It was a ridiculous comparison.That seems about right.
I had it selected to respond to it but as I continued reading the rest of the pages I saw that it had already been pointed out.
It was a ridiculous comparison.That seems about right.
It was a ridiculous comparison.
I had it selected to respond to but as I continued reading the rest of the pages I saw that it had already been pointed out.
Hmm and here I was thinking this was America, you know that place where people have the right to have their own opinions.Cool. You have an opinion, didn't see that one coming.
Then I can call you TJ for short ;-)Maybe I should change my name to Thomas Jefferson, because apparently his opinion is the only one that matters.
It's not like his opinion is outlandish.Cool. You have an opinion, didn't see that one coming.
Yeah, and it's weird too that his example is Jefferson. I mean, presidents are elected based on the opinion voters have of his platform. How many people today would vote for a slave owning member of the upper class who spends gov't money to expand slave territory? Not many.The funniest part is that SP puts a ridiculous amount of stock in higher education but apparently lacks the ability to formulate an opinion of his own.
What good is an education if you are not capable of using that knowledge to form your own opinions based upon your morals or beliefs.
I would much prefer people to not have degrees but be capable of forming an opinion based upon the knowledge they seek out than to have people just spew the opinions of others because they believe that their (insert person here) is infallible.
Okay let's see if I can follow your logic here. You dismiss the thoughts,ideas and written expressions etc. of Thomas Jefferson, as merely a man's opinions. Never mind that these opinions were expressed by a former president and founding father. Okay cool.Then in the very next breath you uphold the Bill of Rights, claiming that I don't, yet it was written by a former president and founding father. In summary, Thomas Jefferson equals one man's opinion. Bill of Rights = demi god aka Madison. Makes complete sense.The funniest part is that SP puts a ridiculous amount of stock in higher education but apparently lacks the ability to formulate an opinion of his own.
What good is an education if you are not capable of using that knowledge to form your own opinions based upon your morals or beliefs.
I would much prefer people to not have degrees but be capable of forming an opinion based upon the knowledge they seek out than to have people just spew the opinions of others because they believe that their (insert person here) is infallible.
Well according to him (because Jefferson said so mind you) the bill of rights and constitution are no longer valid because of the time between their creation and now.Yeah, and it's weird too that his example is Jefferson. I mean, presidents are elected based on the opinion voters have of his platform. How many people today would vote for a slave owning member of the upper class who spends gov't money to expand slave territory? Not many.
The bill of rights, however, is a flagship cornerstone of the USA, which current and future laws of the land should be checked against.
The objectivity mirror might be too ridiculously shaded for him to see himself.
I never said either of those things (with all that education you can't read it seems).Okay let's see if I can follow your logic here. You dismiss the thoughts,ideas as written expressions etc. of Thomas Jefferson, as merely a man's opinions. Never mind that these opinions were expressed by a former president and founding father. Okay cool.Then in the very next breath you uphold the Bill of Rights, claiming that I don't, yet it was written by a former president and founding father. In summary, Thomas Jefferson equals one man's opinion. Bill of Rights = demi god aka Madison. Makes complete sense.
Well that's good because blacks are voting these days. Hell, a black guy shares Jefferson's office! We'd better write some type of racial superiority in to the bill of rights in this new day and age.Well according to him (because Jefferson said so mind you) the bill of rights and constitution are no longer valid because of the time between their creation and now.
Who cares about Jefferson, he's dead. The Bill of Rights are actual laws that the government swears to protect that many of us happen to like.Okay let's see if I can follow your logic here. You dismiss the thoughts,ideas and written expressions etc. of Thomas Jefferson, as merely a man's opinions. Never mind that these opinions were expressed by a former president and founding father. Okay cool.Then in the very next breath you uphold the Bill of Rights, claiming that I don't, yet it was written by a former president and founding father. In summary, Thomas Jefferson equals one man's opinion. Bill of Rights = demi god aka Madison. Makes complete sense.
Okay so not many people would vote for Thomas Jefferson according to you, based on the fact that he was a slave owner and member of the upper class, fair enough. Then in your very next statement, which conflicts entirely with your first time statement and here's why. You dismiss the slave owning Jefferson, yet uphold the Bill of Rights, which was written by another former president and one of the founding fathers...now follow along and connect it to your first statement about Jefferson. Who authored the Bill of Rights? Here's a hint, like many other Virginia statesmen in the slave society, he was a slaveholder and part of the élite; he inherited his plantation known asMontpelier and and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime to cultivate tobacco and other crops. So Thomas Jefferson and his writings dismissed as "weird" due to the fact he was a slave owner, and part of the upper class elite, and Madison who was also part of the elite along with being a slave owner is upheld and regarded highly in your book. Makes complete sense. I'll give you this, if anything you seem to be quite the student of history.Yeah, and it's weird too that his example is Jefferson. I mean, presidents are elected based on the opinion voters have of his platform. How many people today would vote for a slave owning member of the upper class who spends gov't money to expand slave territory? Not many.
The bill of rights, however, is a flagship cornerstone of the USA, which current and future laws of the land should be checked against.
The objectivity mirror might be too ridiculously shaded for him to see himself.
Jefferson wanted the Constitution to be amended every 19 years, not 8. But hey don't let "factual" details get in the way of a good debate. Carry on...I never said either of those things (with all that education you can't read it seems).
You have made it perfectly clear that my posts are my opinions, which is completely true. I base my opinion off of my own knowledge and my morals/beliefs. Which coincides with the Bill of Rights (which do change to reflect the times in case you wanna bring that argument up).
Also, and lets see if you can follow this, the Bill of Rights was votes into existence by the founding fathers. Which means the majority of them agreed with those Rights, apparently those same founding fathers did not agree with Jefferson wanting the constitution to be changed/amended every 8 years.
Which obviously means it wasn't just Madison but was the majority of the founding fathers. So why is Jefferson's opinion greater than the majority?
Don't answer because I already know the answer to that question.
"Because my college professor taught me that Jefferson was the bestest founding father! "
And keep in mind that I don't discount Jefferson's opinion, all I am doing is pointing out that it is not infallible (as you would make it seem) and is merely his OPINION.
And what was your purpose of that?Jefferson wanted the Constitution to be amended every 19 years, not 8. But hey don't let "factual" details get in the way of a good debate. Carry on...
Lol cool.Jefferson wanted the Constitution to be amended every 19 years, not 8. But hey don't let "factual" details get in the way of a good debate. Carry on...
There is a difference between amending the constitution and altering the first 10 amendments. Do you know if Jefferson meant that our basic freedoms and safeguards can be interfered with?Also, and lets see if you can follow this, the Bill of Rights was votes into existence by the founding fathers. Which means the majority of them agreed with those Rights, apparently those same founding fathers did not agree with Jefferson wanting the constitution to be changed/amended every 8 years.
The Bill of Rights is a set of laws; the authors of which are inconsequential where applied content is concerned.Okay so not many people would vote for Thomas Jefferson according to you, based on the fact that he was a slave owner and member of the upper class, fair enough. Then in your very next statement, which conflicts entirely with your first time statement and here's why. You dismiss the slave owning Jefferson, yet uphold the Bill of Rights, which was written by another former president and one of the founding fathers...now follow along and connect it to your first statement about Jefferson. Who authored the Bill of Rights? Here's a hint, like many other Virginia statesmen in the slave society, he was a slaveholder and part of the élite; he inherited his plantation known asMontpelier and and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime to cultivate tobacco and other crops. So Thomas Jefferson and his writings dismissed as "weird" due to the fact he was a slave owner, and part of the upper class elite, and Madison who was also part of the elite along with being a slave owner is upheld and regarded highly in your book. I'll give you this, if anything you seem to be quite the student of history.
Literally nothing.And what was your purpose of that?
He also usually likes to pick a mispell in someones post to invalidate their point.Literally nothing.
An argument of nothing more than semantics, the main point of the entire post is still valid but he would attempt to shift the focus of the debate to avoid addressing the topic at hand.
You know, typical SP procedure.
I mean hey it's cool to make statements that are factually incorrect and then further use them to support more of your opinions. I guess that passes for being well informed these days. It's novel. I like it.Lol cool.
My number was wrong, glad that you can point that out but make no argument that is relevant to this at all.
The point stands (in fact you said it yourself), Jefferson wanted that. Apparently not many shared that BELIEF (opinion).
He was off by an amount of years, so what this isnt the SAT's.....and I know you didnt know that by heart.I mean hey it's cool to make statements that are factually incorrect and then further use them to support more of your opinions. I guess that passes for being well informed these days. It's novel. I like it.
That if you're going to have an opinion and toss out incorrect information, it's laughable. Now please keep in mind, I realize that isn't the case here...so carry on.And what was your purpose of that?
Attempt #2.I mean hey it's cool to make statements that are factually incorrect and then further use them to support more of your opinions. I guess that passes for being well informed these days. It's novel. I like it.
From now on you need to Google or Wikipedia your facts and have them posted accurately, or your opinion is atrocious and a waste of my time. j/k on my part of courseAttempt #2.
Your professor didn't have any scripted argument for this one?
The main point of the post was still completely correct. Jefferson wanted the constitution to be amended every X years, I just couldn't recall how many.
You obviously weren't on the debate team at your school.
Still waiting for that rebuttal.
No just a ton of uninformed opinions. You would have loved him!Attempt #2.
Your professor didn't have any scripted argument for this one?
The main point of the post was still completely correct. Jefferson wanted the constitution to be amended every X years, I just couldn't recall how many.
You obviously weren't on the debate team at your school.
Still waiting for that rebuttal.
Well it certainly helps to be well informed AX, regardless of whatever resources you choose to use, which is common knowledge extends to Alex Jones...awesome. Again, I realize that isn't the case for some here, as tossing out incorrect information seems to be habit forming for some. But again, I'm the elitist a-hole who cites factual information, rather than a blog. How dare I use real sources and toss out real facts. That is Bush League.From now on you need to Google or Wikipedia your facts and have them posted accurately, or your opinion is atrocious and a waste of my time. j/k on my part of course
What's incorrect?I never said either of those things (with all that education you can't read it seems).
You have made it perfectly clear that my posts are my opinions, which is completely true. I base my opinion off of my own knowledge and my morals/beliefs. Which coincides with the Bill of Rights (which do change to reflect the times in case you wanna bring that argument up).
Also, and lets see if you can follow this, the Bill of Rights was votes into existence by the founding fathers. Which means the majority of them agreed with those Rights, apparently those same founding fathers did not agree with Jefferson wanting the constitution to be changed/amended every 19 years.
Which obviously means it wasn't just Madison but was the majority of the founding fathers. So why is Jefferson's opinion greater than the majority?
Don't answer because I already know the answer to that question.
"Because my college professor taught me that Jefferson was the bestest founding father! "
And keep in mind that I don't discount Jefferson's opinion, all I am doing is pointing out that it is not infallible (as you would make it seem) and is merely his OPINION.
There you go again, Ill post anything and its from Alex Jones. Not that I have a problem with Alex personally, but damn Ill post something I copied and pasted directly from the White House and you still think it comes from Alex Jones. Alex Jones will post a Bill on his website, but it comes from Alex Jones because it came from me posting it, which must have come from Alex Jones and he has slaves in his basement who are photoshop experts, and even fool you with links to a website that looks like the White House's website.Well it certainly helps to be well informed AX, regardless of whatever resources you choose to use, which is common knowledge extends to Alex Jones...awesome. Again, I realize that isn't the case for some here, as tossing out incorrect information seems to be habit forming for some. But again, I'm the elitist a-hole who cites factual information, rather than a blog. How dare I use real sources and toss out real facts. That is Bush League.
Yes.Has anyone else noticed that when someone makes a valid point (and doesn't have any typos) SP completely ignores them and tries to change the subject?
Are you asking a "lacuna?"What's incorrect?
And contextually speaking your argument against the words of Thomas Jefferson for being a slave owner/upper elite, yet espousing and upholding the words of Madison who was also part of the same class system...contradictory. Context.Yes.
And for the record, even if you had 8 years instead of 19, the logic stands in context.
Yes, so you should answer him. See what I did there...Are you asking a "lacuna?"
Lol, no ****. Everybody is a "fact genius" with google.He was off by an amount of years, so what this isnt the SAT's.....and I know you didnt know that by heart.
To be fair, as is your inability to cite parallels in regards to some of your own examples, dare I call them thoughts.Lol, no ****. Everybody is a "fact genius" with google.
His ability to think through an idea, as previously mentioned though, is horrendous.
You are editing the applicable context of Jeffersons slave agenda vs. the context of the Bill of Rights being interpreted and applied as a stand alone document, judged by it's content and not its author, for the second time.And contextually speaking your argument against the words of Thomas Jefferson for being a slave owner/upper elite, yet espousing and upholding the words of Madison who was also part of the same class system...contradictory. Context.
The parallel only exists when you intentionally edit the applicable content. You're a piece of work, bro.To be fair, as is your inability to cite parallels in regards to some of your own examples, dare I call them thoughts.
Cool story. When first adopted, the Bill of Rights applied to white men and excluded most Americans. Free blacks were excluded from The Bill of Rights because they were not citizens[SUP].[/SUP]Also excluded were all women, American Indians, immigrants, and white men who did not own land. There's a bit of content, written by Madison (now apply context) who was also a slave owner/upper class elite, a lot like Thomas Jefferson.You are editing the applicable context of Jeffersons slave agenda vs. the context of the Bill of Rights being interpreted and applied as a stand alone document, judged by it's content and not its author, for the second time.
You are starting to look like a dumb ass to win an argument that never really made sense to begin with.
