Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 166 to 172 of 172

Thread: A challenge for people who refused to vote for trump OR Hillary

  1. #166 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,833
    Thanks
    13,240
    Thanked 40,780 Times in 32,146 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Fool? You know a poster has run out of substantive arguments when he resorts to name calling, insults, obscenity.... The typical lack of civility some think substitutes for knowledge.
    lol......so you just ran out of substantive arguments?.....

  2. #167 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,883 Times in 2,239 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 124 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Conclusion: There is no valid legal or moral reason that justifies the killing of unborn human children due to personal societal or convenience concerns. Strange is the documented fact that unborn animals are liberally protected by LAW that was legislated by THE PEOPLE....but humans are opined to have no such pre-birth rights as dictated from the bench.

  3. #168 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,653 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    [Ralph]: "Your right of speech ceases to exist at the threshold when it infringes upon any of the rights of others....as clearly defined in the constitution."

    Nowhere is that definition in the Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It says nothing about infringing on the rights of others which becomes a matter of debate in itself. So, there is nothing verbatim in the Constitution to determine its meaning.

    [Ralph] "THE STATES/PEOPLE reserve the right to draft law as it sees fit at both the state and federal level. Article 10 of the states Bill of Rights..i.e., the 10th amendment to the US CONSTITUTION. And that process is valid only through republican representation Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1."

    If the people through their republican representative government choose to restrict free speech to white males, do they have that right? If so, it makes the Constitution meaningless. If not, who has the power to prohibit such a law?

    An elected Supreme Court means it follow public opinion in order to get reelected, not the Constitution or law.

  4. #169 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,653 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    lol......so you just ran out of substantive arguments?.....
    You need to reread the posts. CFM called me a fool, he is the one who resorted to name calling and insults.

  5. #170 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,833
    Thanks
    13,240
    Thanked 40,780 Times in 32,146 Posts
    Groans
    3,660
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    You need to reread the posts. CFM called me a fool, he is the one who resorted to name calling and insults.
    I thought that was presumed......there was no need for him to mention it......

  6. #171 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,706
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,653 Times in 4,435 Posts
    Groans
    295
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    I thought that was presumed......there was no need for him to mention it......
    You thought wrong.

  7. #172 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    7,318
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,883 Times in 2,239 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 124 Times in 120 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    [Ralph]: "Your right of speech ceases to exist at the threshold when it infringes upon any of the rights of others....as clearly defined in the constitution."

    Nowhere is that definition in the Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It says nothing about infringing on the rights of others which becomes a matter of debate in itself. So, there is nothing verbatim in the Constitution to determine its meaning.

    [Ralph] "THE STATES/PEOPLE reserve the right to draft law as it sees fit at both the state and federal level. Article 10 of the states Bill of Rights..i.e., the 10th amendment to the US CONSTITUTION. And that process is valid only through republican representation Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1."

    If the people through their republican representative government choose to restrict free speech to white males, do they have that right? If so, it makes the Constitution meaningless. If not, who has the power to prohibit such a law?

    An elected Supreme Court means it follow public opinion in order to get reelected, not the Constitution or law.
    Quote the Code of LAW that was LEGISLATED that allows abortion on demand before that right was OPINED/DICTATED from the bench in the early 70s. One US CODE, ONE STATE CODE that allowed the killing of children in the womb. Please present the law that was representative of the PEOPLES will. (the only Constitutional method to make new law....is through representation Articles One, Two and Three).

    Correct... (the restriction of speech) does not exist in the Constitution....IT EXISTS IN THE US RULE OF LAW (unlike the right of abortion...that did not exist until it was OPINED into existence) and the right to regulate is confirmed as Constitutional because there is no language in the constitution that prohibits it from existing in the form of COMMON LAW as reflected by the will of the people. All rights are subject to regulation as per the will of the people. Why? Because the people and the states are synonymous as per the example established in 10th Amendment...."anything not prohibited by the people in the contract known as the Constitution belongs to the STATES/PEOPLE...not the courts." And FYI: It was the PEOPLE/STATES that considered, drafted and ratified the US CONSTITUTION. That is why they are the only ones that can legislate law.....LEGALLY.

    Life is regulated.....the death penalty. Voting is regulated. Freedom is regulated.....as a modern form of slavery (indentured servitude/prison terms). And yes Speech is subject to regulation....if it can be proven (through due process) to incite violence or slander. And of course speech is regulated when one lies under oath...its called perjury.

    Thanks for proving the point. There is a total and complete distinction between the regulation of a right via Common Law and common sense and the complete rescinding of a right guaranteed by Constitutional Fiat.

    And no.....The people do not have the "right" to restrict speech in totality.....only speech that incites violence and speech that is determined by the Rule of Law to be Illegal...example PREJURY. Why? Because the FREEDOM of SPEECH is a guaranteed right of freedom....and it cannot be stopped void of DUE PROCESS. Any such "left wing illogical HYPOTHETICAL BULLSHIT"....does indeed come into direct conflict with the US CONSTITUTION. FYI: Simply because you might disagree with someone's speech does not make it hate speech....especially speech that is demonstrably true. Truth is the only universal form of EQUALITY. Its the same for both you and I.

    Again...thanks for proving my point. You are most illogical and ignorant in your lack of comprehending clear and unambiguous language. SNOWFLAKE.
    Last edited by Ralph; 12-09-2017 at 09:53 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Hillary got 90.48% of the vote in Washington DC. Trump got 4.07%
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-02-2017, 12:26 PM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 11-28-2016, 12:04 AM
  3. hillary clintons neice to vote trump
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-06-2016, 06:50 AM
  4. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 08-10-2016, 03:41 PM
  5. Union goons may challenge VW vote
    By Big Money in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-16-2014, 06:44 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •