Conservatives think parts of the Constitution are "fake"

[Into the Night]

It's like clockwork...zymurgy makes a shitty argument, gets smacked down by board liberals, then suddenly Into the Night appears and just starts spamming the debate by calling everything a fallacy so they don't have to defend their shitty arguments.

YALSAP

 

[Into the Night]

Give it up, man. We know the game now. You've been running that same, garbage play since forever. It's not clever or smart. It's desperate.

YALSAP

 

[domer76]

Into the Night has multiple accounts on these boards, and they switch to Into the Night when they cannot defend themselves, and start spamming the board with fallacies.

One sock is gfm7175

 

[Into the Night]

10 going on 11 - when you debate once again boils down to accusing anonymous posters of lying or being someone they are not - you really have nothing to debate any more

I can't recall he ever did.

 

[Into the Night]

Your history is faulty.

No, it's you.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states

It still doesn't, in it's entirety. Compositional error fallacy. The 2nd amendment has always applied to the States.

until the incorporation process began in 1925 which selectively applied individual rights to the states

Nope. The 2nd amendment has always been binding up on the States as well as the federal government.

so that today most, but not all, of the rights restrict the states as well as the federal government.

Nothing changed in 1925 or any other year.

The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the newly created central government.

WRONG. Different amendments affect different layers of government. All of them also apply to the federal government.

They did not fear the states.

Not about fear. It's about the States agreeing to the same compact.

Constitutionally, cities are part of the states, so whatever constitutional interpretations applied to the states also applied to cities and other local governments.

This part is correct.

The 2nd Amendment was incorporated in 2010

No. It has always applied to the States as well as the federal government.

so any constitutional interpretation of gun laws that apply to the federal government now applies to the states (and cities).

Always has.

This is all basic constitutional law.

No. What you are quoting isn't.

 

[Into the Night]

wow - you are a lying little cunt. nice try removing one of the VALID definitions of occupy from my link - (I used the word occupy)


to reside in as an owner or tenant



hey shit stain - you lose - and your lies have been exposed

Nah. You still don't understand the different between an occupation and deployment.

 

[Flash]

It still doesn't, in it's entirety. Compositional error fallacy. The 2nd amendment has always applied to the States.

So the 2nd Amendment allows state and local government to ban or prohibit certain weapons? Because many of them did for many years.

If the 2nd has always applied to the states, what was the ruling in McDonald v. Chicago (2010)?

If nothing changed in 1925 why were states able to restrict free speech until then but not afterward (and religion and press in later years)?

Not understanding the incorporation process leaves a huge gap your constitutional understanding and completely fails to explain many laws and constitutional decisions.

 

[Into the Night]

I thought that post was meant for me.

"He is completely ignorant of our entire history"

So "he" is referring to Into the Night? I know he denies incorporation ever occurred.

What 'incorporation'? Nothing changed in 1925.

Yet, the Supreme Court just accepted a case for review to determine whether the incorporation of the 6th amendment jury trial in criminal cases requires unanimous juries for states.

Why would they? It is not a requirement specified in the 6th amendment. The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution.

There may be 5-4 decisions because of disagreement, but the 5 determine the law

No. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

and courts ever since 1925 have accepted incorporation and expanded it.

No. No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Couldnt be farther from the truth, in that case.

Agreed. But then, he was never interested in the truth.

Lincoln was the quintessential and defining conservative of the day and the founding fathers were definitely against slavery in principle.

Exactly. He is also the founder of the Republican party.

Lincoln was upholding the morals and principles of our founding fathers through the abolishment of slavery.

Exactly.

In his Cooper Union Address, Lincoln spoke of the sectionalism which was fracturing the country as a result of slavery; the Republican Party was new in 1859, and a serious threat to slavery's existence. Lincoln and his party were called radical and destructive, but he counted himself among the earliest defenders of conservative principles, which was in essence a defense of time-honored, traditional values. Lincoln said that out of the 39 framers of the Constitution, 23 of the 39 voted on whether to prevent the spread of slavery, and that 21 of the 23 voted in favor of doing so. Lincoln therefore said that it was the pro-slavery South that was radically breaking with the tradition begun by those that created the Constitution. As Lincoln said:

Cooperstown Address:
But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.

Full Source here:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Abraham_Lincoln#Lincoln.27s_conservatism

The man was certainly eloquent. It's amazing how well what he said back then applies today.

 

[Into the Night]

Inversion fallacy doesn’t exist.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Denial of logic.

 

[Into the Night]

Relevant. You think you know more than SCOTUS. Guess what, punk? You can’t even keep your fallacies straight.

No. But I know the Constitution. You never read it.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, there was another that was obviously him. At one point, I banned them both. enf1234. Something like thst.

Go ahead and put me on your ban list. Please be kind enough to remove yourself from the conversation for us.

 

[Into the Night]

lol

Language of a 3rd grader

YALIFNAP

 

[Into the Night]

lying little bitch left off one definition: the action or fact of living in or using a building or other place.

Contextomy fallacy.

you think us residing in 120+ nations is constitutional?

RQAA. Yes.

reside in and occupy mean the same thing you fucking moron

No.

the point is we keep standing armies - completely opposite from what the founders envisioned

Completely constitutional. See Article I.

you are a little pussy living vicariously through the military.

YALIF

I have met plenty of your kind in my day. pussy through and through.

YALIF

 

[Into the Night]

the context of its use was my own. Reside is exactly what was meant

No. You are intentionally trying to change the meaning of an occupying army and conflate it with a deployment. Redefinition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

you first need to admit that reside and occupy are interchangeable. Prove you can debate like a grownup
...deleted Holy Link to thesaurus...

Contextomy fallacy. False authority fallacy. YALIF.

 

[Into the Night]

using a legal definition outside of a courtroom setting is asinine

Non-sequitur fallacy. There is no legal definition here.

my use of occupy to mean reside is perfectly cromulent.

No, it's a contextomy fallacy.

Any good thesaurus agrees.

False authority fallacy.

you lose (as losers do)

Circular argument fallacy. Insult fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

no pussy - you made the stupid comment

you got your panties in a bunch because I used a term occupy and you took it to mean something like what happened in Iraq because your understanding of the language is about as sound as your constitutional theory

YALIFNAP. The Constitution is not a theory. It is a document.

 

[Into the Night]

...deleted Holy Link...
synonym - A synonym is a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language

now look up the definition of loser

Redefinition fallacy (synonym<->equal, occupy<->deploy, occupation<!>conquer)

 

[Into the Night]

He's the one that asked a question about constitutionality then said using a legal definition wasn't part of the discussion. Maybe he thinks a thesaurus is the law of the land rather than the Constitution.

Maybe he thinks should the Court take up his question about constitutionality, they'd rely on a thesaurus rather than the legal definition.