Remember me
▼ Content

One reason for social distancing/isolation



Page 10 of 20<<<89101112>>>
27-05-2020 23:17
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...the role of a Judge to interpret laws...

Avoidance.
synonyms are always relevant gfm. What if I said that the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to a gun, because it doesn't say guns anywhere in the Constitution?

Then find a synonym for "interpret" within the Constitution.

The closest that I have come up with is "construed", but that's not the same as "interpreted", and nowhere does the Constitution grant the Judicial Branch the power to "construe" anything either.


Why do you keep avoiding IBD's questions?
27-05-2020 23:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
gfm7175 wrote:
Then find a synonym for "interpret" within the Constitution.


Interpretation = Judgement

Judicial

gfm7175 wrote:Why do you keep avoiding IBD's questions?
As far as I know I answered them all. What do you see that I missed?
Edited on 27-05-2020 23:28
28-05-2020 00:03
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Then find a synonym for "interpret" within the Constitution.


Interpretation = Judgement

Judicial

No it doesn't.

The word "judgement" is not found in the Constitution either...

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Why do you keep avoiding IBD's questions?
As far as I know I answered them all. What do you see that I missed?

Where do you see the word "interpret" in the Constitution?
28-05-2020 00:24
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
There are many ways to communicate "interpret". I like this one - "ascertain its meaning".
Article 111, section 2 will give you a clue to the authorization of the Supreme Court to give itself the right to do Judicial Review.
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist #78 says that "interpretation" is the proper province of the courts.
Just keep looking into various sources and you will see more. Precedent over 217 years would be impossible to overcome.
28-05-2020 00:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...the role of a Judge to interpret laws...

Avoidance.
synonyms are always relevant gfm. What if I said that the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to a gun, because it doesn't say guns anywhere in the Constitution?

I would be fine with that as long as the government doesn't try to infringe on my right to keep and bear any of my arms.


.
Attached image:

28-05-2020 00:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...the role of a Judge to interpret laws...

Avoidance.
synonyms are always relevant gfm. What if I said that the 2nd amendment doesn't give you the right to a gun, because it doesn't say guns anywhere in the Constitution?


All weapons are legal, dumbass...including guns. Any kind of gun.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 00:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantra 10 (interpretation<->judgement)...29...



No argument presented. RQAA. Justification of tyranny.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 00:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
There are many ways to communicate "interpret".

Irrelevant. Mantra 16b.
keepit wrote:
I like this one - "ascertain its meaning".

The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
Article 111, section 2 will give you a clue to the authorization of the Supreme Court to give itself the right to do Judicial Review.

Article III, $2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.


Nothing in here gives the Supreme Court or any court the authority to interpret the Constitution of the United States, or the authority to usurp such authority.

keepit wrote:
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist #78 says that "interpretation" is the proper province of the courts.

Mantra 4b...4c...39f...
keepit wrote:
Just keep looking into various sources and you will see more. Precedent over 217 years would be impossible to overcome.


Irrelevant. The Constitution is the ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution. Mantra 39e...


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 01:49
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
You didn't read far enough down ITN. Article 3, section 2, clause 2. Second paragraph goes into judicial review. Then look up marbury v madison 1803 and you'll see that the Supreme Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review. Then look up what Judicial Review is. Use wiki or some other source.
There is over 200 years of precedent of the Supreme Court "ascertaining the meaning" (interpreting) of the Constitution.
Why do you misinterpret soooo many things?
28-05-2020 02:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
You didn't read far enough down ITN. Article 3, section 2, clause 2. Second paragraph goes into judicial review. Then look up marbury v madison 1803 and you'll see that the Supreme Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to grant itself authority to interpret or change the Constitution. I quoted the entire Article III, $2.
keepit wrote:
Then look up what Judicial Review is. Use wiki or some other source.

Wiki is not the Constitution of the United States. Neither is the Supreme Court.
keepit wrote:
There is over 200 years of precedent of the Supreme Court "ascertaining the meaning" (interpreting) of the Constitution.

Stop quoting random numbers. Argument from randU fallacy. History revisionism. Irrelevance fallacy. False authority fallacy.
keepit wrote:
Why do you misinterpret soooo many things?

Inversion fallacy. I suggest you stop quoting random numbers, stop trying to declare 'what the found fathers thought', stop trying to include authorities that are no there in the Constitution, and stop trying to justify tyranny.

The States, and ONLY the States, have the authority to interpret or change the Constitution. No one else. The States own it. The Court does not own the Constitution. It was created by the Constitution. It must operate UNDER the Constitution. It has NO authority OVER it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 02:26
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
You should reread article 3 more thoroughly ITN.
Edited on 28-05-2020 03:15
28-05-2020 02:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: Interpretation = Judgement

They cannot be equivalent. You may use your judgement, experience and various rule sets in order to "interpret" something ... but whatever your interpretation of a given matter, it is something wholly different and separate from your judgement. They are two different things.

tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Why do you keep avoiding IBD's questions?
As far as I know I answered them all. What do you see that I missed?

We've been looking for your occurrence of "interpret" in the Constitution to no avail so we were hopin you would point us to where, exactly, the word "interpret" resides within the US Constitution.
Attached image:

28-05-2020 03:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
You should reread article 3 more thoroughly ITN.


Inversion fallacy. Stop putting things in there that aren't. You're a liar.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 14:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:...we were hopin you would point us to where, exactly, the word "interpret" resides within the US Constitution.
The word gun doesn't appear either. If you'd like to explain how Judges are able to use the English language and the law without interpretation, as ITN has not done but insisted is true, I'd be fascinated to hear it.
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Interpretation = Judgement
Judicial
No it doesn't.
Oh really? How do you define Judicial?

Judges interpret laws.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

IBdaMann wrote:
I would be fine with that as long as the government doesn't try to infringe on my right to keep and bear any of my arms.
Into the Night wrote:
All weapons are legal, .
How about chemical weapons?

Into the Night wrote:
The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.
It is not possible to apply either the law or language itself without interpretation.

Why don't you give us your, I'm sure unique, definition of "interpret" ITN.
As you're not a dictionary guy I have no idea what you are thinking when you use the word.
28-05-2020 17:09
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
There are many ways to communicate "interpret". I like this one - "ascertain its meaning".

"Ascertain" is not the same as "interpret".

keepit wrote:
Article 111, section 2 will give you a clue to the authorization of the Supreme Court to give itself the right to do Judicial Review.

There are nowhere near 111 Articles in the Constitution. What are you even talking about?

keepit wrote:
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist #78 says that "interpretation" is the proper province of the courts.

The Federalist Papers are NOT the Constitution.

keepit wrote:
Just keep looking into various sources and you will see more.

Nope, those are not authoritative sources. I'm only concerned with the text within the Constitution itself.

keepit wrote:
Precedent over 217 years would be impossible to overcome.

Not at all. It could be "overcome" in an instant.
28-05-2020 17:16
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
You didn't read far enough down ITN. Article 3, section 2, clause 2. Second paragraph goes into judicial review.

There is no mention of "judicial review" in Article 3, section 2, clause 2.

keepit wrote:
Then look up marbury v madison 1803 and you'll see that the Supreme Court gave itself the power of Judicial Review.

Marbury v Madison 1803 is NOT the Constitution.

keepit wrote:
Then look up what Judicial Review is. Use wiki or some other source.
There is over 200 years of precedent of the Supreme Court "ascertaining the meaning" (interpreting) of the Constitution.
Why do you misinterpret soooo many things?

Now you're just repeating the same arguments over and over... That's a fallacy, dude...
28-05-2020 17:20
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
You should reread article 3 more thoroughly ITN.

**knock knock knock**

Have I knocked your mind back into "play" mode? It seemed to be skipping for a second there...
28-05-2020 17:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Interpretation = Judgement
Judicial
No it doesn't.
Oh really? How do you define Judicial?

Judges interpret laws.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

The Supreme Court website is NOT the Constitution either.

I've already made this quite clear, but will say it again. The ONLY source that I am interested in is the Constitution itself.

Where, IN THE CONSTITUTION, is the Supreme Court granted the power to interpret the Constitution? Where, IN THE CONSTITUTION, is the Supreme Court granted power OVER the Constitution?

I'm still perched upon whatever hot object IBD wishes to place underneath my poor little feet next, waiting for a valid response.
28-05-2020 20:23
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
gfm,
It doesn't matter if the only source you are interested in is the constitution itself and it doesn't matter if "interpret" isn't in the constitution.
You guys are so hung up on semantics that you can't think straight!
"Ascertain the meaning", Judicial Review, is what the SCOTUS does.
I read on the internet about interpretation of the Constitution and thought it was the Constitution-sorry about that. Nevertheless, the precedent has been set, the SCOTUS has the power of Judicial Review. Anyone who doesn't like that can make a case against it with the Supreme Court. Have at it.
28-05-2020 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...we were hopin you would point us to where, exactly, the word "interpret" resides within the US Constitution.
The word gun doesn't appear either. If you'd like to explain how Judges are able to use the English language and the law without interpretation, as ITN has not done but insisted is true, I'd be fascinated to hear it.
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Interpretation = Judgement
Judicial
No it doesn't.
Oh really? How do you define Judicial?

Judges interpret laws.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

The Court has no authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
I would be fine with that as long as the government doesn't try to infringe on my right to keep and bear any of my arms.
Into the Night wrote:
All weapons are legal, .
How about chemical weapons?

Yes. I have some in my house right now. RQAA. All weapons are legal.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution.
It is not possible to apply either the law or language itself without interpretation.

Only the States have authority to interpret the Constitution. They own it. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Why don't you give us your, I'm sure unique, definition of "interpret" ITN.

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
As you're not a dictionary guy I have no idea what you are thinking when you use the word.

Mantra 4d...RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
There are nowhere near 111 Articles in the Constitution. What are you even talking about?


It's his weird way of writing the Roman numeral III. I already quoted Article III, $2. He still refuses to read it when it's right there in front of his face. He still is trying to insert wording into it that isn't there.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 21:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
gfm,
It doesn't matter if the only source you are interested in is the constitution itself and it doesn't matter if "interpret" isn't in the constitution.

Yes it does. You can't just insert words into the Constitution. That is changing it.
keepit wrote:
You guys are so hung up on semantics that you can't think straight!

Not semantics. You are inserting wording into the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
"Ascertain the meaning", Judicial Review, is what the SCOTUS does.

It does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
I read on the internet about interpretation of the Constitution and thought it was the Constitution-sorry about that.

Because you are continually trying to insert wording into the Constitution. You are also continually trying to argue for tyranny.
keepit wrote:
Nevertheless, the precedent has been set, the SCOTUS has the power of Judicial Review.

Precedence is not the Constitution. It cannot override the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
Anyone who doesn't like that can make a case against it with the Supreme Court. Have at it.

No need. Any court exceeding its authority can simply be ignored.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 22:27
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
gfm,
It doesn't matter if the only source you are interested in is the constitution itself and it doesn't matter if "interpret" isn't in the constitution.

Yes, it does. It is absolutely vital.

keepit wrote:... deleted "semantics" mantra... deleted repetitious argumentation...

No new argumentation presented. Nothing for me to reply to.
28-05-2020 22:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
There are nowhere near 111 Articles in the Constitution. What are you even talking about?


It's his weird way of writing the Roman numeral III. I already quoted Article III, $2. He still refuses to read it when it's right there in front of his face. He still is trying to insert wording into it that isn't there.

I can't say that I've ever seen the Roman numeral "III" expressed as "111" before. I've always understood "III" to mean (3) (three), and "111" to mean (111) (one hundred and eleven). Interesting...

And it truly is amazing that plenty of people refuse to read the Constitution, even when it gets directly presented to them.
Edited on 28-05-2020 22:37
28-05-2020 22:39
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
gfm,
I read article III (after i read an article analyzing the constitution). That's how i mixed up the article with the real thing.
Nevertheless, the real thing is that SCOTUS does Judicial Review and it's fine with me, despite the fact that i don't agree with everything they say. It doesn't matter what i think (or what you think), there's always some disagreement when you're talking about opinions.
28-05-2020 22:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
There are nowhere near 111 Articles in the Constitution. What are you even talking about?


It's his weird way of writing the Roman numeral III. I already quoted Article III, $2. He still refuses to read it when it's right there in front of his face. He still is trying to insert wording into it that isn't there.

I can't say that I've ever seen the Roman numeral "III" expressed as "111" before. I've always understood "III" to mean (3) (three), and "111" to mean (111) (one hundred and eleven). Interesting...

And it truly is amazing that plenty of people refuse to read the Constitution, even when it gets directly presented to them.

I have seen it, from time to time. It's usually from someone that has no clue about most things, including how Roman numerals work.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 22:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
gfm,
I read article III (after i read an article analyzing the constitution). That's how i mixed up the article with the real thing.

You have never read the Constitution. You keep misquoting it.
keepit wrote:
Nevertheless, the real thing is that SCOTUS does Judicial Review

The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
keepit wrote:
and it's fine with me, despite the fact that i don't agree with everything they say. It doesn't matter what i think (or what you think), there's always some disagreement when you're talking about opinions.

It is not opinion. It is what is not in the Constitution that you are claiming is in the Constitution.
It is ignoring who owns the Constitution and who are the only ones that have the authority to interpret or change it.
It is attempting to justify an oligarchy with power to declare anything as law.
it is denying the whole point of a republican form of government.

Attempted justification of tyranny.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 28-05-2020 22:53
28-05-2020 23:06
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
gfm,
I read article III (after i read an article analyzing the constitution). That's how i mixed up the article with the real thing.

So you're saying that you need somebody else to analyze it FOR you? Given your abysmally low batting average, I can see why. Too bad that whoever you appealed to apparently hasn't read and comprehended the damn thing either.

keepit wrote:
Nevertheless, the real thing is that SCOTUS does Judicial Review and it's fine with me, despite the fact that i don't agree with everything they say. It doesn't matter what i think (or what you think), there's always some disagreement when you're talking about opinions.

Where in the Constitution is SCOTUS granted the power of Judicial Review (ie, power OVER the Constitution)? I'm looking for language within the Constitution itself. I'm not looking for attempted changes to the Constitution, nor am I looking for any outside sources.
28-05-2020 23:08
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
There are nowhere near 111 Articles in the Constitution. What are you even talking about?


It's his weird way of writing the Roman numeral III. I already quoted Article III, $2. He still refuses to read it when it's right there in front of his face. He still is trying to insert wording into it that isn't there.

I can't say that I've ever seen the Roman numeral "III" expressed as "111" before. I've always understood "III" to mean (3) (three), and "111" to mean (111) (one hundred and eleven). Interesting...

And it truly is amazing that plenty of people refuse to read the Constitution, even when it gets directly presented to them.

I have seen it, from time to time. It's usually from someone that has no clue about most things, including how Roman numerals work.

keepit definitely fits into that category.
28-05-2020 23:21
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
gfm,
You say, regarding the Constitution, "the damn thing".
Also, you and your cronies exhibit this vile and disgusting attitude toward the us and people. It doesn't bring down the us and people, rather it shows you up to be a ... well, i won't say it ...
28-05-2020 23:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
gfm,
You say, regarding the Constitution, "the damn thing".

