The case against Dr. Paul

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It is a common tactic when one has the inability to understand ones own thoughts to demand that another prove them wrong.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No, you made the original claim.

Post 742. Your implication was that the SPP was like the Constitution, and that it removed sovereignty.

So, please, explain how the SPP and the Constitution are similar.

Friend.

No, I asked you a question.

So, you agree that the SPP removes sovereignty?

Why can you not extrapolate upon your answer of: NO?


If you goal here is thought, please present your thoughts.

If not, what is your purpose here?

 

[Elizabeth I]

Maybe you should check out a few sub-forums other than this one. I see plenty of criticism of the current administration around here.

That's the whole point.

 

[TriskettheKid]

No, I asked you a question.



Why can you not extrapolate upon your answer of: NO?


If you goal here is thought, please present your thoughts.

If not, what is your purpose here?

You are purposefully obfuscating things so that you don't have to actually say anything.

Let's do a quick walkthrough of the prior events.

I said:

Article VI, Clause 2.

That pretty much keeps states from being completely sovereign.

Again, they do have limited sovereignty. Some people call this "clipped sovereignty," if I'm not mistaken.

Then you said:

So, you agree that the SPP removes sovereignty?

Thus, you are implying that the SPP is like the Constitution, and that the SPP removes sovereignty. You have not explained how they are similar, nor how the SPP even RELATES to the issue of the states having clipped sovereignty under the Constitution.

So I would like an answer:

How are the SPP and the Constitution similar?

How did you reach the Conclusion that the SPP removes sovereignty?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You are purposefully obfuscating things so that you don't have to actually say anything.

Let's do a quick walkthrough of the prior events.

I said:


Then you said:


Thus, you are implying that the SPP is like the Constitution, and that the SPP removes sovereignty. You have not explained how they are similar, nor how the SPP even RELATES to the issue of the states having clipped sovereignty under the Constitution.

So I would like an answer:

How are the SPP and the Constitution similar?

How did you reach the Conclusion that the SPP removes sovereignty?

Please read the entirety of the conversation.

The beginning of the conversation was the fact the the SPP was unifying both trade and security. I presented the point that the USA also began as a number of sovereign States that entered into an agreement of trade and security.

Please explain how I am wrong that the constitution is not different than the SPP in relation to sovereignty.

 

[TriskettheKid]

Please read the entirety of the conversation.

The beginning of the conversation was the fact the the SPP was unifying both trade and security. I presented the point that the USA also began as a number of sovereign States that entered into an agreement of trade and security.

Please explain how I am wrong that the constitution is not different than the SPP in relation to sovereignty.

For starters, because you are confusing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.

Also, the SPP is not an agreement to create a nation....

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

For starters, because you are confusing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.

No, but you stating that allows you to dismiss the conversation.

Also, the SPP is not an agreement to create a nation....

No? Just uniform trade and security.


Uniform but not a union.


Orwell would be proud!

 

[TriskettheKid]

No, but you stating that allows you to dismiss the conversation.



No? Just uniform trade and security.


Uniform but not a union.


Orwell would be proud!

It's a co-operative agreement. So what?

How is that in any way similar to the Constitution, which is the very foundation of a government?

 

[D'rok]

Another classic example of Orwell's words.

Orwell would be proud!

D'rok's Law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving George Orwell or 1984 approaches one.

Reductio ad Orwellum.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

D'rok's Law:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving George Orwell or 1984 approaches one.

Reductio ad Orwellum.

When the shoe fits...

 

[D'rok]

When the shoe fits...

Here's one to try on for size:

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

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Here's one to try on for size:

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

Jeromes law states that when one is floundering they will link wiki for logical fallacies.

 

[D'rok]

Jeromes law states that when one is floundering they will link wiki for logical fallacies.

How could I be floundering? I haven't been participating in this part of the discussion. I gave up 10 pages ago when you responded to a direct quote from Ron Paul (not from one of his newsletters) that smacked of racism by invoking Orwell. You're doing it again to Trisketthekid. You are the one that is floundering.

Describing the SPP as a union in the same sense that the Constitution is a union is blatant equivocation.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How could I be floundering? I haven't been participating in this part of the discussion. I gave up 10 pages ago when you responded to a direct quote from Ron Paul (not from one of his newsletters) that smacked of racism by invoking Orwell. You're doing it again to Trisketthekid. You are the one that is floundering.

Because the shoe fit.

Your argument presented Double-Think. That is not my fault.

Describing the SPP as a union in the same sense that the Constitution is a union is blatant equivocation.

Except that is not what I did.

Could you Wiki for me the logical fallacy that involves making up what someone is saying so as to not have to think about what they did say?

 

[WildCat]

Here's one to try on for size:

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

Wait a minute... are you claiming i was equivocating when I compared a cow to a 1967 Ford F-150?

I can assure you they are virtually the same thing. After all, they are both heavy and self-propelled.

 

[D'rok]

Because the shoe fit.

Your argument presented Double-Think. That is not my fault.

I didn't present an argument. I responded to your challenge to find anything from that Salon article that seemed like a racist remark. I presented Ron Paul's words verbatim.

Except that is not what I did.

Yes it is:

The beginning of the conversation was the fact the the SPP was unifying both trade and security. I presented the point that the USA also began as a number of sovereign States that entered into an agreement of trade and security.

No? Just uniform trade and security.


Uniform but not a union.


Orwell would be proud!

You even combined equivocation with reductio ad Orwellum in that one. Bravo.

 

[D'rok]

Wait a minute... are you claiming i was equivocating when I compared a cow to a 1967 Ford F-150?

I can assure you they are virtually the same thing. After all, they are both heavy and self-propelled.

Goodness no. I plan to toss an F-150 t-bone onto the barbecue as soon as the snow melts. Yummy!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You even combined equivocation with reductio ad Orwellum in that one. Bravo.

It seems none has the ability to dispute the facts and their meanings.

Nothing more than wiki links to fallacies and made-up internet laws.



Tell me: How many Federal reserve notes are in circulation?

Does the congress know this answer?

Why are these questions important?


If you would like to have a real talk I would be happy to entertain.

 

[D'rok]

It seems none has the ability to dispute the facts and their meanings.

Nothing more than wiki links to fallacies and made-up internet laws.



Tell me: How many Federal reserve notes are in circulation?

Does the congress know this answer?

Why are these questions important?

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

If you would like to have a real talk I would be happy to entertain.

Oh believe me...I'm plenty entertained right now.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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




Oh believe me...I'm plenty entertained right now.