DC Tom Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 You have no relationship to the constitution and wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face. I bet you think the ACA is unconstitutional. This post actually made me shout, out loud, "Yay, stupid!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Describing yourself as a consitutionist is nonsensical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Describing yourself as a consitutionist is nonsensical Well, yeah... but that's largely because "consitutionist" isn't a real word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 You have no relationship to the constitution and wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face. I bet you think the ACA is unconstitutional. wow... intelligent refute there I must admit... Ya got me there conner..... go away now so the big kids can talk.... Describing yourself as a consitutionist is nonsensical then help me out oh wise one!!! what would you call me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) then help me out oh wise one!!! what would you call me? Tell me what why you call yourself a constitutionalist and then I'll label you (since you asked) Edited October 19, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Well, yeah... but that's largely because "consitutionist" isn't a real word. ok... is Constitutionalist OK??? does it meet the spell check criteria??? Tell me what why you call yourself a constitutionalist and then I'll label you You made your post according to my questionnaire answers... tell me oh wise one!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 You made your post according to my questionnaire answers... tell me oh wise one!! LOL I made my post in response to you saying you consider yourself a constitutionalist. So go on, what makes you say this? What does this even mean to you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) You have no relationship to the constitution and wouldn't know it if it hit you in the face. I bet you think the ACA is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court seemed to think it was unconstitutional. Parts, anyway. I don't always agree that the constitution says whatever the SC says it does, but I'm curious how you see it. Edited October 19, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 The Supreme Court seemed to think it was unconstitutional. Parts, anyway. I don't always agree that the constitution says whatever the SC says it does, but I'm curious how you see it. not final b/c infallible, infallible b/c final...etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 I am not altogether on anybody's side , because nobody is altogether on my side -Treebeard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 ok... is Constitutionalist OK??? does it meet the spell check criteria???Well, it's certainly a start. You're using actual words now. However there are still a good many issues with your self-ascribed lable, the largest of which being that there are so many different stages, phases, and interpretations of the US Constitution that it renders your phrasing meaningless. Are you a strict constructionist? Are you Hamiltonian? How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison? How about the Louisiana Purchase? What of Lincoln's executive war powers? The list is endless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Well, it's certainly a start. You're using actual words now. However there are still a good many issues with your self-ascribed lable, the largest of which being that there are so many different stages, phases, and interpretations of the US Constitution that it renders your phrasing meaningless. Are you a strict constructionist? Are you Hamiltonian? How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison? How about the Louisiana Purchase? What of Lincoln's executive war powers? The list is endless. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Dick Hardly. I'm a firm believer that people should understand the words they use to lable themselves, and that those words should be unambiguous. He's labled himself a "Constitutionalist", but which version does he adhere to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Hardly. I'm a firm believer that people should understand the words they use to lable themselves, and that those words should be unambiguous. He's labled himself a "Constitutionalist", but which version does he adhere to? Well...for all you know, he used the right word, and you misunderstood it. He picked the label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) Well...for all you know, he used the right word, and you misunderstood it. He picked the label. It's impossible for him to be wrong, and that's rather my point. You can't argue a position regarding Constitutional Law and not assume the lable of Constitutionalist unless your position is that the document is irrelevant and should be done away with. I'm asking that he be more specific, because his lable is so broad that it's functionally meaningless. Edited October 19, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 It's impossible for him to be wrong, and that's rather my point. You can't argue a position regarding Constitutional Law and not assume the lable of Constitutionalist unless your position is that the document is irrelevant and should be done away with. I'm asking that he be more specific, because his lable is so broad that it's functionally meaningless. You're no fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 You're no fun. As much as this pains me, Tom is right here. You are being a major dick. Thank me, my saying this brings youins like really close together. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 How asking someone to clarify and refine a viewpoint they've volunteered into a public forum after pointing out the flaws and even giving some examples can be construed as dickish I'll never know. Unfun I can see, but not dickish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 How asking someone to clarify and refine a viewpoint they've volunteered into a public forum after pointing out the flaws and even giving some examples can be construed as dickish I'll never know. Unfun I can see, but not dickish. Lighten up. Didn't you know Thursday was tolerance day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Lighten up. Didn't you know Thursday was tolerance day? I'm far more tolerant than I should be, every single day. I don't need a holiday. My life is an exercise in zen-like patience. On a serious note, I hope Cinga will engage me. This is a great topic that gets buried here, and I'd like to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts