JamesHackerMP Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: No need to clarify. Any who does not understand it, is immune to the evidence of the Declaration of Independence preamble and associated first amendment to uphold it, and second amendment to defend that. Yes there is. And thank God you're here to set us idiots straight, Dougie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) I never called anyone an idiot, I am simply steeped in the American Religion from a young age by my Canadian born but American raised father. If you do not defend and uphold the American Religion, you are not one of us, but the Creator has endowed you with right to be whatever you choose to be. None the less, Big Red White and Blue Machine simply rolls on without you. God bless America, brave and free. Edited February 14, 2019 by Dougie93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: I never called anyone an idiot, I am simply steeped in the American Religion from a young age by my Canadian born but American raised father. If you do not defend and uphold the American Religion, you are not one of us, but the Creator has endowed you with right to be whatever you choose to be. None the less, Big Red White and Blue Machine simply rolls on without you. God bless America, brave and free. You're steeped in something, that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 Ad hominem merely a sign of weakness, if you have no cogent retort, I will simply at this juncture stand by my posts in right of the moderator. /shrugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: Ad hominem merely a sign of weakness, if you have no cogent retort, I will simply at this juncture stand by my posts in right of the moderator. /shrugs Wasn't intended as ad hominem, you were just wide open for it. The weakness here is that you don't know what you're talking about. To paraphrase an American patriot (a real patriot): "If this be ad hominem, then let us make the most of it." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 Ad hominem merely a sign of weakness, if you have no cogent retort, I will simply at this juncture stand by my posts in right of the moderator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Ad hominem merely a sign of weakness, if you have no cogent retort, I will simply at this juncture stand by my posts in right of the moderator. Yes, you've said that twice now. I heard you the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 Just now, JamesHackerMP said: Yes, you've said that twice now. I heard you the first time. Second ad hominem fallacy; same response, see my above post /shrugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 Multiple ad hominem fallacies; bad faith, trolling, in right of the moderator, stand by, stand by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) Dougie, I asked you to clarify your statements above because I wanted to give a proper response. You said "there is no need to clarify". perhaps if you could clarify the statement I asked you to, I'd have a better response. Do you think you could do that now? I also asked about citizens united and the first amendment. Again you brushed me off. It's hard to make a cogent response when I can't get one out of you Edited February 14, 2019 by JamesHackerMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) There's no need to clarify. It's not an argument, merely testimony. You're free to take it or leave it. I post by the terms and conditions in right of the moderator, persistent ad hominen in response to testimony, is trolling, I have been directed by the moderator to decline engagement. Edited February 14, 2019 by Dougie93 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) Can we get back to what is wrong with the United States now? If anything, the moderator should have warned about thread drift a few pages ago. We're here to make arguments not "testify". This isn't a congressional committee. Edited February 14, 2019 by JamesHackerMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 My assertions to the wrongness of the Democrat Party and associated Cucks is entirely on topic. You have simply degenerated into repeating ad hominem, which is trolling. Charles Anthony has politely asked that I not engage. /shrugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 You just engaged again, and I ask the moderator to take note. As far as the wrongness of the Democratic Party, I have no problem with that. I'm not a Democrat and it's for a reason. What is wrong with the U.S. in my view is the polarization of both parties, rather than the faults of only one of them. When you have too few moderates in a system it can destabilize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 Disagree, polarization is entirely consistent with a free country, rabble rousing and partisanship is the very essence of American democracy, and is integral to the separation of powers bicameral American republic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said: You just engaged again, and I ask the moderator to take note. You are in contravention of the terms and conditions by engaging in repeated ad hominems without addressing the point. I am reporting, ignoring your assertions and moving on. Then you come back and do it again, thus I wash rinse repeat as was directed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, JamesHackerMP said: Dougie, I asked you to clarify your statements above because I wanted to give a proper response. You said "there is no need to clarify". perhaps if you could clarify the statement I asked you to, I'd have a better response. Do you think you could do that now? I also asked about citizens united and the first amendment. Again you brushed me off. It's hard to make a cogent response when I can't get one out of you Money in politics is free speech, federal gun control is also unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS with a 5-4 conservative majority will protect both the first and second amendments from the Democrats trying to attack those rights, no matter what bat s**t legislation the Dems happen to pass to try and neuter them. Dougie considers that to be a good thing, and so do I. What's to clarify? Edited February 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesHackerMP Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 8 hours ago, Dougie93 said: Disagree, polarization is entirely consistent with a free country, rabble rousing and partisanship is the very essence of American democracy, and is integral to the separation of powers bicameral American republic. why should polarization be consistent with a free country? It hasn't always been this polarized, and it's entirely possible it wont' be in the future, necessarily. Usually polarization is a sign of increasing instability and dysfunction. Can't agree with you there. 2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said: Money in politics is free speech, federal gun control is also unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS with a 5-4 conservative majority will protect both the first and second amendments from the Democrats trying to attack those rights, no matter what bat s**t legislation the Dems happen to pass to try and neuter them. Dougie considers that to be a good thing, and so do I. What's to clarify? Putting it that way it makes more sense. i don't agree, but it's clear enough at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 12 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said: Can't agree with you there. So what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said: What's to clarify? We got Trump, we got a reliable conservative majority at the Supreme Court, we got the Senate, and we got Ruth Ginsberg fighting off lung cancer, with the Democrats going into 2020 with the same strategy that burned them last time. Meanwhile, Never Trump Cucks living in deep Blue Maryland, is the dictionary definition of irrelevant in America. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, Dougie93 said: We got Trump, we got a reliable conservative majority at the Supreme Court, we got the Senate, and we got Ruth Ginsberg fighting off lung cancer, with the Democrats going into 2020 with the same strategy that burned them last time. Meanwhile, Never Trump Cucks living in deep Blue Maryland, is the dictionary definition of irrelevant in America. Oh indeed. Never Trump Cucks in Deep Blue States are quite irrelevant, especially Maryland NTC's.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PO1oUY6HS90 I'd actually embed the video, but the moderators seem to think that doing so is "image trolling", or something, so I guess I have to refrain from actually embedding videos in the future. Everyone else gets to post videos at will, but ol' Yzermandias is being stalked by moderators looking for me to embed a youtube video so they have a lame excuse to suspend my ability to post content on this forum, so I have to watch my back. Edited February 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 Indeed. Apparently Trump is sweet talking Clarence Thomas and his wife, if he could get Thomas to retire, and replace him with Amy Coner Barret, who makes Gorsuch look like liberal in comparison and is only 47, that would be optimal. Then when RBG croaks, it's not just a 6-3 majority, it's a young 6-3 majority which could persist for multiple generations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Indeed. Apparently Trump is sweet talking Clarence Thomas and his wife, if he could get Thomas to retire, and replace him with Amy Coner Barret, who makes Gorsuch look like liberal in comparison and is only 47, that would be optimal. Then when RBG croaks, it's not just a 6-3 majority, it's a young 6-3 majority which could persist for multiple generations. I was hoping Trump would pick Amy Coney Barrett to replace Kennedy, but knew he'd go with a Kavanaugh type, and it seemed pretty obvious from the moment Kennedy announced that he was stepping down that Kavanaugh himself would be the pick. Barrett makes a lot more sense as a Clarence Thomas replacement though, Trump might actually do that. Edited February 15, 2019 by Yzermandius19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 Thing is, the Democrats have made a sworn enemy of Kavanaugh for life now, so that worked out by liberals hoisting themselves on their own petard. But if ends 6-3 with the likes of Amy Barret setting a tone, then Roe v. Wade might actually be in peril, along with gay marriage and women in the combat arms, a whole slew of liberal sacred cows could be slaughtered in rapid succession, at 6-3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yzermandius19 Posted February 15, 2019 Report Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Thing is, the Democrats have made a sworn enemy of Kavanaugh for life now, so that worked out by liberals hoisting themselves on their own petard. But if ends 6-3 with the likes of Amy Barret setting a tone, then Roe v. Wade might actually be in peril, along with gay marriage and women in the combat arms, a whole slew of liberal sacred cows could be slaughtered in rapid succession, at 6-3. 10th amendment for the win, hell yeah 6-3 conservative majority SCOTUS, lets do this thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.