Economics 101

[P@triot]

I had actual college english classes. You see, I am perfectly certain of my ability to read and write english sentences: So you say, me boy. Every one else who sees your drivel thinks not.

Those sentences side-by-side are priceless. Just priceless. I already proved that you're illiterate, that you're incapable of using this website, and that you're clueless about the U.S. Constitution.

Now - you ignored the question (for obvious) reasons so I will ask it again: what country are you from?

 

[P@triot]

Between edthecynic and myself - Eddy was the first one between us to mention the Federalist Papers. He did so right here in post #862. Go to any post I made before #862 see if you can find one post in which I mention the Federalist Papers. You can't do it - because I didn't. Now, EDWARDBAIAMONTE did mention the Federalist Papers before Eddy in post #861. But I am not EDWARDBAIAMONTE.

But YOU came to edward's defense over the Federalist papers, and I never used them as a source for the Constitution. On the contrary, I objected to using them as the final word on the Constitution like YOU were using them.

That wasn't the argument chief. You falsely accused me of bringing them up when in fact even you mentioned them in a post before I did. Just more glaring evidence of how liberals can't get the facts straight.

 

[Rshermr]

Those sentences side-by-side are priceless. Just priceless. I already proved that you're illiterate, that you're incapable of using this website, and that you're clueless about the U.S. Constitution.
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

Actually, those two sentences are fine. Individually or side by side. Nothing in the slightest illiterate about it. And, me poor ignorant con troll, I have been using this web site for years. And anyone who thinks that the us constitution is not open to interpretation is plain butt stupid.
You see, me poor ignorant con troll, all you just did was type a couple personal attacks and an incorrect statement. Not good if you are trying to impress someone. Which you are. Without any luck, me poor ignorant con troll.
And, as normal, you are incapable of making any economic argument. And though you make political arguments about the constitutions, you make no rational sense. Because you are stupid.

Check this out, me simpleton constitutional expert, in your own tiny mind:

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation
"The Supreme Court is "distinctly American in concept and function," as Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes observed. Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence."

"And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process."

"In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.""
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

So, there you go, me boy. Your attempt at saying that the supreme court does not allow for interpretation just got shot down, dipshit. You loose.
Want to try again?
Just more glaring evidence of how con trols like you can't get the facts straight.

 

[P@triot]

And, me poor ignorant con troll, I have been using this web site for years.

And you still haven't figured out how to use it...

 

[P@triot]

The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.

They built in a process for "meeting changing conditions" - it's called amendments.

Now we've established through your lack of proper English and your complete lack of understanding about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government that your from another country. Which country?

 

[Rshermr]

The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.

They built in a process for "meeting changing conditions" - it's called amendments.

Now we've established through your lack of proper English and your complete lack of understanding about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government that your from another country. Which country?

Yes, indeed, me lying con troll. My english is proper. You are not. And it is you that has proven you have a complete misunderstanding of the constitution. Expert source versus you, a bat shit con troll with absolutely no credentials proves my argument, and ruins yours.
There are indeed amendments. We all understand that. But there are many, many more interpretations than there have been amendments. So, again, interpretations are indeed a part of out constitution, regardless of how bad you do not want there to be. You lost that argument big time, Trying to negate it with an argument regarding amendments is just like a con troll. You make an argument that does not pass the giggle test, and irritate everyone who has a rational mind as you show how stupid you are.
But not me, dipshit, I just do not take you at all seriously. As a typical con troll, all you are capable of are personal attacks, lies, and a lost argument. Thanks for proving to all that you are a total looser.

 

[edthecynic]

Between edthecynic and myself - Eddy was the first one between us to mention the Federalist Papers. He did so right here in post #862. Go to any post I made before #862 see if you can find one post in which I mention the Federalist Papers. You can't do it - because I didn't. Now, EDWARDBAIAMONTE did mention the Federalist Papers before Eddy in post #861. But I am not EDWARDBAIAMONTE.

But YOU came to edward's defense over the Federalist papers, and I never used them as a source for the Constitution. On the contrary, I objected to using them as the final word on the Constitution like YOU were using them.

That wasn't the argument chief. You falsely accused me of bringing them up when in fact even you mentioned them in a post before I did. Just more glaring evidence of how liberals can't get the facts straight.

You can spin anything. First of all, I didn't say you were the "first" to bring up the Federalist papers, that was YOUR Straw Man. What I said is you used them as a source for the interpretation of the Constitution, which the below quotes clearly show.

