Smoking, Trans fats, and terrorists

[Ravi]

A right lost is a right lost. And habeas corpus is a right lost even if it never effects you or anyone else you know of.

 

[Shogun]

Here's your evidence. An excerpt from the Patriot Act.



Of course you'll probably argue that because to your knowledge this hasn't affected you personally, it's not material.

Show me a single example of this being used on a single American citizen.

I'll wait.

I'll be laughing at you while I wait but I'll give you enough rope regardless...

 

[manifold]

oh sorry, were you ever going to say anything relevant today? I mean, you are not the first person to react in kind to having my mud-stomping foot digging a hole in your ass.

Keep telling yourself that. It's pretty clear that your self-esteem is inexorably linked to how well you perceive yourself having performed on an internet message board. Don't bother letting reality erode your close-minded ideals, that just simply wouldn't do. Probably fancy yourself a modern day Howard Roark. Or better yet, Holden Caulfield.

 

[manifold]

Show me a single example of this being used on a single American citizen.

I'll wait.

I'll be laughing at you while I wait but I'll give you enough rope regardless...

Not relevant. It's a law saying that it CAN be used. That is enough.

 

[Shogun]

A right lost is a right lost. And habeas corpus is a right lost even if it never effects you or anyone else you know of.

habeas isn't guarenteed to non-AMERICANS by the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Thats why Jill and mani keep dancing around gitmo. They CAN:T show me where Tequan Jackson in BFE Anytown, USA got his door kicked in and was dragged away by the men in black despite his rights AS A US CITIZEN. Americans are not being held without habeas. We are not losing that right like we are the liberty of providing a business that caters to smokers.


Im still waiting for more than bullshit theoreticals. Just one single example of an AMERICAN losing habeas will do it. Why do you think neither of them care to post evidence beyond projected estimates?

 

[Shogun]

Keep telling yourself that. It's pretty clear that your self-esteem is inexorably linked to how well you perceive yourself having performed on an internet message board. Don't bother letting reality erode your close-minded ideals, that just simply wouldn't do. Probably fancy yourself a modern day Howard Roark. Or better yet, Holden Caulfield.

Actually, I was quite disapointed with Catcher and thought that the teenaged smoking and drinking would be the modern reason to demonize the story rather than the cursing. I digress...

No, what is pretty clear is that I've got you by the throat and all you can do is talk shit rather than prove me wrong. Indeed, I've offered you ample opportunity to start swinging with examples like I can whip out regarding diminished liberty, not to mention your backtrack at the ninth, and here you are STILL thinking that slung mud is more valuable than facts.

Indeed, spare me your dime store freud routine since it's probably about as profound as your insight to the ninth amendment.

 

[manifold]

Actually, I was quite disapointed with Catcher and thought that the teenaged smoking and drinking would be the modern reason to demonize the story rather than the cursing. I digress...

No, what is pretty clear is that I've got you by the throat and all you can do is talk shit rather than prove me wrong. Indeed, I've offered you ample opportunity to start swinging with examples like I can whip out regarding diminished liberty, not to mention your backtrack at the ninth, and here you are STILL thinking that slung mud is more valuable than facts.

Indeed, spare me your dime store freud routine since it's probably about as profound as your insight to the ninth amendment.

bwahahahahahahaha!

The Ninth Amendment has been systematically destroyed by precedent.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Shogun]

Not relevant. It's a law saying that it CAN be used. That is enough.

no it IS relevant all day long. You are making a theoretical charge that has about as much basis in reality as your pink lunger projected estimates. THAT, sir, is not worth restricting the liberty of Americans over. Run for the hills, chicken little!


saying that rights CAN be shat upon does not trump rights that have BEEN shat upon.


Im sure name dropping salinger characters while accusing me of padding my ego in a character role will make this less true.

 

[manifold]

no it IS relevant all day long. You are making a theoretical charge...

It's not theoretical. It's a real law you stupid retard. Passed by Congress and signed by our President.

 

[Shogun]

bwahahahahahahaha!

The Ninth Amendment has been systematically destroyed by precedent.

Agree or disagree?

I disagree. The constitution isn't interpreted the same way from start to finish. There are LOTS of prior decisions that make no sense by modern standards. I'm hoping that Kelo v new london will someday be an example of such. Was the first amendment systematically destroyed by opinons trying to define the word Obscene?

 

[Shogun]

It's not theoretical. It's a real law you stupid retard. Passed by Congress and signed by our President.

no, the application is theoretical.


again, show me a single example. In fact, lets start trading specific examples and we'll see whose gotta say uncle because they have no more actual examples...

 

[manifold]

I disagree. The constitution isn't interpreted the same way from start to finish. There are LOTS of prior decisions that make no sense by modern standards. I'm hoping that Kelo v new london will someday be an example of such. Was the first amendment systematically destroyed by opinons trying to define the word Obscene?

Do you disagree because I say it's been destroyed? or do you disagree that it's been violated at all by precedent?

As for Kelo, are you saying you agree with the decision?

 

[manifold]

no, the application is theoretical.


again, show me a single example. In fact, lets start trading specific examples and we'll see whose gotta say uncle because they have no more actual examples...

Strawman.

Sorry, not playing that game.

 

[manifold]

no, the application is theoretical.


again, show me a single example. In fact, lets start trading specific examples and we'll see whose gotta say uncle because they have no more actual examples...

Ok. Let me extrapolate your faulty logic.

According to you, you'd see no problem whatsoever if Congress passed a law establishing Evangelical Christianity as the national religion, and funded it with taxpayer dollars, as long as they didn't come knocking on your door to make you convert. Yup, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Shogun]

Do you disagree because I say it's been destroyed? or do you disagree that it's been violated at all by precedent?

As for Kelo, are you saying you agree with the decision?

I disagree because laws against murder are not a slight against the ninth amendment right to kill people. This is why I made reference to Ferlinghetti. Did the race to define Obscene destroy the first amendment? of course not.

and I abhor the kelo decision.

 

[Shogun]

Strawman.

Sorry, not playing that game.

HA!

yea, proving that the sky is falling sure is a strawman!


indeed, you don't wanna play it because, much like the pink lungers who resort to estimates, you don't have the evidence that you wish you did.

 

[Shogun]

Ok. Let me extrapolate your faulty logic.

According to you, you'd see no problem whatsoever if Congress passed a law establishing Evangelical Christianity as the national religion, and funded it with taxpayer dollars, as long as they didn't come knocking on your door to make you convert. Yup, that makes a lot of sense.

well, you know, except for that pesky first amendment..


gosh, you sure are not being obvious about your desperation, are you?

For real, if you are going to play then at least make the slightest effort here.

 

[manifold]

HA!

yea, proving that the sky is falling sure is a strawman!


indeed, you don't wanna play it because, much like the pink lungers who resort to estimates, you don't have the evidence that you wish you did.

Did you miss the part where I'm against the ban?

 

[manifold]

well, you know, except for that pesky first amendment...

Well duh! That's my point. Man you can be thick!

I guess the peskiness of the 4th Amendment just isn't quite enough to get you to condemn the text of the Patriot Act I posted, which clearly violates the 4th.

 

[Shogun]

Well duh! That's my point. Man you can be thick!

I guess the peskiness of the 4th Amendment just isn't quite enough to get you to condemn the text of the Patriot Act I posted, which it clearly violates.

um, so are you really arguing that the ninth amendment invalidates the first? And, by that invalidation of the first, invalidates itself?


hehehehe..


yes, lecture me on which of us is thick, dude. for real.



not to mention that your example of congressional passage of a state religion is HARDLY anything even close to resembling the individual liberty mentioned by the ninth.... but, hey, you've jumped the shark about 10 posts ago so...