That he did, probably in anger at you. It is not possible to damn the Constitution. It's a document and doesn't learn anything. People are damned, when their learning is stopped from progress (such as you), but documents never are.
keepit wrote:
Also, you and your cronies exhibit this vile and disgusting attitude toward the us and people.

You deny the Constitution. Now you take offense???
keepit wrote:
It doesn't bring down the us and people, rather it shows you up to be a ... well, i won't say it ...

Your fake concern is noted. You want to deny the Constitution. You want to place an oligarchy in charge over the Constitution the States created, empower, and own.

You want tyranny, O hypocrite.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 23:39
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
False accusations ITN. That's your way.
Edited on 28-05-2020 23:39
28-05-2020 23:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
False accusations ITN. That's your way.


Denial of self. That's your way. YOU made those arguments. YOU own them.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
28-05-2020 23:55
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
There's so much baloney coming out of you that it's a waste of time responding. If you feel that i'm full of baloney as well, feel more than welcome to ignore me.
29-05-2020 01:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
There's so much baloney coming out of you that it's a waste of time responding. If you feel that i'm full of baloney as well, feel more than welcome to ignore me.


Denial of self. That's your way. YOU made those arguments. YOU own them.

You can't make me go away. I'm your worst nightmare.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
29-05-2020 01:36
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
Children 10 minutes in the naughty corner for both of you
29-05-2020 01:55
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
duncan61 - the new voice of reason. Nevertheless, there comes a point where one realizes the futility of things.
29-05-2020 02:32
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
duncan61 wrote:
Children 10 minutes in the naughty corner for both of you



And yet you say sea levels don't rise. You really don't get this, do you? During the Medieval Warm period, cathedrals were built in Europe. And your explanation is that the climate doesn't change.
When did the renaissance in Italy happen? Please be specific.

And Duncan, you're an idiot. Are you aware that Australia never has droughts? I can find that reference. There are no bush fires in Australia either.
Why did Perth build a desalination plant? Because Freemantle has plenty of water.
All you are doing is making Australians look stupid.


@All, I think today that all of Australia's desalination plants are off line. If the broader aspect of the ozone hole over Antarctica can't be considered, then this is a non-issue. It's not CO2 related but who really cares?
https://www.watercorporation.com.au/Our-water/Desalination/Perth-Seawater-Desalination-Plant
Edited on 29-05-2020 03:26
29-05-2020 16:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
keepit wrote:
gfm,
You say, regarding the Constitution, "the damn thing".

Yes, I did. That was my anger coming out towards people like you (and whatever twit you appealed to to "analyze" the document for you) who wish to tear up the Constitution and fundamentally transform this great country into a tyrannical socialist oligarchy. Obviously, a document itself cannot be "damned".

keepit wrote:
Also, you and your cronies exhibit this vile and disgusting attitude toward the us and people.

No, you are the one who denies the Constitution. This is your issue.

keepit wrote:
It doesn't bring down the us and people, rather it shows you up to be a ... well, i won't say it ...

YOU are the one who wishes to fundamentally transform this country. I simply wish to conserve it (and its governing document that the States created).
29-05-2020 17:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote: gfm,
It doesn't matter if the only source you are interested in is the constitution itself and it doesn't matter if "interpret" isn't in the constitution.

Yes, it is absolutely critical. If the basis of your argument is wording that does not appear in the Constitution then your argument is ignored.

That's how semantics work.


keepit wrote: You guys are so hung up on semantics ...

... because "semantics" is all that matters in a forum such as this. Nothing else matters.

.
Attached image:

Page 10 of 20<<<89101112>>>





Join the debate One reason for social distancing/isolation:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Safe Distancing Video004-04-2020 06:28
Wind power is the earliest way to generate power, but there's a reason it stopped being used.1321-02-2020 20:12
Reason why companies are not converting to 100% electric, focusing on Porsche1806-12-2019 23:29
Is reason for climate change correct?4830-08-2019 03:14
Why we won't approach the real reason behind climate change.6819-08-2019 07:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact