Vote Poll. Obama vs. Rick Perry

[Dr.House]

Not looking good for the annointed one....

 

[Sallow]

Perry's not well liked in Texas. And he's popular now because so few really know about him

I can see him getting the nomination. But the General?

 

[JWBooth]

When asked I suppose I ought to extoll his virtues to the stars above, the same way an auctioneer can lie about the speed of a lame horse, just to be shut of him.

 

[gautama]

I kinda hate Nazis. Could you and the other Nazis leave now?

Callow Sallow,

Thanks for according me the privilege reserved for the truly great antagonists of the contemptible LOONY LEFT, and including the DEMS toeing their line, who smear anyone for anything if they do not kiss the arse of the MONUMENTAL MARXIST, RACIST, PROTECTOR OF MUSLIMS & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, FRAUD Obami Salaami !!!

Personally, I rather hate the IslamoFascist Swine.....especially the TERRORISTS even more than the Nazis......whom I despise with all my heart.

FIRST, you LOONY LEFT whackjobs labeled all of the decent, rational folks who realized what a Mendacious Political Charlatan Obummer was as "RACISTS" !!!

That didn't work at all.

But, the SMEAR TECHNIQUE to demonize the opponents of Obami Salaami has NOT evaporated.

Now, The LOONY LEFT's mantra is that the opponents of Obamatard are TERRORISTS !!!

So, since you fucking LOONY LEFT arseholes have labeled the T-Party, and all those who challenge your MENDACIOUS Messiah Obummer, such as Fox news, Boehner, etc...as TERRORISTS........I would like to be promoted from being a supposed NAZI to being a supposed TERRORIST by shitheads like you !!!

And, BTW, in case you are as stupid as you appear.....I'd like to make it crystal clear that I do not "kinda hate" Obamarrhoidal Idiots such as yourself.

I despise, hate, and wish you fucking LOONY LEFT arseholes and TRAITORS of America the worst possible !!!

So, why the fuck don't you kiss some IslamoFascist's camel in the arse (which I am firmly convinced that you would enjoy because that will earn you some additional points with the Muslim Swine), sing a bar of Yankee Doodle ....... and flush yourself down the nearest sewer.

This is why I don't like Nazis.

And don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Callow Sallow, you are a certified fool.

Doncha realize rational people will always be on the other side of your idiotic opinions ?

And that whatever you puke out about your opponents will work in their favour ?

No, of course not.

You will continue to be the brainless Obamarrhoidal moron who simply echoes the losing Obamarrhoidal mantra.

Pathetic fool.

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackled, there is no straw man.

You have your opinion about the Constitution and what it says. Your opinion is in the vast minority and will never be accepted as appropriate and never enforced in law.

Yes there is a strawman. I never said the federalist papers were equivalent to the Constitution, or that they represented law. Period.

The rest of your post is pure fallacy. You have no argument, simple as that. All you can do is try to pretend like you are superior because more people agree with you and reduce everything I say to simple opinion when all you offer is your own simple opinion that you cannot defend.

 

[ShackledNation]

Bwahahahaha..Federalist Papers.

Those are opinion pieces meant to get New Yorkers to sign on to the Union.

No legislation comes from the Federalist papers.

Strawman...

The bolded portion is my actual argument. The supremacy clause states that the Constitution is supreme, not federal law. Federal law is not automatically Constitutional, and Federal law that is unconstitutional is not a legitimate use of authority. As such, federal law that is unconstitutional is void. States, swearing an oath not to enforce federal law but to enforce the Constitution, would be violating that oath by enforcing illegitimate law. As such, they must refuse to enforce unconstitutional law. That refusal is called nullification. Nullification does not strike down federal law, it is a refusal to enforce unconstitutional federal law. If only California nullifies a law, all other 49 states would still be enforcing it unless they too nullified it. In a constitutional republic such as the United States, laws derive their legitimacy from the Constitution. Laws that do not adhere to said constitution are illegitimate and are not laws at all. States have not only a right but a duty and oath to nullify laws that violate the Constitution. The Constitution, not the federal government, is the supreme law of the land. Nullification was primarily used by the north (though opponents try to act as if Calhoun invented it) and was actually used against the fugitive slave act. It is common for opponents of nullification to shout "slavery! racism! neoconfederate!" when they are out of arguments.

Those against nullification desire to force states to violate the sovereignty of the people by demanding they apply unconstitutional law. Say the Supreme Court becomes incredibly corrupt (shouldn't be hard to believe) and Congress disregards the Constitution. The court essentially upholds anything the Congress does. To be consistent, opponents of nullification would have to demand that a state apply a law that mandates 10% of its population be killed, for not applying such a law would go against the courts. That, not nullification, is radical. Allowing the federal government to interpret its own laws is a radical. Forcing states to apply illegitimate unconstitutional law is radical. Allowing states to protect their people from centralized tyranny is common sense.

Dude...this is crazy talk.

If you don't like the system we have..move.

Simple as that.

Your arguments are crazy talk.

If you don't like the Constitution...amend it.

Simple as that.

 

[Jackson]

30% of the people make up a ship of fools.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shackled, there is no straw man.

You have your opinion about the Constitution and what it says. Your opinion is in the vast minority and will never be accepted as appropriate and never enforced in law.

Yes there is a strawman. I never said the federalist papers were equivalent to the Constitution, or that they represented law. Period.

The rest of your post is pure fallacy. You have no argument, simple as that. All you can do is try to pretend like you are superior because more people agree with you and reduce everything I say to simple opinion when all you offer is your own simple opinion that you cannot defend.

You are giving your simple opinion, Shackled: yes, you are. You have your own opinion of the Constitution as support. I don't have to refute it, because it is your opinion, which is good only for you, and no one else.

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackled, there is no straw man.

You have your opinion about the Constitution and what it says. Your opinion is in the vast minority and will never be accepted as appropriate and never enforced in law.

Yes there is a strawman. I never said the federalist papers were equivalent to the Constitution, or that they represented law. Period.

The rest of your post is pure fallacy. You have no argument, simple as that. All you can do is try to pretend like you are superior because more people agree with you and reduce everything I say to simple opinion when all you offer is your own simple opinion that you cannot defend.

You are giving your simple opinion, Shackled: yes, you are. You have your own opinion of the Constitution as support. I don't have to refute it, because it is your opinion, which is good only for you, and no one else.

You are giving your simple opinion. Both of us claim our opinions are correct, but because they contradict each other only one is right. Hence the reason we are here on a debate forums. You seem to be under the misconception that because your opinion is generally accepted it must be true. That is a pure logical fallacy.

The rest of your opinion, however, has been nothing more than stating I am wrong. You repeat it endlessly, as if somehow your opinion is fact. It is not. I used the document of the Constitution itself to support my claims. The supremacy clause clearly states the Constitution, not federal law, is supreme. Neither secession nor prohibition are prohibited to the states, and thus, according to the 10th amendment, they are reserved to the states or the people. You never refuted either of those points, both of which are indubitably clear. I quoted the explanation of the Constitution and what it meant given at the time of its ratification by the federalists. Unless the Constitution says "no nullification" or "no secession" you have to explain why a more general clause forbids such actions. Saying "read article III" does not suffice, especially when I offer explanation for why article III does not, in fact, prove you right. I have given you a plethora of reasons why such actions are in fact constitutional, and you have given me logical fallacies. If that is all you have, with all due respect I ask you to stop wasting my time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shackled, send your argument in a brief to your Congressperson and both your Senators.,

Tell them you want action as soon as possible.

 

[kwc57]

Yes there is a strawman. I never said the federalist papers were equivalent to the Constitution, or that they represented law. Period.

The rest of your post is pure fallacy. You have no argument, simple as that. All you can do is try to pretend like you are superior because more people agree with you and reduce everything I say to simple opinion when all you offer is your own simple opinion that you cannot defend.

You are giving your simple opinion, Shackled: yes, you are. You have your own opinion of the Constitution as support. I don't have to refute it, because it is your opinion, which is good only for you, and no one else.

You are giving your simple opinion. Both of us claim our opinions are correct, but because they contradict each other only one is right. Hence the reason we are here on a debate forums. You seem to be under the misconception that because your opinion is generally accepted it must be true. That is a pure logical fallacy.

The rest of your opinion, however, has been nothing more than stating I am wrong. You repeat it endlessly, as if somehow your opinion is fact. It is not. I used the document of the Constitution itself to support my claims. The supremacy clause clearly states the Constitution, not federal law, is supreme. Neither secession nor prohibition are prohibited to the states, and thus, according to the 10th amendment, they are reserved to the states or the people. You never refuted either of those points, both of which are indubitably clear. I quoted the explanation of the Constitution and what it meant given at the time of its ratification by the federalists. Unless the Constitution says "no nullification" or "no secession" you have to explain why a more general clause forbids such actions. Saying "read article III" does not suffice, especially when I offer explanation for why article III does not, in fact, prove you right. I have given you a plethora of reasons why such actions are in fact constitutional, and you have given me logical fallacies. If that is all you have, with all due respect I ask you to stop wasting my time.

And the point goes to ShackledNation!

 

[GHook93]

Choose one

Perry v Obama = Perry Perry is the man, bad bad bad typo!
Romney v Obama = Romney
Cain v Obama = Cain
Bachman v Obama = I would strongly consider a 3rd party and then vote Bachman
Paul v Obama = 3rd party
Palin v Obama = 3rd Party!
Biden v Obama = Only time I would vote for Obama!

 

[WillowTree]

Choose one

Perry v Obama = Obama
Romney v Obama = Romney
Cain v Obama = Cain
Bachman v Obama = I would strongly consider a 3rd party and then vote Bachman
Paul v Obama = 3rd party
Biden v Obama = Only time I would vote for Obama!

nu huh.. you said obama twice.. look at it! shame on youse.

 

[GHook93]

Choose one

Perry v Obama = Obama
Romney v Obama = Romney
Cain v Obama = Cain
Bachman v Obama = I would strongly consider a 3rd party and then vote Bachman
Paul v Obama = 3rd party
Biden v Obama = Only time I would vote for Obama!

nu huh.. you said obama twice.. look at it! shame on youse.

MAN bad typo. I am a Perry fan. I guess that is what I get for typing and taking part in a boring conference call!

 

[gautama]

Choose one

Perry v Obama = Perry Perry is the man, bad bad bad typo!
Romney v Obama = Romney
Cain v Obama = Cain
Bachman v Obama = I would strongly consider a 3rd party and then vote Bachman
Paul v Obama = 3rd party
Palin v Obama = 3rd Party!
Biden v Obama = Only time I would vote for Obama!

I vehemently disagree.

Given a "fool" vs an Ideologically Established Marxist (Obummer) ...... I'd unhesitatingly vote for a fool because there's always a chance the fool may luck out with reasonably good advisors. Whereas, with an Ideologically Established Marxist you have a Piece of Shit dedicated to the Destruction of America (even if it may be unwittingly).