PDA

View Full Version : Where does that crazy idea come from?



Bumpkin
07-29-2013, 09:54 PM
Why do so many conservatives believe that liberals are afraid and will run from them?

I'm sure there are liberals who are afraid of people or things. I'm sure there are conservatives who are afraid.

But being a liberal does not mean being a coward.

Why do you conservatives need to believe such things?

(I'm not sure this is in the correct section.)

jillian
07-29-2013, 09:57 PM
it makes them feel better ....

zelmo1234
07-29-2013, 09:59 PM
Why would I think that liberals would be any more afraid than any other person?

That does not make sense to me? Go figure

jillian
07-29-2013, 10:11 PM
well, some of your brethren write things like that all the time.

Bumpkin
07-29-2013, 10:13 PM
Why would I think that liberals would be any more afraid than any other person?

That does not make sense to me? Go figure

There are conservatives who imagine that liberals would run in fear if there was trouble. Someone in another topic asked me if I would run away like a good little liberal. So he must have a nutty notion that liberals are cowardly and run.

I'm here to tell them they should not count on it.

GrassrootsConservative
07-29-2013, 10:15 PM
There are conservatives who imagine that liberals would run in fear if there was trouble. Someone in another topic asked me if I would run away like a good little liberal. So he must have a nutty notions that liberals are cowardly and run.

I'm here to tell them they should not count on it.

:biglaugh:

Bumpkin
07-29-2013, 10:20 PM
:biglaugh:

Is a typo really that funny?

Dr. Who
07-29-2013, 10:28 PM
There are conservatives who imagine that liberals would run in fear if there was trouble. Someone in another topic asked me if I would run away like a good little liberal. So he must have a nutty notions that liberals are cowardly and run.

I'm here to tell them they should not count on it.I'm afraid a few of the conservative members on this forum like to give the impression that liberals are wusses, subhuman (yes someone actually said something to that affect), mentally challenged, and hope that if they insult them enough, they will flee the forum. Of course we all know that bullies never win and their behavior simply reflects badly on them and any shred of credibility they might otherwise have.

GrassrootsConservative
07-29-2013, 10:51 PM
Is a typo really that funny?

It is when I can find 10 posts a day from uneducated people with the same kinds of mistakes. It's like a Liberal calling card or something. Keep on keepin' on.

Singularity
07-29-2013, 10:54 PM
I'm not sure why you're worried about it.
Oh, boy, somebody has the stones to issue
childish taunts on the Internet. Is this really
something that gives you pause? It shouldn't.
Be the better person and press on.

KC
07-29-2013, 11:11 PM
Why do so many conservatives believe that liberals are afraid and will run from them?

I'm sure there are liberals who are afraid of people or things. I'm sure there are conservatives who are afraid.

But being a liberal does not mean being a coward.

Why do you conservatives need to believe such things?

(I'm not sure this is in the correct section.)


People tend to belittle others. Makes them feel bigger. It's not just a conservative thing though, I might add. I've known many a lefty that talks down cons as though they aren't people, just with different thoughts, feelings, and passions.

Mister D
07-29-2013, 11:24 PM
Conservative: "you're wrong and you're an idiot".

Progressive: "you're wrong and you're evil".

Just an observation.

Dr. Who
07-29-2013, 11:57 PM
It would be very nice if people could engage in political or any other discourse without the need to belittle or otherwise denigrate the opinions of others. It certainly makes for much more interesting and challenging content when they don't. Resorting to disrespect, unsupported generalizations about the opposing camp and personal insults simply implies an inability to support an argument.

roadmaster
07-30-2013, 12:20 AM
It would be very nice if people could engage in political or any other discourse without the need to belittle or otherwise denigrate the opinions of others. It certainly makes for much more interesting and challenging content when they don't. Resorting to disrespect, unsupported generalizations about the opposing camp and personal insults simply implies an inability to support an argument. It's hard sometimes when we see so many that refuse to protect their family and depend on the police to solve all problems. To stand up against the gangs and not be afraid of dying for a cause or sitting by and watching a person get beat up by many and do nothing. Where you have to put bars on your windows to be safe and not out when children are afraid to go to school. To only march with the ones in hopes so they don't become targets. You are correct the south doesn't understand mostly liberal states.

Common
07-30-2013, 12:39 AM
Is a typo really that funny?

Dont you know that singling out a typo on the net makes you a much smarter person

Common
07-30-2013, 12:43 AM
It's hard sometimes when we see so many that refuse to protect their family and depend on the police to solve all problems. To stand up against the gangs and not be afraid of dying for a cause or sitting by and watching a person get beat up by many and do nothing. Where you have to put bars on your windows to be safe and not out when children are afraid to go to school. To only march with the ones in hopes so they don't become targets. You are correct the south doesn't understand mostly liberal states.

Roadmaster you have made that insinuation many times that somehow you think that the SOUTH is so much tougher than liberal states. Id like to bring a few dozen a these tough southerners to NYC and turn them loose and see how they make out. Or put them in chicago or in Newark NJ and the Suburbs.
You have a totally misguided view of what you consider liberal states and your assumption that they wont defend themselves.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 05:00 AM
I'm not sure why you're worried about it.
Oh, boy, somebody has the stones to issue
childish taunts on the Internet. Is this really
something that gives you pause? It shouldn't.
Be the better person and press on.

Childish taunts don't bother me at all. I am just curious about why conservatives believe such stuff.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 05:02 AM
It is when I can find 10 posts a day from uneducated people with the same kinds of mistakes. It's like a Liberal calling card or something. Keep on keepin' on.

You believe typos are because of lack of education? Guess again. I'm not uneducated.

Furthermore, it's not just liberals who make typos and not just conservatives who make grammatical errors.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 05:08 AM
It's hard sometimes when we see so many that refuse to protect their family and depend on the police to solve all problems. To stand up against the gangs and not be afraid of dying for a cause or sitting by and watching a person get beat up by many and do nothing. Where you have to put bars on your windows to be safe and not out when children are afraid to go to school. To only march with the ones in hopes so they don't become targets. You are correct the south doesn't understand mostly liberal states.

I notice conservatives talk often about protecting their families. Why can't their families protect themselves? It's most often men who are going to protect their wives and children. Yet I've I've never known a man who had to defend his wife and kids. Not one.

I think they enjoy fantasizing about being heros.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 05:08 AM
Dont you know that singling out a typo on the net makes you a much smarter person

I was not away of that. Thanks for the information.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 05:20 AM
Roadmaster you have made that insinuation many times that somehow you think that the SOUTH is so much tougher than liberal states. Id like to bring a few dozen a these tough southerners to NYC and turn them loose and see how they make out. Or put them in chicago or in Newark NJ and the Suburbs.
You have a totally misguided view of what you consider liberal states and your assumption that they wont defend themselves.

Yeah, but think how tough they are against unarmed people walking down the street.

I live in the South and have most of my life. Those guys are mostly bluster. And a good many of them are more likely to beat family members than defend them against bad guys.

I've seen a guy pull a gun on another guy because they were having an argument. He didn't use the gun. And there certainly was no reason to get out a gun anyway. They were both conservatives. By the way, I didn't run when he got out his gun.

It's not that uncommon for the tough guys to get out guns in anger. They have planned for self-defense that is never going to happen. It must be very frustrating. So if someone calls them a name, they imagine that's self-defense time. A coupe of times, someone shot someone under such circumstances. I have a feeling they regretted using that gun. Naturally, the other tough guy wasn't able to defend himself.

zelmo1234
07-30-2013, 06:23 AM
I notice conservatives talk often about protecting their families. Why can't their families protect themselves? It's most often men who are going to protect their wives and children. Yet I've I've never known a man who had to defend his wife and kids. Not one.

I think they enjoy fantasizing about being heros.

You should consider your self lucky! but there are areas that if you can't protect yourself and your family then you and they will become victims.

I would never leave the safety of my family in the hands of another person or organization!

Take the once wonderful city of Detroit. They are currently facing an average police response time of 58 minutes? Because of there financial problems, and if the bankruptcy is somehow blocked. They will be loosing nearly half of the current police force!

The city is not a safe place to live? So my question is this IF you don't protect your family who will?

So I will continue to provide a safe place for my family, and be trained to provide that protection if the need arises?

Then I will get down on my knees each and everyday and pray that I never have to use that training!

zelmo1234
07-30-2013, 06:32 AM
Yeah, but think how tough they are against unarmed people walking down the street.

I live in the South and have most of my life. Those guys are mostly bluster. And a good many of them are more likely to beat family members than defend them against bad guys.

I've seen a guy pull a gun on another guy because they were having an argument. He didn't use the gun. And there certainly was no reason to get out a gun anyway. They were both conservatives. By the way, I didn't run when he got out his gun.

It's not that uncommon for the tough guys to get out guns in anger. They have planned for self-defense that is never going to happen. It must be very frustrating. So if someone calls them a name, they imagine that's self-defense time. A coupe of times, someone shot someone under such circumstances. I have a feeling they regretted using that gun. Naturally, the other tough guy wasn't able to defend himself.

Well I think that problem is you have never met a tuff guy

The crime that you witnesses was at the very least a 5 year felony. And now you are the one that seems to be belittling conservatives.

So if there will never be a need to defend yourself? Why do we have the crime levels that we have?

While I agree that the chance for this is low? If you knew exactly when and where you were going to be a victim of a crime? would you go there

The truth of the matter is, Detroit is the tip of the iceberg. States Like CA and IL are have pension funds that are hundreds of billions of dollars in the red. and first responder services as well as every other aspect of government will need to be drastically reduced in the coming years.

We can see that criminals are attracted to places where people are not allowed to defend themselves. How do you think the will respond when they know that the police are more than an hour away!

Many feel that the police are there to protect them, and this is also not true, they have no obligation to protect you they are a crime solving agency!

To not acknowledge that government has over spent and now is going to have to pay the piper is foolishness, and to not prepare, to help yourself is well beyond foolish!

Chris
07-30-2013, 06:33 AM
It would be very nice if people could engage in political or any other discourse without the need to belittle or otherwise denigrate the opinions of others. It certainly makes for much more interesting and challenging content when they don't. Resorting to disrespect, unsupported generalizations about the opposing camp and personal insults simply implies an inability to support an argument.

Isn't that actually what the OP did? Seems to me the OP wants to confront on a personal level.

Chris
07-30-2013, 06:37 AM
Childish taunts don't bother me at all. I am just curious about why conservatives believe such stuff.

Your OP is childishly taunting. You seem to want to engage on a personal level, to having a personal pissing contest. You've been here, what, a day or two, and it's all I I I I I and you you you. Just an observation based on your posts and petty arguments. Example, two or three pages on omitted ellipses.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 08:16 AM
You should consider your self lucky! but there are areas that if you can't protect yourself and your family then you and they will become victims.

I would never leave the safety of my family in the hands of another person or organization!

Take the once wonderful city of Detroit. They are currently facing an average police response time of 58 minutes? Because of there financial problems, and if the bankruptcy is somehow blocked. They will be loosing nearly half of the current police force!

The city is not a safe place to live? So my question is this IF you don't protect your family who will?

So I will continue to provide a safe place for my family, and be trained to provide that protection if the need arises?

Then I will get down on my knees each and everyday and pray that I never have to use that training!

MY family can protect themselves. Sorry about yours.

Your family won't be harmed. Don't live in constant fear.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 08:20 AM
Your OP is childishly taunting. You seem to want to engage on a personal level, to having a personal pissing contest. You've been here, what, a day or two, and it's all I I I I I and you you you. Just an observation based on your posts and petty arguments. Example, two or three pages on omitted ellipses.

Three was a reason for mentioning the missing ellipsis. It's necessary so that the reader understands that you have omitted material in the middle of a passage. In fact, you had left out the essence of the argument.

There would have been no petty argument about it if you had simply said thank you. Instead, you engaged in a long drawn out battle as if you had not made an error.

patrickt
07-30-2013, 08:20 AM
Wow, an entire thread started with a blatant strawman with support from a Jillian. Liberals have a driving need to consider themselves intellectual elites. Jillian. "Nuff said.

Oh, and don't ask either one to give any evidence. They're like Rep. Nancy Pelosi who heard those stealth racist slurs that no microphone could detect.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 08:22 AM
Isn't that actually what the OP did? Seems to me the OP wants to confront on a personal level.

No, that's not what the OP did. I was talking about conservatives generally assuming that liberals generally are cowards and will run and hid from trouble.

It's a valid topic of discussion. Are people brave or cowardly based on their political philosophy?

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 08:23 AM
Wow, an entire thread started with a blatant strawman with support from a Jillian. Liberals have a driving need to consider themselves intellectual elites. Jillian. "Nuff said.

Oh, and don't ask either one to give any evidence. They're like Rep. Nancy Pelosi who heard those stealth racist slurs that no microphone could detect.

I did give evidence for my claim that conservatives often accuse liberals of being cowardly.

patrickt
07-30-2013, 08:30 AM
I did give evidence for my claim that conservatives often accuse liberals of being cowardly.

"Where does that crazy idea come from?
Why do so many conservatives believe that liberals are afraid and will run from them?

I'm sure there are liberals who are afraid of people or things. I'm sure there are conservatives who are afraid.

But being a liberal does not mean being a coward.

Why do you conservatives need to believe such things?

(I'm not sure this is in the correct section.) "

Oh, yeah, right. I must have missed it there.

I'm a conservative and I never consider liberals cowardly. It's true they are desperate to have the government take care of them but that stems more from a lack of responsibility than simply fear. You know, when you get 100 liberals to dress up in black and wear masks and run around squealing and breaking windows that pretty darned brave for a liberal. And, to go out in front of all those photographers and take a dump on a flag? That's brave.


Sorry, I shouldn't have bothered. The OP was a waste of bandwidth. Why not discuss something with some validity such as liberals think if someone else pays there bills then it was free?

Matty
07-30-2013, 08:32 AM
Why do so many conservatives believe that liberals are afraid and will run from them?

I'm sure there are liberals who are afraid of people or things. I'm sure there are conservatives who are afraid.

But being a liberal does not mean being a coward.

Why do you conservatives need to believe such things?

(I'm not sure this is in the correct section.)





Errrrr it was a black liberal who stated that "we're a nation of cowards" or did Eric Holder change his stripes?

Cigar
07-30-2013, 08:34 AM
This ... from a self proclaimed Creepy-As-Cracker ... Brilliant :grin:

Chris
07-30-2013, 08:35 AM
Three was a reason for mentioning the missing ellipsis. It's necessary so that the reader understands that you have omitted material in the middle of a passage. In fact, you had left out the essence of the argument.

There would have been no petty argument about it if you had simply said thank you. Instead, you engaged in a long drawn out battle as if you had not made an error.

There was no reason to mention the ellipses for two three pages of posts other than you desperately needed something to win an argument with.

Chris
07-30-2013, 08:37 AM
No, that's not what the OP did. I was talking about conservatives generally assuming that liberals generally are cowards and will run and hid from trouble.

It's a valid topic of discussion. Are people brave or cowardly based on their political philosophy?

Doesn't seem to me you want to discuss ideas, only bash people you disagree with. Look at your responses for evidence of that.

zelmo1234
07-30-2013, 09:02 AM
MY family can protect themselves. Sorry about yours.

Your family won't be harmed. Don't live in constant fear.

Yeah ! I don't live in constant free either, but I am sure that my family will be OK!

Beings they all don't have to rely on the government for their protection

jillian
07-30-2013, 09:05 AM
Yeah ! I don't live in constant free either, but I am sure that my family will be OK!

Beings they all don't have to rely on the government for their protection

sure they don't... let me know what happens if you ever need police or firemen...

and are you planning on not accepting social security? do you travel on roads? fly? take mass transit?

i love the gubmint-haters.

ptif219
07-30-2013, 09:13 AM
Why do so many conservatives believe that liberals are afraid and will run from them?

I'm sure there are liberals who are afraid of people or things. I'm sure there are conservatives who are afraid.

But being a liberal does not mean being a coward.

Why do you conservatives need to believe such things?

(I'm not sure this is in the correct section.)

Why do liberals think they are above conservatives and have power over conservatives?

Chris
07-30-2013, 09:15 AM
sure they don't... let me know what happens if you ever need police or firemen...

and are you planning on not accepting social security? do you travel on roads? fly? take mass transit?

i love the gubmint-haters.

Wow, what wonderful big gotchas you have!

SS most of us have been forced to pay into, it's our money, we should get it back, if the program doesn't go bust.

The rest could be privatized. It's a question needs asking rather than simply assuming, as many liberals do, all solutions are government solutions.

People don't hate government, jill, don't project. People, some of us, question government.

ptif219
07-30-2013, 09:17 AM
sure they don't... let me know what happens if you ever need police or firemen...

and are you planning on not accepting social security? do you travel on roads? fly? take mass transit?

i love the gubmint-haters.

More lies and Obama false rhetoric.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:36 AM
"Where does that crazy idea come from?
Why do so many conservatives believe that liberals are afraid and will run from them?

I'm sure there are liberals who are afraid of people or things. I'm sure there are conservatives who are afraid.

But being a liberal does not mean being a coward.

Why do you conservatives need to believe such things?

(I'm not sure this is in the correct section.) "

Oh, yeah, right. I must have missed it there.

I'm a conservative and I never consider liberals cowardly. It's true they are desperate to have the government take care of them but that stems more from a lack of responsibility than simply fear. You know, when you get 100 liberals to dress up in black and wear masks and run around squealing and breaking windows that pretty darned brave for a liberal. And, to go out in front of all those photographers and take a dump on a flag? That's brave.


Sorry, I shouldn't have bothered. The OP was a waste of bandwidth. Why not discuss something with some validity such as liberals think if someone else pays there bills then it was free?


It's not true that liberals are desperate to have the government take care of them. I'm a liberal, and I take care of myself. So do the other liberals I know.

The point is that conservatives have a silly caricature of liberals that they use. You have proved my point, especially with that silliness in the crazy scenario you described.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:37 AM
There was no reason to mention the ellipses for two three pages of posts other than you desperately needed something to win an argument with.

Actually, it was because YOU kept at it.

zelmo1234
07-30-2013, 09:38 AM
It's not true that liberals are desperate to have the government take care of them. I'm a liberal, and I take care of myself. So do the other liberals I know.

The point is that conservatives have a silly caricature of liberals that they use. You have proved my point, especially with that silliness in the crazy scenario you described.

I need to meet your and your friends because I have yet to meet a liberal that did not want other peoples money and belongings to be used to make their life better! I am sure they exist, but I have yet to meet one!

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:38 AM
Doesn't seem to me you want to discuss ideas, only bash people you disagree with. Look at your responses for evidence of that.

I think I proved in the topic about The Federalist Papers that YOU don't want to discuss ideas. You even seemed to think it was funny that you pretended you did want to discuss ideas.

Mainecoons
07-30-2013, 09:39 AM
No you didn't. Try again.

:grin:

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:40 AM
Yeah ! I don't live in constant free either, but I am sure that my family will be OK!

Beings they all don't have to rely on the government for their protection

We can't be sure of anything.

Claiming that you are not afraid for yourself but for your family makes no sense. They are no more likely to be harmed than you are. And why can't they take care of themselves like my family can?

Conservatives have a need to be the big defender of the weak and helpless. It's kind of cute. But it will never be necessary. Relax.

metheron
07-30-2013, 09:42 AM
Why do so many conservatives believe that liberals are afraid and will run from them?

I'm sure there are liberals who are afraid of people or things. I'm sure there are conservatives who are afraid.

But being a liberal does not mean being a coward.

Why do you conservatives need to believe such things?

(I'm not sure this is in the correct section.)

I can honestly say I have never heard of that before. Not sure where that came from.

jillian
07-30-2013, 09:43 AM
Wow, what wonderful big gotchas you have!

SS most of us have been forced to pay into, it's our money, we should get it back, if the program doesn't go bust.

The rest could be privatized. It's a question needs asking rather than simply assuming, as many liberals do, all solutions are government solutions.

People don't hate government, jill, don't project. People, some of us, question government.

oh sure you do, chris. stop lying.

ptif219
07-30-2013, 09:45 AM
I think I proved in the topic about The Federalist Papers that YOU don't want to discuss ideas. You even seemed to think it was funny that you pretended you did want to discuss ideas.


Federalist papers are not legal and binding documents just one mans opinions

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:47 AM
I need to meet your and your friends because I have yet to meet a liberal that did not want other peoples money and belongings to be used to make their life better! I am sure they exist, but I have yet to meet one!

I know more conservatives than liberals who rely on the mortgage interest deduction welfare. They need my tax dollars. Or they rely on it.

You are pretending that conservatives don't use government services. They do. I use fewer government services than the conservatives I know. I don't have a mortgage. I don't need your tax dollars to help pay make my house payment.

I know more conservatives than liberals who get college grants and student loans, all are paid for with tax dollars.

Just going to a state university even without loans or grants is using tax dollars.

There is a long list of tax dollars conservatives help themselves to. I'm betting that you indulge in some tax subsidized things that you don't even realize are tax subsidized.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:51 AM
Federalist papers are not legal and binding documents just one mans opinions

Quite true. But it's conservatives who like to pretend that what the founders said is something sacred. I do like to read what they wrote and then rub conservatives noses in it. Essentially, the founders did not agree with conservative viewpoints of today.

By the way, it's not true that it's one man's opinion. It's three men's opinions.

Chris
07-30-2013, 09:52 AM
Actually, it was because YOU kept at it.

Nice attempt at shifting the blame for your petty arguments. You pointed out the missing ellipses and I replied, yea, looks like I did. Unable to win any other argument you latched onto that repeating it ad nauseum.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:52 AM
People, some of us, question government.

That is very true. I know I question government all the time.

Chris
07-30-2013, 09:53 AM
oh sure you do, chris. stop lying.

Sorry, jill, I do not hate government, you're the one making up this hate, projecting it, in effect lying. But, hey, it's your character you're assassinating, have at it.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:54 AM
I can honestly say I have never heard of that before. Not sure where that came from.

I got it from a post in this forum. I have also heard that crap many times in other places.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:55 AM
Nice attempt at shifting the blame for your petty arguments. You pointed out the missing ellipses and I replied, yea, looks like I did. Unable to win any other argument you latched onto that repeating it ad nauseum [sic].

That would be "ad nauseam." No big deal. It's a common mistake.

No need to thank me.

Chris
07-30-2013, 09:56 AM
I think I proved in the topic about The Federalist Papers that YOU don't want to discuss ideas. You even seemed to think it was funny that you pretended you did want to discuss ideas.

Why would I want to discuss a topic with someone who disingenuously reduces arguments to the pettiness of arguing about ellipses--and you're still here today arguing about ellipses. Display some discourse ethics and others will reciprocate.

Chris
07-30-2013, 09:57 AM
That would be "ad nauseam."

No need to thank me.

Exactly what i mean by pettiness of argument. Reveals a desperation to win an argument, whatever it is.

ptif219
07-30-2013, 09:58 AM
Quite true. But it's conservatives who like to pretend that what the founders said is something sacred. I do like to read what they wrote and then rub conservatives noses in it. Essentially, the founders did not agree with conservative viewpoints of today.

By the way, it's not true that it's one man's opinion. It's three men's opinions.

Another words like most democrats you want to lie and deceive to make a false point.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 10:01 AM
Why would I want to discuss a topic with someone who disingenuously reduces arguments to the pettiness of arguing about ellipses--and you're still here today arguing about ellipses. Display some discourse ethics and others will reciprocate.

YOU brought up the ellipsis today. I was done with that. I helped you understand. The end. Or so I thought.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 10:04 AM
Another words like most democrats you want to lie and deceive to make a false point.

First of all, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a liberal.

And I didn't lie and deceive to make a false point.

Dr. Who
07-30-2013, 10:04 AM
"Where does that crazy idea come from?
Why do so many conservatives believe that liberals are afraid and will run from them?

I'm sure there are liberals who are afraid of people or things. I'm sure there are conservatives who are afraid.

But being a liberal does not mean being a coward.

