The United States Constitution

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, do you not remember all the Badnarik hazing on this forum during the last election?

No, I really don't.

That's why.

That's why.

That's why.

My only defense is that maybe I never read these threads. Thanks for the links.

 

[Oliver]

Please note how You Tube Videos,not books or even on line newspapers are Oliver's principal method of research.
It is pretty apparent that if Ron Paul said the world was flat Oliver would start to defend that position.

Oliver, Oliver, Oliver. Let me guess - in contrast to me, Terrorists
are harmless. Right?

His obsession with Ron Paul is here Oliver went from mildly annoying to being an out and out troll.
What gets to me is that he cannot see his tactics are not winning people over to Paul,but driving them away.

Oliver, Oliver, Oliver. You sound like a little baby who lost it's pacifier.

So you won't say exactly what that entails, then.

Funny, that.

Well, it's off-topic and I already got more yellow cards than
we have members here. Plus I was kidding when I said
heavily. I post at Ronpaulforums.com, made some Pictures
and like the Guy.

Oliver,

How can you expect dudalb to come up with substantial comments about 7 hours worth of videos a mere 75 minutes after you posted them?

Instead of flooding the board with 7 hours worth of video, why don't you tell us one thing that you learnt about the US constitution. Pick something that you think is controversial or worth discussing in more detail.

In short, what do you want us to know about the US constitution?

I can't expect Dudalb ever addressing the topic of a thread
when I also posted in it. Was: Oliver, Oliver, Troll, Oliver, Oliver.

Here, I found an educational video that even Oliver may understand:

Sorry, but the average American level of education about the
Constitution isn't enough for me.

I too have found an edumacational video about the constitution.

What on God's green earth is edumacational.

Wow, seven hours of stupid... I'll pass.

Na na - you're making the document more bad than it is.

I watched some of it, mostly the stuff about the amendments.

But I disagree with his interpretations. I think having the Ten Commandments displayed by the government goes against the establishment clause.

And I also disagree with his views on how you can't repeal the second amendment. But then again, I don't necessarily agree with natural right theory.

And I couldn't find the part where he mentioned it, but he seems to ignore the elastic clause. He seems to think that if it isn't explicitly stated, then it is unconstitutional.

And I don't see what is so evil about giving D.C. electoral college representation.

What did he get wrong?

You and virtually the entire American legal system.

Yes, I know. It's why the system is being called "corrupt". Nice
that you understand this as well - and finally accept why Paul
gets the support he has.

That's because he is so "popular".

That's why.
That's why.
That's why.

Oh, I'm sure Badnarik is nice to little doggies. It's his messages that are lunacy.

Take a look at the three links above. Does that answer your question about the flaws in his explanations?

...where he got 0% of the vote.

I don't care about Badnarik. I care about the informational
content. Feel free to post anything similar well explained. And
no, I don't agree with all he said - and his personal opinions
aren't important either.

 

[sackett]

... if left unfed, trolls tend to wander back under their bridges.
DR

And that would be a damn shame. Much of the fun would go out of this forum if the trolls vanished.

Granted that Oliver is not one of the Great Trolls, but he's sometimes good for a barf.

I mean, good for a LAFF! Yeah, that's what I meant to type.

 

[Oliver]

And that would be a damn shame. Much of the fun would go out of this forum if the trolls vanished.

Granted that Oliver is not one of the Great Trolls, but he's sometimes good for a barf.

I mean, good for a LAFF! Yeah, that's what I meant to type.

Trolling is posting off-topic and attacking the Arguer instead the Argument.
With your reply, that's about 80% of posts being off-topic in this thread...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Trolling is posting off-topic and attacking the Arguer instead the Argument.
With your reply, that's about 80% of posts being off-topic in this thread...

No, trolling is none of those things.

See your favorite source, wikipedia.

An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum or group with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

Put in other words, since you have a real problem learning without multiple inputs, trolling is deliberately posting with the intent to provoke an emotional reaction, with the aim of amusing the troll who incites that reaction.

You might want to learn your terms before using them.

WTF am I talking about? Why would you start now? You are the perfect Libertarian (capital L), which means that you never tire of being wrong, loudly.

DR

 

[Suddenly]

Badnarik's constiutional class?

Ye gads.

Some notes from my viewing, bad words removed:

He is killing me. I can't stop laughing to type...

Starts with this: When a car is sold there is a statement of manufacturer's origin (SMO). This is sent to the state who makes a microwhatever copy and then cans the original. Eventually he gets to the payoff. The thing you get from the regular world to show ownership. A certificate of title. I bet you thought this means you own your car...

"If I give you a gift certificate, do you have the gift, or do you have a piece of paper that represents that gift." You have to go somewhere to redeem for the real gift.

He then analogizes it to the car, so the certificate of title must be a piece of paper you can take to redeem for the real title.

(I guess if he would have just got a certificate of achievement at some point maybe he would still be trying to figure out to redeem it...)

Apparently this means the state holds the "real" title (The aforementioned MSO) and is thus the co-owner of the car and the registration fee is really it charging you rent for its half.

You see where this is going. He says you should go into a dealership with cash and buy a car and ask for the MSO. "I have no idea what their reaction is going to be. They’re probably going to stutter a lot.”

You see, if you get the MSO, the car is 100% yours, as you have allodial title. You now don’t need to pay registration or get a license plate.

He’s serious. The people watching are asking questions about the details...He’s now ridiculing a woman for even trying to get a car registered....

That is an example of his "Constitutional" teaching. He employs several common conspiracy theories to account for the difference between his idea of right and wrong and reality. The danger here is not the idea, as if he claimed this is how things "should be," then that is an opinion.

However, he claims this is how things are. The man believes that there is no law requiring the payment of income tax. That if you are married with a state license that the state has a property interest in your kids. Plus many other too complex to describe in brief.

Anyone that in any way cites Badnarik as a legitmate expert or recommends his course or book as anything other than an example of crackpot politics is either a wingnut or dangerously uninformed.

 

[varwoche]

I thought it might be a
good idea to learn a little bit more about that funny thing called
"the United States Constitution".

Fortunately I found a series of Videos in which a guy actually
explains all the nasty officialese in it. So if you don't fully under-
stand what this Constitution is about, to what extend it affects
you, what it's intention is - or if you just want to learn about it
in a non-boring way, use the time to let this former presidential
candidate explain it to you as well

LO f'in L!

Here are some more Badnarik gems you might enjoy.

 

[Oliver]

LO f'in L!

Here are some more Badnarik gems you might enjoy.

I really love the American way of denying ANYTHING as soon
you dislike the person saying it. Nevertheless - this thread is
NOT about Badnarik, it's about the constitution.

Why are most Americans in this thread too dumb to understand
those simple distinctions???

This isn't the FOX-Channel ...

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Sorry, but the average American level of education about the
Constitution isn't enough for me.

Obviously, as you linked to a guy who wouldn't know it if it bit him.

I really love the American way of denying ANYTHING as soon
you dislike the person saying it. Nevertheless - this thread is
NOT about Badnarik, it's about the constitution.

Why are most Americans in this thread too dumb to understand
those simple distinctions???

This isn't the FOX-Channel ..

.... because you linked to him presenting it? And as such, we are allowed to say "he's not an expert, find an actual expert." (Or, as someone suggested, actually raise your own issue and stop twoofering.)

(incidently, I dislike Badnarik because of what he says.)

Yes, I know. It's why the system is being called "corrupt". Nice
that you understand this as well - and finally accept why Paul
gets the support he has.

Words in his mouth, poisoning the well. In any case, no, the entire system isn't really corrupt.

 

[Donal]

I really love the American way of denying ANYTHING as soon
you dislike the person saying it. Nevertheless - this thread is
NOT about Badnarik, it's about the constitution.

Why are most Americans in this thread too dumb to understand
those simple distinctions???

This isn't the FOX-Channel ...

Why is one particular German too dumb to realize this is about Badnarik's (insane) interpretation of the Constitution? That the Constitution is actually vague and adaptable so it can be adjusted for the times?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why is one particular German too dumb to realize this is about Badnarik's (insane) interpretation of the Constitution? That the Constitution is actually vague and adaptable so it can be adjusted for the times?

He's never read it. If he ever does, maybe he'll comment on it.

I really love the American way of denying ANYTHING as soon
you dislike the person saying it. Nevertheless - this thread is
NOT about Badnarik, it's about the constitution

Oliver, by posting multiple links, right up front, of Badnarik's take on the Constitution, you made this about Badnarik, since you didn't give us your well considered take on the Constitution.

Again, for emphasis, since you never get it the first time: since you let Badnarik do the talking for you, it's about Badnarik and the Constitution, by your own actions as thread author. You did this to yourself. Getting pissy with responses to what you did is a staggering display of myopia.

DR

 

[Oliver]

Obviously, as you linked to a guy who wouldn't know it if it bit him.

.... because you linked to him presenting it? And as such, we are allowed to say "he's not an expert, find an actual expert." (Or, as someone suggested, actually raise your own issue and stop twoofering.)

(incidently, I dislike Badnarik because of what he says.)

Words in his mouth, poisoning the well. In any case, no, the entire system isn't really corrupt.

Why is one particular German too dumb to realize this is about Badnarik's (insane) interpretation of the Constitution? That the Constitution is actually vague and adaptable so it can be adjusted for the times?

Well, if there are flaws in this Libertarians claims...

"POINT IT OUT!"
"...where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science ..."

Anyway: For those who're complaining about "INTERPRETATIONS":
If the constitution gives so much space for interpretations, then
the whole paper is worth nothing!

@Tokorana: You hate the constitution? And if not - on which
point do you disagree with Badnarik?

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't care about Badnarik. I care about the informational
content. Feel free to post anything similar well explained. And
no, I don't agree with all he said - and his personal opinions
aren't important either.

Those are his political views.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Well, if there are flaws in this Libertarians claims...

"POINT IT OUT!"
"...where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way..."

Anyway: For those who're complaining about "INTERPRETATIONS":
If the constitution gives so much space for interpretations, then
the whole paper is worth nothing!

Some interperations are unconditionally invalid. Secondly, I did. In the Ron Paul thread. Repeatedly.

@Tokorona: You hate the constitution? And if not - on which
point do you disagree with Badnarik?

... where in the [rule10] did I say that? And as I don't have 7 hours to waste on Badnarik, I can't say. Make your own claims.

 

[marksman]

Oliver really has never gotten past his truther roots. He posts eight hours of conspiracy ramblings by Badnarik on what he believes is Constitutional theory and then challenges people to disprove them.

I don't have to debunk Badnarik because I've read the actual Constitution and I've been trained in its actual interpretation.

Do you have a specific position whose merits we can examine, Oliver? Asking us to debunk eight hours of video serves no purpose. If this thread is about the Constitution and not Badnarik, as so claim, what position on the Constitution shall be discuss?

 

[Pardalis]

I have my doubts that Oliver sat through all seven hours of this thing.

 

[marksman]

If the constitution gives so much space for interpretations, then
the whole paper is worth nothing!

Yes, clearly, that's why the Supreme Court of the United States and the legal system of the United States don't ever rely on the Constitution when making decisions.

The fact that it is more malleable than Badnarik believes does not mean it is infinitely malleable.

Now, do you have a position on the Constitution (as opposed to Badnarik's views on the document)? And if not, why start the thread?

 

[Donal]

Just out of curiosity, Oliver, how many Libertarian positions are you going to start campaigning for in your own actual country?

 

[Oliver]

Some interperations are unconditionally invalid. Secondly, I did. In the Ron Paul thread. Repeatedly.

... where in the [rule10] did I say that? And as I don't have 7 hours to waste on Badnarik, I can't say. Make your own claims.

You said that the Constitution is "interpretable". That's a lie by
itself. The Constitution is saying exactly what it says in most parts
of it. To claim that THE WHOLE THING is interpretable, is even
more stupid than creationism.

Just like most people in here - you didn't even took the time
to learn about the Lecture we're talking about in here.

And no: That doesn't surprise me at all ... posting in a US-Forum.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

You said that the Constitution is "interpretable". That's a lie by
itself. The Constitution is saying exactly what it says in most parts
of it. To claim that THE WHOLE THING is interpretable, is even
more stupid than creationism.

Just like most people in here - you didn't even took the time
to learn about the Lecture we're talking about in here.

And no: That doesn't surprise me at all ... posting in a US-Forum.

Done insulting me? Stop evading the question.

What is your position? (Incidentally, no, I'm commenting on the thread. I assumed someone would discuss the actual positions. You know, like a normal debate. )

The Constitution is saying exactly what it says in most parts
of it. To claim that THE WHOLE THING is interpretable, is even
more stupid than creationism.

Oh, one last thing.

In United States legal discourse, the Living Constitution is a theory of constitutional interpretation which premises that the Constitution is, to some degree, dynamic. As the direct counter to originalism, which centers on meaning at the time of ratification, the theory of a "living" Constitution suggests a founding document that remains interdependent with an evolving society. Its proponents thus argue that societal progress must be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution

One of it's propoents was Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.