Go back and look at my original post and then look at the excerpt that you chose to respond to as you took it out of the context of the whole.

Face it, you go called out for taking my comments out of context in a desperate attempt at a gotcha moment and now instead of having the integrity to admit it you would rather continue the same dishonest tactics and cherry picking as you try to CYA so you avoid an argument that you know you arleady lost.

Furthermore you really need to learn how to quote.

Which post?

Learn to read, I am tired of going back and showing you how you either contradicted yourself, made a fool of yourself or were just WRONG so you can ignore it and pretend that it's irrelevant.

The rest of your posts I'm not going to respond to. They're irrelevant. When you can come up with a position of your own (as opposed to your lame ass claim about what someone else's position should be). YOUR problem is you are piss poor communicator. You simply try to spin and spin and spin until you've lost your opponent. Not gonna work here. Few people here have typed so many words and said so little of any import. So grow a pair, make fucking point and we'll continue. Until then shut the fuck up.

I have made several points but yet again you turn tail and run from what you can't counter. One of the main problems that you have is that your argument has shifted consistently throughout this thread and when i respond to all of your various arguments and show how you contradict yourself apparently it confuses you to the pioint that you feel the need to blame me for your inconsistencies. How sad is that? LOL

Oh well you have been owned even though you would deny it so you can run along little coward. Come back when you "grow a pair" and can actually debate a topic and stay on topic without cherry picking and editing posts.

 

[drsmith1072]

I do find it hilarious that when I right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.

He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.

He tried to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate earlier in the thread and now that this tactic has backfired he claims that such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

He made claims about what the hc mandate actually mandated but then failed to show that it mandated what he claimed it did and even asked me to "tell" him.

He made claims about the population in the 1790's in a desperate attempt to support his claim that the MA of 1792 only applied 25% of the population at that time and yet failed to prove said claim and could only argue that it was an "educated guess.

I took a break form the board a while back is this really what the right is reduced to??

 

[Bern80]

I do find it hilarious that when I right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.

He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.

He tried to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate earlier in the thread and now that this tactic has backfired he claims that such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

He made claims about what the hc mandate actually mandated but then failed to show that it mandated what he claimed it did and even asked me to "tell" him.

He made claims about the population in the 1790's in a desperate attempt to support his claim that the MA of 1792 only applied 25% of the population at that time and yet failed to prove said claim and could only argue that it was an "educated guess.

I took a break form the board a while back is this really what the right is reduced to??

And this is what it always comes to. Too chickenshit to take an actual position or too stupid to figure out he hasn't really said a damn thing. So you resort to what amounts to talking about someone in third person while they're in the room. Who are hoping is listening? Is it this post?

So IF congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.

See the bolded sentence? That is the only single solitary statement in the pages and of your ramblings, the remotely resembles a position of opinion of any type.....AND IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! If they could justify it? How convenient is it for the body that makes laws to simply say 'yep it's constitutional cause we said so'. If that's really the argument you want to make, you're gonna have to do better. The rest of the paragraph is you opining about what someone else should think which isn't much of a position at all

 

[drsmith1072]

I do find it hilarious that when I right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.

He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.

He tried to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate earlier in the thread and now that this tactic has backfired he claims that such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

He made claims about what the hc mandate actually mandated but then failed to show that it mandated what he claimed it did and even asked me to "tell" him.

He made claims about the population in the 1790's in a desperate attempt to support his claim that the MA of 1792 only applied 25% of the population at that time and yet failed to prove said claim and could only argue that it was an "educated guess.

I took a break form the board a while back is this really what the right is reduced to??

And this is what it always comes to. Too chickenshit to take an actual position or too stupid to figure out he hasn't really said a damn thing.

I have stated my postion clearly and have maintained the same position throughout this thread. Where as your postion has shifted and changed based on expediency as you try to make corrections to your previous arguments which were countered and shot down.

So you resort to what amounts to talking about someone in third person while they're in the room. Who are hoping is listening? Is it this post?

I tried talking to you directly but you chose to act like a child and stick your fingers in your ears and whine as you ignored the full and complete context of my posts so you could take small excerpts out of context in a dishonest attempt to get a gotcha moment.

Furthermore, talking about you in the third person does not change the fact that everything I said is completely TRUE.

So IF congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.

See the bolded sentence? That is the only single solitary statement in the pages and of your ramblings, the remotely resembles a position of opinion of any type.....AND IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! If they could justify it? How convenient is it for the body that makes laws to simply say 'yep it's constitutional cause we said so'. If that's really the argument you want to make, you're gonna have to do better. The rest of the paragraph is you opining about what someone else should think which isn't much of a position at all

LOL That's the best you've got?? really?? BTW why are you so interested in making me restate my opinion when you will just ignore it as you have done previously? Why do you need ME to spell things out for you??
Although it is funny how you continue to falsley claim that my arguments are irrelevant and don't make sense and yet you cannot show how they are either. That pretty much shows that you are only making those claims so you can avoid arguments that you can't counter.

Face it, the fact is that your arguments have been all over the place and you have been busted for contradicting yourself and being a dishonest hack. Desperately trying to make this about me and my opinons as you ignore the very opinions that you claim to want to talk about will not change that fact.

 

[RevBig]

Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”

Good for the goose, good for the gander.

I am heavily pro firearm and a NRA member because I support my causes with cash baby, without the NRA even peashooters might be illegal. Anyway, that said, I am not so sure I can get on board with a law that orders me to buy anything! That is too much government intrusion into my life. I detest the Obamacare for those same reasons (among others).
~RB~

 

[Bern80]

I do find it hilarious that when I right winger such as Bern makes a claim but then fails to substantiate it when asked or his argument backfires he turns to smearing those who question him as he claims that their posts, which show him to be inconsistent, contradictory and flat out dishonest, are irellevant so he can avoid responding to them because he can't counter them.

He asked a question concerning the gun mandate under the assumption that the HC mandate was constitutional then tried to use my response to his specific question as an answer to a different question as he now excluded his previous assumption about the HC madnate.

He tried to compare a fed mandate to a fed mandate earlier in the thread and now that this tactic has backfired he claims that such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

He made claims about what the hc mandate actually mandated but then failed to show that it mandated what he claimed it did and even asked me to "tell" him.

He made claims about the population in the 1790's in a desperate attempt to support his claim that the MA of 1792 only applied 25% of the population at that time and yet failed to prove said claim and could only argue that it was an "educated guess.

I took a break form the board a while back is this really what the right is reduced to??

And this is what it always comes to. Too chickenshit to take an actual position or too stupid to figure out he hasn't really said a damn thing.

I have stated my postion clearly and have maintained the same position throughout this thread. Where as your postion has shifted and changed based on expediency as you try to make corrections to your previous arguments which were countered and shot down.




I tried talking to you directly but you chose to act like a child and stick your fingers in your ears and whine as you ignored the full and complete context of my posts so you could take small excerpts out of context in a dishonest attempt to get a gotcha moment.

Furthermore, talking about you in the third person does not change the fact that everything I said is completely TRUE.

So IF congress could justify it based on the powers given to them by the constitution then yes they could mandate that everyone purchase a firearm. However, based on the fact that the enumerated powers only state that the congress should PROVIDE for arming the militia and says nothing about forcing every citizen to arm themselves at their own expense my guess is that a REAL conservative would argue that is not considered one of their enumerated powers.

See the bolded sentence? That is the only single solitary statement in the pages and of your ramblings, the remotely resembles a position of opinion of any type.....AND IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! If they could justify it? How convenient is it for the body that makes laws to simply say 'yep it's constitutional cause we said so'. If that's really the argument you want to make, you're gonna have to do better. The rest of the paragraph is you opining about what someone else should think which isn't much of a position at all

LOL That's the best you've got?? really?? BTW why are you so interested in making me restate my opinion when you will just ignore it as you have done previously? Why do you need ME to spell things out for you??
Although it is funny how you continue to falsley claim that my arguments are irrelevant and don't make sense and yet you cannot show how they are either. That pretty much shows that you are only making those claims so you can avoid arguments that you can't counter.

Face it, the fact is that your arguments have been all over the place and you have been busted for contradicting yourself and being a dishonest hack. Desperately trying to make this about me and my opinons as you ignore the very opinions that you claim to want to talk about will not change that fact.

This entire post is proof of my point. If you want me to respond to an argument then for the love of god make one. There isn't anything in here for me to respond to as an argument goes. THAT is why the bulk of your posts get deleted. AT BEST your opinon that your opinions are relevant and deserve response is no more valid than my opinion that a lot of what you say isnt relavent. It's all opinion about the conversation (as opposed to the topic) based on your perspective.

I bolded the one sentence of yours that I could find that constituted a position of any type and YOU failed to counter it. Calerly YOU are the one more interested in avoiding things. How many times does this make that I've asked you to re-state/clarify your position? How manty times does this make that you've come up with some lame excuse not to? Maybe there is the sembelance of an actual argument in here some where, but what I bolded is about all I could find. I'm asking that so I don't continue to get a bunch more ridiculous posts in reply like this one.

 

[drsmith1072]

And this is what it always comes to. Too chickenshit to take an actual position or too stupid to figure out he hasn't really said a damn thing.

I have stated my postion clearly and have maintained the same position throughout this thread. Where as your postion has shifted and changed based on expediency as you try to make corrections to your previous arguments which were countered and shot down.




I tried talking to you directly but you chose to act like a child and stick your fingers in your ears and whine as you ignored the full and complete context of my posts so you could take small excerpts out of context in a dishonest attempt to get a gotcha moment.

Furthermore, talking about you in the third person does not change the fact that everything I said is completely TRUE.

See the bolded sentence? That is the only single solitary statement in the pages and of your ramblings, the remotely resembles a position of opinion of any type.....AND IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE! If they could justify it? How convenient is it for the body that makes laws to simply say 'yep it's constitutional cause we said so'. If that's really the argument you want to make, you're gonna have to do better. The rest of the paragraph is you opining about what someone else should think which isn't much of a position at all

LOL That's the best you've got?? really?? BTW why are you so interested in making me restate my opinion when you will just ignore it as you have done previously? Why do you need ME to spell things out for you??
Although it is funny how you continue to falsley claim that my arguments are irrelevant and don't make sense and yet you cannot show how they are either. That pretty much shows that you are only making those claims so you can avoid arguments that you can't counter.

Face it, the fact is that your arguments have been all over the place and you have been busted for contradicting yourself and being a dishonest hack. Desperately trying to make this about me and my opinons as you ignore the very opinions that you claim to want to talk about will not change that fact.

This entire post is proof of my point.

That you are a coward who lacks the integrity to stand behind what he says and changes his arguments on a whim because he lacks the substance to back them up as he contradicts himself?? Yeah, I would say you have proven that point quite well.

If you want me to respond to an argument then for the love of god make one.

I made several that coutnered every version of your argument that you presented and instead of addressing the fect that your spin has been countered you are trying desperately to make this about me.

There isn't anything in here for me to respond to as an argument goes.

Ther is plenty to respond to and your willful ignorance will not chagne that FACT.

THAT is why the bulk of your posts get deleted.

actualy they get delelted becuase you can't coutner what was said so you claim it's irrelevant or does not make sense but can't show how it is either as you tunr tail and run.

AT BEST your opinon that your opinions are relevant and deserve response is no more valid than my opinion that a lot of what you say isnt relavent. It's all opinion about the conversation (as opposed to the topic) based on your perspective.

You claim that my opinions are irrelevant and then fail to substantiate your claim. You made the claim that they irrelevant so it should be easy enough for you to show how they are irrelevant but the FACT is that you can't which is why you don't.

I bolded the one sentence of yours that I could find that constituted a position of any type and YOU failed to counter it.

Why would I counter my own position?? I know contradicting yourself is a problem that you have but why would I try to counter my own position??

