Any reason you're skipping this?

Circular reasoning.


I've made both arguments very clear.

Hmm, looks like Poli Sci grads know something after all. I've to head out for the day, g'day all.

Again, saying the concept repeatedly doesn't make it so.
You'd have to have an "argument" to make an argument clear.

Yep, you guys know how to throw out concepts you don't understand in order to sound intelligent. You also know how to properly skirt around legitimate arguments, trying to make irrelevant points and just making an ass out of yourself. You were incredibly easy to deal with :)

It's the "never give up" strategy.

http://blog.taesoo.org/wp-content/up...1112025810.jpg

Yea, it doesn't make any bit of sense. Let me know when your GPA surpasses a 2.0.

hahahahahahahahaha

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/03...htm l?showall

This is interesting, I wonder how true that is.

Glad I didn't miss this.


I skirted nothing, I've actually accused you of doing that several replies ago.

I made an ass out of myself, yet you're the one who said that we have the same principles today as we did when this country was founded. LOL.

You even said yourself about the amendments.

Love it.

IMO, very true. Just typical agenda, really.

Doesn't make sense?

Alright, nice and slow.

If something is amended, then it is changed.
If a principle is amended, the principle is changed.

Every founding principle has been amended, therefore every founding principle has been changed.

Thus, leading to us not having the same founding principles for 200 years as you claimed.

Except I've proven that there was nothing to skirt seeing as how you have no concrete point. Try again.

And we do, by which point you decided to give me some bullshit about them not being founding principles because they are amendments, ROFL
Definitely, gotta love the "don't give up" strategy. It usually works when you want to win an argument and your opinion is intellectually superior to you. Keep it up Mgtar:)

Main Entry: amend
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈmend\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French amender, modification of Latin emendare, from e, ex out + menda fault; akin to Latin mendax lying, mendicus beggar, and perhaps to Sanskrit mindā physical defect
Date: 13th century

transitive verb 1 : to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
2 a : to change or modify for the better : improve <amend the situation> b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a constitution>







If something has changed, how can it remain the same?

Let's try this again since you seem to understand nothing. Our principles include freedom of speech, limited government, etc. What are the amendments? Wait for it wait for it? Those same principles that we decided to put on paper and make law!! Way to go Mgtar!!! :thumbsup

You know, these are things you should know, as an alleged poli sci major.

Freedom of speech is not cut and dry.

You cuss at me and harass me, I can have you jailed for harassment.

Limited government? We are MUCH more constricted than what we were founded upon. Basic history, c'mon now.

sad. very sad.

Circular reasoning.

How can something stay the same when it's been changed

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.

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.