Firearms

[The Grand Nudger]

The cracker barrel is a gastric roadside star of immense mass - space is quite literally bent in towards it.

[thesummerqueen]

Why do I like cracker barrel?

Because for $10 I can eat a meal so large that I won't need to eat for several hours. That means I can get by some days on $15 a day. This is exceptional when you're traveling.

[Something completely different]

Cute that you use the term gestapo. I didn't even mention grammar or spelling once, knucklehead.

nope, but acused me of not knowing the meaning of the words I use.

I mentioned the fact that you said explicit when nothing about slavery was made explicit in the Constitution.

It is. It mentions slavery, even when it doesnt use the word "slavery". Yet that doesnt change the fact that the word is used.

If you want to pretend that you mistakenly used the word, I don't mind, but don't fucking act like I was being some sort of grammar freak.

I dont have to act like that in any kind of way.

It is you who resorts to pointing out grammer mistakes or making assertions over the writers understanding of the english language when you are not willing or capable to present an argument in support of your motion.

It was always legal to free a slave if you owned it, dippy.

WOW! You can nitpick! Brilliant!!!

The constitution clearly says that a freed slave has to be returned to his or her master.
To then simply state that "but the master can free his slave" is simply cherrypicking and doesnt change the fact that slavery was still legal and that the constitution didnt criminalise it but even mentioned it as being not illegal. Your idiotic cherrypick almoust gives the impression as if you were looking for an excuse for the then slave owners.

If you could read, you would know that my point is that there is nothing in the Constitution giving you a right to own slaves. Saying that a person has to return a runaway or stolen slave is different and they didn't even say that. They purposefully made it ambiguous

They did write that - I showed you the example - you ignore it.

Why should it be worth a damn, talking to someone who ignores things which dont fir into her disneyland view of the world?????

By not criminalising slavery and by actualy implying that it is legal - one makes it legal in a court of law. It is as simple as that.

(she types again with some disdain for Germans' cognitive abilities).

The fact that you write about yourself in third person might explain that childish behavior of yours in which ignore every single piece of evidence which I present.

Precisely. Thank you for helping my argument, though I hardly required it.

nope I didnt. Because I showed how the constitution mentioned slavery.

It. does. not. say. slavery. One more time for posterity. It. does. not. say. slavery.

a euphemism does not change the nature of the thing described.

final solution - holocaust
great leap forward - great chinese famine

Are you really this retarded or do you just want it to say "slaves, slaves, slaves" in the Constitution?

the euphemism does not change the nature of the subject! If you would fall for that you would be just as redicilous as the people who created that euphemism in order to whitewash what it really was.

Hey, derpenstein, the Bill of Rights is not the original document. That is where the right to bear arms is mentioned. No right to own slaves is ever mentioned. Not once, not ever.

My source is: U.S. Constitution (original version), 1787.
And my argument doesnt center arround a specificaly mentioned right to own slaves - it centers arround the fact that the constitution doesnt prohibit it - and therefor of one argues on the basis that one has the same legal constraints upon him or her as the then documents had - one might aswell argue for the right to own slaves because it is mentioned to be not illegal.

Did fucking not . . . on fucking purpose. Gah.

They did, and on purpose, and I showed you where, and you ignored it. because you enjoy yourr disneyland worldview and dont want it shattered.

I just said it wasn't outlawed. That it is then a Constitutionally protected right does not then follow from that.

of course it is, because it falls under the category of property rights.

Individual fucking rights do not come into play until the Bill of Rights. The very fucking reason so many people did not want to see the Constitution ratified was the very lack of rights in it. Seriously, American Revolution era history is not exactly your strong suit.

nope. but understanding a historic time period by seeing it through its negative aspects rather than good ones is. and it remains a fact that the constitution outlines that slavery is not illegal and therefor owning slaves remains a right since it falls under property rights.
You see this document through your modern viewpoint where you overlook that the slaves rights were not subject of the debate but the slave owners right to property - which is why it clearly says that his property needs to be returned.
The right to own slaves need not be mentioned - merely the right to own property needs to be mentioned - together with the clausel which underlines that slavery isnt illegal - which declares slaves to be property - which makes slaves fall under the right to own property.

Is not.

It is, I showed you, you ignored it, because you live in disneyland.

Yes, you are.

and can you show how I am incorrect.

no

because you never show anyone how they are incorrect other than their grammer - which you do for insulting and not argumentative reasons.

Wrong. You have continued to discuss the relevance of the Constitution with me, which has nothing to do with the point I argued. If you want to continue to spit in the face of Constitution historians, have at it, you angry illiterate knucklehead.

even the least literate historian will agree that one should not live to the laws, rights and standerds of a sociaty which existed 300 years ago.

Have a great day.

and you may shove that emoticon - up your ass.

Psst. Still not part of the original document. Thanks for playing, "Do you even know what the Constitution is?" Tomorrow night, we will be playing, "Is the Declaration of Independence a legally binding document?"

the bill of rights is an addition to the constitution - the constitution outlines the seperations of powers and the capabilities of what a goverment can do - the declaration of independance is as it says a declaration independence.

I know the differences, I know which oes are legaly binding, I know they were all writen within a timespan of 15 years.

Now finaly give an argument supporting the motion, that when demanding to live under the same rules of then one doesnt get the right to own slavery.

[Shell B]

nope, but acused me of not knowing the meaning of the words I use.

Okay. You either don't know what it means or knowingly used in incorrectly. Either way, you're the ass in that scenario.

Yet that doesnt change the fact that the word is used.

Word is not used.

It is you who resorts to pointing out grammer mistakes or making assertions over the writers understanding of the english language when you are not willing or capable to present an argument in support of your motion.

I'm a bloody writer, for crying out loud. Of course, I am going to notice usage errors and point them out for the sake of clarity. The fact that your arguments are as muddy as the Ganges is obvious to anyone with a minimal grasp of English. You want an argument to support my motion?

1. It is grammar, not grammer.

2. Even if making assertions over made any fucking sense, it would be writer's or writers', not writers.

3. It is English, not english.

4. Capable to present? No, it is "capable of presenting." To which I must counter that you are clearly incapable of comprehending what is explicitly stated.

5. Holy fucking run-on, Batman.

WOW! You can nitpick! Brilliant!!!

And you can dodge that you made a retarded statement and make it seem like me pointing out your mistake is not a logical part of a discussion.

The constitution clearly says that a freed slave has to be returned to his or her master.

Does not. He never says the word slave or master. Again, this was deliberate. If you knew a cunt hair's worth of Revolution-era history, you would know this.

To then simply state that "but the master can free his slave"

I didn't say that. You did and then I stated that was always the case, as you worded it as if it only became the case with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which is incorrect.

is simply cherrypicking and doesnt change the fact that slavery was still legal

Strawman. I have always agreed that slavery was legal and, again, you were the one who mentioned that slaves had to be returned.

and that the constitution didnt criminalise it but even mentioned it as being not illegal.

Did not.

Your idiotic cherrypick almoust gives the impression as if you were looking for an excuse for the then slave owners.

Haha, I would ignore this if it weren't such an obviously horrible argument. You, sir, post drivel.

They did write that - I showed you the example - you ignore it.

No. You posted something else and then expected me to be as illiterate as you. It says slave nowhere, which was and has always been my only argument, you overzealous angermongering fucktard.

Why should it be worth a damn, talking to someone who ignores things which dont fir into her disneyland view of the world?????

Well, I'm sorry. I don't know what fir in means, Disneyland is a proper noun, multiple instances of the same punctuation is juvenile and you are incorrect. Even if I did fit your stereotype as some whitey American who wants to own slaves, that is still not Disneyland. Try harder.

By not criminalising slavery and by actualy implying that it is legal - one makes it legal in a court of law. It is as simple as that.

