Why we do not deserve better

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Because he is an example that I used to support my argument. Nothing more.

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Because he is an example that I used to support my argument. Nothing more.

Romney or Paul and what was the argument; divide and let the Dems conquer?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Because he is an example that I used to support my argument. Nothing more.

what was the argument

Reread the OP if you need to.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: Blueracer

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: Blueracer
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Because he is an example that I used to support my argument. Nothing more.

what was the argument

Reread the OP if you need to.
Have a nice day.

I did; and you have a debate forum from 2012. What does this have to do with 2016 debate forums (Republican). Have you checked your watch batteries lately (there is always atomic time/very reliable). I am not in disagreement with you.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Have you read the US Constitution? It is not clear about anything, and neither are the founders writings. This is because the document was not written for any specific ideology. It's a work of compromise that was made as vague as possible so that both the large and small government people (among other groups) could adopt it, and then argue in Congress and the courts as to what the governments powers really were.

For example, one can just as easily use the document to state there is no right to privacy as it can be used to state your documents are free from seizure. This particular debate has gone on in it's current form since the day the telegraph was invented, and there were exceptions made to it even prior to that.

Another example would be the Alien and Sedition Acts, something passed by one of the very people who created the Constitution in the first place. The reason the document still exists is because very little within it is absolute.

a reply to: Aazadan

I think you have confused the term "clear" for the term "absolute".

Anyone can read that document and come to their own conclusions, and I was responding to a point made about a candidate not having read the document well enough to have actually understood it in any small way what so ever, which prevented the candidate from actually forming an opinion worth a brass plated crap!

a reply to: TrueBrit

The problem is the forum in which the question is being asked. From the sounds of things, Romney came to a completely different conclusion from the moderators premise. Given where he was speaking though, and who his audience was he can't simply state that. Either he lies on his personal opinion, or he comes out with an opinion opposite that of his supporters. Which is why he ducked the question.