The Tea Baggers are just Plain Stupid **PHOTO** - Page 7 - GoFuckYourself.com

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaiderCash_Dominik

sad. very sad.

Indeed. He likes to throw out concepts without any explanations, and he just doesn't give up.
Little engine that could.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Ah more irrelevant misdirection in saving face from getting your ass kicked.

I listed it as one of the principles of this country, that was put into an amendment, since you seemed to think that the amendments were changed, due to the definition.

Btw, I love how you completely switch points after I call your bullshit on the concept of "amendments". You're definitely funnier than the other kids I talk to on here.

So completely shitting on your examples is a misdirection? Lol, what?

Sigh.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

So completely shitting on your examples is a misdirection? Lol, what?

Sigh.

Poor guy. Completely ignoring another post that shut you up is called misdirection. Keep trying. I'm lovin the "don't give up" attitude

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Poor guy. Completely ignoring another post that shut you up is called misdirection. Keep trying. I'm lovin the "don't give up" attitude

I'll address it.

What you seem to use interchangeably is that you think the Constitution was first created with amendments. To help you out, they were called Articles.

After things were changed, they called the changes, "amendments".
Example:
The first amendment to the bill of rights; freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and press.

This was adopted in 1791.

Ever hear of something called, "Due Process"?

Your example is now null and void.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:16 AM

Again, the same FOUNDING principles instilled over 200 years ago are NOT the same principles applied today.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

I'll address it.

What you seem to use interchangeably is that you think the Constitution was first created with amendments. To help you out, they were called Articles.

After things were changed, they called the changes, "amendments".
Example:
The first amendment to the bill of rights; freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and press.

This was adopted in 1791.

Ever hear of something called, "Due Process"?

Your example is now null and void.

Great argument... Except of course, the US Constitution was finalized in 1787, and the "Articles" didn't contradict the US Constitution, therefore things were added, not changed. Furthermore, #4 and #9 still apply, seeing as how they predate the Constitution.

And finally, the Constitution became the document for which the principles of the founding fathers were finalized. Good try at splitting hairs though
You lose junior

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:22 AM

Quote:

The Articles were created by the chosen representatives of the states in the Second Continental Congress out of a perceived need to have "a plan of confederacy for securing the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United States." Although serving a crucial role in the victory in the American Revolutionary War, a group of reformers, known as "federalists", felt that the Articles lacked the necessary provisions for a sufficiently effective government. Fundamentally, a federation was sought to ereplace the confederation. The key criticism by those who favored a more powerful central state (i.e. the federalists)was that the govrnment (i.e. the Congress of the Confederation) lacked taxing authority; it had to request funds from the states. Also various federalist factions wanted[citation needed] a government that could impose uniform tariffs, give land grants, and assume responsibility for unpaid state war debts ("assumption".) Those opposed to the Constitution, known as "anti-federalists," considered these limits on government power to be necessary and good.Another criticism of the Articles was that they did not strike the right balance between large and small states in the legislative decision making process. Due to its one-state, one-vote plank, the larger states were expected to contribute more but had only one vote.

The Articles were replaced by the United States Constitution on June 21, 1788.

Owned

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Great argument... Except of course, the US Constitution was finalized in 1787, and the "Articles" didn't contradict the US Constitution, therefore things were added, not changed. Furthermore, #4 and #9 still apply, seeing as how they predate the Constitution.

And finally, the Constitution became the document for which the principles of the founding fathers were finalized. Good try at splitting hairs though
You lose junior

[img]http://www.guzer.com/pictures/funny_owned_boy.jpg[/img]

No one said the Articles contradicts the Constitution. The 4th amendment was in practice in the 1760s. Parts of the enactment were changed, thus not being the same amendment that predated the Constitution. Again, you need to look up the definition of, "amendment".

Yes, the Constitution has changed. For one, adding is changing, but that's not my point.

Research the Amendment Convention, it's noted in Article 5.

You also know that the Supreme Court judges go on their own interpretation, yes? Some stick with it's exact wording, some interpret for themselves, and some adapt for modern times.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

No one said the Articles contradicts the Constitution. The 4th amendment was in practice in the 1760s. Parts of the enactment were changed, thus not being the same amendment that predated the Constitution. Again, you need to look up the definition of, "amendment".

Quote:

Yes, the Constitution has changed. For one, adding is changing, but that's not my point.

Adding is adding, not changing. Stop trying to split hairs. I'm aware of the definition of amendment, which isn't the point.

Quote:

You also know that the Supreme Court judges go on their own interpretation, yes? Some stick with it's exact wording, some interpret for themselves, and some adapt for modern times.

Again with the misdirection after getting your ass kicked. I would ask what point you were trying to make with this nonsense, since it has nothing to do with anything, but I've realized this is how you deal with defeat. Try again Junior.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

The Articles were replaced by the United States Constitution on June 21, 1788.

Owned

Um.

The Articles are part of the Constitution.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

Um.

The Articles are part of the Constitution.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Adding is adding, not changing. Stop trying to split hairs. I'm aware of the definition of amendment, which isn't the point.

Again with the misdirection after getting your ass kicked. I would ask what point you were trying to make with this nonsense, since it has nothing to do with anything, but I've realized this is how you deal with defeat. Try again Junior.

Oh, so the point you're making on amendments is that you have your own definition, whilst the dictionary's definition is incorrect? Alright.

To put it very elementary, if the Constitution can be interpreted differently, taken out of context, and adapted to fit different times by those that enforce it, it can be changed.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

What's irrelevant?

You said the Constitution replaced the Articles, but the Articles are part of the Constitution.

Doesn't get much more relevant than that.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:40 AM

Alright, we can make this much more simple. A yes or no will suffice.

Is the Constitution, as it is today, any different than it was on on September 17, 1787?

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

What's irrelevant?

You said the Constitution replaced the Articles, but the Articles are part of the Constitution.

Doesn't get much more relevant than that.

1. The articles of confederation were replaced. Look up what "replaced" means.

2. You're hilariously throwing around the "misdirection" fallacy to a point I've never seen before. Now listen Junior, it's been fun debating with a minor, but I think that for your self esteem, you should put your daddy back on the computer. One day, a few years from now, you'll absorb enough knowledge to know how to use it in a debate. Then you'll learn how to debate and you might be ready. Until then, this is too pitiful.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

Alright, we can make this much more simple. A yes or no will suffice.

Is the Constitution, as it is today, any different than it was on on September 17, 1787?

Sorry Junior, your premise was that the articles art part of the constitution. The reality is, it was replaced by the constitution and the amendments in the Articles were adopted. The fact that you have to split hairs after I call you out on your bullshit is hilarious.

Since I no longer prefer to answer against the "don't give up" strategy, i'll let you educate yourself.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

1. The articles of confederation were replaced. Look up what "replaced" means.

2. You're hilariously throwing around the "misdirection" fallacy to a point I've never seen before. Now listen Junior, it's been fun debating with a minor, but I think that for your self esteem, you should put your daddy back on the computer. One day, a few years from now, you'll absorb enough knowledge to know how to use it in a debate. Then you'll learn how to debate and you might be ready. Until then, this is too pitiful.

No one referenced the Articles of Confederation.

We've been talking the second Constitution.

Again, the second Constitution has Articles in it.

What are you struggling with?

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Sorry Junior, your premise was that the articles art part of the constitution. The reality is, it was replaced by the constitution and the amendments in the Articles were adopted. The fact that you have to split hairs after I call you out on your bullshit is hilarious.

Since I no longer prefer to answer against the "don't give up" strategy, i'll let you educate yourself.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html

Articles are part of the Constitution.

Do you see the big bold letters under, "We the people..."? What does that say? Article 1? WOW!

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

No one referenced the Articles of Confederation.

We've been talking the second Constitution.

Again, the second Constitution has Articles in it.

What are you struggling with?

Welp, I'm done. You can't even follow a simple argument and your only response is to make up something on the fly, and act like it's what we've been discussing. I'll post another picture of you getting owned, then I'm moving on to smarter people. It's been fun junior.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Welp, I'm done. You can't even follow a simple argument and your only response is to make up something on the fly, and act like it's what we've been discussing. I'll post another picture of you getting owned, then I'm moving on to smarter people. It's been fun junior.

Where has ANYONE referenced the Articles of Confederation?

Show me ONE reference of this since I joined this conversation.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

I'll address it.

What you seem to use interchangeably is that you think the Constitution was first created with amendments. To help you out, they were called Articles.

After things were changed, they called the changes, "amendments".
Example:
The first amendment to the bill of rights; freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and press.

This was adopted in 1791.

Ever hear of something called, "Due Process"?

Your example is now null and void.

Clearly you were talking about the Articles of Confederation, since they predate the Constitution, not about the Constitution Articles. Last time just for you

[img]http://img145.imageshack.us/i/owned2my0.png/[img]

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Clearly you were talking about the Articles of Confederation, since they predate the Constitution, not about the Constitution Articles. Last time just for you

[img]http://img145.imageshack.us/i/owned2my0.png/[img]

#4's PREMISE predated the Constitution, yes.

#4 as it is now is NOT the same as it was pre Constitution.

NO ONE made that claim.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:49 AM

And again, I was speaking literally. Look at a picture of the Consitution. See how they're organized? They're organized by Articles. Very simple concept.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 11:54 AM

I subscribed to this thread, I've to head out. Ill be back in a few hours and will resume where you reply.

03-19-2010, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

You're typing to a moron who doesn't know the difference between socialism and classical liberalism. I think we should leave the little retarded child alone.

Good point. I don't think weekly knows his head from his ass. Most of his posting on this forum prove that.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels

I subscribed to this thread, I've to head out. Ill be back in a few hours and will resume where you reply.

Nothing to reply to. You haven't made a single. valid premise, in all of your incoherent rambling. When you get called out with facts, you use misdirection like theDoc, and claim you were talking about someone else. But unlike TheDoc, you don't know when to quit.

There's nothing more I can teach you other than "quit while you're behind". Our "discussion", if you can even call it that, is done. Good day, junior

TheSenator · 03-19-2010, 12:17 PM

The Demon, Vendzilla, JaneB and Baddog will love socialized health care when it gets here. They will pay their taxes and be happy.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

The Demon, Vendzilla, JaneB and Baddog will love socialized health care when it gets here. They will pay their taxes and be happy.

When it doesn't get here, TheSenator and BFT3K will proceed to commit suicide.

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Nothing to reply to. You haven't made a single. valid premise, in all of your incoherent rambling. When you get called out with facts, you use misdirection like theDoc, and claim you were talking about someone else. But unlike TheDoc, you don't know when to quit.

There's nothing more I can teach you other than "quit while you're behind". Our "discussion", if you can even call it that, is done. Good day, junior

Show me where I claimed I was talking to someone else. I'll be waiting.

Also, show me a valid point you have made that I did not refute. I'll be waiting on this as well.

M0nk · 03-19-2010, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EdgeXXX

Ah yes, Tea Baggers...

mgtarheels · 03-19-2010, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M0nk

Houdini · 03-19-2010, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Comprehensive health care reform will cost the federal government $940 billion over a ten-year period, but will increase revenue and cut other costs by a greater amount, leading to a reduction of $138 billion in the federal deficit over the same period...

Source: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/cboscore.pdf

Congressional budget scorekeepers say a Medicare fix that Democrats included in earlier versions of their health care bill would push it into the red.

The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that rolling back a programmed cut in Medicare fees to doctors would cost $208 billion over 10 years. If added back to the health care overhaul bill, it would wipe out all the deficit reduction, leaving the legislation $59 billion in the red.

The so-called doc fix was part of the original House bill. Because of its high cost, Democrats decided to pursue it separately. Republicans say the cost should not be ignored. Congress has usually waived the cuts to doctors year by year.

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medica....html?x=0&.v=2

weekly · 03-19-2010, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneB

Good point. I don't think weekly knows his head from his ass. Most of his posting on this forum prove that.

I actually do. Its funny when losers claim to be in the majority. I find this is the redneck school of life. I can't help your lack of education, that is a problem you will have to solve yourself.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weekly

I actually do. Its funny when losers claim to be in the majority. I find this is the redneck school of life. I can't help your lack of education, that is a problem you will have to solve yourself.

Except you haven't proven to know anything. You just post and hope people don't call you out on your bullshit, kinda like tarheel. That's why you losers are so easy to deal with

03-19-2010, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by weekly

I actually do. Its funny when losers claim to be in the majority. I find this is the redneck school of life. I can't help your lack of education, that is a problem you will have to solve yourself.

Your postings are laughable. You are the one that clearly lacks intelligence or education. I love how you try and reverse it.

The Porn Nerd · 03-19-2010, 08:00 PM

ATTENTION:

THE FOLLOWING ANNOUNCEMENT IS MADE ON BEHALF OF ALL CLEAR-THINKING AMERICANS (all 127 of us):

ALL TEABAGGERS ARE DUMB-ASSES.

Thank you for your attention. Please resume pointless debate with retarded Repulican supporters.

weekly · 03-19-2010, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneB

Your postings are laughable. You are the one that clearly lacks intelligence or education. I love how you try and reverse it.

I don't, kid.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterPeabody

ATTENTION:

THE FOLLOWING ANNOUNCEMENT IS MADE ON BEHALF OF ALL CLEAR-THINKING AMERICANS (all 127 of us):

ALL TEABAGGERS ARE DUMB-ASSES.

Thank you for your attention. Please resume pointless debate with retarded Repulican supporters.

Hmm, another dumbass liberal/democrat who contributes absolutely zero to a debate. What a trend.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneB

Your postings are laughable. You are the one that clearly lacks intelligence or education. I love how you try and reverse it.

I'm not sure he "gets it."

The Porn Nerd · 03-19-2010, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

Hmm, another dumbass liberal/democrat who contributes absolutely zero to a debate. What a trend.

Here's a 'contribution to the debate':

I, personally, am for any human being who helps and cares for and assists and aides his/her fellow human being. Many of us do this 'passively' but equally importantly through our taxes. Dumb-ass selfish Republicans have one Motto: Fuck you, I got mine Jack.

I am neither a Conservative or a Liberal but that kind of thinking makes me wonder what Jesus would think of Teabaggers/Republicans. In other words, Republicans just don't seem like very nice people. They seem scared and angry ALL the time, and always point fingers, and find intelligence and choice and freedom to be scary things. They prefer to follow a 'daddy figure' who will tell them what to do and how to feel.

On the other hand, 'liberals' often feel they're the smartest people in the room, and that their well-thought-out 'opinions' are sacrosanct. These 'Liberals' who claim to love the poor would no more hang out with an unwashed delivery boy than eat cheap caviar.

I don't believe in extremes, I believe in 'balance'. Call me a Buddhist, if you will. But here's the Bottom Line to my way of thinking:

Any country that says to it's citizens: "You're sick? You don't have the MONEY to pay to get better? Tough. Die." is a country in decline. Why do we Americans pay TWICE the price the rest of the world does for medicines? The SAME EXACT medications? Why does someone have to make a choice between having a $100,000 operation, mortgaging their home or not having it and dying?

Republicans and Bush supporters and Teabaggers HATE Europeans (apparently) and yet they Europeans longer and better than we do, and are happier and less hateful/spiteful whiny little bitches like so many in our population are.

Oh, a SECOND 'bottom line'! You'll be so thrilled with this one Demon:

BELIEVE WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT TO BELIEVE BUT JUST DON'T TELL ME ABOUT IT.

How's that?

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterPeabody

Here's a 'contribution to the debate':

I, personally, am for any huan being who helps and cares for and assists and aides his fellow human being. Many of us do this 'passively' but equally importantly through our taxes. Dumb-ass selfish Republicans have one Motto: fuck you, I got mine Jack.

This is the #1 emotional appeal I hear from dumbass liberals. "Republicans are for the rich, we are for the poor and needy." Spare me the bullshit, nobody buys it.

Quote:

I am neither a Conservative or a Liveral but that kind of thinking makes me wonder what Jesus would think of Teabaggers/Republicans. In other words, Republicans just don't seem like very nice people. They seem scared and angry ALL the time, and always point fingers, and find intelligence and choice and freedom to be scary things. they like to follow a 'daddy figure' who will tell them what to do and how to feel.

As opposed to liberals who try to justify their own bullshit with "moral relativism."

Quote:

I don't believe in extremes, I believe in 'balance'. Call me a Buddhist, if you will. But here's the Bottom Line to my way of thinking:

Fair enough

Quote:

Any country that says to it's citizens: "You're sick? You don't have the MONEY to pay to get better? Tough. Die." is a country in decline. Why do we Americans pay TWICE the rpice the rest of the world does for medicines? The SAME EXACT medications? Why does someone have to make a choice between having a $100,000 operation, mortgaging their home or not having it and dying?

Except you're really generalizing here..

Quote:

Republicans and Bush supports and teabaggers HATE Europeans (apparently) and yet they live longer and better than we do, and are happier and less hateful/spiteful whiny little bitches like so many in our population are.

Very baseless assumptions..

Quote:

BELIEVE WHATEVER THE FUCK YOU WANT BUT JUST DON'T TELL ME ABOUT IT.

How's that?

What if I have a feelings diary?

Gambrinus · 03-19-2010, 08:31 PM

Demon. I hope as you read this a tumor is growing on your spine.

The Demon · 03-19-2010, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gambrinus

Demon. I hope as you read this a tumor is growing on your spine.

Thanks man! I hope those disability checks of yours are still coming in.

The Porn Nerd · 03-19-2010, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Demon

This is the #1 emotional appeal I hear from dumbass liberals. "Republicans are for the rich, we are for the poor and needy." Spare me the bullshit, nobody buys it.

As opposed to liberals who try to justify their own bullshit with "moral relativism."

Fair enough

Except you're really generalizing here..

Very baseless assumptions..

What if I have a feelings diary?

Keep the diary, write IN the diary, PUBLISH the diary, promote the diary all you want - but when someone doesn't want to hear it any longer DROP IT.

Seems simple to me.

Rangermoore · 03-20-2010, 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Sunday at noon insurance companies can no longer dump your child from your coverage for "pre existing" conditions. Insurance companies can no longer drop you when you file your first claim. Insurance companies must allow children to be carried until age 26. And numerous other things kick in instantly, or within 90 days.

Such as insurance companies MUST spend at least 80% of YOUR PREMIUMS on YOUR ACTUAL HEALTH CARE COSTS!!!! Gee, imagine that! They also have to justify any premium increases to independant auditors.

Oh and everyone saw how many trillions of dollars the CBO says this plan will SAVE the country, right? Dont have to revisit that? Good.

Health insurance as a cash cow is almost officially dead.

Just shows how dumb you are. Even if it is passed it still must be signed by the black jesus before it can become law, so your statement is incorrect.

03-19-2010, 12:17 PM	#327
TheSenator Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 13,332	The Demon, Vendzilla, JaneB and Baddog will love socialized health care when it gets here. They will pay their taxes and be happy. __________________ ISeekGirls.com since 2005

03-19-2010, 08:00 PM	#336
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,548	ATTENTION: THE FOLLOWING ANNOUNCEMENT IS MADE ON BEHALF OF ALL CLEAR-THINKING AMERICANS (all 127 of us): ALL TEABAGGERS ARE DUMB-ASSES. Thank you for your attention. Please resume pointless debate with retarded Repulican supporters. __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Now on Teams: peabodymedia

03-19-2010, 11:16 AM	#305
mgtarheels Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 1,317	Again, the same FOUNDING principles instilled over 200 years ago are NOT the same principles applied today.

03-19-2010, 11:40 AM	#314
mgtarheels Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 1,317	Alright, we can make this much more simple. A yes or no will suffice. Is the Constitution, as it is today, any different than it was on on September 17, 1787?

03-19-2010, 11:49 AM	#323
mgtarheels Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 1,317	And again, I was speaking literally. Look at a picture of the Consitution. See how they're organized? They're organized by Articles. Very simple concept.

03-19-2010, 11:54 AM	#324
mgtarheels Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Daytona Beach, FL Posts: 1,317	I subscribed to this thread, I've to head out. Ill be back in a few hours and will resume where you reply.

03-19-2010, 08:31 PM	#342
Gambrinus So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Prague Posts: 740	Demon. I hope as you read this a tumor is growing on your spine.