Top five cliches that liberals use to avoid real arguments
| Avocado hominid | 05/01/12 | | Smoky Pocket Flask | 05/01/12 | | Charismatic theatre | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Smoky Pocket Flask | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | diverse blathering box office | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | diverse blathering box office | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | Smoky Pocket Flask | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | Smoky Pocket Flask | 05/01/12 | | Smoky Pocket Flask | 05/01/12 | | diverse blathering box office | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Smoky Pocket Flask | 05/01/12 | | Crimson Brunch Immigrant | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Crimson Brunch Immigrant | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Crimson Brunch Immigrant | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | Crimson Brunch Immigrant | 05/01/12 | | Charismatic theatre | 05/01/12 | | Crimson Brunch Immigrant | 05/01/12 | | Charismatic theatre | 05/01/12 | | Crimson Brunch Immigrant | 05/01/12 | | Charismatic theatre | 05/01/12 | | Crimson Brunch Immigrant | 05/01/12 | | Charismatic theatre | 05/01/12 | | Crimson Brunch Immigrant | 05/01/12 | | Charismatic theatre | 05/01/12 | | Crimson Brunch Immigrant | 05/01/12 | | diverse blathering box office | 05/01/12 | | Comical lodge | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | diverse blathering box office | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | diverse blathering box office | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | diverse blathering box office | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | diverse blathering box office | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | diverse blathering box office | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | Smoky Pocket Flask | 05/01/12 | | vengeful hairless forum weed whacker | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | bossy stag film gay wizard | 05/01/12 | | Smoky Pocket Flask | 05/01/12 | | Confused hall | 05/01/12 | | hairraiser cruise ship newt | 05/01/12 | | Avocado hominid | 05/01/12 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 1st, 2012 11:44 AM Author: Smoky Pocket Flask
Lol @ this idiot defending a debunk theory like originalism and executive power aggrandizement. He sounds incredibly butthurt over Rasul v Bush, hamdan v Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v Bush:
It is dogma among liberals that sophisticated people understand that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” The idea was largely introduced into the political bloodstream by Woodrow Wilson and his allies, who were desperate to be free of the constraints of the founders’ vision. Wilson explained that he preferred an evolving, “organic,” “Darwinian” Constitution that empowered progressives to breathe whatever meaning they wished into it. It is a wildly ideological view of the nature of our political system.
It is also a font of unending hypocrisy. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives argued that the country needed to adapt to a new asymmetrical warfare against non-state actors who posed an existential threat. They believed they were working within the bounds of the Constitution. But even if they were stretching things, why shouldn’t that be acceptable — if our Constitution is supposed to evolve with the times?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588732) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:30 PM Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
1) Justice sees something they don't like
2) reads into the "living" document
3) Manufactures a rationalization why the thing they don't like is unconstitutional
I should repeat, this is not a libtard-only trait. But it is a fundamental flaw in how the judiciary has, and does, operate.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588933) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:33 PM Author: vengeful hairless forum weed whacker
Holy shit
"very obviously different outcomes"
No, just instead of "unconstitutional" it would read "Breyer and 5 other justices don't like this law". The outcome (if people bought it) would be the same.
The consitution would only serve as a tool to lend legitimacy to the process for 80IQ tards.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588962) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:34 PM Author: diverse blathering box office
To be fair,
That's fairly implied in the federalist structure of our government you stupid nigger.
"But so is abortion!!!"
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588963) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:53 PM Author: Charismatic theatre
Obviously not brother, but federal legislation imposes laws that is able to restrict rights.
Take, for instance, our idea of freedom of speech. How free is it? You only need look to slander and libel laws to realize that speech is not completely free. You can also look to Federal Securities laws with regard to material misstatements to see that certain statements result in legal liabilities. This is in contrast with our theory of "freedom of speech" but not actually in contrast with the reality of freedom of speech.
Our fundamental freedoms are limited by Constitutionally-enacted laws all the time.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589060) |
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:19 PM Author: diverse blathering box office
To be fair,
Brilliant article, tyvmft.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588881) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:35 PM Author: diverse blathering box office
To be fair,
*Sets up system where I decide, on a case-by-case basis predicated on my gut judgment, what activities I feel like saying are 'constitutional'*
*Smugly points out that 'we must have a constitution', otherwise 'I couldn't make those calls, now could I?'*
*Has a probable IQ of ~105*
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588969) |
|
|