Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[bripat9643]

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

 

[Skylar]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Or that your summary dismissal of everyone from James Madison to the Supreme Court doesn't amount to much.

Remeber, Brip....just because you ignore a source doesn't mean they disappear. As your personal agreement isn't the basis of our laws. Especially when you've ignored your OWN sources on this topic. Citing James Madison on the Right to Secession when you thought he supported you. And ignoring him the moment it was proven that he didn't.

Demonstrating elegantly that your only standard is what you believe. ANd you'll ignore anyone or anything to cling to that belief. A process which has no relevance to our laws.

James Madison isn't my source on the issue, numskull. Paperview is the one who has been quoting Madison, not me.

He isn't your source NOW. As I've quoted him contradicting you. And of course, any source that ignores you you immediately ignore. As you have no standard but your own opinion. There's nothing you won't ignore to cling to your opinion. Even your own sources.

Would you like me to quote you citing Madison BEFORE, on the very topic of secession?

I'd be glad to.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

No, I asked a question.

Truth is subjective, it's why we have one of the three branches of government to interpret the law. Because one body needs to or we are all living under different truths and in the end that creates chaos. So, we have the court system to decide what is fair under the law, there really isn't a better system in place and no, you're not going to be happy 100% of the time, tough shit, it's called real life.

 

[Skylar]

A marriage, for example, is a legal union. It can be ended if both parties agree. If that is not the case, authorities are addressed to adjudicate. If one party becomes violent, he/she can be arrested. One of them declaring that the other must leave the house does not mean the other must leave the house. If one shoots at the other to try to make him/her leave, consequences can be grave.

Hmmmm, wrong. Both parties don't have to agree. If you refuse to consent to a divorce, then a judge will make that decision for you. You can't force someone to remain married to you.

No judge found that South Carolina had the authority to secede. It unilaterally 'declared' it. That's not legally authoritative.

Even your analogies demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.

 

[Skylar]

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

Its you vs. the USSC. Yeah, those sources aren't equal, Brip.

 

[there4eyeM]

How can one discuss in writing with people who do not read?

CAN be ended, as in that is one method. Not MUST be ended that way.

Preferring to see is not vision.

 

[bripat9643]

The case decided by a bunch of Lincoln appointed hacks? You think that's legitimate?

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Or that your summary dismissal of everyone from James Madison to the Supreme Court doesn't amount to much.

Remeber, Brip....just because you ignore a source doesn't mean they disappear. As your personal agreement isn't the basis of our laws. Especially when you've ignored your OWN sources on this topic. Citing James Madison on the Right to Secession when you thought he supported you. And ignoring him the moment it was proven that he didn't.

Demonstrating elegantly that your only standard is what you believe. ANd you'll ignore anyone or anything to cling to that belief. A process which has no relevance to our laws.

James Madison isn't my source on the issue, numskull. Paperview is the one who has been quoting Madison, not me.

He isn't your source NOW. As I've quoted him contradicting you. And of course, any source that ignores you you immediately ignore. As you have no standard but your own opinion. There's nothing you won't ignore to cling to your opinion. Even your own sources.

Would you like me to quote you citing Madison BEFORE, on the very topic of secession?

I'd be glad to.

I've quoted plenty of sources. I've even quoted Madison once just to show that he came down on both sides of the secession issue. However, Madison isn't "my source" and never has been. You're just making stuff up.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

Its you vs. the USSC. Yeah, those sources aren't equal, Brip.

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Apparently you also believe there is no truth.

 

[there4eyeM]

If 'absolute truth' exists, only the Absolute (or 'God', to use a metaphor) can know it.

In our universe (humans) all words are relative. Truth is a word. The truth is what people see it to be.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Or that your summary dismissal of everyone from James Madison to the Supreme Court doesn't amount to much.

Remeber, Brip....just because you ignore a source doesn't mean they disappear. As your personal agreement isn't the basis of our laws. Especially when you've ignored your OWN sources on this topic. Citing James Madison on the Right to Secession when you thought he supported you. And ignoring him the moment it was proven that he didn't.

Demonstrating elegantly that your only standard is what you believe. ANd you'll ignore anyone or anything to cling to that belief. A process which has no relevance to our laws.

James Madison isn't my source on the issue, numskull. Paperview is the one who has been quoting Madison, not me.

He isn't your source NOW. As I've quoted him contradicting you. And of course, any source that ignores you you immediately ignore. As you have no standard but your own opinion. There's nothing you won't ignore to cling to your opinion. Even your own sources.

Would you like me to quote you citing Madison BEFORE, on the very topic of secession?

I'd be glad to.

I've quoted plenty of sources. I've even quoted Madison once just to show that he came down on both sides of the secession issue. However, Madison isn't "my source" and never has been. You're just making stuff up.

You might want to rethink what you just posted bro.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

Its you vs. the USSC. Yeah, those sources aren't equal, Brip.

Appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.

Apparently you also believe there is no truth.

I think I'm beginning to understand you. Since you provide nothing except noting that Madison is never your source except for that one time that he was...whatever. Anyway, the law is whatever you feel it should be...like in your bones, you are the decider and no one else can tell you what to do but you because...authority...and shit.

That's sound dude, who can argue with that?

Oh...and truth.

 

[bripat9643]

A marriage, for example, is a legal union. It can be ended if both parties agree. If that is not the case, authorities are addressed to adjudicate. If one party becomes violent, he/she can be arrested. One of them declaring that the other must leave the house does not mean the other must leave the house. If one shoots at the other to try to make him/her leave, consequences can be grave.

Hmmmm, wrong. Both parties don't have to agree. If you refuse to consent to a divorce, then a judge will make that decision for you. You can't force someone to remain married to you.

No judge found that South Carolina had the authority to secede. It unilaterally 'declared' it. That's not legally authoritative.

Even your analogies demonstrate the absurdity of your claims.

Where does the Constitution say a judge gets to decide whether a state can secede? When did I ever compare divorce law with Constitution?

Your entire understanding of the Constitution, secession and the Civil War is entirely fictional. You just make stuff up and believe it to be factual

 

[bripat9643]

If 'absolute truth' exists, only the Absolute (or 'God', to use a metaphor) can know it.

In our universe (humans) all words are relative. Truth is a word. The truth is what people see it to be.

So the law of gravity isn't true or something we know? If we can't know the truth, then the Supreme Court certainly isn't the source of it.

You just keep stepping on your own dick in this debate.

 

[Skylar]

Yes.

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Or that your summary dismissal of everyone from James Madison to the Supreme Court doesn't amount to much.

Remeber, Brip....just because you ignore a source doesn't mean they disappear. As your personal agreement isn't the basis of our laws. Especially when you've ignored your OWN sources on this topic. Citing James Madison on the Right to Secession when you thought he supported you. And ignoring him the moment it was proven that he didn't.

Demonstrating elegantly that your only standard is what you believe. ANd you'll ignore anyone or anything to cling to that belief. A process which has no relevance to our laws.

James Madison isn't my source on the issue, numskull. Paperview is the one who has been quoting Madison, not me.

He isn't your source NOW. As I've quoted him contradicting you. And of course, any source that ignores you you immediately ignore. As you have no standard but your own opinion. There's nothing you won't ignore to cling to your opinion. Even your own sources.

Would you like me to quote you citing Madison BEFORE, on the very topic of secession?

I'd be glad to.

I've quoted plenty of sources. I've even quoted Madison once just to show that he came down on both sides of the secession issue.

Blithering nonsense. You cited Madison claiming he was on the side of secession;

Madison was on the side of secession and nullification when the struggle over the Alien and Sedition Acts erupted. When the Federalist's during the John Adams administration passed them, it created a firestorm with the Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, Adams's Vice President.

Bripat9643
Post 389
Before 1860 secession was considered to be constitutional Page 39 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And you were lying through your teeth. As there's no mention of secession anywhere in the Kentucky or Virginia Resolutions. Nor did Madison ever advocate Secession. Before or after. You literally made it up.

So you get nothing for your trouble in support of your argument. But give me a wonderful length of rope to rhetorically hang you from. As you've ignored your own source. There's nothing you won't ignore to cling to your beliefs. Even your own sources.

 

[bripat9643]

Thanks for admitting you're an idiot.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

No, I asked a question.

Truth is subjective,

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's all I need to know about you. Why bother debating this issue if it's entirely subjective?

it's why we have one of the three branches of government to interpret the law. Because one body needs to or we are all living under different truths and in the end that creates chaos. So, we have the court system to decide what is fair under the law, there really isn't a better system in place and no, you're not going to be happy 100% of the time, tough shit, it's called real life.

No that's not the reason we have three branches of government. The real reason is that men can never be trusted to rule over other men, whether they are politicians, presidents or judges.

Our court system is a travesty. What it dispenses couldn't even remotely be called "justice."

 

[HappyJoy]

If 'absolute truth' exists, only the Absolute (or 'God', to use a metaphor) can know it.

In our universe (humans) all words are relative. Truth is a word. The truth is what people see it to be.

So the law of gravity isn't true or something we know? If we can't know the truth, then the Supreme Court certainly isn't the source of it.

You just keep stepping on your own dick in this debate.

Doesn't do much for your argument.

Look, if a packed court of Republicans decided that abortion was illegal, that wouldn't give California the right to continue the practice. No matter how much I would disagree with the court's opinion. We are a nation of laws.

I know you are unable to comprehend this, but we are talking about truth here, not what some humbug Supreme Court justices have said.

What is truth to you? Are you the one who gets to decide what laws are real and which ones are not? Why so un American?

So is your position that there is no truth?

Really?

No, I asked a question.

Truth is subjective,

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

That's all I need to know about you. Why bother debating this issue if it's entirely subjective?

it's why we have one of the three branches of government to interpret the law. Because one body needs to or we are all living under different truths and in the end that creates chaos. So, we have the court system to decide what is fair under the law, there really isn't a better system in place and no, you're not going to be happy 100% of the time, tough shit, it's called real life.

No that's not the reason we have three branches of government. The real reason is that men can never be trusted to rule over other men, whether they are politicians, presidents or judges.

Our court system is a travesty. What it dispenses couldn't even remotely be called "justice."

The reason we have three branches of government is because men can never be trusted to rule over other men? Actually we have a system of checks and balances one of them (I won't spoil the surprise and tell you) writes the law, another enforces it and the last interprets it. Guess what? You weren't included to that party. So again I say...tough shit.

EDIT: That of course should be 3 branches of government.

 

[there4eyeM]

What is 'gravity'? What is 'life'? What is 'light'? These are nouns, names we have for things we perceive but do not (fully) understand or are unable to explain. That is part of the problem of language. Humans have names for things and confuse it with truth.

 

[bripat9643]

What is 'gravity'? What is 'life'? What is 'light'? These are nouns, names we have for things we perceive but do not (fully) understand or are unable to explain. That is part of the problem of language. Humans have names for things and confuse it with truth.

If we do not fully understand them, then we partially understand them, which means there is some truth. If there is truth, then your claim is bullshit. Of course, the claim that there is no truth is self-refuting. What about the claim that there is no truth?

You have to be real stupid to actually believe there is no truth. Only a mental retard or a sociology professor would dare to utter such an inanity.

 

[JoeMoma]

According to the Supreme Court it's illegal.

Texas v. White law case Encyclopedia Britannica

U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.

And according to the Constitution, they get to decide on these types of things.

The Supreme Court derives its powers from the Constitution and the Constitution derives its power from the states rendering ludicrous the notion that the Supreme Court has the authority to tell states whether they can or cannot secede.

That bogus ruling came just after the civil war. Do you think they were going to rule that the war should not have been fought just after the war was won for the north at the price of 850,000 people's lives? It was a political ruling, not a constitutional rulling. The Supreme Court was not about to say, Oops......States have the right to succeed after all.....Just forget about that civil war thing..... My Bad!

 

[there4eyeM]

Who said there is no truth?

 

[bripat9643]

Who said there is no truth?

HappyJoy, for one.