Thread: NBC poll--Tea Party more popular that the Democrat or Republican party.

Originally Posted by Tim

You are making an analogy between the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the United States?Do you know anything about the Balkans? Anything at all?

Things don't always have to be artificially complex in order to make sense. It was a simple illustration of the fact that people don't always anticipate societal collapse. Do YOU know anything about a simple illustration? Anything at all?

Originally Posted by Michael_Q

Things don't always have to be artificially complex in order to make sense. It was a simple illustration of the fact that people don't always anticipate societal collapse. Do YOU know anything about a simple illustration? Anything at all?

You made the analogy, pal - a very specific reference to a recent tragedy.

If you were intending to make a very generalized reference to societal collapse, it is up to you to say so. I trust that is clear?

Originally Posted by Michael_Q

You know friend, I told you to "disregard" because you're insulting; who needs that cheap juvenile nonsense, right? You want to talk down from some self imagined pedestal, fine. But I don't want to play. Then you come back and re-engage in a civil way. Fine, I thought. Give it another shot. Should have known...leopards and spots and all that. Bite down on this:

The US Constitution, Article VI states:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

So the US Constitution clearly requires the federal government to protect states from invasion. Almost a million aliens illegally pouring across the border into states each year is clearly an invasion. Now if you want to continue this, which I'm doubting in the face of the above, stop with the childish insults, because trust me, your opinion of my opinion couldn't mean less to me.

I'm certain that in that instant the founding father's meant a military invasion. If questioning the rhetoric that you regurgitate forth is insulting, so be it. I only question you when you make ridiculous statements, and then I only ask you to support such with facts or examples. Is that so difficult?

Originally Posted by Tim

You made the analogy, pal - a very specific reference to a recent tragedy.
If you were intending to make a very generalized reference to societal collapse, it is up to you to say so. I trust that is clear?

Yea pal, IT WASN'T ABOUT SARAJEVO, it was about getting caught off guard. Why does the word "pseudo-intellectual" come to mind?

Originally Posted by Michael_Q

Yea pal, IT WASN'T ABOUT SARAJEVO, it was about getting caught off guard.

Then say so. That was a real tragedy that has no other relevance to this discussion.

Why does the word "pseudo-intellectual" come to mind?

Perhaps because that is your goal.

Good luck. It will be a step up.

Originally Posted by compote_tom

I'm certain that in that instant the founding father's meant a military invasion. If questioning the rhetoric that you regurgitate forth is insulting, so be it. I only question you when you make ridiculous statements, and then I only ask you to support such with facts or examples. Is that so difficult?

Yea, and now I give you the cold hard facts that show you what a pant load you're blowing out here and now you come up with, "I'm certain that in that instant the founding father's meant a military invasion." Turns out it wasn't "rhetoric" as you so arrogantly accused. You clearly don't have a clue what the Founders had in mind. They said "invasion" and we're being invaded just as surely as if the landing craft were hitting San Diego. So spare me the condescending crap.

Originally Posted by Michael_Q

Yea, and now I give you the cold hard facts that show you what a pant load you're blowing out here and now you come up with, "I'm certain that in that instant the founding father's meant a military invasion." Turns out it wasn't "rhetoric" as you so arrogantly accused. You clearly don't have a clue what the Founders had in mind. They said "invasion" and we're being invaded just as surely as if the landing craft were hitting San Diego. So spare me the condescending crap.

Sorry no "cold hard facts". The threat of military invasion was very real at the time the Constitution was written, you are reffering to illegal immigration. Two totally different issues.

Originally Posted by compote_tom

Sorry no "cold hard facts". The threat of military invasion was very real at the time the Constitution was written, you are reffering to illegal immigration. Two totally different issues.

Absolute retreating crap. This was what you challenged me to produce, as if it didn't exist. Stop with the pathetic diversions.

The US Constitution, Article VI states:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

If you're going to be a "know it all" at least have the data right.

compote_tom is correct on this one, they were referring to a military invasion. You are aware that at the time the constitution was written, there were massive amounts of foreigners entering America to establish a new life here, correct? It wouldn't make any sense if they were referring to immigration when they said 'invasion'.

Also, you're citing the wrong article. It's article IV.

Originally Posted by Michael_Q

If you're going to be a "know it all" at least have the data right.

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Also, you're citing the wrong article. It's article IV.

Whoops.

So who's the pseudo-intellectual?

Originally Posted by Michael_Q

Absolute retreating crap. This was what you challenged me to produce, as if it didn't exist. Stop with the pathetic diversions.

The US Constitution, Article VI states:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

If you're going to be a "know it all" at least have the data right.

You're playing word games. Invasion simply meant a military action. There was plenty of reason for the founding fathers to be concerned about such. While the founding fathers were far from perfect they weren't stupid, had they meant immigration, illegal or otherwise, they would have so stated. Sorry bud you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Michael_Q

Absolute retreating crap. This was what you challenged me to produce, as if it didn't exist. Stop with the pathetic diversions.

The US Constitution, Article VI states:

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

If you're going to be a "know it all" at least have the data right.

It doesn't.

I do.

Originally Posted by Michael_Q

Yea pal, IT WASN'T ABOUT SARAJEVO, it was about getting caught off guard. Why does the word "pseudo-intellectual" come to mind?

Will you please answer my question? What are your feelings on the theory of the Unitary Executive?