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

The founders were all very clear on this.

The Federalist papers were written by only 3 (THREE) founders, not "all."

And who said that the Federalist Papers were the only source of writings from the founding fathers?!?

YOU cited the Federalist papers as YOUR source.

 

[Rshermr]

Between edthecynic and myself - Eddy was the first one between us to mention the Federalist Papers. He did so right here in post #862. Go to any post I made before #862 see if you can find one post in which I mention the Federalist Papers. You can't do it - because I didn't. Now, EDWARDBAIAMONTE did mention the Federalist Papers before Eddy in post #861. But I am not EDWARDBAIAMONTE.

But YOU came to edward's defense over the Federalist papers, and I never used them as a source for the Constitution. On the contrary, I objected to using them as the final word on the Constitution like YOU were using them.

That wasn't the argument chief. You falsely accused me of bringing them up when in fact even you mentioned them in a post before I did. Just more glaring evidence of how liberals can't get the facts straight.

You can spin anything. First of all, I didn't say you were the "first" to bring up the Federalist papers, that was YOUR Straw Man. What I said is you used them as a source for the interpretation of the Constitution, which the below quotes clearly show.

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

The founders were all very clear on this.

The Federalist papers were written by only 3 (THREE) founders, not "all."

And who said that the Federalist Papers were the only source of writings from the founding fathers?!?

YOU cited the Federalist papers as YOUR source.

The problem with Patriot is that he has absolutely no proof of his assertions. And when he is proven wrong, he just lies. So, technically, he is a typical con troll. He could care less about the truth. Because he has no honor, and no integrity, and no class. He is a sad example of human life.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You just don't understand the language, it clearly grants Congress the enumerated power to make a law.

yes very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts prove you're wrong.

we know why the liberals want to read the Constitution to be a communist document, why they spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb when he was slowly starving to death 60 million, and why they vote for Sanders/Clinton when he is an open communist.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

 

[P@triot]

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

Pretty sad that you have to explain that to him - isn't it?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

Pretty sad that you have to explain that to him - isn't it?

It sure is but then again every country on earth has been taken over by people as stupid as liberals many many times throughout human history so we cant expect anything different now notwithstanding the incredible example of America, from which you might have hoped that some would have had their eyes opened.
.

Thomas Jefferson:
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

 

[Rshermr]

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

And the board troll makes some more stupid posts. I actually did not read them. Learned long ago that the poor troll is brain dead, and you can not get the time back that you would spend trying to make sense of his drivel.

 

[Rshermr]

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

Pretty sad that you have to explain that to him - isn't it?

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

Pretty sad that you have to explain that to him - isn't it?

Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you. Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

And the board troll makes some more stupid posts. I actually did not read them. Learned long ago that the poor troll is brain dead, and you can not get the time back that you would spend trying to make sense of his drivel.

notice the natural violence of liberalism. There is no need for a liberal to think in the face of superior reasoning. They are communists and they know in their hearts what is best.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

Pretty sad that you have to explain that to him - isn't it?

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

Pretty sad that you have to explain that to him - isn't it?

Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you. Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.

notice that to a violent liberal people who agree with Madison have a low IQ.

 

[P@triot]

The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!

True, the Federalist Papers are merely the authors' explanation of what their Constitution meant!!

Relying on it would be as silly as relying on Einstein for an explanation of E=MC2

And the board troll makes some more stupid posts. I actually did not read them. Learned long ago that the poor troll is brain dead, and you can not get the time back that you would spend trying to make sense of his drivel.

Oh we know you've never read any of the founders documents or original writings. You didn't have to tell us that you've never read the U.S. Constitution or the Federalist Papers - it was painfully obvious.

 

[P@triot]

Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you. Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.

Says the idiot foreigner who can't figure out how to use a website....

 

[Rshermr]

Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you. Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.

Says the idiot foreigner who can't figure out how to use a website....

OK, OK. the two of you, if you sum you Iq's, really do not add up to one full person. But maybe a half a normal person.

 

[P@triot]

Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you. Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.

Says the idiot foreigner who can't figure out how to use a website....

OK, OK. the two of you, if you sum you Iq's, really do not add up to one full person. But maybe a half a normal person.

Again...coming from an idiot who can't figure out how to use a fairly simple website and who is a foreigner that has never read the U.S. Constitution.