And suddenly demoncrats and leftists care about the CONSTITUTION!
Nice move in 5D-Chess!
(twitter.com)
🧠 STABLE GENIUS 🧠
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
Yes. The argument is not whether or not it is incorporated at a later time into the Constitution, or whether it is " the law of the land" or not, but whether the Constitution is of the same type of founding document. As I showed you, when you change the name, you change the contract. And in terms of time, 1776 vs 1791 is quite a stretch a time.
It is quite clear your emotion is strong.
Only if your owe allegiance to, or wish to owe allegiance to it. But it is basically besides the point. The point is: That contract is not in operation. Or have you forgotten that even a State of Texas did not have standing? Why is that? Think and leave your emotion for another issue.
Reconstitution is from the ground up. I did not say: rewrite the constitution. Reconstitution is geared towards to the STATE of the compact that SHOULD have been there to bring it into being once again. People -> County -> States -> Federal.
Apart from breaking the compact/ contract, There are other ways to make it void. By contract. The nucleus of this particular issue is not addressed in your response.
Now why would I waste pearls before swines? Or do you think of me as one of those who float balloons, instead of walking the walk according to the talk? Irrespective of that, I am free, you are not. Study and go for it.
Pro tip: A writer's opinion of his readers tells us all we need to know about whether to take him seriously. That decision couldn't have been made any easier, thanks
Cherry picking at best. How about context? But do not strain your brain, please. It all comes down to logical fallacies, anyway.
Right, we know you think we're stupid "swines" [sic], got it
Like I said, you're making it ridiculously easy to know whether you need to be taken seriously. Careful ya don't fall off that high horse and conk that huge noggin, skipper! LOL
Lol. .... says the guy on the high horse.
It seems you do translate pearls before swine as "stupid" but it is not. A little study of the origins of this proverb and the context thereof would go a long way.
That said, you still are still, instead of addressing the subject matter, merely what you are capable of appreciating, which results in an "ad hominem" = logical fallacy.