Living Document or Not?

[Liability]

And Limpbility's comments are always worthless.

Wow. We didn't even ask for Jokey to prove how totally lame he is, but he volunteered to demonstrate it.

And he certainly demonstrated it --

again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As is Squirt and Limpbility have any power to chastise anyone. Both are moronic liars.

 

[Yurt]

you see....you can't refute such eloquent debate

i mean just look at all those facts starkey uses to support his assertions

flawless man, just flawless and amazing

 

[Bern80]

I follow your standard. You make a claim, then defend it with evidence, etc. I will then answer that claim with evidence and post some new material (only after I have met your claim), then it is your turn.

Your opinion is worthless is the point.

Yours is no better. I have presented my evidence and you countered. And now you lack the objectivity to see that it is not a very good argument as arguments go. At least not without further citation. I am a fairly logical, objective person. If someone (you) says the necessary and proper clause gives the government the authority to require people to purchase health insurance, I am goint to read that clause and see that it says essentially that govenment can pass any laws that are necessary and proper for fulfillng it's obigations and that it has domain over per the constitution. So a logical person asks themself where in the constitution is there an obliation or some area of domain that would make a law like that necessary and proper. So far I haven't found it. Have you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I do understand the principles of Discussion, Research, and Evaluation,. Your contention that you, on your own, can interpret the Constitution authoritatively to support your assertion is nonsensical. So . . .

Look, try this way: 1. post your opinion or assertion or statement about the Constitution. 2. your evidence that supports your assertion about the Constitution. 3. Your conclusion. Then I respond to A and to B and then C. Then I post my new assertions and evidence and conclusion. Then it's your turn again.

But remember, you are not an authority on the Constitution so your opinion and personal analysis is only for you, no one else. Got it?

 

[Bern80]

I do understand the principles of Discussion, Research, and Evaluation,. Your contention that you, on your own, can interpret the Constitution authoritatively to support your assertion is nonsensical. So . . .

Look, try this way: 1. post your opinion or assertion or statement about the Constitution. 2. your evidence that supports your assertion about the Constitution. 3. Your conclusion. Then I respond to A and to B and then C. Then I post my new assertions and evidence and conclusion. Then it's your turn again.

But remember, you are not an authority on the Constitution so your opinion and personal analysis is only for you, no one else. Got it?

Then that will be our sticking point. You saying I am not an authority on the constitution means nothing. Especially coming from you. And really whether I am or not and whether expertise matters or not has no bearing on your ability to answer the question It's an excuse you are making to avoid having to address the question. The constitution isn't written in greek or some mystical language only certain people can understand. It says what it says. I have made my statement. My evidence is that the authority you say the fed has is no where to be found in the constitution that I can see. Where is the authority or domain found in the document that would render requiring people to purchase health insurance necessary and proper?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all, Bern.

I do understand the constitution. I understand your argument perfectly. You argument is not sustainable in the view of history. You can be John C. Calhoun today all you want, but you are not an authority anyone is going to take seriously.

Sorry, that is just the way it is.

 

[Bern80]

Not at all, Bern.

I do understand the constitution. I understand your argument perfectly. You argument is not sustainable in the view of history. You can be John C. Calhoun today all you want, but you are not an authority anyone is going to take seriously.

Sorry, that is just the way it is.

Based on what exactly is it unsustainable? Is the authority there for the government to pass such a necessary and proper law or not? If I am so wrong why is this such a difficult question for you to answer?

Your OPINION of my expertise is irrelevant to the discussion.

THAT is the way it is.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

I do understand the constitution. * * * *

No, Jokey, you don't. Your OPINION that you do is wrong and unsustainable.

Or, you're just lying again. Either way. Doesn't matter. Nothing you post ever does.

That's that.

 

[Liability]

As is Squirt and Limpbility have any power to chastise anyone. Both are moronic liars.

Anybody can chastise Jokey, for as everyone plainly sees, Jokey is incapable of ever speaking honestly or intelligently.

He is a retarded, scumbag liar. Could be his epitaph:

"Here LIES Jokey. But that's redundant."

 

[bucs90]

Not at all, Bern.

I do understand the constitution. I understand your argument perfectly. You argument is not sustainable in the view of history. You can be John C. Calhoun today all you want, but you are not an authority anyone is going to take seriously.

Sorry, that is just the way it is.

Based on what exactly is it unsustainable? Is the authority there for the government to pass such a necessary and proper law or not? If I am so wrong why is this such a difficult question for you to answer?

Your OPINION of my expertise is irrelevant to the discussion.

THAT is the way it is.

I agree with you on this issue.

If the Constitution was written by simple men, then it can be interpreted by simple men. It is when men who are convinced of their own intellectual superiority begin an attempt to read into the Constitution what they want it to say that the document becomes misunderstood.

Simple men who wanted little more than freedom of opportunity and protection from tyranny. Thats not hard to understand.

Unless you're JakeStarkey, because he loves lamp.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unless you're JakeStarkey, because he loves lamp.

You are a weird from the far far right, Bucs. You are not mainstream, merely a sucking poser. So, the fact is that you keep blowing for it and keep sucking it deep. Your lung capacity is amazing.

 

[Yurt]

legion troll lives!

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you cretins, Yurt, are unable to fashion a consistent argument based on the Constitution, history, and the law, then you all have nothing important to say. Carry on.

 

[Liability]

Unless you're JakeStarkey, because he loves lamp.

You are a weird from the far far right, Bucs. You are not mainstream, merely a sucking poser. So, the fact is that you keep blowing for it and keep sucking it deep. Your lung capacity is amazing.

Jokey is an expert on fellatio. His life's passion.

Well, that and being a lying scumbag piece of shit poseur.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80 cannot fashion a discussion on the Constitution and the recent health insurance reform legislation that prevents businesses getting between you and your doctors. He wants to argue constitutional principles out of his ass as if he is an authority. He is only a poseur here for grins and chuckles.

 

[Liability]

Bern80 cannot fashion a discussion on the Constitution and the recent health insurance reform legislation that prevents businesses getting between you and your doctors. He wants to argue constitutional principles out of his ass as if he is an authority. He is only a poseur here for grins and chuckles.

Joke:

Other than the unsupported and utterly irrational high value you place in your own uneducated and misinformed opinions on the meaning and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, there must be some genuine and recognized experts whom you consider the most authoritative on matters of valid Constitutional interpretation.

Give it up. Name a few.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bern80 cannot fashion a discussion on the Constitution and the recent health insurance reform legislation that prevents businesses getting between you and your doctors. He wants to argue constitutional principles out of his ass as if he is an authority. He is only a poseur here for grins and chuckles.

Joke:

Other than the unsupported and utterly irrational high value you place in your own uneducated and misinformed opinions on the meaning and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, there must be some genuine and recognized experts whom you consider the most authoritative on matters of valid Constitutional interpretation.

Give it up. Name a few.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]YouTube - ‪Cricket Sound‬‎[/ame]

 

[JakeStarkey]

And here is bigreb, who got the unholy heck kicked out of him by the right center and the center and the left the last ten days. Whatcha got to offer, doofus?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bern80 cannot fashion a discussion on the Constitution and the recent health insurance reform legislation that prevents businesses getting between you and your doctors. He wants to argue constitutional principles out of his ass as if he is an authority. He is only a poseur here for grins and chuckles.

Joke:

Other than the unsupported and utterly irrational high value you place in your own uneducated and misinformed opinions on the meaning and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, there must be some genuine and recognized experts whom you consider the most authoritative on matters of valid Constitutional interpretation.

Give it up. Name a few.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg]YouTube - ‪Cricket Sound‬‎[/ame]