Calerly YOU are the one more interested in avoiding things.

says the hack who delete's half of my posts because he lacks the ability to respond to the content.

How many times does this make that I've asked you to re-state/clarify your position? How manty times does this make that you've come up with some lame excuse not to? Maybe there is the sembelance of an actual argument in here some where, but what I bolded is about all I could find. I'm asking that so I don't continue to get a bunch more ridiculous posts in reply like this one.

I have already stated my position and asked you many, many questions about your ever shifting position as I pointed out the inconsistencies and contradictions in your arguments and yet you have failed to address my questions.
Why is it that you believe I don't deserve a real response to what I have said but that I should drop everything and follow your line of questioning and give you what I have already stated but you choose to ignore??

LOL

 

[Bern80]

I have stated my postion clearly and have maintained the same position throughout this thread. Where as your postion has shifted and changed based on expediency as you try to make corrections to your previous arguments which were countered and shot down.




I tried talking to you directly but you chose to act like a child and stick your fingers in your ears and whine as you ignored the full and complete context of my posts so you could take small excerpts out of context in a dishonest attempt to get a gotcha moment.

Furthermore, talking about you in the third person does not change the fact that everything I said is completely TRUE.


LOL That's the best you've got?? really?? BTW why are you so interested in making me restate my opinion when you will just ignore it as you have done previously? Why do you need ME to spell things out for you??
Although it is funny how you continue to falsley claim that my arguments are irrelevant and don't make sense and yet you cannot show how they are either. That pretty much shows that you are only making those claims so you can avoid arguments that you can't counter.

Face it, the fact is that your arguments have been all over the place and you have been busted for contradicting yourself and being a dishonest hack. Desperately trying to make this about me and my opinons as you ignore the very opinions that you claim to want to talk about will not change that fact.

This entire post is proof of my point.

That you are a coward who lacks the integrity to stand behind what he says and changes his arguments on a whim because he lacks the substance to back them up as he contradicts himself?? Yeah, I would say you have proven that point quite well.



I made several that coutnered every version of your argument that you presented and instead of addressing the fect that your spin has been countered you are trying desperately to make this about me.



Ther is plenty to respond to and your willful ignorance will not chagne that FACT.




actualy they get delelted becuase you can't coutner what was said so you claim it's irrelevant or does not make sense but can't show how it is either as you tunr tail and run.



You claim that my opinions are irrelevant and then fail to substantiate your claim. You made the claim that they irrelevant so it should be easy enough for you to show how they are irrelevant but the FACT is that you can't which is why you don't.



Why would I counter my own position?? I know contradicting yourself is a problem that you have but why would I try to counter my own position??

Calerly YOU are the one more interested in avoiding things.

says the hack who delete's half of my posts because he lacks the ability to respond to the content.

How many times does this make that I've asked you to re-state/clarify your position? How manty times does this make that you've come up with some lame excuse not to? Maybe there is the sembelance of an actual argument in here some where, but what I bolded is about all I could find. I'm asking that so I don't continue to get a bunch more ridiculous posts in reply like this one.

I have already stated my position and asked you many, many questions about your ever shifting position as I pointed out the inconsistencies and contradictions in your arguments and yet you have failed to address my questions.
Why is it that you believe I don't deserve a real response to what I have said but that I should drop everything and follow your line of questioning and give you what I have already stated but you choose to ignore??

LOL

You would have been better off just cutting and pasting the post you made before this one. It's just more of the same. I don't know if things are getting worse or better for you. This time around you managed to not even come close to broaching the subject of health care.

I will grant you have made many counter arguments, but none of them really have had anything to do with health care. It's more of the same similar to the above. I'm dodging this or I'm not responding to that or I'm changing this. None of which is actually true. And yet here I am asking yet again, point blank, for you to actually state your position.

 

[Polk]

I'm late to this thread, so I don't know if anyone has mentioned this already, but the authors of the bill do realize they're making the case for the constitutionality of the mandate, right? There have previously been federal requirements mandating the purchase of guns by private citizens.