• 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!

When?

danielpalos said:
lol. In other words, in right wing fantasy you can make up any story you want and proclaim You are Right? You haven't proved anything; You be being Right is an externality to Reality. In right wing fantasy, You are Always Right.
Click to expand...

As usual your "In other words" is completely disconnected from what I wrote.

Take the labor law for instance. I provided the labor laws and codes pertinent to unemployment compensation. You kept regurgitating talking points but could not show ANY connection between "At will" employment and unemployment compensation....

None.

Zero.

Nada.
 
Fledermaus said:
As usual your "In other words" is completely disconnected from what I wrote.

Take the labor law for instance. I provided the labor laws and codes pertinent to unemployment compensation. You kept regurgitating talking points but could not show ANY connection between "At will" employment and unemployment compensation....

None.

Zero.

Nada.
Click to expand...

Hi Rich. Appealing To ignorance like usual?

This is the argument:

The South had a Constitutional right to eminent domain not rebellion.
 
danielpalos said:
Hi Rich. Appealing To ignorance like usual?

This is the argument:

The South had a Constitutional right to eminent domain not rebellion.
Click to expand...

Not Rich. Please stupid again.

I can see you running from reality again.

And your final line is the usual regurgitation of talking points.

And your use of "Appeal to ignorance" is ignorant.
 
Fledermaus said:
Not Rich. Please stupid again.

I can see you running from reality again.

And your final line is the usual regurgitation of talking points.

And your use of "Appeal to ignorance" is ignorant.
Click to expand...

The South had a Constitutional right to eminent domain not rebellion.
 
Fledermaus said:
Rote and rapid regurgitation of rancid and ridiculous talking points.
Click to expand...

That is not a rebuttal of my argument in any way. Non sequiturs are also considered nothing but fallacy like ad hominems.

This is the argument:

The South had a Constitutional right to eminent domain not rebellion.
 
danielpalos said:
That is not a rebuttal of my argument in any way. Non sequiturs are also considered nothing but fallacy like ad hominems.

This is the argument:

The South had a Constitutional right to eminent domain not rebellion.
Click to expand...

And your argument isn't logical.

What do you imagine "eminent domain" means and how would you exercise it in this case?
 
Fledermaus said:
And your argument isn't logical.

What do you imagine "eminent domain" means and how would you exercise it in this case?
Click to expand...

By not appealing to ignorance. It really is that simple. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine, only results. Eminent domain was a Constitutional option and should have been a Constitutional result if the federal doctrine had been more faithfully followed.
 
danielpalos said:
By not appealing to ignorance. It really is that simple. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine, only results. Eminent domain was a Constitutional option and should have been a Constitutional result if the federal doctrine had been more faithfully followed.
Click to expand...

What do you imagine "eminent domain" means and how would you exercise it in this case?

Your "argument for ignorance" statement is ignorant.
 
Fledermaus said:
There is ignorance in your use of "appeal to Ignorance".

What do you imagine "eminent domain" means and how would you exercise it in this case?
Click to expand...

No, there isn't. Have only fallacy not any valid arguments. Read our Constitution, don't appeal to ignorance of it.
 
Fledermaus said:
What do you imagine "eminent domain" means and how would you exercise it in this case?

Reading the Constitution wont tell that.

You haven't even tried to answer.
Click to expand...

I am not full of fallacy like those of the Opposing View. I read our Constitution and understand it. Why any excuses from You?
 
Fledermaus said:
You were doing so well....
Click to expand...

How do you use "eminent domain" with a Constitutional Right? That is like trying to claim the government could use Eminent Domain to buy all of our guns, thereby ignoring the 2nd Amendment.

And Article IV, Section 2 stated things quite clearly:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Do not want to infringe on Freedom of the Press? Fine, we will buy all the damned printing presses, then you can not say we are infringing on your rights.

This is quite literally what he was trying to say. Which as I said would cause another civil war because their own Constitution guaranteed no infringement on slavery. Short of freeing them at the point of a gun or changing their Constitution it never would have happened.
 
Fledermaus said:
What do you imagine "eminent domain" means and how would you exercise it in this case?

Reading the Constitution wont tell that.

You haven't even tried to answer.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he even knows what it means.

In short, Eminent Domain is when the Government appropriates (takes) private property, and then uses it for the benefit of the people. Like say claiming the land your house sits on so they can build a new freeway through what used to be your back yard.

But here is the key, such a thing had never been attempted in such a way to try and eliminate a Constitutional Right. And I can guarantee that if they had even attempted such a thing, the case would still be working its way through the Confederate Supreme Court to this day (at the most, more than likely it would have been struck down before the ink was even dry as violating the Constitution). As in my previous examples, there is simply no way the Government (even if the President could get his weak Congress to approve) could enact a plan to force every slave owner to sell their slaves to the government.

And, then what? So now the Federal Government owns all the slaves, what were they going to do with them? Give them their freedom? Try to pack them all up and send them to Africa? Shoot them and throw them in pits? Exile then from the country and force them at gunpoint to go to the US?

No, rational people know that such things would never have worked. Like me, they actually try to think about them, and the repercussions and actions and reactions upon such a decision. They do not play stupid games and refuse to answer what is really a simple question, one they themselves stated apparently without thought.
 
Oozlefinch said:
How do you use "eminent domain" with a Constitutional Right? That is like trying to claim the government could use Eminent Domain to buy all of our guns, thereby ignoring the 2nd Amendment.

And Article IV, Section 2 stated things quite clearly:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Do not want to infringe on Freedom of the Press? Fine, we will buy all the damned printing presses, then you can not say we are infringing on your rights.

This is quite literally what he was trying to say. Which as I said would cause another civil war because their own Constitution guaranteed no infringement on slavery. Short of freeing them at the point of a gun or changing their Constitution it never would have happened.
Click to expand...

Blacks were natural born citizens after 1808.
 
danielpalos said:
lol. Because I understand Constitutional law and don't waste my time with inferior fallacies in any superior venue.
Click to expand...

That is why you can't answer questions with anything but regurgitated talking points?

What do you imagine "eminent domain" means and how would you exercise it in this case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom