• 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!

Proof and Facts[W:76"283]

Is it appropriate to demand proof or facts on Debate Politics?


  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
Re: Proof and Facts

Dude, we're not against you personally. This is a debate website. Let's not slip into a persecution complex to escape from criticism of a CT.


:roll::doh:shock::roll:
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Everyone and not another person are a couple of people in these threads whose mind on the topic of guns was long long long ago made up against anything I would say about the topic regardless of evidence or proof or argument.

So with that in mind, I could not care less what they might think. You are more than welcome to the support of those couple of people in these threads.

The US Supreme Court supports that Article I Section 8 can be used to regulate firearms. And with them on the side of my position - that is a winning hand against your position.

again what a supreme court allowed 140 years later in no way supports your claim. It appears every time you are pressed to prove your claims about sec 8 and the intent of the founders you either claim the founders lied or you go to a 1939 case that never ever actually SAID what you claim: the court limited itself to a discussion of the 2A that was based on the fact that Miller did not have anyone argue his case before them
 
Re: Proof and Facts

again what a supreme court allowed 140 years later in no way supports your claim.

Actually it does as it has not been overturned and is the law of the land.

And if it does not accept the federal government having the Constitutional power to pass laws regarding firearms, can you explain why you think the decision was wrong and was the work of evil itself?

You cannot have it both ways no matter how you wish you could.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

:roll::doh:shock::roll:

So you're claiming everyone else is a CTer because they understand history and science? No, dude. You're the one with the wacky narrative involving thousands of co-conspirators fooling millions of people.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Actually it does as it has not been overturned and is the law of the land.

So gay marriage should be illegal? That's Constitutional as well?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Actually it does as it has not been overturned and is the law of the land.

but that has nothing to do with the intent of the founders. we know FDR wanted to ban machine guns to pander to the fear about bootleggers and he was told by his AG a ban was unconstitutional. SO he comes up with this silly nonsense about a tax and a lapdog court sort of allowed it even though Miller was not even present during the argument and was had died by the time the case was remanded. the 10A issue was never discussed at all

but trying to claim that Miller supports your claim that several clauses of sec. 8 were INTENDED to delegate such power to congress has absolutely no support.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

So gay marriage should be illegal?

Only on tuesdays if it is raining in more than three states in the first half of the alphabet providing your scientific survey gives them the right answer.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

but that has nothing to do with the intent of the founders.

Did you miss the post earlier this evening where I stated my thoughts bout the intent of the founders? I urge you to review it.

but trying to claim that Miller supports your claim that several clauses of sec. 8 were INTENDED to delegate such power to congress has absolutely no support.

That is another of your strawmen. I never made that claim.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Only on tuesdays if it is raining in more than three states in the first half of the alphabet providing your scientific survey gives them the right answer.

Weak dodge.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

So you're claiming everyone else is a CTer because they understand history and science? No, dude. You're the one with the wacky narrative involving thousands of co-conspirators fooling millions of people.

I lost any supposed meaning in all your ravings a long time ago. Sorry but you simply are making no sense.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I lost any supposed meaning in all your ravings a long time ago. Sorry but you simply are making no sense.

:lamo


I thought it was the perfect answer which fit your question rather appropriately.

Yeah, sure. Tell us again how a ban on gay marriage is Constitutional because it's currently the law of the land.
 
Re: Proof and Facts




yeah - that was my reaction to your post also.

Yeah, sure. Tell us again how a ban on gay marriage is Constitutional because it's currently the law of the land.

I have no idea what that line of inquiry has to do with natural rights or their existence or your badly constructed survey question trying to prove they exist. It appears you are badly trying to change the subject.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

yeah - that was my reaction to your post also.

Sure it was, that's why you're screaming and spewing nonsense.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

Sure it was, that's why you're screaming and spewing nonsense.

If you want to discuss the topic, lets do that. I am NOT interested in violating a moderators warning here by getting into a pissing contest with you.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

If you want to discuss the topic, lets do that. I am NOT interested in violating a moderators warning here by getting into a pissing contest with you.

You didn't seem to have a problem with it when you were claiming my initials are CT and thus calling me slime. Why are you scared now?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

You didn't seem to have a problem with it when you were claiming my initials are CT and thus calling me slime. Why are you scared now?


Your style of writing can be and is often very confusing. The slime comment was yours and not mine.

If you want to discuss the topic - fine. Baiting me is not going to work.
 
Re: Proof and Facts

You don't know what the right to life means? Wow. Well, now it's a bit more obvious why you are confused. Again, for the audience:

The right to life is the right to choose whether to live or die. Someone that sacrifices themself for others, for example on a battlefield, has exercised their right to life even as they choose to die.
Does that mean that making suicide illegal violates someone's right to life?

:2razz:
 
Re: Proof and Facts

have you read the commerce clause?

can you point out where it granted the federal government all the powers that FDR claimed it did

I have read the commerce clause many times; now what does that have to do with FDR in this dicussion?

More importantly, why are trying to derail the thread?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

I have read the commerce clause many times; now what does that have to do with FDR in this dicussion?

More importantly, why are trying to derail the thread?

what part of the commerce clause mentions individual citizens?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

what part of the commerce clause mentions individual citizens?

What are you talking about, and what does this have to do with the thread?
 
Re: Proof and Facts

What are you talking about, and what does this have to do with the thread?

proof of facts. and it was responsive
 
Back
Top Bottom