You said implying. Assuming you know what that means, you have just argued my argument for me. Also, I reiterate that I have always maintained that slavery was legal then. You simply do not comprehend that.

The fact that you write about yourself in third person might explain that childish behavior of yours in which ignore every single piece of evidence which I present.

No, no. I ignore your drivel. If you have evidence, I will happily pay attention to it. For now, I am just watching you get mad.

nope I didnt. Because I showed how the constitution mentioned slavery.

Wasn't that in response to nosepicking not being explicitly made illegal by the Constitution? Oh, it was. Looks like someone forgot to take notes.

a euphemism does not change the nature of the thing described.

Ah, bet it makes it less fucking explicit, doesn't it, chowdahead?

If you would fall for that you would be just as redicilous as the people who created that euphemism in order to whitewash what it really was.

Oh my god. You are precisely right. I just want slavery to be okay and my great white forefathers to be exonerated of these horrible accusations. Dumbass.

My source is: U.S. Constitution (original version), 1787.
And my argument doesnt center arround a specificaly mentioned right to own slaves - it centers arround the fact that the constitution doesnt prohibit it - and therefor of one argues on the basis that one has the same legal constraints upon him or her as the then documents had - one might aswell argue for the right to own slaves because it is mentioned to be not illegal.

You keep arguing that the right to bear arms is in the original Constitution. You have said it numerous times. And, again, I'm not even involved in that argument. I'm simply telling you it doesn't say slavery and why it does not say that. When you have spent hours that likely add up to weeks poring over the relevant documents, you might understand what I am saying too. If you don't want to hear it from me, read it from elsewhere.

They did, and on purpose, and I showed you where, and you ignored it. because you enjoy yourr disneyland worldview and dont want it shattered.

Haha, Internet psychologist. Try harder.

of course it is, because it falls under the category of property rights.

Not explicitly. In a roundabout way, certainly, but not explicitly, as you stupidly stated and to which I argued.

nope. but understanding a historic time period by seeing it through its negative aspects rather than good ones is.

So, you admit your only advantage in this argument is that you have a skewed perception of the period? Dumbass.

and it remains a fact that the constitution outlines that slavery is not illegal and therefor owning slaves remains a right since it falls under property rights.

Nope. Owning slaves was not considered a right, which, afuckingain, is precisely why Abraham Lincoln was able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation without being a total fucking hypocrite.

You see this document through your modern viewpoint

Wrong again. Did I happen to mention what I do for a living? Hint: It has to do with history.

where you overlook that the slaves rights were not subject of the debate but the slave owners right to property - which is why it clearly says that his property needs to be returned.

The problem with your argument is that it could have easily referred to indentured servants, which was intentional. Infuckingtentional. Do you understand?

The right to own slaves need not be mentioned

And better not be if you expect it to be ratified.

It is, I showed you, you ignored it, because you live in disneyland.

You got me there. Sick burn. Disneyland. That will take forever to heal. I have never even been to Disneyland. What a dick you are for reminding me.

because you never show anyone how they are incorrect other than their grammer - which you do for insulting and not argumentative reasons.

It's goddamn grammar, you dumb fuck! (Dumb fuck was for insulting. Grammar correction was for your benefit only.) Now, if you could speak plain English or understand what you read, you would see that you get like this every time you debate someone. The reason for this is because you can't tell you are getting a good argument from your opponent or you're just an ass with a superiority complex.

even the least literate historian will agree that one should not live to the laws, rights and standerds of a sociaty which existed 300 years ago.

Strawman. This has nothing to do with my debate whatsoever and I have not argued that point. Furthermore, learn how to fucking count.

and you may shove that emoticon - up your ass.

Make me, you angry little bitch.

[Something completely different]

Okay. You either don't know what it means or knowingly used in incorrectly. Either way, you're the ass in that scenario.

I know very well what it means

Word is not used.

a euphemism is used - so what bloody diference does that make?

