Go ahead and tell me that I don't know anything about government based on that statement ROFL

Are you honestly this simplistic? Let's break this down a little further for your understanding.

- YOU are the one having to answer, not me.
- YOU cited Wikipedia in an attempt to prove someone wrong
- In my previous post I ask you to explain a comment, that to me, is full of ignorance.

If you think ANY of the principles the country was founded upon have not changed, then you don't know anything.

Nah I'm not defending it, it doesnt need me. It's the opposition party that is fighting on talking points really. Boehner today in his weekly statement tried saying the CBO assesment is flawed because billions in costs were withheld (wow), and ending his address by saying just wait til election time. Well ok then, we'll wait.

So really, the fight is over. It's in another realm now I think.

Holy shit, you're hilarious. Here's a hint. When you try to be a pseudo intellectual, make sure you have the intelligence to back it up. I have no idea where you're coming from and I'm assuming you're typing the first thing that comes to that simple mind of yours. At any rate, you don't make sense, nor is the burden of proof on me, for you are the one who made the accusation. Swing and a miss, champ:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Internalize.

So, now an accusation is defined as having concrete evidence?

There's nothing fake going on. For some reason, you're putting up a fight on me asking you a few questions.


I feel like Gestalt in here.

Then give me one founding principle that you believe has not changed in 200 years.


I'll see if I can show you otherwise. :)

:::Sigh::: I realize I'm speaking to a child who is desperately trying to sound intelligent and failing, so I will go slow. You accused me of not knowing anything about government. That's lays the burden of proof on you. You then claimed to know more than me and offered to give me some "readings", meaning you don't know anything and just want me to read and assume you already know all the stuff, making you a hilarious hypocrite and bullshitter. Finally, you either intentionally or unintentionally misrepresented my position and started arguing from ignorance. Keep trying champ:)

It's more than evident you're struggling to keep the two arguments we're having separate. And here, I thought simply ignoring those requests in every other reply was enough for you to understand.


To get back on topic of THIS reply, I'm still waiting on your yes or no answer on whether or not you cited Wikipedia in an attempt to prove someone wrong.

And, the irony of you pulling out me using the strawman argument is quite humorous when this entire thread has been nothing more than your circular reasoning.

Wow, you've just proven that you know absolutely nothing. I can't believe I have to do this..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution


They're called amendments. Some new ones were ratified, some old ones were repealed. You sure you were a pol sci major? Rofl

So, you're saying the Constitution is a founding principle?



Is this a joke?

And the "I like to bullshit using words I don't know" hilarity continues.

Furthermore, even if I WAS using circular reasoning (I wasn't, and you don't know what that is), it still wouldn't be a strawman. Thank you, come again:)

I think I'll stop now, this is too easy.

Irrelevant misdirection. The short answer is no, the long answer is, even if I did, it wouldn't change the validity of the article.

Hey Turbo, I never claimed you used a strawman argument. I claimed you've been using circular reasoning, follow along.


And 0 circular reasoning?

Rofl, I can point out multiple cases on this page alone.

I'll help you.

The Constitution is NOT a founding principle.


A collection of founding principles? Yes. A founding princple? No.



What are you having issues with?

What I infer from that is that you insinuated it:) Otherwise you'd have absolutely no reason to post that other than your stupidity.

And please, I'm having fun with a little kid. So far all I've heard is "I can do this and that." Go ahead.:thumbsup

If your multiple citations of Wikipedia in this thread are not that of to teach and to prove incorrect, then what are they?

Jesus Christ, can you read, or do you want me to hold your hand? The fact that you need to split hairs shows your desperation. I'll try and dumb it down.

The.Constitution.Contains.Founding.Principles.That .Still.Exist.

Uh, to educate the ideology this country was upon? Are you even 18?

What I pointed out is the direct correlation between a straw man argument and circular reasoning.

Of course they still exist.


I never contended that. What I DID contend is that they've been the principles our country was founded upon which is WRONG.

When there is none:)

Alright, now that we've made that clear, it's clear that you didn't know that, "educate" and "teach" are synonyms that have the same definitions.


In short, the answer to your question is, "yes".


That was simple, no? You tried fighting like a little baby about this.

So you don't remember the bullshit you're trying to follow, is that what you're telling me?

Circular reasoning.

HAHAHAHAHA priceless

I don't think even TheDoc or BFT3K try and fail this hard at being intelligent.

That's not called proof. That's called typing out a word and hope that I don't continue calling you out on your bullshit and making you look utterly retarded.

Does this refresh your memory? Seems as though you're the one struggling to remember who said what.

Again, circular reasoning.


You haven't disproved a thing.


What you have done is skirt my asking of you to show me A principle that has been the same the past 200 years. I'm still waiting.

Wait a second, how does this tie into ANYTHING? Oh my, you're definitely lagging now. Posting random nonsense hoping the main point gets jumbled up so you can save face? Listen junior, shouldn't you be at recess? Arguing with your intellectual superiors isn't how I would like to spend my lunch time.

socialism is the greatest place on Earth people run away from to the horrible USA.

Save face? That was your reply to:

Originally Posted by mgtarheels View Post
Are you insinuating you did not reference Wikipedia to both "teach" someone and "prove them wrong" in the same attempt?

Repeating a concept doesn't make it true:)


I don't have to. That would be trying to prove a negative, another fallacy.


And we're back to square one. I told you to read the amendments. There's no issue to skirt because you don't know what you're talking about :)

I understand perfectly. What you're not understanding is that an amendment changes the FOUNDING PRINCIPLES.

You claimed we have had the same principles for 200 years, and I called you out on your bullshit. It's pretty linear.

Actually, this is what you posted
Keep trying mgtarheels, you might get there one day.

You still don't get it. This is a forehead slapper.

There's nothing to get junior, you can't even pinpoint your argument, prefering to bounce from one point to another, hoping your pseudo intellect is somehow validated. You keep failing though.