Conservatives think parts of the Constitution are "fake"

It's so fucking pathetic that you need multiple accounts just to feel better about yourself on an anonymous message board.
 
LV426 said:
Look, we know you're spamming accounts to inflate support because that was the chief tactic of the teabags on the internet 10 years ago. You're not the kind of people who can come up with new ideas, instead you just rehash old ones, half-assedly.
Click to expand...

YALSA. Paranoia.
 
LV426 said:
I seriously doubt there are more than a half dozen Conservative posters on this board.

But each one of those posters probably has about a dozen ID's.
Click to expand...

I'm libertarian

your binary thinking is seriously flawed. I can agree with conservatives on certain things - certainly more then I agree with you shit stain socialists
 
LV426 said:
It's so fucking pathetic that you need multiple accounts just to feel better about yourself on an anonymous message board.
Click to expand...

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
 
Look, zymurgy, you're not convincing me that you're a different person from Into the Night when the two of you are almost exclusively responding in the same thread, but never at the same time, and only in certain instances when zymurgy's argument falls flat.
 
I mean, dude...seriously...you post under each ID minutes apart. The same amount of time it would take to log out and login under a new ID.
 
LV426 said:
Look, zymurgy, you're not convincing me that you're a different person from Into the Night when the two of you are almost exclusively responding in the same thread, but never at the same time, and only in certain instances when zymurgy's argument falls flat.
Click to expand...

the gigs up

me and LV426 are the same people

we really had all you going for a long, long time too
 
I love it when Conservatives lose track of what ID they're using and then they just start posting under their same voice in a different ID.

Grokmaster did it earlier, and Into the Night is doing it now.

How else can you explain why that ID only shows up when zymurgy loses a debate?
 
"No seriously, I'm a real person. Just ignore the fact that my other ID never posts at the same time as this one...er,um...I don't have multiple ID's!"
 
Zym...buddy...bubbulah...the game is up. We know what you're doing. It's not clever. It's not convincing. It's just sad and desperate.
 
You're a total weakling because you have to create an ID to reestablish credibility you don't have under your other ID.

Maybe find a different hobby. You're not good at this.
 
LV426 said:
Zym...buddy...bubbulah...the game is up. We know what you're doing. It's not clever. It's not convincing. It's just sad and desperate.
Click to expand...

you really put too much importance on this forum

why would anyone do what you suggest? What a waste of time that would be :rofl2:
 
zymurgy said:
he is completely ignorant of our entire history

cities had thousands of examples of banning guns. No court treated the bill of rights as something that pertained to the states - because everyone understood how our fucking laws worked.

this guy fell of the turnip truck recently and has no idea how ignorant he is
Click to expand...

Your history is faulty. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the incorporation process began in 1925 which selectively applied individual rights to the states so that today most, but not all, of the rights restrict the states as well as the federal government.

The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the newly created central government. They did not fear the states.

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

The 2nd Amendment was incorporated in 2010 so any constitutional interpretation of gun laws that apply to the federal government now applies to the states (and cities).

This is all basic constitutional law.
 
Dude, you realize the more you post, the less convincing it becomes.

Just sitting here, trying to think of how emotionally fragile someone must be to compel themselves into making up IDs to cover for an obvious lack of credibility or stability.
 
Flash said:
Your history is faulty. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the incorporation process began in 1925 which selectively applied individual rights to the states so that today most, but not all, of the rights restrict the states as well as the federal government.

The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the power of the newly created central government. They did not fear the states.

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

The 2nd Amendment was incorporated in 2010 so any constitutional interpretation of gun laws that apply to the federal government now applies to the states (and cities).

This is all basic constitutional law.
Click to expand...

As much as I fucking hate to admit it; Flash is right here.
 
Flash said:
Your history is faulty. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the incorporation process began in 1925 which selectively applied individual rights to the states so that today most, but not all, of the rights restrict the states as well as the federal government.
Click to expand...

You are replying to the wrong person. I realize this. I also point out that even today, most 5-4 decisions are because nobody agrees on how this works

the other guy claims incorporation is not the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top