"...this sentence makes it clear that you're not really interested in discussion, but in insults."
No fuckboy, I'm interested in discussion with people who do their research, and don't pretend they know what the fuck they're talking about like you have.
I told you once already that this was going to be futile, as my examples were obvious and easy to understand, yet you were ignorant of them.
So, explain to me why I would have anything but comtempt for some asshole (you) who decides to pop off about a subject he clearly is not informed about?
"IOW why are you even posting on Slashdot if you just want to be a dick anytime someone contradicts you at all?"
That might be a good point if that's what happened, but so far no one has contradicted me and I've only been a "dick" to people who were claiming some knowledge of the subject even though their posts show that they're ignorant and not worth attempting to educate (you).
See, I'm not a dick to people who learn about a subject before making assertions of fact. You did not, hence you get dickery.
In the future, if you wish to avoid dickery, stop lying and pretending you're not ignorant. Then you'll avoid getting insulted and being wrong all at once.
More importantly, I gave an example you can't refute, that was obvious like I said. At this point your only response is "Supergood, you're right".
Your previous crimes can be considered, for example, if you're a violent criminal who has committed another violent crime.
"You have the same rights and privileges as anyone else."
That's wrong, felons for instance can't own guns or vote, unless they successfully petition to have their rights reinstated.
"Finally, shouldn't the circumstances of the crime dictate the charges? "
Sure, and whether you like it or not, one of the circumstances is "he's a repeat offender, he's done it before, he's proven he's willing to use physical force illegally, and will physically contact an individual against their will (battery)".
"You might want to think your snide comments through."
I did. You might want to look into learning a bit about the law before you shoot off your mouth about it.
"You otherwise run the risk of sounding like the stereotypical tv-addled consumer with all breadth and no depth."
Ah, well, wouldn't want to do that. I suppose I should pontificate about legal matters of which I have little knowledge and less understanding, and in so doing reveal a near total ignorance of the law and it's application.
"Would those jewish kids deserve 'attempted murder' when the bigot walked out of the hospitol hours later with less damage than most people involved in a car crash?"
I'd say that has far more to do with whether they attempted to murder him or not, and nothing at all to do with how much physical damage he sustained.
The charge isn't contingent on the physical damage done, so why bother to mention it?
"Then show me please where the U.S. constitution binds "the People" if, as you say, my statement is demonstrably false."
Jury duty.
"And *I'm* the one who didn't perform due diligence?"
Clearly.
Now, I'll wait patiently as you try to formulate a rebuttal, which will most likely include some attempt to mention that jury duty is no explicitly in the Constitution, while overlooking the very obvious fact that those things the Constitution does list (trial by jury) require resources that the Constitution empowers the government to acquire. By making trial by jury a right, the founders empowered the government to make juries available as necessary. What you get- trial by jury, what you must give up- your time for other's trial by jury.
Happy now? Does it make you feel better that I spelled out exactly why you are ignorant? Would you like another obvious example, or are you able to see them for yourself now?
Patiently awaiting the inevitable attempt to rebut something that is long established as Constitutional law.
"And you said "is so" so I guess we need to take your word for it?"
Nope. Never asked nor intended that, and if you'd bother to read my post, you'd see I made it very clear that I was expressing MY OPINION about the matter.
You know the part where it says "sounds exactly like a contract to me"
Or did my guessing that that's because it is a contract confuse you?
I'd suggest actually reading what you respond to, for once at least.
"Care to expand on that, or are you just trolling?"
I'm going to go with a third option that your fallaciously fail to include.
I'm going with "No" as in, "I have reached the limit of my ability to tolerate people who make demonstrably false statements without making even a cursory attempt at checking said statements for accuracy, so I will express my disagreement and politely ignore said person in the future, because any attempt at elucidation will inevitably result in another factually incorrect, poorly researched reply, ad nauseam"
"Well, except that when the Articles of Confederation were signed, they basically said this applies to the people in these States"
You mean the citizens of those states don't you? The ones you claimed weren't citizens because of the lack of a Constitution right?
Right.
Now, it seems we're debating slightly different points. My point, which is irrefutable, is that they were indeed citizens.
I believe your point may have something to do with their citizenship as defined specifically by the Constitution (I'm guessing because your point is pretty incoherent after being rebutted so many times, but changing it when refuted does that) and if I am correct with my guess, is a point I don't care about.
Regardless, your original claim was, is, and has been definitively shown to be, wrong.
No, that's not what "the Constitution" says, it's what a small part of "the Constitution" says.
At several other places, like I dunno, in the beginning, it says "We the People of the United States"
Now, I don't interpret that to mean ONLY the people of the United States, but claiming it can't be interpreted that way is ridiculous.
More importantly, I understand the system well enough to know that the Constitution is not the be-all end-all of law and order int he US, and that certain institutions have power to judge "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".
So stop pretending that repeatedly insisting you are right makes it so. The courts have ruled on this (using their... CONSTITUTIONALLY GIVEN AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!!) and say you're wrong.
Well, since your case was "The Constitution wasn't written yet, therefore it could not grant citizenship, therefore they could not be citizens" the very existence of any document that could grant citizenship destroys your case outright.
So, no actually, it doesn't make your case at all, and you're still wrong.
I like how you insist that everything you want to be true is obvious. If ever there was proof you know your argument is weak, it's repeatedly telling us it's obvious.
I also like how you misread what an amendment says and don't realize it, and then you top it off by equating those that disagree with you to the Dred Scott court.
I'm sorry, but labeling you interpretation of the law as "obvious" when it's discussing Constitutional Law (which is notoriously arcane and certainly not obvious) gives great insight into exactly how much you know about the subject.
"It outlines the explicit powers of the federal government and explicit limits on those powers, with explicit exceptions to those limits, it has been amended in certain scopes to include local governments as well."
Sounds exactly like a contract to me.
I guess that's because it is.
But you said "nuh uh" so I guess we need to take your word for it.
Slashdot Mirror
"...this sentence makes it clear that you're not really interested in discussion, but in insults."
No fuckboy, I'm interested in discussion with people who do their research, and don't pretend they know what the fuck they're talking about like you have.
I told you once already that this was going to be futile, as my examples were obvious and easy to understand, yet you were ignorant of them.
So, explain to me why I would have anything but comtempt for some asshole (you) who decides to pop off about a subject he clearly is not informed about?
"IOW why are you even posting on Slashdot if you just want to be a dick anytime someone contradicts you at all?"
That might be a good point if that's what happened, but so far no one has contradicted me and I've only been a "dick" to people who were claiming some knowledge of the subject even though their posts show that they're ignorant and not worth attempting to educate (you).
See, I'm not a dick to people who learn about a subject before making assertions of fact. You did not, hence you get dickery.
In the future, if you wish to avoid dickery, stop lying and pretending you're not ignorant. Then you'll avoid getting insulted and being wrong all at once.
More importantly, I gave an example you can't refute, that was obvious like I said. At this point your only response is "Supergood, you're right".
That adding "culture" to a group of people seems to allow for blatant bigotry.
You used up all your mod points on little old me.
So you must be one of the people who said something that was wrong and I called you on it.
Your previous crimes can be considered, for example, if you're a violent criminal who has committed another violent crime.
"You have the same rights and privileges as anyone else."
That's wrong, felons for instance can't own guns or vote, unless they successfully petition to have their rights reinstated.
"Finally, shouldn't the circumstances of the crime dictate the charges? "
Sure, and whether you like it or not, one of the circumstances is "he's a repeat offender, he's done it before, he's proven he's willing to use physical force illegally, and will physically contact an individual against their will (battery)".
"You might want to think your snide comments through."
I did. You might want to look into learning a bit about the law before you shoot off your mouth about it.
"You otherwise run the risk of sounding like the stereotypical tv-addled consumer with all breadth and no depth."
Ah, well, wouldn't want to do that. I suppose I should pontificate about legal matters of which I have little knowledge and less understanding, and in so doing reveal a near total ignorance of the law and it's application.
Nah, I wouldn't want to steal your thunder.
"What do prior battery convictions have to do with attempted 2nd degree murder charges?"
Did you really just ask that question?
Really man, you're embarrassing yourself.
"Would those jewish kids deserve 'attempted murder' when the bigot walked out of the hospitol hours later with less damage than most people involved in a car crash?"
I'd say that has far more to do with whether they attempted to murder him or not, and nothing at all to do with how much physical damage he sustained.
The charge isn't contingent on the physical damage done, so why bother to mention it?
"Then show me please where the U.S. constitution binds "the People" if, as you say, my statement is
demonstrably false."
Jury duty.
"And *I'm* the one who didn't perform due diligence?"
Clearly.
Now, I'll wait patiently as you try to formulate a rebuttal, which will most likely include some attempt to mention that jury duty is no explicitly in the Constitution, while overlooking the very obvious fact that those things the Constitution does list (trial by jury) require resources that the Constitution empowers the government to acquire. By making trial by jury a right, the founders empowered the government to make juries available as necessary. What you get- trial by jury, what you must give up- your time for other's trial by jury.
Happy now? Does it make you feel better that I spelled out exactly why you are ignorant? Would you like another obvious example, or are you able to see them for yourself now?
Patiently awaiting the inevitable attempt to rebut something that is long established as Constitutional law.
"TV anchors are not real journalists."
