The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[JakeStarkey]

(1) the preamble recognizes the enforcement of social compact of the Constitution

(2) your personal assent means nothing and is not required

(3) you certainly can try to change the Constitution and you can certainly leave the country if you wish

The compact will not be changing any time soon

Dave and TASB remain in the Box of Shame. Yes, Rott, you can join them.

The preamble, by definition, is an introductory statement.. an invitation or opening to what is to follow...

It is the "Here's Johnny" of the Constitution

Your idiotic assertion is like thinking "I wish my brother George were here" is part of the lyrics to a Liberace song

Of course you are wrong, and you know it.

Your remind me of Agnes holding her breath

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) What logical fallacies?

The propositional and the formal ones. Too numerous to name them all.

(2) What authoritarian decrees?

(3) you certainly can try to change the Constitution and you can certainly leave the country if you wish

Another logical fallacy, i might add.

(3) You now recognize the Preamble's statement that "We the People" is a statement of individual liberty?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

You have a reading comprehension problem to boot.

In other words, (1) no fallacies exist, (2) you are floundering.

That is why Diamond Dave and Rottweiler are in the box of shame with you. bripat will join you in awhile.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libertarians basic argument against the recognition of the social compact in the Preamble is "uh uh."

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Fake, I'm not going to continue going rounds with you. You're far too simple in the mind to comprehend. You go ahead and believe you have a compact, or a contract for that matter, when you clearly do not. Show me my signature, provide witness to my agreement, or realize you're blowing it out your ass.

 

[JakeStarkey]

TASB, shut up and step back. You have offered nothing at all: nothing. You simply say "no" in the face of clear and convincing evidence. The OP has been fail from the beginning, because there is no evidence for it.

You and every one in this country is bound by the social compact recognized clearly in the Preamble.

Whether you agree is immaterial.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Clear and convincing evidence.

Again, shit stain, show me the signature I made on the contract, or provide witness to my agreement of the social compact/contract (or whatever you want to call your imaginary friend) or else realize you're blowing it out your ass.

You and every one in this country is bound by the social compact recognized clearly in the Preamble.

I know you love authoritarian measures, but I'm not bound by anything in the constitutions. The bindings made in that document or those prescribed to government, not individuals. It states it clearly in the preamble that you use. You really do have a comprehension problem, Fake.

 

[DiamondDave]

(1) the preamble recognizes the enforcement of social compact of the Constitution

(2) your personal assent means nothing and is not required

(3) you certainly can try to change the Constitution and you can certainly leave the country if you wish

The compact will not be changing any time soon

Dave and TASB remain in the Box of Shame. Yes, Rott, you can join them.

The preamble, by definition, is an introductory statement.. an invitation or opening to what is to follow...

It is the "Here's Johnny" of the Constitution

Your idiotic assertion is like thinking "I wish my brother George were here" is part of the lyrics to a Liberace song

Of course you are wrong, and you know it.

Your remind me of Agnes holding her breath

Except.. by definition I have it right.. and by the wording, given that 'the people' are establishing the following text known as the Constitution

You are an ignorant asshole, or actually nothing more than a simple minded troll, JakeyFakey

 

[JakeStarkey]

When you offer evidence to support the assertion, we can continue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The preamble, by definition, is an introductory statement.. an invitation or opening to what is to follow...

It is the "Here's Johnny" of the Constitution

Your idiotic assertion is like thinking "I wish my brother George were here" is part of the lyrics to a Liberace song

Of course you are wrong, and you know it.

Your remind me of Agnes holding her breath

Except.. by definition I have it right.. and by the wording, given that 'the people' are establishing the following text known as the Constitution

You are an ignorant asshole, or actually nothing more than a simple minded troll, JakeyFakey

Only in your head, DD. By definition, I have the right in it of We the People recognizes the social compact.

All of the ad homs by you and the other liberts merely underlines your inability to get out of the box.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

When you offer evidence to support the assertion, we can continue.

Right. Show me my signature, or provide witness to my agreement and we can continue to discuss this so called contract. Until then, you're blowing it out your ass. Though, the comedy of watching you flail is worth the price of admission.

If you can not provide witness or a signature, then we seem to have to accept that you're a

 

[DiamondDave]

We the People of the United States,
Pretty simple... identifying who is giving the introduction... basically putting a name to something... a 'Please allow me to introduce myself' line

in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
Why the aforementioned entity doing the introduction is doing the introduction.. providing a narrative of background...

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And what it is they are doing.. they are setting forth the following text as the Constitution... establishing all the information within the FOLLOWING text as the constitution

There is nothing in the wording granting power, establishing contract, issuing compact, or anything else.. as, what a preamble is, this is an introductory statement to something that is to follow

Go kill yourself JakeyFakey.. make the world better by your subtraction from it

 

[Faun]

Then why do you Dumbocrats oppose voter ID to ensure clean, fair elections?

Stop being a ******* troll - you know damn well that Dumbocrats have been caught in voter fraud over and over and that is why they oppose voter ID.

Wiener dog, Republicans also commit voter fraud. And a voter ID card isn't going to help. I already show a driver's license. Any photo ID at all should be sufficient.

At any rate, I was just using that other poster's logic -- that winning more elections is evidence of voter fraud. Ummm .... Republicans won more elections for U.S. Congress in 2012. Guess that makes Republicans the ones committing the most fraud?

Any photo ID is acceptable! So why do Dumbocrats oppose having to show ID (especially when you falsely claim that Republicans are the one's cheating - logic dictates you guys would want to clean that up in that case).

Game. Set. Match.

Poor, dumbfucking, Wiener dog. Like I said, my state, like many states, already require photo ID. I don't see any Democrats opposing that. What they are opposing is making that national, which is pretty stupid since it won't prevent fraud and 99% of elections are for state & local representatives, making it a state issue.

Your next idiotic comment about claiming I said Republicans are the one cheating is nothing but a stupid lie. I didn't say Republicans are the one's cheating, I said they also cheat. You would have to be beyond retarded to think that Republicans don't cheat.

And lying renders your self proclaimed victory hysterical insofar that you think you can win by lying.

 

[bripat9643]

TASB, shut up and step back. You have offered nothing at all: nothing. You simply say "no" in the face of clear and convincing evidence. The OP has been fail from the beginning, because there is no evidence for it.

The irony of your post is just too precious.

You and every one in this country is bound by the social compact recognized clearly in the Preamble.

Nuh uhn!

Whether you agree is immaterial.

More irony.

 

[bripat9643]

The libertarians basic argument against the recognition of the social compact in the Preamble is "uh uh."

By the way, "uh huh" means "yes." "No" is "nuh unh!" and is sufficient logic to refute the arguments you have posted which all boil down to saying "uh huh."

 

[Redfish]

TASB, shut up and step back. You have offered nothing at all: nothing. You simply say "no" in the face of clear and convincing evidence. The OP has been fail from the beginning, because there is no evidence for it.

The irony of your post is just too precious.

You and every one in this country is bound by the social compact recognized clearly in the Preamble.

Nuh uhn!

Whether you agree is immaterial.

More irony.

Jake and the other resident libs cannot comprehend that any "social contract" is voluntary, not mandatory.

Helping the less fortunate should be a voluntary act out of human kindness and empathy, not something mandated and implemented by the government.

these libs have no idea what the word "freedom" means.

 

[bripat9643]

A compact requires agreement, **** nut. A contract requires the same. You have neither one. You're full of shit, Poindexter. But we all knew that prior to this thread.

The ratification of the Constitution fulfills your objection.

When did I agree to it, shithead?

 

[bripat9643]

Yup, it is crowded in the Box of Shame with TASB in there.

Yes, the Preamble recognizes the very fact of the compact.

The liberts all hang their heads in shame.

Nuh Uhn!

 

[Redfish]

TASB, shut up and step back. You have offered nothing at all: nothing. You simply say "no" in the face of clear and convincing evidence. The OP has been fail from the beginning, because there is no evidence for it.

The irony of your post is just too precious.



Nuh uhn!

Whether you agree is immaterial.

More irony.

Jake and the other resident libs cannot comprehend that any "social contract" is voluntary, not mandatory.

Helping the less fortunate should be a voluntary act out of human kindness and empathy, not something mandated and implemented by the government.

these libs have no idea what the word "freedom" means.

bumped due to page roll

 

[P@triot]

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

God liberals on USMB are so nonsensical. This has NOTHING to do with a "social contract". Where does that say that you have the right to my property, my money, my food, my clothing, my transportation, or any of the tangible, material items that you liberals spend your life lusting over but refuse to pursue honestly?

All men are created equal in their rights - not in their income or material goods.

You are an idiot. "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men". The other idiot said that all government is evil and unnecessary. That Government when established is supported by all responsible men who are not idiots. That doesn't mean they agree with everything a government does, and, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish".

The vast majority of our citizens support our government, only radicals, anarchists and morons do not. The majority may disagree on policy and the direction of government but never support the abolishment of government itself as do radicals, morons and anarchists.

Who has ever advocated "abolishing government" you disingenuous asshat? Only idiot anarchists. Not one conservative on USMB has ever advocated for that. What we have advocated for, however, is the return of Constitutional government. Speaks volumes that greedy, lazy liberals such as yourself fear that so deeply...

 

[P@triot]

TASB, shut up and step back. You have offered nothing at all: nothing. You simply say "no" in the face of clear and convincing evidence. The OP has been fail from the beginning, because there is no evidence for it.

You and every one in this country is bound by the social compact recognized clearly in the Preamble.

Whether you agree is immaterial.

You've yet to provide any "evidence" (as usual) [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]. You've had your ass handed to you on a platter in this discussion. And all you keep doing is randomly cutting & pasting excerpts from our founding documents which have nothing to do with any libtard fictional fantasy "social contract". It doesn't exist. Period. That's why you're the only asshat still arguing. The other liberals realize they've been thoroughly defeated on this liberal fantasy and they've gone home.

I'll challenge you one last time - please bold in blue any section of any founding document which promises the people food, housing, healthcare, or a "social contract". You can't do it. This is why I have owned you in this debate.

*Fair Warning- if you even attempt the weak and absurd "general welfare" bullshit, I will tear you apart like a pitbull with a kitty. You've been warned. You better bold in blue something real and tangible (and you can't).