I'm a bloody writer, for crying out loud. Of course, I am going to notice usage errors and point them out for the sake of clarity. The fact that your arguments are as muddy as the Ganges is obvious to anyone with a minimal grasp of English. You want an argument to support my motion?

1. It is grammar, not grammer.

2. Even if making assertions over made any fucking sense, it would be writer's or writers', not writers.

3. It is English, not english.

4. Capable to present? No, it is "capable of presenting." To which I must counter that you are clearly incapable of comprehending what is explicitly stated.

5. Holy fucking run-on, Batman.

Wow, how fucking interesting.

Now see how many fucks I give about your language and your opinion on how I decide to use it.

none.

And you can dodge that you made a retarded statement and make it seem like me pointing out your mistake is not a logical part of a discussion.

And where am I doing that?

The only inlogical part I am pointing out is your failure to read through the document quotes and sources I provide.

Does not. He never says the word slave or master. Again, this was deliberate. If you knew a cunt hair's worth of Revolution-era history, you would know this.

Yes - deliberate - but they meant slaves - which is why they used the euphemism deliberatly - or can you show me a servant who is "owned by the employer"?
No matter how the wording is, as a legal text it always must have a clear meaning because wishywashy language is rejected in legal texts because they have to be understandable.

I didn't say that. You did and then I stated that was always the case, as you worded it as if it only became the case with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, which is incorrect.

You did say that! With the attitude of a dumb 12 year old girl who screams inbetween anything just for the sake of screaming something between something.

Strawman. I have always agreed that slavery was legal and, again, you were the one who mentioned that slaves had to be returned.

deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerp derp derp derp

Echt jetzt! Geh fick dich selbst!!!

ok, I am going to explain my point for the very last time.

Slavery was legal during that time, the constitution confirmed it`s legality, therefor if arguing that one has the same rights as applied during that time - one might aswell not only demand the right to own arms but the right to slaves because slavery was legal and not seen as illegal by the constitution

-

my conclusion would be that political standerds and laws in general do not come from old documents held as unchangeable but from the thoughtprocesses behind solving current problems.

Did not.

yes it did.

Haha, I would ignore this if it weren't such an obviously horrible argument. You, sir, post drivel.

says the person who seems to have nothing better to do than annoy people on the internet.

No. You posted something else and then expected me to be as illiterate as you. It says slave nowhere, which was and has always been my only argument, you overzealous angermongering fucktard.

euphemism doesnt change the meaning.

I would really like to understand the thoughtprocess behind you posting an insult and posting some fucking smiley right after that. do you think it makes it less insulting? makes you look nicer? just post the fucking insult if you want to insult me.

Well, I'm sorry. I don't know what fir in means, Disneyland is a proper noun, multiple instances of the same punctuation is juvenile and you are incorrect. Even if I did fit your stereotype as some whitey American who wants to own slaves, that is still not Disneyland. Try harder.

it is a german way of saying someone is ignorant

you live in lalaland. you live in disneyland. life isnt a ponyranch.

phrases used to describe someone who lives in a world they sreamt up for themselves and in which they ignore everything which might uprrot the comfort of their delusions.

which fits to you for your ignorance of what I posted.

You said implying. Assuming you know what that means, you have just argued my argument for me. Also, I reiterate that I have always maintained that slavery was legal then. You simply do not comprehend that.

I adressed this above and will not copy and paste simply you can watch someone copy and paste.

No, no. I ignore your drivel. If you have evidence, I will happily pay attention to it. For now, I am just watching you get mad.

I posted my evidence. with link to the university I got it from.

Wasn't that in response to nosepicking not being explicitly made illegal by the Constitution? Oh, it was. Looks like someone forgot to take notes.

all of this garbage of yours could be avoided if you had read through the examples I gave.

Ah, bet it makes it less fucking explicit, doesn't it, chowdahead?

only in the minds of opertunists and people who look away from the reality behind the term or paint it as something which it isnt.

Oh my god. You are precisely right. I just want slavery to be okay and my great white forefathers to be exonerated of these horrible accusations. Dumbass.

?

Cant you see the irony behind you accusing me of using a strawman and then you posting this? Where do I accuse you of wanting to reinterduce slavery or saying that you think it is ok?

You keep arguing that the right to bear arms is in the original Constitution.

that doesnt change the fact that slavery is mentioned and that both documents were writen in the same short period of time.

You have said it numerous times. And, again, I'm not even involved in that argument. I'm simply telling you it doesn't say slavery and why it does not say that. When you have spent hours that likely add up to weeks poring over the relevant documents, you might understand what I am saying too. If you don't want to hear it from me, read it from elsewhere.

I dont need to spend hours, I am not heading towards the 30s and missing the times of useless paperwork, I can quickly search the internet for what I need, and the I can post a link to my source - which I did.

Haha, Internet psychologist. Try harder.

I am not trying. It is simply the only conclusion I can reach from your ignorance. If there is another one which would be correct then please tell me. Cause I dont know why else you would resort to insults and mockery rather than adressing the documents I posted as examples.

Not explicitly. In a roundabout way, certainly, but not explicitly, as you stupidly stated and to which I argued.

the constitution underlines the legality of slavery - if one claimst the right to own slaves on the basis of those documents one wouldnt claim it on the basis of "the right to own slaves" but the right to own property.

So, you admit your only advantage in this argument is that you have a skewed perception of the period? Dumbass.

Why?! it is the only correct way to view history! through seeing as much as possible as negative, because everything else is a gloryfication of what is actualy ugly. there is no such thing as a "glorious past".

Nope. Owning slaves was not considered a right, which, afuckingain, is precisely why Abraham Lincoln was able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation without being a total fucking hypocrite.

Slaves were property - therefor one didnt need the right to own slaves but simply the right to own property. All what needed to be done to stop this was to declare that human beings could not be property.

Wrong again. Did I happen to mention what I do for a living? Hint: It has to do with history.

Look at all the fucks I give!

The problem with your argument is that it could have easily referred to indentured servants, which was intentional. Infuckingtentional. Do you understand?

can you show me the servant who is owned by his employer like property?
Or was the US in it`s early days a feudal sociaty?

And better not be if you expect it to be ratified.

because they were seen as property. it wasnt the right to own slaves which required ratification - it was a slaves right to no longer be a slave.

You got me there. Sick burn. Disneyland. That will take forever to heal. I have never even been to Disneyland. What a dick you are for reminding me.

look at all the fucks I give

It's goddamn grammar, you dumb fuck! (Dumb fuck was for insulting. Grammar correction was for your benefit only.) Now, if you could speak plain English or understand what you read, you would see that you get like this every time you debate someone. The reason for this is because you can't tell you are getting a good argument from your opponent or you're just an ass with a superiority complex.

I dont have a supiriority complex, I generaly always accept it when I am proven wrong. And I use this language as I see it fit best and if you dont understand - you can either ask - or leave.

Strawman. This has nothing to do with my debate whatsoever and I have not argued that point.

it was my point from the beginning. when I posted that whatever was law yesterday isnt always correct today. you just overlooked it cause disneyland.

Furthermore, learn how to fucking count.

it is getting close to 300 if you like it or not.

Make me, you angry little bitch.

maybe you should just grow up and stop annoying people for the sake of annoying people. unless it is what you simply cant restrain from doing in which case you should get help.

good bye.

[Shell B]

I post the smiley next to the insult because it makes you even angrier. Your posts are riddled with strawmen, irrelevant points, word usage problems and logic fails that are on par with the Christians we get around here. You not liking me or being a douche with anger management problems has fuckall to do with the merit of my posts. If you can ever find it in yourself to have a discussion that isn't Mickey Moused together between your characteristic outbursts, let me know. Until then, I will continue to talk to you as I do now, as I may as well be amused by your ineptitude whilst wasting my time talking to you. Now go run off and cry about how much of an annoying meany face I am.

[Tiberius]

Germans, you originally argued:

One might aswell argue for the constitutionaly provided right to own slaves - which YES was included in the original document.

It wasn't. There isn't a single right in the original constitution that allows slavery. Mentioning or alluding to something does not mean there is a constitutionally provided right to do it. A constitutionally provided right means that the constitution explicitly states that right, in plain English. In other words, it would say something along the lines of "The right of the people to own slaves shall not be infringed". Substitute the word "slaves" for anything that roughly means the same thing. It doesn't matter, because there are no such phrases in the constitution.

You then argued:

It explicitly underlined that slavery was not outlawed!

No, it didn't. It never explicitly underlined that, but it may have implicitly underlined it. Explicit means "Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt." The original constitution does not do that; it instead uses very ambiguous language and never states clearly that slavery is "not outlawed".

However, as you've pointed out, there are explicit statements in it which mention (or at least, allude to) slavery. However, these only serve to justify what people can do with slaves. In other words, they do not explicitly state that slavery is legal; they only imply it is.

LOL

the fact that the constitution needs to be constantly altered and mentios that itself simply proves my point that by pointing to the original document and claiming to have a right to something because it is mentioned in the original is wrong.

No it doesn't. It also isn't a fact that "the constitution needs to be constantly altered". The constitution is not being constantly altered; it's only been altered 27 times, the last time was in 1992.

Plus, nobody is pointing to the original and claiming to have a right to something. The right to bear arms is in the current constitution as well (and ironically, was not in the original). The right to bear arms was an amendment in the first place.

[Something completely different]

It wasn't. There isn't a single right in the original constitution that allows slavery.

I posted the link to the phrases which do. A euphemism does not change the substance of the matter. What kind of world would this be if a euphemism itself could change the very nature of the subject described? The term "final solution" as it is writen on Eichmans calculations doesnt make the systematic murder of 6 million people prittier in any way.
The founding fathers may have used a euphemism, yet it is clear that they meant slavery with it, to somehow fantasise arround the idea that they could have meant something else is outright historic relatevism which eludes away from the fact that the US founding fathers eighter saw the issue of slavery as a matter as insignificant as the buisness releationship between a landlord and his servant or that they were cowards who didnt dare to speak and write of the matter as it was to be seen. To have a euphemism in a historic document and to then read it and understand it just like it was meant to be read by the writer is wrong. One has to read it whilest keeping in mind why a euphemism was used, and in this case it only leaves the two options I noted above.

Mentioning or alluding to something does not mean there is a constitutionally provided right to do it. A constitutionally provided right means that the constitution explicitly states that right, in plain English.

The constitution gives it`s subjects the right to own property. The constitution is also writen in a way which regards slaves to be nothing alse but property - so the constitution does give the right to own slaves. In a 18th century mind set in which a slave was nothing else but property it is as unnececery to meantion the right to own slaves as it is to mention the right to own a house or tea cup. The only reason why slavery is mentioned in this document in it`s euphemistic way is because of the "Summerset case and Knight case" which took place shortly before in the British mainland and ended with the abolishment of slavery in England and Scotland. Yet the notes on slavery in the constitution only assures to the subjects living under it that slavery will not be abolished and that a slave holder need not fear that a fleeing slave will not be returned, let alone that a escaping slave has some kind of right to claim liberty.

In other words, it would say something along the lines of "The right of the people to own slaves shall not be infringed". Substitute the word "slaves" for anything that roughly means the same thing. It doesn't matter, because there are no such phrases in the constitution.

o really?

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due . . ."

this is a legal guarantee that a "runaway slave" has to be returned to it`s owner because the slave is the owners property. that phrase is only possible if the owners right to his slave is already accepted as a unchangeable fact. Thereby the quoted phrase clearly guarantees a slave holders right to his slave.