Except Dan Rather was, as he predates the current crop of "journalists".
Which was the whole point.
And which, again, moots your "argument".
I give you permission to not read my posts.
You know, exercise some free will instead of expecting others to take care of things you don't like for you.
On the number of amateur law experts (with absolutely no fucking idea what they're talking about) that turn out for this one?
250?
"It's not that actor's job to maintain the network,"
I guess in your rush to rant, you failed to realize that part in bold is obvious to the rest of us and moots your entire point.
"A TV anchor is like an actor."
Is there something wrong with you or something? You are aware that the news is real right? If not, it is, and again, that moots your entire point.
How much time did you waste putting that together?
Sorry, I had no idea you were mentally ill.
My sympathies.
"And you said "is so" so I guess we need to take your word for it?"
Nope. Never asked nor intended that, and if you'd bother to read my post, you'd see I made it very clear that I was expressing MY OPINION about the matter.
You know the part where it says "sounds exactly like a contract to me"
Or did my guessing that that's because it is a contract confuse you?
I'd suggest actually reading what you respond to, for once at least.
"Care to expand on that, or are you just trolling?"
I'm going to go with a third option that your fallaciously fail to include.
I'm going with "No" as in, "I have reached the limit of my ability to tolerate people who make demonstrably false statements without making even a cursory attempt at checking said statements for accuracy, so I will express my disagreement and politely ignore said person in the future, because any attempt at elucidation will inevitably result in another factually incorrect, poorly researched reply, ad nauseam"
Does that make you feel better?
"Well, except that when the Articles of Confederation were signed, they basically said this applies to the people in these States"
You mean the citizens of those states don't you? The ones you claimed weren't citizens because of the lack of a Constitution right?
Right.
Now, it seems we're debating slightly different points. My point, which is irrefutable, is that they were indeed citizens.
I believe your point may have something to do with their citizenship as defined specifically by the Constitution (I'm guessing because your point is pretty incoherent after being rebutted so many times, but changing it when refuted does that) and if I am correct with my guess, is a point I don't care about.
Regardless, your original claim was, is, and has been definitively shown to be, wrong.
I disagree with your reading. What mechanism exists for us to settle our dispute?
And what does that mechanism say about the subject? Hint: it doesn't agree with you.
"The Constitution actually says:"
No, that's not what "the Constitution" says, it's what a small part of "the Constitution" says.
At several other places, like I dunno, in the beginning, it says "We the People of the United States"
Now, I don't interpret that to mean ONLY the people of the United States, but claiming it can't be interpreted that way is ridiculous.
More importantly, I understand the system well enough to know that the Constitution is not the be-all end-all of law and order int he US, and that certain institutions have power to judge "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".
So stop pretending that repeatedly insisting you are right makes it so. The courts have ruled on this (using their... CONSTITUTIONALLY GIVEN AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!!) and say you're wrong.
"See, my argument is every bit as good as yours!"
Not so much, yours is wrong.
I had an acquaintance (buddy from school) that worked for the TSA.
His jobs before that in order were
1. Fry cook (fired)
2. Fry cook (fired)
3. Mobil Lube Tech (fired)
4. Convenience store clerk (fired)
5. Fry cook (fired)
6. Drywall hanging (way too hard for him hence, fired)
And finally, a TSA screener.
Take that for what it's worth.
"Eh, it's not worth arguing with them."
I totally agree, but something about this particular argument and it's obvious incorrectness cries out to me.
"It basically makes my case"
Well, since your case was "The Constitution wasn't written yet, therefore it could not grant citizenship, therefore they could not be citizens" the very existence of any document that could grant citizenship destroys your case outright.
So, no actually, it doesn't make your case at all, and you're still wrong.
"the Constitution binds only the government."
No.
I like how you insist that everything you want to be true is obvious. If ever there was proof you know your argument is weak, it's repeatedly telling us it's obvious.
I also like how you misread what an amendment says and don't realize it, and then you top it off by equating those that disagree with you to the Dred Scott court.
I'm sorry, but labeling you interpretation of the law as "obvious" when it's discussing Constitutional Law (which is notoriously arcane and certainly not obvious) gives great insight into exactly how much you know about the subject.
"For the record, those that voted for the Constitution were not "citizens" since the Constitution didn't exist when they voted for it."
Romans had citizens and the Constitution didn't exist yet.
Since when dos the definition of "citizen" have anything at all to do with the Constitution?
Second, are you forgetting about the Articles of Confederation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
"It outlines the explicit powers of the federal government and explicit limits on those powers, with explicit exceptions to those limits, it has been amended in certain scopes to include local governments as well."
Sounds exactly like a contract to me.
I guess that's because it is.
But you said "nuh uh" so I guess we need to take your word for it.