posted on Nov, 29 2013 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
Typical progessive tactics -- disregard the constitution except when you think it can be used to back up your argument. When all else fails, attempt
discredit the opponent; some ignorant folks are bound to fall for it.
Wow. First you attempt to discredit me, by calling me a "progressive", and then you turn around and claim that I'm trying to discredit you.
Don't get dizzy doing 180's.
Perhaps I am trying to discredit you. But If so, I try to back up my claims with facts and evidence. It's really quite telling that you have not
chosen to respond to my evidence or arguments, but rather have chosen to call names.
You won't find anything in my post that implies a direct quote from the constitution.
Well, naturally you wouldn't have quoted the constitution, since there is nothing in it to back up your claims.
My statements were interpretations of the document.
Credible interpretations should be backed up by quotations from the text, or perhaps the Federalist Papers, or Anti-Federalist papers. If you find
yourself advancing an interpretation of a document that can't be backed up this way, you're not interpreting, you're just pushing your own
It may come as a surprise to you, but if one actually studies the thing (a little knowledge of history and human nature helps too) one begins to see
the reasoning and intentions behind every line.
Hmmm... based on what you've demonstrated in this thread, you should follow that advice.
I'll freely admit that I think the constitution could use some updates after 200 years of history. What I find ironic is that so many who regard it
as something untouchable, and worthy of near-worship, are so totally ignorant concerning what it actually says. It's like they worship the parchment
itself, rather than what's writtten on it.