Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How They Get Away With It
Metallicman ^ | June 2018 | Editorial staff

Posted on 07/13/2018 6:25:34 AM PDT by vannrox

On the Manufactured Ignorance of the State Constitutions…

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything — and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers"

-Judicial Ruling under Wickard & Filburn

How can you possibly have people thinking that “Rights” are “Privileges”? How can you have elected Senators joyously and repeatedly trying to destroy the Rights guaranteed to us? How can you explain the absolutely lack of understanding that our great nation is a Republic and not a Democracy? How can all this be?

Well, the answer is simple.

The ignorance was planned. It is manufactured, and like many small cuts, it has eaten and tore away at the fabric of what the United States is. Today, all we have is something that has absolutely no resemblance to what it was initially set up as.

Let’s look at this.

Here we will look at this sad, sad state of affairs from the most basic premise. This premise is that the ignorance is intentional and manufactured by evil people for their own purposes. Additionally, fundamental to that ignorance is the suppression of the importance

(Excerpt) Read more at metallicman.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; crime; dnc; hillary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last
To: vannrox

It is a great quote. I’ve remembered it for years and think of it every time Justice Thomas is mentioned. He’s the best Justice on the USSC, IMO. Wish he’d talk more.


41 posted on 07/15/2018 10:26:04 AM PDT by sparklite2 (See more at Sparklite Times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
If I do not accept your premise as true then a universal premise is a is merely a generalization.

You’ve got it backward, chief. That is if I correctly understand your fractured sentence.

You were given a generalization, and you justified your behavior by treating it as if you were given an explicitly universal premise. That is a “straw man” by definition.

42 posted on 07/16/2018 2:54:20 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
I see my point of view is alien to you but isn't that actually the purpose of places like FR? For trying to express my belief system honestly so that we might better understand each other, and both gain in the exercise you accuse me of duplicity. I can only be myself, I can be no other.

Your “point of view” happens to be the status quo. Therefore, it is very easy for you to presume your point is made without ever actually making it.

The only way for me to break through your presumption is do demonstrate where your position violates universal norms of logic and reason, not to make fancy insults (as you seem to believe is my motivation).

FR is indeed the place to discuss such differences, but it requires discussion, not rote repetition of the cliches underpinning the status quo.

43 posted on 07/16/2018 3:10:07 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You are funny. I’m not going to play anymore. I think you are wrong; you think I’m wrong and that is the status quo. I think your position is illogical; I’m sure you think mine the same. We have been unable to communicate but I bear you no ill will.
It is a unique experience for me and that is in some ways a good thing.


44 posted on 07/16/2018 3:48:29 PM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
I think you are wrong; you think I’m wrong ....

And you’ll never get any further than that if all you’re interested in is “play.”

45 posted on 07/16/2018 3:55:55 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

No that’s my point I’m done playing. Playing is what you do.

You shift the definitions and the terms. You are not honest in your debate; you accuse and use personal attack but never prove any of your so called points or offer any concrete information. You are free to believe what you want but you need a new patsy. I have expended all the time and attention I am willing to spend on someone who is unable to see past the point of their nose. So stop trying to dazzle me with your footwork; you are no logistician.


46 posted on 07/16/2018 4:39:21 PM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
You shift the definitions and the terms.

Then you should have no problem citing an example.

On the other hand, if you were intellectually dishonest, and just trying to save face before disengaging from the discussion, you’d provide some painfully transparent excuse such as “you’re not worth my time” for NOT providing said example.

47 posted on 07/16/2018 7:11:25 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? Example of what?

I gave examples at the beginning of the thread, concrete examples of how man and women have both been patriotic and sacrificed for our country.

You called that cherry picking. I explained that examples refute generalizations. In the most concrete sense I showed that women & men have behaved the same way because of strong political belief. Not all men or all women just some.

You danced side wards and said I was trying to conflate generalizations with universal premises and that is a scurvy trick of liberals. As far as I can tell it the two are entwined, not separate at all so perhaps the Liberals are not so tricksey after all. I gave you the philosophical text that laid out the close relationship.

Your statements are ambiguous and shift to attack new strawmen rather than actually stating your beliefs and defending them. My tagline was chosen to remind myself to disengage and I will do so now. You may have your last word.


48 posted on 07/16/2018 7:37:35 PM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
Do you even know the meaning of the words you use? Example of what?

Are you really trying to claim confusion of what I asked for IMMEDIATELY AFTER A DIRECT QUOTE?

49 posted on 07/16/2018 7:40:56 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
I explained that examples refute generalizations.

No, examples refute UNIVERSAL CLAIMS, not generalizations.

50 posted on 07/16/2018 7:42:36 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
As far as I can tell it the two are entwined, not separate at all so perhaps the Liberals are not so tricksey after all.

Then you have no business giving opinions on subjects you don't understand.

51 posted on 07/16/2018 7:44:19 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
Your statements are ambiguous and shift to attack new strawmen rather than actually stating your beliefs and defending them.

But again, you give no example. Precisely as I predicted.

While you question (based on what misuse) my knowing the meaning of the words I use, I question your understanding the words YOU use "have meaning."

My posts 36 and 38 easily demonstrate I HAVE stated my beliefs (as if that had anything to do with refuting your own) and you have presented no objection to them.

It's no wonder the left expects their campaign of unqualified accusation to work with the likes of you floating around.

52 posted on 07/16/2018 7:58:48 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
The Framers wrote The Constitution with an eye toward governing men. The Constitution they gave us is incapable of governing with its previous efficacy an electorate comprised mostly of women in that the evils to which women are prone are of a wholly different character than the evils common to men.

You have given no example. You merely say women are prone to different"evils". That is something I chose not to respond to because it is meaningless. Did God give a different set of commandments to women?

53 posted on 07/16/2018 8:05:57 PM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: JayGalt
You have given no example.

And you are being willfully obtuse. The entire history of humanity shows men are prone to physical aggression, and women are prone to alternative methods of aggression.

Don't bother trying to rehabilitate your blatant duplicity now. You are not worthy of MY time.

54 posted on 07/16/2018 8:24:40 PM PDT by papertyger (Bulverism: it's not just for liberals anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You comments are more and more unraveled. Lizzy Borden appreciates your distinctions I’m sure.

My duplicity in not agreeing with you and offering facts, textbook and logic is indeed heinous and will not abate.

There are so many books on violent women I was spoilt for choice. Just cast your hook into the sea of google and you too can catch one.


55 posted on 07/17/2018 6:46:35 AM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

You might want to take that up with the authors I sent you. The ones teaching classes at the Graduate level in University. Perhaps they too are fools and only you are wise.


56 posted on 07/17/2018 6:48:10 AM PDT by JayGalt (You can't teach a donkey how to tap dance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson