FLORIDA TAX MAN Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 You may have all the colors, but you have demonstrated time and again that (1) you have no understanding of the principles that this country was founded upon, and (2) that you are mainly not interested in discussing issues when you have the option of ad hominem attacks. What Herman Cain accurately calls the "SIN" tactics: Side-step the issue, Ignore facts, and Name-call. Cathrine, it is you that doesn't want to discuss issues. You just want to show you are a Constitution Know it all. I have no time for Know it alls. And based on what you say, you may call yourself a libertarian, but you act like a right wing republican. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted May 30, 2013 Report Share Posted May 30, 2013 And you have just PROVEN my point: that a fact-based argument from our Founding Principles gets turned into "You're just a Know-It-All!!!" followed by more name-calling. Frankly, you didn't even deserve this much of a response. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxxcpa Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Intelligent debate tactic: Don't attack the message, attack the messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack from Ohio Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Intelligent debate tactic: Don't attack the message, attack the messenger. Replace "Intelligent" with "low information" or "liberal without a factual or logical response" and I'll agree. Neither of the last two groups should be anywhere near the word "intelligent." This is my observed opinion. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America gives me the right to broadcast it. (No animals were harmed in the production of this stated opinion, and it has ZERO carbon foot print) That should satisfy all the tree huggers and animal rights activists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taxed Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 That's why liberals win debates and elections! I would love to see Rachael Maddow debate the best tea bagger mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 To paraphrase from "The Princess Bride" -- "This word debate, I don't think it means what you think it means." Merriam-Webster: Definition of DEBATE a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides There is no provision in that definition for screaming, hissy fits, name-calling, side-stepping issues, ignoring facts, or cutting off the other person with ad hominem attacks. So poor Ms. Maddow would be left with NOTHING to say or do. If she (or any of the other soi-disant "commentators" of the left) could/would debate the issues, either Publius Huldah or Michael Badnarik would mop the floor with her (or any of the others) in about 3 seconds. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taxed Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Are you talking about this Huldah woman who publishes the Frontier Post? That blog is anti Govt. anti Islam and anti Hispanic! In my opinion she has extreme views. She should really run for public office with those view? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POBWtHiouDQ As far as Badnarik goes, he tried that route and failed miserably! Now he is a right wing talk show host. No wonder even Foxnews stays away from them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILLMAS Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Changing the subject for a bit, anyone else excited for the Mayweather vs Alvarez fight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack from Ohio Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Isn't that what we have been seeing here in this thread?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taxed Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 The bell has rung! It is a draw. Let's move on.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack from Ohio Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 The bell has rung! It is a draw. Let's move on.... Diminished sense of humor is another trait..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcjenkins Posted May 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 That's why liberals win debates and elections! I would love to see Rachael Maddow debate the best tea bagger mind! Do you not realize that the use of the term 'tea bagger' is both rude and insulting? Please keep your language above that level in future. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=teabagger 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynn EA USTCP in Louisiana Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 KC and Eric - isn't it time to 'lock' this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kcjenkins Posted May 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 Are you talking about this Huldah woman who publishes the Frontier Post? That blog is anti Govt. anti Islam and anti Hispanic! In my opinion she has extreme views. She should really run for public office with those view? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POBWtHiouDQ As far as Badnarik goes, he tried that route and failed miserably! Now he is a right wing talk show host. No wonder even Foxnews stays away from them! It is Freedom Outpost, not Frontier Post. If you can't even get that right, how much respect can we be expected to grant you? That video link sounded really intelligent to me, I did not hear a single false statement in it. I can see where a liberal might not LIKE what she said, but not liking it does not make it wrong. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack from Ohio Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 ...but not liking it does not make it wrong. If you are a liberal, it does! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taxed Posted May 31, 2013 Report Share Posted May 31, 2013 KC you are right it is Freedom Outpost not Frontier Post. So then you do believe as she does that Govt. should not regulate ANY guns?? Should people be allowed to have bazookas and RPG? For heaven sake the weapons in use at that period that she so much loves were single shot muskets! Give me a break! Here are some more handiwork of this wacked right winger! http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/publius-huldah-explains-why-islamists-dont-have-the-right-to-build-mosques-proselytize-or-institute-sharia-law-in-america/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack from Ohio Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 KC you are right it is Freedom Outpost not Frontier Post. So then you do believe as she does that Govt. should not regulate ANY guns?? Should people be allowed to have bazookas and RPG? For heaven sake the weapons in use at that period that she so much loves were single shot muskets! Give me a break! Here are some more handiwork of this wacked right winger! http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/04/publius-huldah-explains-why-islamists-dont-have-the-right-to-build-mosques-proselytize-or-institute-sharia-law-in-america/ For clarity here, bazookas and RPG are NOT guns. For civilians to own Military grade weapons is already a Federal crime. Another example of exagerate then extrapolate. Your comment is sensless and overflows with the lack of a reality based, factual or logical basis of any kind. Law abiding citizens do not murder people with guns. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jainen Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 >>Law abiding citizens do not murder people with guns.<< Ummm, obviously by definition if someone commits murder with a gun they are not a law-abiding citizen! Maybe they don't intend to, but it is still a crime even if it isn't planned ahead of time. The fact is that only about one out of five gun murders are by strangers; mostly it's family members or friends. And that doesn't count accidental or negligent shootings, which exceed the number of actual murders and almost all involve just family and friends. Guns in the hands of civilians create danger for your loved ones, not protection. Except, of course, in a well-regulated militia. Just like it says in the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taxed Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 For clarity here, bazookas and RPG are NOT guns. For civilians to own Military grade weapons is already a Federal crime. Another example of exagerate then extrapolate. Your comment is sensless and overflows with the lack of a reality based, factual or logical basis of any kind. Law abiding citizens do not murder people with guns. Jack you again missed the point! Go on watch some more of her videos and read her writings Freedom Outpost! If you agree with her then I can see why you would call me and other like minded people "lack of a reality based, factual or logical basis of any kind". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack from Ohio Posted June 1, 2013 Report Share Posted June 1, 2013 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack from Ohio Posted June 2, 2013 Report Share Posted June 2, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joanmcq Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 The Republican Party has been overtaken by progressives? Thank god for Eric's new forum. Statements like this prove to me how there must be an alternate bizarro dimension some of you reside in. As far as Publius Huldah, apparently she hasn't read the part of the constitution regarding freedom of religion. Now Catherine, we all know that those white men, intelligent as they were, when writing "all men are created equal, et. al" in the Declaration of Independence, did not intend to include women, negroes, native Americans, minors, and others. It took many, many years before women were even considered competent enough to own property, vote...to gain so many of the rights the Bill of Rights gave when the constitution was framed to property holding white men. Even the definition of who is white has changed over the years. Are you so literalist in your defense of the constitution as written to give up your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catherine Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 The Republican Party has been overtaken by progressives? Thank god for Eric's new forum. Statements like this prove to me how there must be an alternate bizarro dimension some of you reside in. As far as Publius Huldah, apparently she hasn't read the part of the constitution regarding freedom of religion. Now Catherine, we all know that those white men, intelligent as they were, when writing "all men are created equal, et. al" in the Declaration of Independence, did not intend to include women, negroes, native Americans, minors, and others. It took many, many years before women were even considered competent enough to own property, vote...to gain so many of the rights the Bill of Rights gave when the constitution was framed to property holding white men. Even the definition of who is white has changed over the years. Are you so literalist in your defense of the constitution as written to give up your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Hi Joan -- The Progressive Party USA was founded by _Republican_ Teddy Roosevelt. Historical fact; look it up. Read the various stances of the progressives; compare and contrast with the current stances of the overall GOP, and then with the stances of the abolitionist/civil rights stances Republican Party as personified by Republican Abraham Lincoln, Republican Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and others. You will quickly see what lines up and what does not. Both major parties basically want more power to central government, as that assures their own importance and ability to profit - and to impose their own social agendas, which is not supposed to be federal jurisdiction at all (those matters are left, by the Constitution, to the states). The difference is only one of speed. Full-progressive and progressive-lite are the two flavors on the national stage. And one reason why it doesn't seem to make any difference who gets elected! As for Publius Huldah -- read her articles (linked below) on rights, the 1st Amendment. Please note the lady is a retired attorney who has studied the Constitution and the Federalist Papers for decades; her scholarship is stunning in its depth and breadth. http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/do-our-rights-come-from-god-the-constitution-the-supreme-court-or-congress-2/ http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/1st-amendment/ As for your assertion that women and minorities were not included and were never meant to be included -- partially true. Yet the words they used were carefully chosen to be inclusive. I have never understood why it is that the same people (general statement; not finger-pointing at you) who insist on holding the Founders and Framers to the standards we hold today, also insist we hold other contemporaneous cultures only to their own standards -- and cry that to do otherwise is racist/sexist/"culturist" and other terms. They were flawed people; there was only ever One who was not. The Declaration and Constitution are not perfect -- yet they strove as best they could. Evaluated by the standards of their day, they were prescient about rights, and set the stage for the freest and most prosperous society the world has ever seen. At the time the Constitution was written, of the 13 states, fully nine had legal ownership of slaves (eight by 1789, when the Constitution was ratified). Yet they still wrote into the document wording that was to set the stage for the abolition of slavery only twenty years later. Had Eli Whitney's cotton gin been only another decade or so delayed in invention and widespread use, the whole disgusting issue could have been resolved before "king cotton" made the fight so much more prolonged and horrific. As for the internal debates -- if you read Madison's notes on the Convention and the journals and letters of attendees, they saw the dichotomy and struggled with it personally. George Washington never bought a slave after the Declaration was written. He was given them, and did not sell them -- and took pains to keep families together. Why not free them? He didn't have the cash. Virginia, at that time, required a cash bond to be paid, sufficient to support the freed slave for the rest of their life, upon manumission. But manumitting slaves also meant they would be outside of his ability to protect. Washington didn't have that kind of money, and did feel that level of responsibility -- so he did the best he could, and freed his slaves upon his death. Jefferson, in much the same boat, could not free his slaves upon his death -- Virginia had changed the law, and that course was no longer open to him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taxed Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 Catherine, I promised Eric that I will abide by his new rules therefore I will not make a comment except to say that this Huldah woman's views are paranoid, racist and extremist! If you agree with her viewpoints then I can see why you will never agree with anything Joan or I have to say on this issue. I will wait for Eric to setup the Politics forum to continue this conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joanmcq Posted June 4, 2013 Report Share Posted June 4, 2013 But why do you say the 'language was inclusive' on this area, yet do not consider the changing times when considering gun control? You can't have it both ways. I am using progressive in its current definition, not what a party may have been named in 1910. Anyone who has studied history knows that the southern democrats supported segregation, so it makes sense that MLK, Jr. Was republican. But the parties have switched sides. Republicans today are in some sort of la la land, using patriotic slogans to convince the uneducated to not notice that it is a party dedicated to wealth disparity, dismantling the safety net, and ushering in a new Guilded Age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.