No, it didn't. It never explicitly underlined that, but it may have implicitly underlined it. Explicit means "Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt." The original constitution does not do that; it instead uses very ambiguous language and never states clearly that slavery is "not outlawed".

It does, as the phrase quoted above shows. And not only that one, but also the phrase previously quoted which underlines that the matter shouldnt stand for debate until 1808. To argue that the wishy washy phrasing somehow changes the real life consequences of the matter is absurd. What matters is how it was seen then, how it was interpreted then and why it should not be forgotten.

However, as you've pointed out, there are explicit statements in it which mention (or at least, allude to) slavery. However, these only serve to justify what people can do with slaves. In other words, they do not explicitly state that slavery is legal; they only imply it is.

To list what people can do with slaves is pritty much useless if slavery was illegal.
No code of law in any country of the world guarantees the right to own a computer - but every code of law includes regulations and laws on internet criminality. You are simply viewing the document whilest thinking that slavery would somehow be so special that it deserved being mentioned itself. Slaves where seen as simple property and not as we see them today. By giving regulations on what can be done with slaves the document and it`s writers act upon the fact that slavery is something acceptable.

No it doesn't. It also isn't a fact that "the constitution needs to be constantly altered". The constitution is not being constantly altered; it's only been altered 27 times, the last time was in 1992.

"only"??????

this does not change the fact that it was changed, you are also relatevising the changes made with your possition as if they were unnececery or dont change the fact that the original is sacrosanct and perfect.

Plus, nobody is pointing to the original and claiming to have a right to something. The right to bear arms is in the current constitution as well (and ironically, was not in the original). The right to bear arms was an amendment in the first place.

which took place within the same 15 years in which all these documents were published.

it does not change the fact: An argument based on an historic promiss or right cannot justify modern policies.

---

I post the smiley next to the insult because it makes you even angrier.

Well what a nice thing to do. Dont you have better things to dou with your life?

Your posts are riddled with strawmen,

where?

irrelevant points,

where?

word usage problems

where?

and logic fails

where?

that are on par with the Christians we get around here.

can you show how this comparision proves to be right in any way?

You not liking me or being a douche with anger management problems has fuckall to do with the merit of my posts.

this has absolutly nothing to do with not liking.
the only ways to have a debate is by eighter being agressive or civil

you chose agressive, now deal with the blitzkrieg or learn for later.

If you can ever find it in yourself to have a discussion that isn't Mickey Moused together between your characteristic outbursts, let me know.

You started with your own outburst.

Until then, I will continue to talk to you as I do now, as I may as well be amused by your ineptitude whilst wasting my time talking to you.

Interesting how you start with an outburst (just like last time) and then think you somehow have the highground which allows you to tell other that they have agression problems.

You dont know me! You never will know me! You will therefor never be capable of making any kind of judgement about my personality in any kind of way. You post about your problems - I dont - I dont use those post to somehow make a slimish disgusting disfranchising remark about your personality, thereby hoping to exclude you from making a argument, in a godwin way. And even although I might sometimes slip and make some pritty drastic personal remarks on the grounds of what others may post, I dont resort to only using such remarks.
You on the other hand seem to be incapable to have any kind of exchange with anyone without resorting to such remarks.

Now go run off and cry about how much of an annoying meany face I am.

lol, unlike you I can keep posting until you realise yourself how pathetic your own remarks are, just like last time.

[NoraBrimstone]

Oh dear. Someone's PMSing...

[thesummerqueen]

Oh dear. Someone's PMSing...

I told everyone not to judge me for eating that cream cheese chocolate cake!

Seriously though, I seem to have forgotten the original point of this bitch fest. The Constitution isn't a sacred document. It was written by long dead white guys in another era. It just so happens that those guys were rather brilliant and gave us a document that has seen us through these past couple centuries. But if we find out that we as a country no longer wish to embody some of those values, we amend it and change our laws. Who cares wtf it originally said if we agree it's better now? (Other than for historicity's sake.)