Replies

You have admitted that you do not agree to the basic principles of our union of states, united under our common constitution. So be it.
This is not a "minor doctrinal difference"..

I have admitted no such thing. I simply disagree with your interpretation of the basic principles and your idea of what the basic principles are to begin with. I think the most basic principle of the revolution was that men ought to be free to decide for themselves how they will be governed. And I do not think that the Constitution or extension of federal power were imposed in following with that principle.

Here again you have admitted that you do not agree to the basic principles of our union of states, united under our common constitution.
The rational mind boggles that you are apparently unaware of the import of what you write..

You obviously disagree. To you, again, the ends justify any means necessary.

A nasty & inane platitude. You haven't established that I have EVER made any such 'end=means' remark.

You're dismissed.. -- Find someone else to bother with your weird ideas..

"You have admitted that you do not agree to the basic principles of our union of states, united under our common constitution."

I have admitted no such thing. Just because you say something over and over again does not make it so. I must have credited your debating skill too highly.

"Here is the silliest comment you make:

I do not think that the Constitution or extension of federal power were imposed in following with [the] principle [that men ought to be free to decide for themselves how they will be governed].

Here again you have admitted that you do not agree to the basic principles of our union of states, united under our common constitution."

No, again, you can say that I've 'admitted' that, but frankly, you repeat this only because you simply have no notion of the history or reality of the Constitutional ratification and extension of Constitutional supremacy. If you want to tell me something is 'meaningless,' or 'wrong,' you might want to have a reason for it. Words mean things, and if you don't understand them, consult a dictionary.

"The rational mind boggles that you are apparently unaware of the import of what you write."

Everything I've said has had a point and is stated clearly. You are the ignorant chap who repeatedly claims my words are meaningless to you. If my words are of such import, maybe there is some meaning...but you refuse to address it, claiming instead that I am unaware of what I write. I mean what I said. You just prefer to imagine your righteousness will wave o'er me and I'll be converted simply because of the repetitive nature of your assertion.

"A nasty & inane platitude. You haven't established that I have EVER made any such 'end=means' remark."

Nor have you established that I admitted a darn thing, but you keep saying it. I have plenty of support for my assertion that the union was of independent States, that the States had plenty of reason to demand their rights of nullification, that the States were forced into agreement instead of consenting. You, on the other hand, maintain that the extension of federal rule over ALL the States was legitimate under the Constitution.

That sure sounds to me like the ends justifies the means. That to you, as long as the Constitutional protections are allowed, the government should be able to 'protect' everyone regardless of the original terms of the compact.

"You're dismissed.. -- Find someone else to bother with your weird ideas."

Gosh, I'm sorry I bugged you. It only resulted in a demonstration that you can't discuss rationally differences in opinion. I had thought prior that your debate tactics were respectable in light of your goal, but now I see that your comments aren't turnabout, but your only tactic at all. Enjoy your fantasy of libertarian...dictatorship. I didn't realize that anyone was for something so absurd, but I guess I've found him. Small wonder that I hear that comment from the neoprohibitionists as if it will stick to me. You must radiate that as your end goal throughout other debates to which I have not been a party. How sad, that you do not trust your fellow man to choose wisely and well. I would have expected better from one who purports to value liberty.

And calling my ideas weird does not mean that they are wrong or yours more creditable. The Western world used to think unequivocably that the moon was made of green cheese. Your ideas are certainly weird compared to others, too. Does that make us both wrong? No, it just makes you wrong about how to go about getting the libertarian paradise we both want.