Wow, really? You post an edited quote with no indication that you've edited it (sorry, simple paragraph spaces aren't enough--how are we to know those spaces weren't in the original?), and I'm a pr*ck for calling you on it? What a pathetic response.
I don't even understand how you think you have a point to convey. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to figure out what you are trying to say.
Surpassed, in the same post, by an even more pathetic response. Congratulations.
Look, it's clear that your only standard for the quality or integrity of an argument is whether you agree with it. Editing quotes is a horrible affront worthy of a boldface liar accusation--except when you do it because you've decided it doesn't materially alter the meaning. Supreme Court decisions are not to be regarded as valid, except when they are, depending on whether it suits your purpose. Jeff's quotes about the basis of citizenship are "argumentum ad numerum," but you're willing to say "I've got Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Monroe, Justice Washington, Justice Marshall, John Adams, James Wilson, Thomas Smith, John Armstrong, Samuel Roberts, Pickney, Henry Lee, James Otis, and various other sources too numerous to list." You're not consistent and you're not honest. And you have the nerve to name yourself after Diogenes!
You are a Pr*ck for implying that I was attempting to hide something when the link was prominently posted above it. You are also a Pr*ck for implying that the part not included somehow changes the meaning of what was.
What a pathetic response.
To a pathetic query. à bon chat, bon rat.
As for the rest of your message. F*** You.
Astonishing.
The guy accuses others of being a LIAR for supposedly not posting all of what Bingham had to say (specifically, the "not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty" language) when he had already posted it a bunch of times to present his spurious claims - so it was clearly already out there - and when I actually HAD posted a nearly identical quote from Bingham upthread.
So THEN, he goes and edits Madisons quote - selectively eliminating a whole passage that is absolutely relevant to the meaning without even providing an ellipsis to show he's deleted stuff.
Here's the full quote, with the part that he selectively eliminated highlighted:
What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance passed during the same Session, declared the Common law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the 4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all civil rights and obligations. Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.
He also stripped the entire quote of its context by failing to include the complaint it was a response to:
There is no Declaration of Rights; and the Laws of the general Government being paramount to the Laws & Constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no Security. Nor are the people secured even in the Enjoyment of the Benefits of the common-Law which stands here upon no other Foundation than it's having been adopted by the respective Acts forming the Constitutions of the several States.
Then, when you call him on his dishonesty, he calls you a "Pr*ck!!"
Man. You just can't make this stuff up.
Once again, for about the 10th time in this thread, he has revealed his own dishonesty and hypocrisy. I could hardly say it better than you did:
Look, it's clear that your only standard for the quality or integrity of an argument is whether you agree with it.
There are obviously two sets of rules: those that anyone who disagrees with him must abide by, and a completely different set of rules for him.
Of course, he's in a lose/lose situation. He can either sit by and watch his nutjob claims being taken apart piece by piece, or he can actively participate in the destruction by continuing to make fallacious argument after fallacious argument and have himself revealed as an ass again and again and again. So far, he's chosen to actively participate.
I'm not sure what he gets out of being repeatedly and publicly outed as a jackass, but hey, it's kind of entertaining.
And you have the nerve to name yourself after Diogenes!
A couple of years ago, in one of my early encounters with this loon, I was darned near mowed down by shrapnel from an exploding heavy-duty industrial irony meter due to that name. The guy creates a screen name that implies he's looking for an honest man. Then, as soon as he finds one, he says he would cheer if he were to be taken out and shot.
The comment unfortunately no longer exists on FR because it was in a thread that became so acrimonious it was deleted. However, there is still some reference to it that was made after the fact.
In any event, it's interesting to watch him spin, spin, spin. Maybe instead of DiogenesLamp he should rename himself DiogenesSpincycle.