CDZ Liberty

[Gdjjr]

No, they are inherent.

I'm born with them?

~S~

Yes-

 

[Gdjjr]

YOURS is NOT the only interpretation, nor is it ALWAYS the correct one.

Words mean things or they're useless- twisting, spinning, castigating and bastardizing is what lawyers pay others to teach them to do- most congress critters and/or their subordinates (interns/staff) are lawyers or lawyers in the making- they don't impress me, nor do your silly arguments.

 

[sparky]

No, they are inherent.

I'm born with them?

~S~

Yes-

thx.....

but i didn't 'earn' them simply by being born in America....

~S~

 

[CWayne]

YOURS is NOT the only interpretation, nor is it ALWAYS the correct one.

Words mean things or they're useless- twisting, spinning, castigating and bastardizing is what lawyers pay others to teach them to do- most congress critters and/or their subordinates (interns/staff) are lawyers or lawyers in the making- they don't impress me, nor do your silly arguments.

Correct.

I see you and others allegedly on the right, spinning the meaning of words and assigning situations that don't exist in reality.

Liberty is ONLY as effective as a moral electorate.

We do not, nor have we had in a decade or more, a moral electorate.

Liberty is inherent in life. However, it is not a given state of life.

 

[sparky]

Well this is interesting

What is 'liberty' ...?

Does it mean i have the right to do whatever i want?

What about any given cult doing what they want?

Most of you can see where i'm going....

Where does the line get crossed ????

~S~

 

[Flash]

[

How is it ironclad when those who hold power think that the right to bear arms is a privilege granted by the government?

My point is that far too many people don't understand that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights aren't negotiable and should be held strict scrutiny. Liberals hate individual Liberties when it conflicts with their collective socialistic agenda.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Interesting.

So, some 350+ million people get to decide what is a valid law and what is not?

I find these kinds of circular arguments a bit tiring, but let me ask you directly.

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

According to the founders / framers, the final decision lies with the people. If the courts become tyrannical and opposed to the concept of Liberty, do you think we're required to submit to a yoke of slavery?

So who will make the determination if 100 million believe it is constitutional, 100 million don't, and the rest don't care?

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism." (excerpts from Frederick Bastiat's The Law)

Thomas Jefferson admonished us:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

George Washington shared his wisdom in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

It don't take a Harvard degree nor a lot of debate to answer this. The United States Supreme Court is empowered to interpret the law. Instead, the REINTERPRET the law; they illegally bestow powers on other branches of government when they have no authority to do so. If we researched the law and nullified all the illegal acts, we would have no problem. Would you like an example?

 

[CWayne]

[

How is it ironclad when those who hold power think that the right to bear arms is a privilege granted by the government?

My point is that far too many people don't understand that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights aren't negotiable and should be held strict scrutiny. Liberals hate individual Liberties when it conflicts with their collective socialistic agenda.

There are no rights in the bill of rights. There are restrictions on government.

Never fall into the trap that the government gives us rights.

 

[CWayne]

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Interesting.

So, some 350+ million people get to decide what is a valid law and what is not?

I find these kinds of circular arguments a bit tiring, but let me ask you directly.

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

According to the founders / framers, the final decision lies with the people. If the courts become tyrannical and opposed to the concept of Liberty, do you think we're required to submit to a yoke of slavery?

So who will make the determination if 100 million believe it is constitutional, 100 million don't, and the rest don't care?

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism." (excerpts from Frederick Bastiat's The Law)

Thomas Jefferson admonished us:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

George Washington shared his wisdom in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

It don't take a Harvard degree nor a lot of debate to answer this. The United States Supreme Court is empowered to interpret the law. Instead, the REINTERPRET the law; they illegally bestow powers on other branches of government when they have no authority to do so. If we researched the law and nullified all the illegal acts, we would have no problem. Would you like an example?

Who is this we?

Your entire argument stems from the fact that you don't think anyone should be able to take from you while you enjoy the benefits of the labor of others.

If the final power lays with the people, but the people don't care or won't agree with your interpretation, then it's all wrong?

I really don't have time to deconstruct your argument right now. I've had a few while watching the Michigan v Iowa game and I'm a bit tired now.

 

[Flash]

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Interesting.

So, some 350+ million people get to decide what is a valid law and what is not?

I find these kinds of circular arguments a bit tiring, but let me ask you directly.

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

According to the founders / framers, the final decision lies with the people. If the courts become tyrannical and opposed to the concept of Liberty, do you think we're required to submit to a yoke of slavery?

So who will make the determination if 100 million believe it is constitutional, 100 million don't, and the rest don't care?

"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole — with their common aim of legal plunder — constitute socialism." (excerpts from Frederick Bastiat's The Law)

Thomas Jefferson admonished us:

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823.

George Washington shared his wisdom in his Farewell Address:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

It don't take a Harvard degree nor a lot of debate to answer this. The United States Supreme Court is empowered to interpret the law. Instead, the REINTERPRET the law; they illegally bestow powers on other branches of government when they have no authority to do so. If we researched the law and nullified all the illegal acts, we would have no problem. Would you like an example?

Excellent points.

Democracy will always fail when the people uses the power of the ballot to get the government to steal on their behalf. Democratic socialism is a terribly brutal and immoral form of government.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of tyrannical government.

 

[Flash]

[

How is it ironclad when those who hold power think that the right to bear arms is a privilege granted by the government?

My point is that far too many people don't understand that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights aren't negotiable and should be held strict scrutiny. Liberals hate individual Liberties when it conflicts with their collective socialistic agenda.

There are no rights in the bill of rights. There are restrictions on government.

Never fall into the trap that the government gives us rights.

I said "enumerated" not "granted". We are in agreement.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Where does the line get crossed?

~S~

Speaking only for myself, I'm not anti-government. I just want as little of it as possible. I want it strictly limited. Limited for liberty!

The Founders agreed.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Anybody talk or type. You need valid arguments to make sense.

Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the Convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. There is nothing ambiguous about it.

You are the only ambiguity here. Do you have anything to add to the topic of Liberty? If not, I may have to start ignoring your feeble attempts to derail the thread.

You confuse seeking clarification for trolling.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Is that liberty?

If there is no appeal, then why do you spend your life doing it? Are you admitting that you're ignorant? WTF that does that even mean?

Why do you despise Liberty?

You claim i do it with nothing but fallacy. Do you despise sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation?

So you have a monopoly on "sublimeTruth" and only by arguing with you will I discover the great wisdom you possess over mankind? Sounds like a mind fuck to me.

lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies. The right wing must be worse.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I would never consider myself to have Liberty when the government is trying to run my life by taking my money and giving it away to other people and then trying to control everything I do like owning firearms or or having free speech.

For instance, I think it is robbing me of my Liberty by having the 1964 Civil Rights law. Why can't I hire, fire or sell my house to whoever I want? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government put restrictions on me to not be able to discriminate to my heart's content?

Is it a 'Right' for you to hire, fire, or sell your house to whoever you want?

Certainly it isn't a right spelled out in the Constitution. This is where the concept of inherent rights gets wobbly- because you and I may disagree on what is an inherent right.

Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I have to stop for a red light? Why does the friggin filthy oppressive government tell me I can't dump toxic pesticides in the river that runs through my property? Why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me I can't bribe foreign officials for my business's benefit?

Or perhaps onto more hotly debated issues: why does the filthy friggin oppressive government tell me that I can't buy contraceptives(which was the case until the Supreme Court ended that)? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell a woman she can't have an abortion? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell me that I can't own and use explosives in my home in a city? Why does the filthy oppressive government tell someone that they can't burn the American flag?

The government can "tell" you a lot of things. They may have the power to pass unconstitutional laws, but even the United States Supreme Court has opined that you do not have to obey unconstitutional laws:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

Interesting.

So, some 350+ million people get to decide what is a valid law and what is not?

I find these kinds of circular arguments a bit tiring, but let me ask you directly.

Who decides which law in unconstitutional and invalid?

According to the founders / framers, the final decision lies with the people. If the courts become tyrannical and opposed to the concept of Liberty, do you think we're required to submit to a yoke of slavery?

So, you go right to the final solution. Revolution.

After all, it is the duty of every citizen to overthrow their government when the government becomes tyrannical.

That works if you can get enough followers.

In the absence of having enough people to agree with you, and in the absence of a government ruling that the law they clearly want is Constitutional (regardless of your own personal beliefs), what recourse do you or does anyone have?

The bottome line, why is it that you are correct while millions disagree?

America was not founded as a democracy.

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence represented less than 5 or 6 percent of the colonists.

Ever since Old Testaments days when the people worshiped the Golden Calf, majorities have been proven to be wrong.

We have a legal and moral duty to exhaust all of our legal and political avenues of redress, but at the end of the day, we are not required to submit to a yoke of slavery... which is what the masses would have you do. Again, to quote Jefferson:

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

And so the cycle of history goes on. When those being oppressed figure out over half the people are now dependent upon the government; we lose over half our money to taxes; the government is attacking Liberty at an alarming rate, than and only then will they push back.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You are the only ambiguity here. Do you have anything to add to the topic of Liberty? If not, I may have to start ignoring your feeble attempts to derail the thread.

You confuse seeking clarification for trolling.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Is that liberty?

If there is no appeal, then why do you spend your life doing it? Are you admitting that you're ignorant? WTF that does that even mean?

Why do you despise Liberty?

You claim i do it with nothing but fallacy. Do you despise sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation?

So you have a monopoly on "sublimeTruth" and only by arguing with you will I discover the great wisdom you possess over mankind? Sounds like a mind fuck to me.

lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies. The right wing must be worse.

I don't know a lot about left wing and right wing. It sounds like both sides of a chicken. Today the left and right are like one hand washing the other. There is no fundamental difference between the two at the end of the day. They need each other to make two points that end up going to the same destination.

Having said that, wouldn't mean that you dabble in as many fallacies as anyone else? Isn't that a commonality between political hacks?

 

[danielpalos]

So....granted from the Almighty?

No, they are inherent.

Nope, sorry but, not even at it's inception....

Yep- all men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights, among these are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness- there are no caveats or boundaries- though, arguably, this Country was founded to protect those rights here-

Except for some? Right wing bigotry and racism is an affront to, All men are created equal and have certain unalienable rights.

 

[danielpalos]

You confuse seeking clarification for trolling.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Is that liberty?

If there is no appeal, then why do you spend your life doing it? Are you admitting that you're ignorant? WTF that does that even mean?

Why do you despise Liberty?

You claim i do it with nothing but fallacy. Do you despise sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation?

So you have a monopoly on "sublimeTruth" and only by arguing with you will I discover the great wisdom you possess over mankind? Sounds like a mind fuck to me.

lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies. The right wing must be worse.

I don't know a lot about left wing and right wing. It sounds like both sides of a chicken. Today the left and right are like one hand washing the other. There is no fundamental difference between the two at the end of the day. They need each other to make two points that end up going to the same destination.

Having said that, wouldn't mean that you dabble in as many fallacies as anyone else? Isn't that a commonality between political hacks?

No. I prefer to win my arguments not just resort to fallacy, gossip, hearsay, and soothsay. There is a difference.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

No, they are inherent.

I'm born with them?

~S~

Thomas Jefferson referred to the Declaration of Independence as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man." It laid out the presuppositions upon which the Republic rests and the Courts declared that some Rights are inherent, unalienable, absolute, natural (aka god given), irrevocable and above the reach of government.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Liberty is the foundation of this Country, there are no caveats in all men are created equal and have certain unaliebable rights. But, as is seen, we argue over who can best control us- Democrats or Republicans - while those who address Liberty on the National stage are relegated to whack jobs and fringe. It's no wonder as Liberty is "fringe" in a world of control freaks.

Darn good post, man. So true.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

If there is no appeal, then why do you spend your life doing it? Are you admitting that you're ignorant? WTF that does that even mean?

Why do you despise Liberty?

You claim i do it with nothing but fallacy. Do you despise sublime Truth (value) discoverable through argumentation?

So you have a monopoly on "sublimeTruth" and only by arguing with you will I discover the great wisdom you possess over mankind? Sounds like a mind fuck to me.

lol. I resort to the fewest fallacies. The right wing must be worse.

I don't know a lot about left wing and right wing. It sounds like both sides of a chicken. Today the left and right are like one hand washing the other. There is no fundamental difference between the two at the end of the day. They need each other to make two points that end up going to the same destination.

Having said that, wouldn't mean that you dabble in as many fallacies as anyone else? Isn't that a commonality between political hacks?

No. I prefer to win my arguments not just resort to fallacy, gossip, hearsay, and soothsay. There is a difference.

I don't see where you've done anything of the kind on this thread. But, then again, you never answered me. So, if YOU declare something to be a fallacy, gossip, hearsay or soothsay (sic) then that is like the Word of God and you win any "argument?"

If that's the case, I'm glad this isn't an argument board. This is a discussion board. Was that attitude and those repetitive posts responsible for that vacation the mods gave you recently?