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

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:)

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.

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

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:)

http://www.guzer.com/pictures/funny_owned_boy.jpg

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

Owned

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.

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.

Um.


The Articles are part of the Constitution.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

Articles are part of the Constitution.

http://www.newhall.cam.ac.uk/students/mcr/const.jpg

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

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.

http://images.paraorkut.com/img/funn...hair-12254.jpg

Where has ANYONE referenced the Articles of Confederation?

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

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.

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.

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

Good point. I don't think weekly knows his head from his ass. Most of his posting on this forum prove that. :2 cents:

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:thumbsup

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.

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.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:thumbsup

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

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 :)

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

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.

I don't, kid.

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

I'm not sure he "gets it."

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.