• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The case against Dr. Paul

WildCat said:
In the preamble where it declares a new country is made called the "United States of America".

You may have heard of it. Here's an educational video for the uninformed:


Prior to that the states were sovereign, didn't work out very well.
Click to expand...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Humm---Union equals no sovereignty?


Does a woman lose her sovereignty when she marries (union)?
 
Triskett: I don't advise engaging him in constutitional discussions. When I triedt o explain to him how the state government was binded to the same requirements of hte federal, by Article 6.. he refused to answer.

Anyway, Jerome: It quite clearly doesn't unless your paranoid. Full Stop./
 
TriskettheKid said:
How about you think before you ask?

Honestly, how can someone be so ignorant as to think that the SPP and the Constitution are even comparable?
Click to expand...

I am asking you to explain it to me.

You apparently fully understand the topic.

As I am ignorant, I am asking for explanation.
 
Tokorona said:
Triskett: I don't advise engaging him in constutitional discussions. When I triedt o explain to him how the state government was binded to the same requirements of hte federal, by Article 6.. he refused to answer.

Anyway, Jerome: It quite clearly doesn't unless your paranoid. Full Stop./
Click to expand...


Rewriting history?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
As I am ignorant, I am asking for explanation.
Click to expand...
You are too far gone to understand.

Please do not personalize the argument.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on the thoughts presented:

1. No one understands their own arguments.

2. Any one who argues against is called a name of some sort.



Seems this a sandbox for children.

:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:


Will anyone take the challenge to extrapolate upon their thoughts beyond name-calling?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Based on the thoughts presented:

1. No one understands their own arguments.

2. Any one who argues against is called a name of some sort.



Seems this a sandbox for children.

:boxedin: :boxedin: :boxedin:


Will anyone take the challenge to extrapolate upon their thoughts beyond name-calling?
Click to expand...
And your argument that the SPP is the same as the Constitution is based on...?

BTW, a cow is the same thing as a 1967 Ford F-150.
 
WildCat said:
And your argument that the SPP is the same as the Constitution is based on...?
Click to expand...

That is not what I said.

fail.jpg
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Friend. You made the claim.

Please explain your thoughts.


You can admit that you are unable and are just basing your thoughts on nothing more than feelings.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom