• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The background check campaign

haymarket said:
If you cannot show where this so called right pre-existed and explain who it covered - you have no argument and no claim.
Click to expand...

Are you denying that has not already been done? I just want to make sure. ;)
 
haymarket said:
I provided them earlier to another poster in my 711. Do you have trouble following that list?
Click to expand...

Nothing you have said or done prove your point. Is this the best you can do waffle on about what has been refuted.
 
Crimefree said:
Are you denying that has not already been done? I just want to make sure. ;)
Click to expand...

Your claim you prove it and so far you have come up empty. Really really empty but you have produce a mountain of horse pucky.

You were challenged to provide the proof links to past crap already dispensed with with is not proof. Got it?

Do you have any idea of what the word inalienable means can you bring yourself to state that and explain what the forefathers had in mind..
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Best explain why you cannot understand this

Is it so difficult for you to show the basis of your claim that you need to play dumb, that you cannot understand English and have some answer that is not only irrelevant but possibly shows a serious reading problem since the portion was adequately highlighted.

I have little doubt that you think your words mean something but I really have idea what rational point there is in that .
Click to expand...

I think I proved my point adequately. nothing you have said here changes that,

Anything in the Constitution is subject to Amendment and change. Why does that bother you so much?
Click to expand...

Your point is? Why does that bother you so much you cannot state it? Were you going to say the amendment process is superior to the constitution? I believe you were going to try such a foul and disingenuous trick.
 
Last edited:
I assume that as you have no answer for this since you ignored it Haymarket so it stands as admitted by you as true.

Does it upset you so much that I simply pointed out a reality of your claim. Did you think nobody would notice your conveniently left out the most important bit deliberately to falsely slow some merit to you incorrect claim. Within the bounds of the constitution. Only an idiot would claim anything may be changed. So go ahead and show how clever you are and give an example of a change to the 2nd that does not infringe the rights protected.

Since you have made the same false claim again I believe that closes the subject of the superiority of the constitution which is not the dildo of government as you portray. Why are you repeating rubbish you could not and did not refute? Are you trying to deceive people?
 
Crimefree said:
Are you denying that has not already been done? I just want to make sure. ;)
Click to expand...

Feel free to put forth what nobody has done so far and even your ally Turtle admits did NOT exist in real life.
 
Crimefree said:
Best explain why you cannot understand this

Is it so difficult for you to show the basis of your claim that you need to play dumb, that you cannot understand English and have some answer that is not only irrelevant but possibly shows a serious reading problem since the portion was adequately highlighted.
Click to expand...

Its obviously the singer - not the song.

I think I proved my point adequately. nothing you have said here changes that,
Click to expand...

and what point was that exactly?

Your point is? Why does that bother you so much you cannot state it? Were you going to say the amendment process is superior to the constitution? I believe you were going to try such a foul and disingenuous trick.
Click to expand...

The Amendment process is PART of the Constitution. What about that simple statement is so mysterious and baffling to you?

You really should deal with what I and others actually say instead of making these silly leaps where you try to guess what people are going to say or what they may be thinking.
 
Crimefree said:
I assume that as you have no answer for this since you ignored it Haymarket so it stands as admitted by you as true.

Does it upset you so much that I simply pointed out a reality of your claim. Did you think nobody would notice your conveniently left out the most important bit deliberately to falsely slow some merit to you incorrect claim. Within the bounds of the constitution. Only an idiot would claim anything may be changed. So go ahead and show how clever you are and give an example of a change to the 2nd that does not infringe the rights protected.

Since you have made the same false claim again I believe that closes the subject of the superiority of the constitution which is not the dildo of government as you portray. Why are you repeating rubbish you could not and did not refute? Are you trying to deceive people?
Click to expand...

Sorry but your vitriol and desire to pretend to be witty failed by half and I have no idea what you are talking about in that rant.
 
blaxshep said:
The purpose of the SC is to determine if laws being created are constitutional not to create laws by re-interpreting the constitution.
Click to expand...

And how does one determine that the former is being done by the Court and not the latter? And who makes this determination?
 
haymarket said:
Sorry but your vitriol and desire to pretend to be witty failed by half and I have no idea what you are talking about in that rant.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting I was right you have no defence or anything sensible to say. I'd say that was a FAIL on you part.
 
haymarket said:
Sorry but your vitriol and desire to pretend to be witty failed by half and I have no idea what you are talking about in that rant.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting I was right you have no defence or anything sensible to say. I'd say that was a FAIL on you part.

I have told you a number of times. It would be superfluous to repeat to a person incapable of learning.
 
haymarket said:
All the ones that I listed - the entire Amendment is important.
Click to expand...

I know I know there is a point. I know, I know. Ah! Got it. Haymarket cannot find the words in the amendment and therefore wants others to put on the Haymarket (TM) glasses that enable you to see them. He cannot actually explain with what is written there.
 
Crimefree said:
Thanks for admitting I was right you have no defence or anything sensible to say. I'd say that was a FAIL on you part.
Click to expand...

Sorry but your vitriol and desire to pretend to be witty failed by half and I have no idea what you are talking about in that rant. I would say that is a grand slam home run on my part. :cool::2wave::peace
 
Crimefree said:
I know I know there is a point. I know, I know. Ah! Got it. Haymarket cannot find the words in the amendment and therefore wants others to put on the Haymarket (TM) glasses that enable you to see them. He cannot actually explain with what is written there.
Click to expand...

:lol::roll::2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom