Jump to content

Obamacare doing in the Republicans?


Rozalia
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not playing a game. If you want to say I lost and will stop posting your nonsense as a result you have my full support.

 

An argument is a contest if you like it or not. If he has provided evidence and all you have is your word then you fail to overturn what he has put forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An argument is a contest if you like it or not. If he has provided evidence and all you have is your word then you fail to overturn what he has put forward. 

No, it's not. An argument is an exchange of ideas and beliefs that people who aren't lunatics can easily engage in. Believe what you like, I won't be considering this an argument of that sort, nor will any of the people I know so it's pretty irrelevant.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's not. An argument is an exchange of ideas and beliefs that people who aren't lunatics can easily engage in. Believe what you like, I won't be considering this an argument of that sort, nor will any of the people I know so it's pretty irrelevant.

 

Like I've said, you can believe your own definitions but no one else will. Debates are contests and can end with a clear winner and loser. If there was no winner or loser then there would be no reason to debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I've said, you can believe your own definitions but no one else will. Most already support me, though the people in your Discord are amused by how angry you are and how much of your channel's content is about me. Others including the people with very advanced knowledge of these matters just don't use dictionary definitions for their terms so you can't just go to Webster's and get a political science definition of a term; you have to put in some effort to find what you want and what it's called in the study of politics.  Debates are contests and can end with a clear winner and loser. If there was no winner or loser then there would be no reason to debate. There's no winner or loser here so I guess we had no reason. Probably should've decided that earlier.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I'd make people aware of the KKK/Nazi/Islamist supporter, nothing more. The Discord server I run talks about a lot of things.

 

Evidence of this "most people"? So you don't support the Constitution? That's literally all I did.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except when it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. See: Literally any anti-gun website. (Moms Demand Action, Everytown, etc.)

The ACLU has said they'd cover the Second Amendment themselves except the NRA is much bigger and better funded to take care of that one.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ACLU has said they'd cover the Second Amendment themselves except the NRA is much bigger and better funded to take care of that one.

But the ACLU doesn't believe the right to possess a firearm is an individual right. From the ACLU website

 

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

Edited by WISD0MTREE

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Constitution is often considered popular.

 

And yet you are not crushing me so badly even with your mates chiming in. Its nothing to do with the American Constitution or Freedom of Speech. Your viewpoint is just simply insane. The ultimate in tolerance for intolerance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, was unaware they took that position. I mean it makes sense because ignoring an entire clause of a sentence is kind of silly. Not sure if that's changed since.

Let’s use a modern example easier to understand: "A well-balanced breakfast necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed." You see how that works? 

Edited by WISD0MTREE

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet you are not crushing me so badly even with your mates chiming in. Its nothing to do with the American Constitution or Freedom of Speech. Your viewpoint is just simply insane. The ultimate in tolerance for intolerance. I'm not taking this seriously at all. It's not a win or lose thing, it's just opinions. I happen to think our freedoms are too important to flippantly start to limit just because we don't like some things being said. Again, that's what the Constitution is there to protect: unpopular stuff. Popular stuff doesn't need to be included because no one tries to get rid of it.

 

 

Let’s use a modern example easier to un'derstand: "A well-balanced breakfast necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed." You see how that works? Yes, you'd need to have a group for the right to take place as a breakfast and keep it together until you were finished eating.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you'd need to have a group for the right to take place as a breakfast and keep it together until you were finished eating.

This is not how the Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase. In Heller, there’s a very long discussion about why that “prefatory clause†doesn’t mean what you think it means. How does that meaning jibe with "shall not be infringed?" If it meant "strictly controlled," that would be a direct and utter contradiction in that simple statement. Not only this, but this "right of the people " appears in other places in the bill of rights unambiguously, such as the 1st, and 4th amendments. Why is it only the 2nd amendment gets threatened by this misinterpretation? The bill of rights was written for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, not some collectivist thing you're thinking of. The 2nd amendment, like other amendments, was made precisely for the government not to create laws and regulations against those specific things.

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not how the Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase. I realize that, I was just mocking your example since it actually included the restriction relating to the first part of the amendment which specifies a full breakfast together, not individual items eaten alone. In Heller, there’s a very long discussion about why that “prefatory clause†doesn’t mean what you think it means. How does that meaning jibe with "shall not be infringed?" If it meant "strictly controlled," that would be a direct and utter contradiction in that simple statement. Not only this, but this "right of the people " appears in other places in the bill of rights unambiguously, such as the 1st, and 4th amendments. Why is it only the 2nd amendment gets threatened by this misinterpretation? How do you explain that we must ignore the first half of the amendment? The bill of rights was written for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, not some collectivist thing you're thinking of. The 2nd amendment, like other amendments, was made precisely for the government not to create laws and regulations against those specific things.We seem to be giving up on Constitutional protections here at the moment.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How do you explain that we must ignore the first half of the amendment?

"The right of the people shall not be infringed" is the operative clause and the part before it is the prefatory clause. The operative clause is the actual protected right. The prefatory clause only serves as an introduction. 

 

Supreme Court case D.C. vs Heller: 

"Reading the 2nd amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear arms" in an organised Militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that as "the people" (p.7)

 

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The right of the people shall not be infringed" is the operative clause and the part before it is the prefatory clause. The operative clause is the actual protected right. The prefatory clause only serves as an introduction. 

 

Supreme Court case D.C. vs Heller: 

"Reading the 2nd amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear arms" in an organised Militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that as "the people" (p.7)

 

Oh, you ignore it. That's easy.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not taking this seriously at all. It's not a win or lose thing, it's just opinions. I happen to think our freedoms are too important to flippantly start to limit just because we don't like some things being said. Again, that's what the Constitution is there to protect: unpopular stuff. Popular stuff doesn't need to be included because no one tries to get rid of it.

 

Its not simply win or lose. Its you losing big time and most people thinking you're a lunatic. To a normal person they might reflect on why they are seen as crazy for their view... not you I see however. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you ignore it. That's easy.

I'm sure Rosetta Stone teaches English grammar. Then you'd understand why. Or, you could read the reason in my previous post. 

 

http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-english/

NODOLsmall.png.a7aa9c0a05fa266425cd7e83d8ccb3dd.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Rosetta Stone teaches English grammar. Then you'd understand why. Or, you could read the reason in my previous post. 

 

http://www.rosettastone.com/learn-english/

 

Lightning. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare is such a double edged sword issue,on one hand if you repeal it,you'll basically put millions of people at risk for losing their insurance,on the other hand,if it remains,then expect to pay much,much more for health insurance.

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you don't. At the end of the revolution, the definition of 'militia' was "any white man between the ages of 18-45". So, the right to bear arms only applies to these people lol. The reason behind this is because the revolutionary army was no more than a large militia, and as such, the revolutionary force that guarantees Americas constitution is the 'organised militia' - white men between 18-45. Simple really.

Ermmm

"If a person is satisfied with everything,then he is a complete idiot.A normal person cannot be satisfied with everything."~Vladimir Putin

 

"Every human being makes mistakes."~Ian Smith

 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring. We are not prophets. This is a step in the dark. We can only proceed into the future with faith.~Pieter Wilhelm Botha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.