I was not being sarcastic--but it sure is alot easier for you to make an issue out of your perception of my tone than to refute the point I made. 
yeah, that's it....
Of course you were, retard.
Yep, Winner, that's right, I was. Go back and reread the thread. It's not that hard to follow - then again, following logic ain't your strong point is Dumbo..
Despite your inability you follow your own half of the converstion, or that I answered your questions, I will answer these new questions as well: the First United States Congress, in 1791, decided which rights were to be enumerated, and they did so in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the powers granted to the Government through the Constitution, and they thought, at the time, that those amendments were sufficient to the task.
Finally! The answer I was after. It took you this long? Why? Because, as I have said, you are more interested in other things - like being "Big Sensai on Campus" and trying to show lurkers just what a Brainiac you are on the subject...
Now your ego has been satiated with being a Know-All and we are now in awe of your intellect, do you care to answer any other questions? Because the above cries out for more questions to be answered. Why only those rights are to be enumerated? What gave them the right to decide what rights were to be enumerated? They were gods? You are also sending mixed messages (IMO). Are you saying that the amendments just protect those enumerated rights, so therefore more amendments can do the same to new rights?
It's not so clear that you understand what <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html">ad hominem</a> is, I do not consider myself the last word on everything, there is no chip on my shoulder, and I have no problem getting along with people--so long as those people are not persistently mendacious dumbfucks; they don't appreciate being outed.
Sure you like being the last word. I have seen you post too often to too many different people on the board and it always ends the same with you. Ad hominem's on those that disagree with you. And, um, your link spells out exactly what an ad hominem is, and yes, you started playing the preson (remember the tosser remark?)...Yeah, we're all dumbfucks and you make Einstein look like and advertisement for Retardsville....
No, you're supposed to get the point. Hope springs ever eternal.
Nothing to do with any point. It was about guessing your tone.
No, actually you're wrong; experise does not magically embue one with some immunity from being full of shit--hence, your argument (regarding argument from authority) is patently invalid.
Where did I say expertise magically embued anybody with anything? I said it lends creedence to their credibility, and if you don't get that, then you certainly are mentally challenged. If you think attorney's in a court case on fraud are going to get an expert on the Canadian salmon to aid their cause, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. And it sounds like your "argument from authority" claptrap was written by somebody who got their arse handed to them on a plate by an expert.
I don't give an inch to fucktards trying to put words in my mouth, or assign their farcical motives to my arguments.
Yeah, you do. And I've put no words in your mouth
I'm aware of where I'm at.
Sure{wink}
Speak for yourself. I clearly state where simply stating my opinion is simply stating my opinion, and I have clearly stated when my opinion is irrelevent (even in this particular thread)--when I say something that is fact, I back it up. Try it on for size.
Give me an example of what you have said is an opinion in this thread and that it has been irrelevent
yeah, that's it....
Of course you were, retard.
Yep, Winner, that's right, I was. Go back and reread the thread. It's not that hard to follow - then again, following logic ain't your strong point is Dumbo..
Despite your inability you follow your own half of the converstion, or that I answered your questions, I will answer these new questions as well: the First United States Congress, in 1791, decided which rights were to be enumerated, and they did so in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the powers granted to the Government through the Constitution, and they thought, at the time, that those amendments were sufficient to the task.
Finally! The answer I was after. It took you this long? Why? Because, as I have said, you are more interested in other things - like being "Big Sensai on Campus" and trying to show lurkers just what a Brainiac you are on the subject...
Now your ego has been satiated with being a Know-All and we are now in awe of your intellect, do you care to answer any other questions? Because the above cries out for more questions to be answered. Why only those rights are to be enumerated? What gave them the right to decide what rights were to be enumerated? They were gods? You are also sending mixed messages (IMO). Are you saying that the amendments just protect those enumerated rights, so therefore more amendments can do the same to new rights? It's not so clear that you understand what <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html">ad hominem</a> is, I do not consider myself the last word on everything, there is no chip on my shoulder, and I have no problem getting along with people--so long as those people are not persistently mendacious dumbfucks; they don't appreciate being outed.
Sure you like being the last word. I have seen you post too often to too many different people on the board and it always ends the same with you. Ad hominem's on those that disagree with you. And, um, your link spells out exactly what an ad hominem is, and yes, you started playing the preson (remember the tosser remark?)...Yeah, we're all dumbfucks and you make Einstein look like and advertisement for Retardsville....
No, you're supposed to get the point. Hope springs ever eternal.
Nothing to do with any point. It was about guessing your tone.
No, actually you're wrong; experise does not magically embue one with some immunity from being full of shit--hence, your argument (regarding argument from authority) is patently invalid.
Where did I say expertise magically embued anybody with anything? I said it lends creedence to their credibility, and if you don't get that, then you certainly are mentally challenged. If you think attorney's in a court case on fraud are going to get an expert on the Canadian salmon to aid their cause, then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. And it sounds like your "argument from authority" claptrap was written by somebody who got their arse handed to them on a plate by an expert.
I don't give an inch to fucktards trying to put words in my mouth, or assign their farcical motives to my arguments.
Yeah, you do. And I've put no words in your mouth
I'm aware of where I'm at.
Sure{wink}
Speak for yourself. I clearly state where simply stating my opinion is simply stating my opinion, and I have clearly stated when my opinion is irrelevent (even in this particular thread)--when I say something that is fact, I back it up. Try it on for size.
Give me an example of what you have said is an opinion in this thread and that it has been irrelevent
..