Why do you conservatives need to believe such things?

(I'm not sure this is in the correct section.) "

Oh, yeah, right. I must have missed it there.

I'm a conservative and I never consider liberals cowardly. It's true they are desperate to have the government take care of them but that stems more from a lack of responsibility than simply fear. You know, when you get 100 liberals to dress up in black and wear masks and run around squealing and breaking windows that pretty darned brave for a liberal. And, to go out in front of all those photographers and take a dump on a flag? That's brave.


Sorry, I shouldn't have bothered. The OP was a waste of bandwidth. Why not discuss something with some validity such as liberals think if someone else pays there bills then it was free?



The Black Bloc (people dressed in black and wearing masks) are anarchists - not liberals.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 10:07 AM
Exactly what i mean by pettiness of argument. Reveals a desperation to win an argument, whatever it is.

I beg your pardon; I can't resist doing that to pseudo-intellectuals. I'll try to be nicer.

But truthfully, I prefer someone to point out my errors (other than typos). If I were writing "ad nausum" all over the place, which is too common an error to attribute to a typo, I would want to know.

Now that I know you prefer ignorance, I'll stop helping you.

Just one more.

Just so you know, you wrote "afterall" as if it were a word yesterday, and I said nothing. My corrections started when you got you panties in a knot. Relax.

ptif219
07-30-2013, 10:08 AM
First of all, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a liberal.

And I didn't lie and deceive to make a false point.

Yes you did by falsely making claims about federalist papers. i see like most democrats you just spew opinions and ignore facts

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 10:08 AM
The Black Bloc (people dressed in black and wearing masks) are anarchists - not liberals.

I wondered what the heck he was talking about.

Mainecoons
07-30-2013, 10:09 AM
He's just engaging in that popular liberal past time of rewriting history.

Chris
07-30-2013, 10:09 AM
I beg your pardon; I can't resist doing that to pseudo-intellectuals. I'll try to be nicer.

But truthfully, I prefer someone to point out my errors (other than typos). If I were writing "ad nausum" all over the place, which is too common an error to attribute to a typo, I would want to know.

Now that I know you prefer ignorance, I'll stop helping you.

Just one more.

Just so you know, you wrote "afterall" as if it were a word yesterday, and I said nothing. My corrections started when you got you panties in a knot. Relax.

Nice ad hom there, bumpkin, that and your nitpicking kills your entire response. I have pointed out in detail the logical flaws of your posts.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 10:11 AM
Yes you did by falsely making claims about federalist papers. i see like most democrats you just spew opinions and ignore facts

What false claims did I make about The Federalist Papers? I posted what the founder wrote and commented on it. If I was wrong, you should point that out and explain why I'm wrong.

Or you could keep up what you are doing.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 10:12 AM
Nice ad hom there, bumpkin, that and your nitpicking kills your entire response. I have pointed out in detail the logical flaws of your posts.

That's absurd. You have not pointed out in detail any flaws in my posts. You have labeled them without explanation. And you were wrong.

Just saying something doesn't make it so, kiddo.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 10:14 AM
By the way, you are wrong about ad hominem. Someone can use ad hominem and also successfully rebut your argument, such as it is. Think of it as multitasking.

Chris
07-30-2013, 10:15 AM
That's absurd. You have not pointed out in detail any flaws in my posts. You have labeled them without explanation. And you were wrong.

Just saying something doesn't make it so, kiddo.

Make things up much, bumpkin, I tore your claim apart here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15062-How-Do-We-Fix-Race-Relations?p=337238&viewfull=1#post337238. You've ignored that.

Chris
07-30-2013, 10:16 AM
By the way, you are wrong about ad hominem. Someone can use ad hominem and also successfully rebut your argument, such as it is. Think of it as multitasking.

Oh do tell us all how truth can be arrived at via logically fallacious arguments. I'm sure everyone will be delighted to hear that whopper. Come on everyone, grab some beers and s'mores, while bumpkin tells us a story.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 10:30 AM
Make things up much, bumpkin, I tore your claim apart here: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15062-How-Do-We-Fix-Race-Relations?p=337238&viewfull=1#post337238. You've ignored that.

You didn't. You just said you did. That's not the same thing.

You are persistent, kid. But you still can't prove me wrong by offering other possibilities. Why do you suppose that is?

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:02 AM
Oh do tell us all how truth can be arrived at via logically fallacious arguments. I'm sure everyone will be delighted to hear that whopper. Come on everyone, grab some beers and s'mores, while bumpkin tells us a story.

Actually, you can arrive at truth even if your arguments are logically fallacious.

You are using the fallacy fallacy. You pretend that if I use an identifiable fallacy, the conclusion is wrong. And that is just not so. It's called argumentum ad logicam.
It is possible to make a claim that is true even if you use fallacies.

it is also possible to make a false claim and use logical fallacies to prove it.

Go back and read your book, and you will know that what I say is true. Or ask your professor.

Here is an example.

All conservatives are Republicans.
He is a Republican.
Therefore he is a conservative.

Even though the logic is flawed, the person being discussed might very well be a conservative.

You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.

Another example.

All Democrats are liberals.
He is a Democrat.
Therefore, he is a liberal.

That is logically valid. But it does not arrive at the truth.

What's your GPA? Did you enjoy your beer?

zelmo1234
07-30-2013, 11:05 AM
Another words like most democrats you want to lie and deceive to make a false point.

Liberals don't lie?????

Once they make a statement it becomes the truth, and any facts that would say differently are to be disregarded as lies!

"A liberal has spoken, so let it be written, so let it be done"

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:07 AM
Liberals don't lie?????

Once they make a statement it becomes the truth, and any facts that would say differently are to be disregarded as lies!

"A liberal has spoken, so let it be written, so let it be done"

He didn't point out any false statement. He just declared that liberals make false statements.

I quoted the words of one of the founders from The Federalist Papers. Is he saying a founder did not say that?

Ravi
07-30-2013, 11:08 AM
Actually, you can arrive at truth even if your arguments are logically fallacious.

You are using the fallacy fallacy. You pretend that if I use an identifiable fallacy, the conclusion is wrong. And that is just not so. It's called argumentum ad logicam.
It is possible to make a claim that is true even if you use fallacies.

it is also possible to make a false claim and use logical fallacies to prove it.

Go back and read your book, and you will know that what I say is true. Or ask your professor.

Here is an example.

All conservatives are Republicans.
He is a Republican.
Therefore he is a conservative.

Even though the logic is flawed, the person being discussed might very well be a conservative.

You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.

Another example.

All Democrats are liberals.
He is a Democrat.
Therefore, he is a liberal.

That is logically valid. But it does not arrive at the truth.

What's your GPA? Did you enjoy your beer?
LOL! The fallacist's fallacy.

zelmo1234
07-30-2013, 11:09 AM
I beg your pardon; I can't resist doing that to pseudo-intellectuals. I'll try to be nicer.

But truthfully, I prefer someone to point out my errors (other than typos). If I were writing "ad nausum" all over the place, which is too common an error to attribute to a typo, I would want to know.

Now that I know you prefer ignorance, I'll stop helping you.

Just one more.

Just so you know, you wrote "afterall" as if it were a word yesterday, and I said nothing. My corrections started when you got you panties in a knot. Relax.

So you think that using spelling and grammar is going to show that you have a superior mind, and ideas.

You will have a field day with me! But that is OK I know that when you are reduced to spelling and grammar, you have already low the argument!

Chris
07-30-2013, 11:09 AM
LOL! The fallacist's fallacy.

If only he could demonstrate it instead of making a false accusation followed by pure BS.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:10 AM
LOL! The fallacist's fallacy.

But you have to enjoy the enthusiasm of college kids when they have found a new toy and believe they have mastered it. It's cute.

zelmo1234
07-30-2013, 11:11 AM
He didn't point out any false statement. He just declared that liberals make false statements.

I quoted the words of one of the founders from The Federalist Papers. Is he saying a founder did not say that?

Basing you position on ONE of the founding fathers? And dismissing other positions.

I am not sure but I think that it was in fact you that pointed out that the founding fathers had many disagreements? So basing positions on one, rather than the laws and documents that came out of the congressional meetings??

maybe not an open lie but dishonest just the same!

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:13 AM
If only he could demonstrate it instead of making a false accusation followed by pure BS.

There was a demonstration. Two examples were given. Your butt was kicked. Take that to the professor and ask her about it.

Seriously, I like it that you are trying out your newfound knowledge. Learn, grasshopper. This ain't my first rodeo.

Chris
07-30-2013, 11:18 AM
But you have to enjoy the enthusiasm of college kids when they have found a new toy and believe they have mastered it. It's cute.

And the insults some people invent.


Sociologists suggest that insults are often an indicator of flawed reasoning about the character or motivation of others. Though insults are common, and often used in jest, a fundamental axiom of sociology recognizes that derogatory forms of speech make erroneous attributions about the motivation of a person. Scholars classify the erroneous assumptions as the fundamental attribution error.

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult#Perceptions

For more, see hepoliticalforums.com/threads/13615-Insulting

Venus
07-30-2013, 11:21 AM
After all this crying will there be a group hug?

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:22 AM
Basing you position on ONE of the founding fathers? And dismissing other positions.

I am not sure but I think that it was in fact you that pointed out that the founding fathers had many disagreements? So basing positions on one, rather than the laws and documents that came out of the congressional meetings??

maybe not an open lie but dishonest just the same!

So all you have to do is find something a founder said that disputes what I posted. If you can't do that, why are you entering the discussion?

If it's dishonest to post what the founders said, it's even more dishonest when conservatives pretend to accept the views of the founders when those views are not uniform and when they get pissed off when a founder says something contrary to conservative doctrine.

Perhaps you can dispute what the founder said. If not, why enter the discussion? If I disagree with a founder, I can say why I disagree. But just mumbling and grumbling and insulting someone who posts something doesn't add to the discussion.

Chris
07-30-2013, 11:23 AM
There was a demonstration. Two examples were given. You butt was kicked. Take that to the professor and ask her about it.

Seriously, I like it that you are trying out your newfound knowledge. Learn, grasshopper. This ain't my first rodeo.

And I enjoy your continued made up insults. They demonstrate character.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:24 AM
By the way, The Federalist Papers were arguing in support of the documents that came out of the Constitutional Convention, so I doubt you will find much in those documents that disagree with the Constitution.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:27 AM
And the insults some people invent.



@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult#Perceptions

For more, see hepoliticalforums.com/threads/13615-Insulting


It's good that you are starting some self-analysis to better understand yourself.

But you could respond to the points I made. You know, the one for which you asked people to gather around with beer.

Ravi
07-30-2013, 11:28 AM
I didn't get a beer. you mean that was a lie?

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:28 AM
After all this crying will there be a group hug?

I hope so. Chris is a good and enthusiastic kid. But I think he's learning.

Chris
07-30-2013, 11:29 AM
It's good that you are starting some self-analysis to better understand yourself.

But you could respond to the points I made. You know, the one for which you asked people to gather around with beer.

Make a point, I'll respond.

Chris
07-30-2013, 11:30 AM
I hope so. Chris is a good and enthusiastic kid. But I think he's learning.

Making up lies is not making a point, bumpkin.

Chris
07-30-2013, 11:31 AM
I didn't get a beer. you mean that was a lie?

How can asking people to grab a beer and some s'mores be a lie, marie. Do try and make some sense with your posts for once.

Ravi
07-30-2013, 11:32 AM
How can asking people to grab a beer and some s'mores be a lie, marie. Do try and make some sense with your posts for once.
What's up with the insult?

Chris
07-30-2013, 11:33 AM
What's up with the insult?

What insult, marie?

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:36 AM
Make a point, I'll respond.


Oh, I thought you'd never ask.

Oh do tell us all how truth can be arrived at via logically fallacious arguments. I'm sure everyone will be delighted to hear that whopper. Come on everyone, grab some beers and s'mores, while bumpkin tells us a story.
Actually, you can arrive at truth even if your arguments are logically fallacious.

You are using the fallacy fallacy. You pretend that if I use an identifiable fallacy, the conclusion is wrong. And that is just not so. It's called argumentum ad logicam.
It is possible to make a claim that is true even if you use fallacies.

it is also possible to make a false claim and use logical fallacies to prove it.

Go back and read your book, and you will know that what I say is true. Or ask your professor.

Here is an example.

All conservatives are Republicans.
He is a Republican.
Therefore he is a conservative.

Even though the logic is flawed, the person being discussed might very well be a conservative.

You have a lot to learn, grasshopper.

Another example.

All Democrats are liberals.
He is a Democrat.
Therefore, he is a liberal.

That is logically valid. But it does not arrive at the truth.

What's your GPA? Did you enjoy your beer?

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 11:37 AM
By the way, that last post of mine isn't going away.

Chris
07-30-2013, 12:01 PM
By the way, that last post of mine isn't going away.

Make a point and I'll respond.

ptif219
07-30-2013, 02:37 PM
What false claims did I make about The Federalist Papers? I posted what the founder wrote and commented on it. If I was wrong, you should point that out and explain why I'm wrong.

Or you could keep up what you are doing.

you claims about the GOP. You are trying to make it mean something that is not there. it has nothing to do with the law or today

ptif219
07-30-2013, 02:39 PM
Liberals don't lie?????

Once they make a statement it becomes the truth, and any facts that would say differently are to be disregarded as lies!

"A liberal has spoken, so let it be written, so let it be done"

Wrong it is a lie. How do you know when people like Obama and Reid are lying. Anytime they are talking

ptif219
07-30-2013, 02:40 PM
He didn't point out any false statement. He just declared that liberals make false statements.

I quoted the words of one of the founders from The Federalist Papers. Is he saying a founder did not say that?

You have to back centuries to say liberals don't lie? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-hysterical.gifhttp://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-LOL.gif

Chris
07-30-2013, 02:41 PM
Because they're poLIEtitions.

(No plans to quit my day job, lol.)

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 02:42 PM
you claims about the GOP. You are trying to make it mean something that is not there. it has nothing to do with the law or today

Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 02:43 PM
You have to back centuries to say liberals don't lie? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-hysterical.gifhttp://www.kolobok.us/smiles/artists/just_cuz/JC-LOL.gif

I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you don't either.

ptif219
07-30-2013, 02:43 PM
Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about.

The Federalist papers

ptif219
07-30-2013, 02:44 PM
I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you don't either.

Funny how you can not figure it out when you brought up the federalist papers

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 02:50 PM
Funny how you can not figure it out when you brought up the federalist papers

Oh, I sort of figured you were talking about The Federalist Papers. I just have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Chris
07-30-2013, 02:59 PM
you claims about the GOP. You are trying to make it mean something that is not there. it has nothing to do with the law or today

Why do you think bumpkin is having so much trouble understanding these plain words?

ptif219
07-30-2013, 04:32 PM
Oh, I sort of figured you were talking about The Federalist Papers. I just have no idea what point you were trying to make.

Of course not because you made a statement that has nothing to do with today's politics

ptif219
07-30-2013, 04:33 PM
Why do you think bumpkin is having so much trouble understanding these plain words?

He has no answer

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 06:25 PM
Of course not because you made a statement that has nothing to do with today's politics

Let me try to explain how it applies today. I know plenty of conservatives and libertarians who use what the founders said as a reason for what we should be doing today and to try to interpret the original intent of the Constitution.

There are so many of such people that one of them wrote a book called The Essential Federalist Papers in which he has only excerpts from The Federalists Papers. The purpose of the book is so Conservatives can find out what the founders intended by reading select passages from their writings.

I read The Federalist Papers and other writings of the founders to show that conservatives are wrong about what they believe the founders thought about things.

If they tell me what the founders meant, I tell them that I don't base my notions on what the founders said.

Chris
07-30-2013, 06:37 PM
Let me try to explain how it applies today. I know plenty of conservatives and libertarians who use what the founders said as a reason for what we should be doing today and to try to interpret the original intent of the Constitution.

There are so many of such people that one of them wrote a book called The Essential Federalist Papers in which he has only excerpts from The Federalists Papers. The purpose of the book is so Conservatives can find out what the founders intended by reading select passages from their writings.

I read The Federalist Papers and other writings of the founders to show that conservatives are wrong about what they believe the founders thought about things.

If they tell me what the founders meant, I tell them that I don't base my notions on what the founders said.

Too bad you just can't communicate what you think with reverting to that Essential straw man you hold in your head. You argued with me with that straw man, with mr d, and now ptif. If you actually argued with people say instead of that foolish straw man, you might learn something.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 06:51 PM
Too bad you just can't communicate what you think with reverting to that Essential straw man you hold in your head. You argued with me with that straw man, with mr d, and now ptif. If you actually argued with people say instead of that foolish straw man, you might learn something.

At least you're funny. That's a redeeming quality.

And I used no straw man. What happened is you overdosed on your studies of logical fallacies, and now you are upchucking the words all over the forum.

Dr. Who
07-30-2013, 08:03 PM
Let me try to explain how it applies today. I know plenty of conservatives and libertarians who use what the founders said as a reason for what we should be doing today and to try to interpret the original intent of the Constitution.

There are so many of such people that one of them wrote a book called The Essential Federalist Papers in which he has only excerpts from The Federalists Papers. The purpose of the book is so Conservatives can find out what the founders intended by reading select passages from their writings.

I read The Federalist Papers and other writings of the founders to show that conservatives are wrong about what they believe the founders thought about things.

If they tell me what the founders meant, I tell them that I don't base my notions on what the founders said.

I suspect if the founders were transported to the world of today, they might have different opinions based on a very different world.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 08:17 PM
I suspect if the founders were transported to the world of today, they might have different opinions based on a very different world.

I can't argue with that. In fact, I am certain that would be the case.

Chris
07-30-2013, 08:55 PM
At least you're funny. That's a redeeming quality.

And I used no straw man. What happened is you overdosed on your studies of logical fallacies, and now you are upchucking the words all over the forum.

Again, unable to address the message you attack the messenger. Pathetic.

Chris
07-30-2013, 08:57 PM
I suspect if the founders were transported to the world of today, they might have different opinions based on a very different world.

I suspect they'd abide by and strive for the same principles, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, protected with equality before the law. They didn't invent them but adopted them from throughout history.

Dr. Who
07-30-2013, 09:25 PM
I suspect they'd abide by and strive for the same principles, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, protected with equality before the law. They didn't invent them but adopted them from throughout history.Nothing wrong with the principles, but the nuances change with the context.

ptif219
07-30-2013, 09:27 PM
Let me try to explain how it applies today. I know plenty of conservatives and libertarians who use what the founders said as a reason for what we should be doing today and to try to interpret the original intent of the Constitution.

There are so many of such people that one of them wrote a book called The Essential Federalist Papers in which he has only excerpts from The Federalists Papers. The purpose of the book is so Conservatives can find out what the founders intended by reading select passages from their writings.

I read The Federalist Papers and other writings of the founders to show that conservatives are wrong about what they believe the founders thought about things.

If they tell me what the founders meant, I tell them that I don't base my notions on what the founders said.

So a paper that is not law you compare to conservatives using the constitution? You show why you have no credibility

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:54 PM
I suspect they'd abide by and strive for the same principles, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, protected with equality before the law. They didn't invent them but adopted them from throughout history.

They didn't believe in the principle of equality before the law.

Bumpkin
07-30-2013, 09:56 PM
So a paper that is not law you compare to conservatives using the constitution? You show why you have no credibility

No, dear. They use the founders words (The Federalist Papers) to prove what the founders intended the Constitution to mean.

This concept might be above your level. Sorry.

Wait a minute. Perhaps you don't know what The Federalist Papers are.

zelmo1234
07-30-2013, 10:03 PM
I suspect if the founders were transported to the world of today, they might have different opinions based on a very different world.

But would they change their core values? that would be the question.

Dr. Who
07-30-2013, 11:23 PM
But would they change their core values? that would be the question.There is nothing wrong with the core values, but application of those values would be considered in the context of the society in which they would find themselves, which is very different from the one that existed during their time.

Chris
07-31-2013, 07:54 AM
Sure, the core values of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, protection of those and other rights by government, with few exceptions to meet the common public good, would have different application when the Declaration was written than today.

Advances in medical science have changed the way life should be protected. We know now human life begins not at quickening but at conception. Advances in technology mean there are many more ways to pursue happiness. We can now politick not just around the Franklin stove but on the Interweb.

Things change. Not core valued principles.

lynn
07-31-2013, 12:05 PM
No, that's not what the OP did. I was talking about conservatives generally assuming that liberals generally are cowards and will run and hid from trouble.

It's a valid topic of discussion. Are people brave or cowardly based on their political philosophy?

The answer to that is "No"!

Adelaide
07-31-2013, 01:30 PM
I'm just going to ignore all (waving hand in circular motion) that from page 2 to now.

I will say, however, that I often find that the broadsweeping generalisations are often made by conservatives about liberals. Yes, some liberals do it, but majority of the time it's conservatives I read talking about all liberals like we're a bunch of defective cabbage patch dolls that eat our young, or something. I normally just ignore it, but some people do it where I expect those people to be better than ignorant generalisations.

Chris
07-31-2013, 02:14 PM
I'm just going to ignore all (waving hand in circular motion) that from page 2 to now.

I will say, however, that I often find that the broadsweeping generalisations are often made by conservatives about liberals. Yes, some liberals do it, but majority of the time it's conservatives I read talking about all liberals like we're a bunch of defective cabbage patch dolls that eat our young, or something. I normally just ignore it, but some people do it where I expect those people to be better than ignorant generalisations.

Because you're a liberal, naturally you do. Being more conservative, I see the opposite. As a libertarian though I can see both.

You do realize that by saying "I often find that the broadsweeping generalisations are often made by conservatives about liberals" you too are making a broadsweeping generalisation.

Adelaide
07-31-2013, 02:55 PM
Because you're a liberal, naturally you do. Being more conservative, I see the opposite. As a libertarian though I can see both.

You do realize that by saying "I often find that the broadsweeping generalisations are often made by conservatives about liberals" you too are making a broadsweeping generalisation.

Except for the part where I said "often" and "majority [of the time]" instead of "always".

You've recently started doing it, too, so I can understand why you'd be defensive about it.

Chris
07-31-2013, 03:00 PM
Except for the part where I said "often" and "majority [of the time]" instead of "always".

You've recently started doing it, too, so I can understand why you'd be defensive about it.

Your qualifier needs to be on conservative, as in "some conservatives".

Yes, I do sometimes, and when pointed out I acknowledge it and apologize rather than get defensive as you just did.

Adelaide
07-31-2013, 03:11 PM
Your qualifier needs to be on conservative, as in "some conservatives".

Yes, I do sometimes, and when pointed out I acknowledge it and apologize rather than get defensive as you just did.

I'm not defensive, but tell yourself whatever you need to. You will anyways.

Chris
07-31-2013, 03:33 PM
I'm not defensive, but tell yourself whatever you need to. You will anyways.

As you do, you mean?

As demonstrated above, ade, you were defensive in trying to qualify your statement, whereas the times you and others have pointed out my overgeneralizations, I've acknowledged, apologized and corrected them.

Ravi
07-31-2013, 05:44 PM
Your qualifier needs to be on conservative, as in "some conservatives".

Yes, I do sometimes, and when pointed out I acknowledge it and apologize rather than get defensive as you just did.
How was she being defensive by debunking your comments?

Chris
07-31-2013, 06:36 PM
How was she being defensive by debunking your comments?

In defending her own obvious overgeneralization. Often doesn't cut it, some would. Hey, wait, I already explained this in post #131. Read it.

Bumpkin
07-31-2013, 06:56 PM
In defending her own obvious overgeneralization. Often doesn't cut it, some would. Hey, wait, I already explained this in post #131. Read it.

small minds discuss people.” ~Eleanor Roosevelt

ptif219
08-04-2013, 09:45 PM
No, dear. They use the founders words (The Federalist Papers) to prove what the founders intended the Constitution to mean.

This concept might be above your level. Sorry.

Wait a minute. Perhaps you don't know what The Federalist Papers are.

Then use the constitution not some opinion papers