The United States Constitution

Oliver said:
You said that the Constitution is "interpretable". That's a lie by itself.
-=snip=-
And no: That doesn't surprise me at all ... posting in a US-Forum. :boggled:
Click to expand...
1. Please respond to marksman's questions.

2. Until you have read the US Constitution, and studied it, you will have a hard time supporting this statement:
You said that the Constitution is "interpretable". That's a lie by itself.
Click to expand...
Hint: there is a branch of the US government charged by the Constitution to do just that. Can you find the citation? Hint # 2: it is in the Constitution, not in the amendments.
The Constitution is saying exactly what it says in most parts of it.
Click to expand...
Unintentional humor is the best kind.

DR
 
Donal said:
Just out of curiosity, Oliver, how many Libertarian positions are you going to start campaigning for in your own actual country?
Click to expand...

Uh,Oliver has never even voted in a German Election.
Oliver is either a fool or a troll. No other possiblity exists.
If he does not get that his tactics here are doing nothing but pissing people off and ,if anything ,are turning people against Paul,he is a fool.
If he does get that he is pissing people of, we can only presume he does so because he get some jollies out of it and that makes him the dictionary definantion of a Troll.
 
Donal said:
Just out of curiosity, Oliver, how many Libertarian positions are you going to start campaigning for in your own actual country?
Click to expand...

Uh,Oliver has never even voted in a German Election.
Oliver is either a fool or a troll. No other possiblity exists.
If he does not get that his tactics here are doing nothing but pissing people off and ,if anything ,are turning people against Paul,he is a fool.
If he does get that he is pissing people of, we can only presume he does so because he get some jollies out of it and that makes him the dictionary definantion of a Troll.
BTW,DOnal, the only reason Oliver supports Paul is because he thinks Paul will totally withdraw the US from World Affairs, which Oliver wants because he won't have to deal with all those disgusting Americans any longer.
 
Oliver said:
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. :boggled:
Click to expand...

1: Many of us here are very familiar with both the Constitution and its history;

2: Few of us have either the time or the inclination to sit through 8 hours of youtube video listening to someone whose opinions we have little reason to respect talk about the Constitution or much else for that matter;

3: If you have a question or comment or anything the least bit intelligent to discuss about something brought up in the video then why not just say it? We can then have a discussion.
 
marksman said:
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?
Click to expand...


Well, point it out. You didn't did that by now? Why are you posting?
We could start concerning the point that the Administration doesn't
have the power it has today... Don't know what I'm talking about?...
Watch the Video - at least half of it. (3,5 hours)

Pardalis said:
I have my doubts that Oliver sat through all seven hours of this thing.
Click to expand...


I did. And compared to the German Constitution, I didn't see major
flaws beside personal opinion from that guy...

marksman said:
:rolleyes:

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?
Click to expand...


I didn't like the last part of the videos since it was too much about
his personal opinions. But I didn't see anything contradicting between
his stance and the wording in the Constitution yet. Did you? ... And
if so: What exactly?

Donal said:
Just out of curiosity, Oliver, how many Libertarian positions are you going to start campaigning for in your own actual country?
Click to expand...


I don't care about Lib's, Dem's or Rep's. I'm German - I'm interested
in "We the People" rather than "We, the Government".

Tokorona said:
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. :rolleyes: )

Oh, one last thing.

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

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


My position on what exactly??? "We the people"?
Are you in favor of your own decisions or do you prefer the
Government to make decisions FOR YOU? That's the major
point of this thread. If you're in favor of Government making
decisions on behalf of you, there is nothing I can do for you
anyway ....

 
Hell of a thing. Thanks for showing those old links. Comes in handy for something else.
 
You said that the Constitution is "interpretable". That's a lie by
itself.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to be a complete idiot when it comes to American Governement, Oliver?
 
Oliver said:
Well, point it out. You didn't did that by now? Why are you posting?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to figure out what the point of the thread is. You claim it is not about Badnarik's views on the Constitution. So what's it about?

We could start concerning the point that the Administration doesn't
have the power it has today
Click to expand...
We could, if you actually want to make a statement we can discuss, rather than ask me to watch 3.5 hours of youtube videos.

But I didn't see anything contradicting between his stance and the wording in the Constitution yet. Did you?
Click to expand...
I don't care. And csince the entirety of your knowledge is Badnarik, it's no surprise you don't see a conflict. However, if one of the things you got from Badnarik is that the Constitution is not interpretable, then I think I've already debunked that by reference ot the US Supreme Court's own website.

My position on what exactly?
Click to expand...
The Constitution.
 
Oliver said:
My position on what exactly??? "We the people"?
Are you in favor of your own decisions or do you prefer the
Government to make decisions FOR YOU? That's the major
point of this thread. If you're in favor of Government making
decisions on behalf of you, there is nothing I can do for you
anyway ....
Click to expand...
.... Red herring fallacy. Discuss your opinion on the Constitution.
 
CFLarsen said:
Oliver,

Aren't you going to comment on Badnarik's political views?
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter to me ... Why? - because the American System
is based on the US-Constitution. If you disagree with the Lecturer,
point out the things you disagree with - that's what a "Skeptics-
Forum" is about.... Isn't it?
 
I don't care about Lib's, Dem's or Rep's. I'm German - I'm interested
in "We the People" rather than "We, the Government".
Click to expand...

That was completely useless and irrelevant rhetoric.

You keep saying you like Bandarik and Paul and what they stand for. I think it would be pretty damned hypocritical of you to go around here telling Americans how our government should be run when you don't try and institute those same changes in your own.

You keep saying this is supposed to be about the Constitution, but you don't say anything about it other than what Bandarik is spouting (mostly incorrect stuff BTW). You just demonstrate how little you know of the Constitution and the US in general.
 
People talking about things they know nothing about is a staple of the Internet (At times I think if there were a way to prevent that Internet traffic would drop by about 50%) but Oliver is taking it to new heights.
His citing Bandarik as an expert on the US Constitution is like somebody ignorant of Geography citing a Flat Earth Believer as an expert source.
 
dudalb said:
People talking about things they know nothing about is a staple of the Internet (At times I think if there were a way to prevent that Internet traffic would drop by about 50%) but Oliver is taking it to new heights.
His citing Bandarik as an expert on the US Constitution is like somebody ignorant of Geography citing a Flat Earth Believer as an expert source.
Click to expand...


No, my point is the Constitution. Badarik is just coincidence as being
the one presenting the Class. I would have posted a more neutral one
if someone else would have made a Lecture about it ... But I didn't
find anyone else. Badarik is pure coincidence. Period.

If you disagree with his claims - point them out.
If you can provide a better Lecture - post it!

Everything else is pointless "Fox-News"-whining ...
 
Last edited:
People have already poitned them out.

But here is the catch:

You posted it, you comment on it. Do you agree with him? (You've already said yes) What specifically do you agree with? (This should be funny since you've proven how little you actually know of the US Constitution).
 
Oliver, I suggest you study and read the Constitution before you comment on it, rather then get your information from a Youtube video by a freaking loon.
 
We have a class of people here that dedicate their lives to deciphering, interpreting and applying the Constitution (lawyers and judges) and even amongst them you will find greatly varying ideas of what it says.

In any American university, you can spend everyday of your educational career studying the Constitution. You can take the exact same class with two different professors (normally judges or lawyers) and get two completely different lessons.

We have 9 men and women chosen as our most learned in the land regarding the Constitution and it seems half the time they are over ruling a decision made by a previous installment of this group.

We have watchdog groups that everyday jump up and question whether or not specific laws contradict this document. These groups often led by lawyers and judges.

Yet, Oliver, somehow you are going to come in here, without even reading the document in question for yourself, watch a handful of Youtube videos from some fringe crackpot, and then proceed to tell us what it says and how it should be used?

Is that it? Is that what you are trying to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom