Andy9o8 0 #51 June 4, 2010 QuoteAvoidance. Your credibility suffers yet again. You still haven't answered the question about relevance. You can either back it up or you can't. If you can, make your case. Avoidance? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #52 June 4, 2010 QuoteAvoidance. Your credibility suffers yet again. Edit: Grammar. No, your question illustrates yours. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #53 June 4, 2010 QuoteQuoteAvoidance. You're credibility suffers yet again. This surprises you? That is his MO. That is how he rolls. Still struggling with intellectual honesty, I see.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #54 June 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteAvoidance. You're credibility suffers yet again. This surprises you? That is his MO. That is how he rolls. Still struggling with intellectual honesty, I see. Still struggling to answer the question, I see.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #55 June 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAvoidance. You're credibility suffers yet again. This surprises you? That is his MO. That is how he rolls. Still struggling with intellectual honesty, I see. Still struggling to answer the question, I see. From the forum rules, post #1, thread#1, this forum: When discussing in this (or any) forum, a good rule of thumb is the one we learned in 2nd grade soccer--play the ball, not the player. If you find yourself directing things at a person rather than at what they say, chances are you are out of line.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #56 June 5, 2010 QuoteLest anyone think the above paragraph is at odds with the US Constitution; the Constitution wins every time. Again, you might not like it, but there it is none the less. Then gun bans are also illegal..... Right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #57 June 5, 2010 QuoteThe US Constitution - frustrating conservatives since 1787. The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals since 1787 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #58 June 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteThe US Constitution - frustrating conservatives since 1787. The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts since 1787 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #59 June 5, 2010 QuoteThe 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals and misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts liberals since 1787 Can you back that up, or just use the strikeout feature? Because you have not been able to back a single thing you have said so far. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #60 June 5, 2010 Quote Quote The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals and misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts liberals since 1787 Can you back that up, or just use the strikeout feature? Because you have not been able to back a single thing you have said so far. No. I will leave that as an exercise for our readers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #61 June 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAvoidance. You're credibility suffers yet again. This surprises you? That is his MO. That is how he rolls. Still struggling with intellectual honesty, I see. Still struggling to answer the question, I see. From the forum rules, post #1, thread#1, this forum: When discussing in this (or any) forum, a good rule of thumb is the one we learned in 2nd grade soccer--play the ball, not the player. If you find yourself directing things at a person rather than at what they say, chances are you are out of line. what I find interesting is that it's become common place to use the term "intellectual dishonesty" on this page rather than calling someone a liar. Don't act like it wasn't meant that way. Someone might consider it intellectual dishonesty. What I've noticed recently is that things here seem to get nastier when people try to skirt the PA rules. On other forums I follow, there's a good healthy "fuck you" ... "no fuck you", and things don't get drawn out into such heated discussions.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #62 June 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe US Constitution - frustrating conservatives since 1787. The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts since 1787 so you disagree with SCOTUS's ruling? That the 2nd DOES indicate an individual's right to keep and bear arms.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #63 June 5, 2010 Quote Quote Quote The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals and misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts liberals since 1787 Can you back that up, or just use the strikeout feature? Because you have not been able to back a single thing you have said so far. No. I will leave that as an exercise for our readers ah... the classic "no, you should think about it" argument. what, you're 13?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #64 June 5, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe US Constitution - frustrating conservatives since 1787. The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts since 1787 so you disagree with SCOTUS's ruling? That the 2nd DOES indicate an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Does every thread HAVE to turn into a gun thread? Is it possible that since the 14th and 2nd Amendments actually are two completely separate things, one could ever possibly be talked about without dragging the other one into it to derail the conversation?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #65 June 5, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote The US Constitution - frustrating conservatives since 1787. The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts since 1787 so you disagree with SCOTUS's ruling? That the 2nd DOES indicate an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That's correct. I think the second amendment does not apply to individuals. I feel that it should only apply to state militias. This supreme court disagrees with me but I'm hopeful that at some point in the future this will change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #66 June 5, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals and misinterpreted and abused by gun nuts liberals since 1787 Can you back that up, or just use the strikeout feature? Because you have not been able to back a single thing you have said so far. No. I will leave that as an exercise for our readers ah... the classic "no, you should think about it" argument. what, you're 13? Let's keep my age out of this, shall we? ... and Quade is right. This thread wasn't about the second amendment. I really don'tt give a damn what you think about the second amendment either Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #67 June 6, 2010 Quote Does every thread HAVE to turn into a gun thread? I didn't take it there. But apparently yes.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #68 June 6, 2010 and again. to you this time. I didn't bring it up.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #69 June 6, 2010 As stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).(reply) Anti-immigration hysteria has been a repeated theme throughout American history, and next to slavery and the genocide policies against American Indians, they are yet another national disgrace. The same sentiments used to be raised against the Irish, Italians, Jews, Russians, Poles, chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, and Cambodians. Now they are being raised against Mexicans, Central Americans, and Haitians. When will we EVER learn that all of these people contribute so much more to our national character, let alone our diet ? Americans have ALWAYS been a self selected group of people who were willing to do what it takes to better their lives ? These immigrants are NO different. If all we wnat are educated white people from Europe, then let's just knock down the Statue of Liberty and melt it down for bullets. Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #70 June 6, 2010 Quote That's correct. I think the second amendment does not apply to individuals. I feel that it should only apply to state militias. This supreme court disagrees with me but I'm hopeful that at some point in the future this will change. Gonna be a long wait for the SC to completely ignore history and the Constitution. Don't hold your breath on it. Shame you have no clue what the militia is though. Such ignorance bodes poorly for your other constitutional thoughts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #71 June 6, 2010 Quote Quote That's correct. I think the second amendment does not apply to individuals. I feel that it should only apply to state militias. This supreme court disagrees with me but I'm hopeful that at some point in the future this will change. Gonna be a long wait for the SC to completely ignore history and the Constitution. Don't hold your breath on it. Shame you have no clue what the militia is though. Such ignorance bodes poorly for your other constitutional thoughts. Nice personal attack. Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,394 #72 June 6, 2010 >The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals since 1787 I'm a liberal and I have no problems with the second amendment. However, unlike many conservatives, I believe the US Constitution has more than one amendment. A radical interpretation, perhaps - and one that no doubt frustrates a great many conservatives. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #73 June 6, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAvoidance. You're credibility suffers yet again. This surprises you? That is his MO. That is how he rolls. Still struggling with intellectual honesty, I see. Still struggling to answer the question, I see. From the forum rules, post #1, thread#1, this forum: When discussing in this (or any) forum, a good rule of thumb is the one we learned in 2nd grade soccer--play the ball, not the player. If you find yourself directing things at a person rather than at what they say, chances are you are out of line. But it is not out of line. Answer the question if you have the gumption.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #74 June 6, 2010 Quote>The 2nd Amendment - frustrating liberals since 1787 I'm a liberal and I have no problems with the second amendment. However, unlike many conservatives, I believe the US Constitution has more than one amendment. A radical interpretation, perhaps - and one that no doubt frustrates a great many conservatives. hardly different from those who think the Bill of Rights only has 9. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #75 June 6, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Avoidance. You're credibility suffers yet again. This surprises you? That is his MO. That is how he rolls. Still struggling with intellectual honesty, I see. Still struggling to answer the question, I see. From the forum rules, post #1, thread#1, this forum: When discussing in this (or any) forum, a good rule of thumb is the one we learned in 2nd grade soccer--play the ball, not the player. If you find yourself directing things at a person rather than at what they say, chances are you are out of line. Of course you have never directed things at a person rather than what they say. You are funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
