Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 You brought it up, but NOW that you're being called out on your stupidity, it's not a topic for discussion? Who is this? Someone this dense has to be a regular board member in disguise... I think you need to learn to read...good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) If you don't think the first three words are some of the most important, if not the most important as I would argue, then you are mistaken. And what do you want me to explain? This isn't a course on the constitution. So far you've said the preamble makes the constitution inconsistent with Tom's statement. That strikes me as laughably retarded, but out of fairness (and my own personal amusement) I thought I'd give you a chance to explain. Edited September 11, 2014 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) So far you've said the preamble makes the constitution inconsistent with Tom's statement. That strikes me as laughably retarded, but out of fairness (and my own personal amusement) I thought I'd give you a chance to explain. I said with his poor understanding of the government he should read the constitution, and you don't have to get more than three words into to realize how he doesn't understand things well. Anything else you think I said, came from your assumptions (you shouldn't do that) Edited September 11, 2014 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 And what have i said wrong about the constitution? You've said that the first three words of the preamble are the most important words in the document. That's...pretty !@#$ing wrong. Like arguing that guns should be illegal based only on the twenty-seventh word of the Second Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 No, there's usually one mob. Mob mentality is a real thing and historically a primary concern for keeping domestic order was subduing mobs. One of the primary reasons why we have criminal trials with set procedures and protections was to avoid mob justice. Because the mob is not rational. You can scoff at it all you want, but just because you agree with or are part of the mob doesn't make it any less real. Now it's tweets, emails, and blogs rather than pitchforks and torches, but it's still a group of irrational people calling for someone's head. And you not worrying about it doesn't change the fact that one day it could be you or someone you care about in those crosshairs. And yes, people have always had their words held against them, but the situation as it exists today where everything is public, narcissism is at an all time high and growing, and political correctness has become de facto law (and a strict one at that) where saying something mildly controversial off hand, in public or private, can bring a media firestorm down upon he who dares question convention, that's relatively new in America. Galileo would probably chuckle at western society and say we've come full circle. If you're equating social media consensus with "mob mentality," and tweets, emails (who emails anymore?), and blogs with "pitchforks and torches," then you are patently wrong that there is "usually one mob." This debate is evidence. I'm not even sure which mob you represent. And stop trying to pigeon-hole me into agreeing with some cross-section of some mob. I'm not even sure who you're defending. Honestly, there is so much that is hypocritical in your posts, that it matters little. I haven't been defending, or attacking anyone on this issue. And that is about all I have for you. If you would like the last word, feel free to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Crayola. Could it be crayonz's 150th alias? No, Crayonz already came out and denied any affiliation. He reminds me of gatorboy. Similar style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 You've said that the first three words of the preamble are the most important words in the document. That's...pretty !@#$ing wrong. Like arguing that guns should be illegal based only on the twenty-seventh word of the Second Amendment. I understand you don't grasp the importance of the preamble, that's fine. Thats why we pay people a lot of money to deal with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 If you're equating social media consensus with "mob mentality," and tweets, emails (who emails anymore?), and blogs with "pitchforks and torches," then you are patently wrong that there is "usually one mob." This debate is evidence. I'm not even sure which mob you represent. And stop trying to pigeon-hole me into agreeing with some cross-section of some mob. I'm not even sure who you're defending. Honestly, there is so much that is hypocritical in your posts, that it matters little. I haven't been defending, or attacking anyone on this issue. And that is about all I have for you. If you would like the last word, feel free to take it. There is usually only one mob. It's the one that's the loudest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Crayonz has few accounts and he hasn't been funny in like 4 years. Edited September 11, 2014 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I understand you don't grasp the importance of the preamble, that's fine. Thats why we pay people a lot of money to deal with it Show me the Supreme Court decision confirming the precedence to the first three words of the Preamble over the rest of the Constitution. I'll wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Show me the Supreme Court decision confirming the precedence to the first three words of the Preamble over the rest of the Constitution. I'll wait. Where did I say the preamble can be used in court? You shouldn't assume, you look stupid when you do Two your question is also very stupid Edited September 11, 2014 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 There is usually only one mob. It's the one that's the loudest. So, could you be a mob of one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 If you're equating social media consensus with "mob mentality," and tweets, emails (who emails anymore?), and blogs with "pitchforks and torches," then you are patently wrong that there is "usually one mob." This debate is evidence. I'm not even sure which mob you represent. And stop trying to pigeon-hole me into agreeing with some cross-section of some mob. I'm not even sure who you're defending. Honestly, there is so much that is hypocritical in your posts, that it matters little. I haven't been defending, or attacking anyone on this issue. And that is about all I have for you. If you would like the last word, feel free to take it. I'd like you to point out one, just one thing I've said that's hypocritical. And you can't figure out who I'm defending because I'm not defending anyone. I'm appealing to logic. Whenever one of these outrage incidents arises I encourage people to think and act logically. That this offends you says a lot more about you than it does me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Where did I say the preamble can be used in court? You shouldn't assume, you look stupid when you do Two your question is also very stupid Then how can it be the most important part of the Constitution, if it has no legal standing? It's like arguing law with a fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Crayonz has few accounts and he hasn't been funny in in like 4 years. How many do you have, and who were you before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Then how can it be the most important part of the Constitution, if it has no legal standing? It's like arguing law with a fish. Then how can it be the most important part of the Constitution, if it has no legal standing? It's like arguing law with a fish. One, we aren't arguing law. Two, use google if you really want to find out the importance of the preamble. (I know you are trying to contradict everything I say, but you look incredibly stupid for not understanding the importance of the preamble. At some point during an argument, you should realize what you are saying is very dumb. The preamble is incredibly significant, amazing, and unprecedented. Its remarkable, but I guess you have to have an understanding of the constitution to recognize that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 So, could you be a mob of one? If you really don't get the difference between a group of people calling for one's proverbial head, and those calling for thoughtful rationality you deserve about as much consideration as our colorful wax troll here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 One, we aren't arguing law. Yeah, the meaning of the Constitution has nothing to do with law. You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I'd like you to point out one, just one thing I've said that's hypocritical. And you can't figure out who I'm defending because I'm not defending anyone. I'm appealing to logic. Whenever one of these outrage incidents arises I encourage people to think and act logically. That this offends you says a lot more about you than it does me. Nothing? Didn't think so. In my mind a guy that writes a check his ass can't cash is a !@#$ing kitty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 (edited) Yeah, the meaning of the Constitution has nothing to do with law. You're an idiot. where have I argued about the meaning of the constitution? You just aren't good at this. But if we were to argue about the meaning of the constitution, do you know where the best starting point would be to understand the purpose, scope, and context of the constitution? The preamble dufus Whoooooooosh (some things go over your head, but luckily you aren't smart enough to usually notice im sure) On a side note: Do you really think the preamble isn't extremely significant and arguably one of the most important phrases in the entire constitution? Or you just going to be so dense and try troll? Edited September 11, 2014 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts