Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: This is arguably the stupidest non-reasoning I've seen on /. 31

Journal by smittyoneeach

When have I not defended even the parts of the Constitution that I oppose, specifically

Being as you are supporting movements to overturn the 1st, 5th, 13th, 16th, 17th, and 22nd amendments at least in part, you are not defending the entire constitution. Considering you especially don't see the 5th as relevant to your political agenda, you are very much one who does not practice what he preaches regarding defending its ideals.

This malarky would make sense if Article V didn't exist, I guess. However, we do have Article V, and we also have an example pair, Amendments 18 and 21, where something was tried and rejected.
So, I invite you to lay by your dish, damn_registrars. Yet another one of your asinine accusations, "you are not defending the entire constitution", is revealed as pure bunk.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

This is arguably the stupidest non-reasoning I've seen on /. More

This is arguably the stupidest non-reasoning I've seen on /.

Comments Filter:
  • I pointed out that you inconsistently "defend the constitution", and you reply by making fun of me and not actually providing anything that supports your claims. Yet you keep telling us that you don't take anything I say seriously.
    • I mean, the defense is right there in the JE: I am defending the Constitution fully.
      Help me understand how I could ever take your pathetic trolling seriously, to say nothing of personally.

      • I mean, the defense is right there in the JE: I am defending the Constitution fully.

        No, you are not defending the constitution fully. Furthermore, the "defense" you offered does not support that notion. At least, not if you were referring to the Article V that describes how constitutional amendments come to be. If there is a different Article V that you meant - and you were not in the least bit specific on the matter - please let me know.

        But as it is, when you are openly opposed to a large number of constitutional amendments (in whole or in part) you cannot claim to be "defending the

        • I'm having fun here. Aren't you?

          generally the signature move of a troll is to say something that is clearly demonstrably untrue or intended to waste time

          For example, your false accusations about defending the Constitution. After three WESTPACS, an Afghanistan deployment, and years doing Tea Party activities, you could as reasonably accuse me of failing in any way to defend the Constitution as you could accuse Barack Obama of being an honest man.
          If YOU'RE not having fun, I recommend you just lay by your dish.

          • Tell me, where were you allowed to swear an oath to defend only the parts of the constitution that you like? I have never met anyone from any branch of the military or government who was granted the option to swear to such an oath. And you most certainly are not defending the constitution today, when you are so openly opposed to parts of it - and the same can be said of your dear tea party.

            • Tell me, where were you allowed to swear an oath to defend only the parts of the constitution that you like?

              Tell me where you think 'supporting the Constitution' is some sort of lobotomy, where one's free moral agency is superseded by the oath? Hint: you're all jacked up, as usual. Following the orders of the President doesn't assume, for example, that every order given is lawful. One cannot commit atrocities in the name of 'following orders [wikipedia.org]'.
              I don't really think you're some sort of blind moron that thinks such. It makes more sense to me to consider you a troll operating in more of a jackwagon mode. Or do you re

              • How, exactly, is one to train - let alone direct - a military unit when the troops are free to discard orders at will? Last I checked such actions on the part of individual troops tends to count as insubordination, which can be grounds for discharge without honor. Hell, insubordination is not welcomed elsewhere in the workplace (particularly in the private sector) - why should it be OK in the military?

                In fact, there were troops who were thrown out of the military when they refused to take part in the
                • Since you ask, when you swear to support and defend the Constitution, you fall under the UCMJ [wikipedia.org], an abridgment of your Constitutional rights that lasts for as long as you're on active duty.
                  In contrast, your entire, decadent, lobotomized, un-American argument is tantamount to stating that all Americans should behave as though under the UCMJ, irrespective of whether they are military members.
                  If I didn't think you a debauched little intellectual Sodomite, I might be tempted to grow offended at your implication
                  • In a recent comment you claimed that you are currently supporting and/or defending the constitution. I pointed out that statement is, at the very least, insincere. You currently, at best, support a portion of the constitution and oppose a significant part of it. I never said you are currently under an obligation to defend it, I merely pointed out that your current claim to be doing such a thing is a lie.

                    Just be honest, and admit that you currently only support a part of the constitution. Be honest,

                    • In a recent comment you claimed that you are currently supporting and/or defending the constitution. I pointed out that statement is, at the very least, insincere. You currently, at best, support a portion of the constitution and oppose a significant part of it. I never said you are currently under an obligation to defend it, I merely pointed out that your current claim to be doing such a thing is a lie.
                      Just be honest, and admit that you currently only support a part of the constitution. Be honest, and admit that you only want to defend a part of it.
                      I would ask you to be honest and admit that you have never honestly defended it in its entirety, but I understand that to be too much of a request.

                      The only interesting question here is whether you're playing a straight fool, or a diabolical manipulator trying for a mind-frack. I tend to think the latter; I don't think a mere simpleton capable of your levels of sustained jackwagonry. So take that as a left-handed complement, and stay beautiful, girl.

                    • You appear to be trying to implement new rules in our discussion here. I pointed out inconsistencies in your argument, and you responded by insulting me. Since you don't seem to want to actually discuss anything, at this point am I expected to insult your mother? I hear she gave birth to someone who was fooled by the tea party lies.

                      Please let me know if that is sufficient for what you were looking for under these new rules.
                    • You have pointed out precisely 0 inconsistencies. You have instead revealed a lack of understanding concerning what it means to defend the Constitution.
                      You don't think attacking my integrity is an insult? Oh, you, like OFA, are no doubt about "God's work [politico.com]", or something.
                      By all means, keep crapping on my lawn.

                    • You have pointed out precisely 0 inconsistencies.

                      Wrong. I pointed out the grammatical inaccuracy of your claim to be defending the constitution. You instead support some select parts of it that you like and openly oppose other parts.

                      You don't think attacking my integrity is an insult?

                      I don't have to attack your integrity when your own statements do it for me. I point out that what you say is inconsistent with what you say you do. Just admit that indeed you are not defending the constitution, but rather a part of it, and your statements will be in agreement with your actions.

                      Let's put it this way.

                    • Your broken record is borYour broken record is borYour broken record is borYour broken record is bor...
                    • What is your point there? It doesn't become less true just because you keep saying that to be the case. You have publicly displayed disrespect for a large portion of the constitution, that is clear as day for all to see. You cannot claim to be defending a document that you hold in such disdain, nor can you claim to be defending its principles wholly when you only support a fraction of them.

                      All I ask is that you be honest, yet you refuse to be so.

                      I see that you have recently attracted more fanfare

                    • You have publicly displayed disrespect for a large portion of the constitution, that is clear as day for all to see.

                      Repetition doth not a fact makRepetition doth not a fact makRepetition doth not a fact makRepetition doth not a fact makRepetition doth not a fact mak
                      Quite to the contrary, it reveals you a lout. For which I forgive you, as Christ forgave me.

                    • For which I forgive you

                      Forgive me for what? I don't seek your forgiveness. I seek your admission of the fact that you have never honestly defended the constitution. I seek your admission of the fact that your own statements make that clear as day.

                      Look at it this way. If you were to hire a security company to protect your home and belongings, but they told you they would not protect any doors in your house, would you consider them to be adequate for protection? You are openly opposed to many of the amendments (doors) in th

                    • Forgive me for what? I don't seek your forgiveness.

                      Not a requirement.

                      I seek your admission of the fact that you have never honestly defended the constitution.

                      Such an untruth, if uttered, would unite me with you. You're freebasing whatever line of crap you feel like saying. I'm just going to keep laughing at you and forgiving you.

                    • Smitty by your current line of anti-logic, you should be celebrating Russia's work as defending Ukraine. Sure, they have assaulted one part of the country, but they are claiming to be defending another part; hence if they applied your logic they could claim to be saviors of the entire nation.

                      So where is your JE thanking Putin and the Russian army for defending Ukraine? They are without a doubt doing at least as much to defend Ukraine as you have done to defend the constitution.
                    • Using your own gift for anti-logic, praise of fascism has been natural these months. Thus, you're far better equipped than I to contend that Putin is some kind of nice guy for invading Ukraine.

                    • praise of fascism has been natural these months

                      Indeed you have been celebrating facsist ideals openly for some time now here on slashdot.

                      you're far better equipped than I to contend that Putin is some kind of nice guy for invading Ukraine.

                      My point is only that he is defending Ukraine at least as whole-heartedly and sincerely as you have ever defended the constitution. There was no praise for him in that statement just as I have no praise for your completely dishonest claims to somehow be a defender of the constitution.

                    • your completely dishonest claims to somehow be a defender of the constitution

                      You're a recreational liar. I could probably wax poetic about that.

                    • your completely dishonest claims to somehow be a defender of the constitution

                      You're a recreational liar.

                      No, I am not lying. Tell me, smitty; how does one defend something while simultaneously actively attacking a part of the same thing? The answer is simple - one cannot do such a thing, it is not possible. I understand that there are parts of the constitution that you hold dear and do defend, however you have demonstrated plainly that there are many parts of the same that you openly despise and are actively engaged in the destruction of to the best of your ability.

                      Just be done with it and say that you

                    • No, I am not lying.

                      You are on this point, just as you were when you said that I've called for illegal action against the president.
                      In the general case, I'd offer you the benefit of the doubt. All I can do here is forgive you and admonish you to repent of your diabolical attempts to twist words.
                      I guess the only further point of interest here, from a Criminal Psychology (i.e., academic) standpoint, is why you insist on such behavior. Do you somehow think brainwashing possible through this medium?

          • Um, when did engaging in preemptive wars under false pretenses (the elephant in the room of your Benghazi scandals, you know, just in case you really want to have the president sacked) and muckraking with a bunch of rednecks become "defending the constitution"?

            • You're shifting the discussion from what d_r and I are on about.
              If your question is akin to "Has the War Powers Resolution of 1973 been a slippery slope, or what?" I couldn't agree more.

              • No sir, you made a point that your service in Afghanistan and affiliation with the tea party as defense of the constitution. I wouldn't call it that.

                The war powers act is just congress reasserting authority it always had. It is redundant. In one way or another congress has always approved every military action taken by the president, past and present, usually beforehand, and they were trying to deflect blame away from themselves for Vietnam.

                • your service in Afghanistan and affiliation with the tea party as defense of the constitution. I wouldn't call it that.

                  Constitutionally speaking, supporting reform via Tea Party activism is much more significant. My service in the military had more to do with the post-WWII "Team America: World Police" concept than the Constitution as such. The military is a means to the end of national defense. The conservative tendency to treat the military as an end unto itself is one of those entry points to statism that conservatives need to consider a little more carefully, IMHO.

                  The war powers act is just congress reasserting authority it always had.

                  That makes no empirical sense. Since the WPR, Presidents

  • ... how did you manage to rank it? That's a Herculean task...

Slashdot Top Deals

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Close