Blacks were suppressed by man, not the laws in the Bill of Rights. Where in the Bill of Rights does it state that rights apply only to white man?Cool story. When first adopted, the Bill of Rights applied to white men and excluded most Americans. Free blacks were excluded from The Bill of Rights because they were not citizens[SUP].[/SUP]Also excluded were all women, American Indians, immigrants, and white men who did not own land. There's a bit of content, written by Madison (now apply context) who was also a slave owner/upper class elite.
Is it that way now or do ALL of those people have those rights?Cool story. When first adopted, the Bill of Rights applied to white men and excluded most Americans. Free blacks were excluded from The Bill of Rights because they were not citizens[SUP].[/SUP]Also excluded were all women, American Indians, immigrants, and white men who did not own land. There's a bit of content, written by Madison (now apply context) who was also a slave owner/upper class elite.
I'm off to bed, feel free to hammer away at me until the morning. However, note what's posted above...FACTUAL. Night.
You are still playing a semantical game. The Bill of Rights is what it is, even if its own author was choosy about application. Your argument changes nothing and the facts are irrelevant.Cool story. When first adopted, the Bill of Rights applied to white men and excluded most Americans. Free blacks were excluded from The Bill of Rights because they were not citizens[SUP].[/SUP]Also excluded were all women, American Indians, immigrants, and white men who did not own land. There's a bit of content, written by Madison (now apply context) who was also a slave owner/upper class elite.
I'm off to bed, feel free to hammer away at me until the morning. However, note what's posted above...FACTUAL. Night.
The Constitution was ratified BEFORE the Bill Of Rights. The Bill Of Rights was meant to amend the EXISTING Constitution, which at the time PROTECTED slavery and did nothing to change it. Per Article 4:Blacks were suppressed by man, not the laws in the Bill of Rights. Where in the Bill of Rights does it state that rights apply only to white man?
Well at least now you finally admit it. Night sugarpants.You are still playing a semantical game. The Bill of Rights is what it is, even if its own author was choosy about application. Your argument changes nothing and the facts are irrelevant.
And sweet dreams cupcake. I won't be hammering you though, sorry.
Maybe fair was less of the correct term, how about considerate and at the least logical.IT ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE FAIR.
What the hell do you not understand about military culture?
Your job right now, is to shut up and color. Do what you are told, when you are told. Carry yourself with respect.
The military hasn't changed in the last 100+ years. The goal and how you get there have always been the same. Defend the constitution by any means necessary. If that means your commanding officers wants you to spit shine his damn boots, you better drink up your gatorade now to ensure you can get them to be mirrors.
What did you join for then? The GI Bill... the Discount at Spencers?
S. Paw, I am trying to catch up on this thread over my morning cup of coffee and have stopped at your post to remind you that paragraphs are a good thing!Okay so not many people would vote for Thomas Jefferson according to you, based on the fact that he was a slave owner and member of the upper class, fair enough. Then in your very next statement, which conflicts entirely with your first time statement and here's why. You dismiss the slave owning Jefferson, yet uphold the Bill of Rights, which was written by another former president and one of the founding fathers...now follow along and connect it to your first statement about Jefferson. Who authored the Bill of Rights? Here's a hint, like many other Virginia statesmen in the slave society, he was a slaveholder and part of the élite; he inherited his plantation known asMontpelier and and owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime to cultivate tobacco and other crops. So Thomas Jefferson and his writings dismissed as "weird" due to the fact he was a slave owner, and part of the upper class elite, and Madison who was also part of the elite along with being a slave owner is upheld and regarded highly in your book. Makes complete sense. I'll give you this, if anything you seem to be quite the student of history.
So does the Bill of Rights exclude anyone? The obvious answer is no. Its man who excludes ones right, which we still see happening all the time today.Despite its seemingly inclusive wording, the Bill of Rights did not apply to all Americans—and it wouldn’t for more than 130 years. At the time of its ratification, the “people” referenced in the amendments were understood to be land-owning white men only. Blacks only received equal protection under the law in 1868, and even then it was purely on paper. Women couldn’t vote in all states before 1920, and Native Americans did not achieve full citizenship until 1924.
^^^Factual (sorry they're not opinions Buick)...Exhausted...goodnight.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Don’t Be Fooled: Republicans Love Government Enforced Healthcare | Politics | 1 | ||
What are those darn Republicans thinking?? | Politics | 15 | ||
Dems vs Republicans: Why the Harsh Polarization? | Politics | 25 | ||
Why I'm Now Voting Republican | Politics | 23 | ||
Democrat, Republican, or a Redneck? | General Chat | 6 |