The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[JakeStarkey]

Do you honestly think the invocation and introduction narrative line of the preamble grants power, let alone forces upon the nation a 'social contract'?

You are a buffoon

The preamble recognizes the fact of the social compact, which is the correct title for "social contract."

Minions, escort DD to the Box of Shame:

No.. it does not.. it is merely an introduction to the document of the constitution.. the body of which is what grants and restricts power.. the preamble grants no power, forces no contract, nor implies any compact

Nope, Dave, the preamble recognizes the very fact of the compact. You have just earned more time in the Box of Shame.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Escot TASB to the Box of Shame.

The fact remains the Preamble recognizes the social compact, all of the libertarian whining to the contrary changes nothing, and that is how the principle is taught in American schools.

Why do you think, liberts, the overwhelming number of Americans will have nothing to with your philosophy.

Spelling, you missed the mark. Logical fallacies, you do it like it's your job.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no compact, Fake. There is no contract either.

You're welcome.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no compact. There is no contract. Your assertions to the contrary without evidence suggest you're full of something, Fake. We usually call it shit. In your case, it's a manure silo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your assertions, TASB, have no basis. Move along.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A compact requires agreement, fuck 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.

 

[P@triot]

WTF?? Democrats are winning more elections than Republicans?? Remind me again ... how many Republicans won a seat in the U.S. Congress in 2012 compared to Democrats?

By your own bizarre logic, it's Republicans who are doing most of the cheating.

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

Stop being a fucking 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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A compact requires agreement, fuck 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.

 

[DiamondDave]

The preamble recognizes the fact of the social compact, which is the correct title for "social contract."

Minions, escort DD to the Box of Shame:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nyXaoigrJU

No.. it does not.. it is merely an introduction to the document of the constitution.. the body of which is what grants and restricts power.. the preamble grants no power, forces no contract, nor implies any compact

Nope, Dave, the preamble recognizes the very fact of the compact. You have just earned more time in the Box of Shame.

In no way does it.. it is widely known and accepted that the preamble is a foreword.. an introduction... it grants no power, enforces no contract, no forces upon the citizenry no compact

You are wrong, flat out.... once again

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, it does not. Show me where i agreed, numbskull. Show me my signature on the contract, or the witnesses to my agreement of the compact. You cant. And you cant do it for the other 314 million US citizens.

You lose. Again. Likes it's your job.

 

[P@triot]

"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."

Yup, we have a social compact.

How many times do you think Dumbocrats are going to nonsensically grab a small section of one of our founding documents that do not apply in any capacity to "social" and claim that it "proves" a "social contract"?

Jake - please bold in blue the part that says "social", "social contract", "provide food", "provide housing", or anything even close to that. Can't do it? Yeah, didn't think so.

Yup, Jake is a fuck'n moron and a disingenuous troll.

 

[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.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

More logical fallaices. Sprinkled with authoritarian decrees that go directly agaisnt the previous argument regarding the constitution's preamble and its explicit confirmation to individual liberty.

Fake, you're the worst kind of Statist. The completely fucking ignorant kind.


Good day, Dick Slap.

 

[P@triot]

There is no "social contract". Period. It's pure liberal fiction fantasy. Our Constitution is purely about the design, rolls, and responsbility of government. It is not a "social contract". It does not guarantee anyone money, food, housing, healthcare, etc.

The fact that liberals can't show one section that does but instead each keep grabbing a different section that has nothing to do with "social contract" proves how desperate they are grasping at these straws.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) What logical fallacies?

(2) What authoritarian decrees?

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

TASB, you fumbling and bumbling, your argument crumbling and stumbling, your reduction to ab absurdum must be humbling.

Your and Rot's arguments are the perfect examples why libertarianism is not respected.

 

[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

 

[P@triot]

(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.

Sweetie, you've never even read the U.S. Constitution. Ever. Not once. You know it. We know it. Don't act like you are some authority on it...

The pre-amble (as already pointed out) is simply that - it does not grant any power. Furthermore, it does not create a "social contract" anyway. It simply states that the people are forming a government and why. What part of that is the "social contract" assuring food, housing, and healthcare as you falsely claim?

In addition, you're the one who loves statism - so Cuba is waiting my friend. Because, you're right, the social contract which does not exist is not changing any time soon. So since you hate the U.S. so much and everything it stands for, why don't you leave and go be happy in your cradle-to-grave government control that Cuba offers?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its not an actual contract btw

 

[TakeAStepBack]

(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.