Declaration of Constitutional Principles

http://www.constitution.org/consprin.htm ^ | 3/13/05 | unknown

[Who is John Galt?]

You there, my friend? Since you seem to have trouble responding, here's an easier challenge for you - let's defend the content of our posts. I'll defend Mr. Roland's comments regarding Marbury v. Madison, and you can defend (or not defend - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>) his 'Declaration of Constitutional Principles' (you know - the thread you started here ;>)...

[P_A_I]

Lurking Libertarian wrote:

This starts out with some good constitutional privileges, but then throws in a lot of unnecessary and extraneous things.

I suspect it may be one of Rolands earlier essays.. -- And I agree, it needs editing. -- Lots of good points though on principles..

[Who is John Galt?]

Hello - are you willing to defend your post? Or not (you half-@ssed weasel ;>)? Your idiotic comment ("I suspect it may be one of Rolands earlier essays.. -- And I agree, it needs editing... ) doesn't measure up.

'Fish or cut bait'...

;>)

[P_A_I]

Who is John Galt? wrote:

You there? Since you seem to have trouble responding,

Nope, no trouble, its just that duty calls now & then.

here's an easier challenge for you - let's defend the content of our posts.

I always do just that. -- You seldom bother, preferring to nit pick apart everyone else's.

I'll defend Mr. Roland's comments regarding Marbury v. Madison, and you can defend (or not defend - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>)

Now now, thats not a friendly thing to accuse me of, and its quite absurd in any case. Get control of your emotions.

his 'Declaration of Constitutional Principles' (you know - the thread you started here ;>)...

Yes, I know the thread I started here. Do you have a point about it to make?

[Sam Cree]

check later

[P_A_I]

Who is John Galt? wrote:

Hello - are you willing to defend your post? Or not (you half-@ssed weasel ;>)? Your idiotic comment doesn't measure up. 'Fish or cut bait'... ;>)

Good grief, you have lost it.. -- Tell you what, calm down/sober up or whatever, & we'll continue this tomorrow. -- I have a dinner date.

[Who is John Galt?]

I always [defend the content of my posts]. -- You seldom bother, preferring to nit pick apart everyone else's.

"Not true." You seldom substantiate your posts - I regularly post historical documentation to substantiate mine.

;>)

WIJG: ...you can defend [your own posts] (or not defend [your own posts] - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>)

P_A_I: Now now, thats not a friendly thing to accuse me of, and its quite absurd in any case. Get control of your emotions.

Sorry, my friend, but emotions are not involved. Either you can defend your posts - or not. It's a simple matter of fact.

;>)

Yes, I know the thread I started here. Do you have a point about it to make?

First you posted:

"The jurisdiction of a criminal offense is determined by the location of the offender's head when the offense was committed, not by the location of the effects of the crime. The crime is the mental act, not the outcome."

Then you posted:

"I suspect it may be one of Rolands earlier essays.. -- And I agree, it needs editing."

Sounds like you're back-pedaling (at warp speed). What happened to "[w]hoever wrote it [anyone know?] has a very good grasp of our Constituions original principles, imo.." (your Post #1)?"

Got any back bone, sport?

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

Good grief, you have lost it.. -- Tell you what, calm down/sober up or whatever, & we'll continue this tomorrow. -- I have a dinner date.

Actually, you are the one who has "lost it" - when you can't even defend your own posts. (If you're not willing to defend them, why do you post? ;>)

Have a nice night out, my friend...

;>)

[P_A_I]

Who is John Galt? wrote:

Hello - are you willing to defend your post? Or not (you half-@ssed weasel ;>)? Your idiotic comment doesn't measure up. 'Fish or cut bait'... ;>)

I always defend the content of my posts. -- You seldom bother, preferring to nit pick apart everyone else's.

: ...you can defend [your own posts] (or not defend [your own posts] - proving yourself a complete weasel ;>)

Now now, thats not a friendly thing to accuse me of, and its quite absurd in any case. Get control of your emotions.

Sorry, my friend, but emotions are not involved. Either you can defend your posts - or not. It's a simple matter of fact. ;>)

Yep, -- my posts, & the facts, - show my defense.

I know the thread I started here. Do you have a point about it to make?

First you posted: "The jurisdiction of a criminal offense is determined by the location of the offender's head when the offense was committed, not by the location of the effects of the crime. The crime is the mental act, not the outcome."

Yep, that is a quote from Roland, initially posted here to me by someone else, -- that we were wondering about.

Then you posted:
"I suspect it may be one of Rolands earlier essays.. -- And I agree, it needs editing."
Sounds like you're back-pedaling (at warp speed).

Sounds to me like you are picking nits again.

What happened to "[w]hoever wrote it [anyone know?] has a very good grasp of our Constituions original principles, imo.." (your Post #1)?" Got any back bone, sport? ;>)

Good grief, you have lost it.. -- Tell you what, calm down/sober up or whatever, & we'll continue this tomorrow. -- I have a dinner date.

Actually, you are the one who has "lost it" - when you can't even defend your own posts. (If you're not willing to defend them, why do you post? ;>)

Why do you keep insisting that I'm not 'defending' my posts, -- when here I am, doing just that?

[Who is John Galt?]

I always defend the content of my posts. -- You seldom bother, preferring to nit pick apart everyone else's.

Actually, you more often than not post unsubstantiated opinion – and then attempt to defend your points by offering even more unsubstantiated opinion. I prefer to document my claims. For example, when you claimed that Utah (Deseret) was initially denied admission to the union on the basis of the “State religion” issue, I posted the relevant language from the proposed State constitution – a “State religion” was nowhere mentioned (just the opposite, in fact). In case you need a reminder:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1350168/posts?q=1&&page=201#223

;>)

Why do you keep insisting that I'm not 'defending' my posts, -- when here I am, doing just that?

LOL! What is obvious is that you posted this Declaration without knowing the author (listed as “unknown”), and without even having bothered to read the piece (Post #58: “Good catch.. I have no idea what Constitutional principle that line is supposed to illustrate”).

Now that's impressive...

;>)

[P_A_I]

I always defend the content of my posts. -- You seldom bother, preferring to nit pick apart everyone else's.

Actually, you more often than not post unsubstantiated opinion – and then attempt to defend your points by offering even more unsubstantiated opinion.

And of course, you just made an unsubstantiated claim.

I prefer to document my claims. For example, when you claimed that Utah (Deseret) was initially denied admission to the union on the basis of the "State religion" issue, I posted the relevant language from the proposed State constitution – a "State religion" was nowhere mentioned (just the opposite, in fact). In case you need a reminder:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1350168/posts?q=1&&page=201#223 ;>)

Picking nits again I see. - Anyone can go to that thread and establish the facts of our exchange.. No one will because its only important to you. -- Your obsession with anyone that challenges your misconceptions about history is getting worse. Bringing up that thread is really reaching, you know..

Why do you keep insisting that I'm not 'defending' my posts, -- when here I am, doing just that?

LOL! What is obvious is that you posted this Declaration without knowing the author (listed as "unknown"),

That 'nit-pick' has been addressed ad nauseum. Get a life.

and without even having bothered to read the piece (Post #58: "Good catch.. I have no idea what Constitutional principle that line is supposed to illustrate"). Now that's impressive... ;>)

That one too... You are reduced to repeating your petty little points.. -- Please, find some new ploys, - you're boring everyone.

[Who is John Galt?]

And of course, you just made an unsubstantiated claim.

Wrong again – I provided a link to another thread that documents your preference for unsubstantiated, pseudo-historical claims.

;>)

Picking nits again I see. - Anyone can go to that thread and establish the facts of our exchange.. No one will because its only important to you. -- Your obsession with anyone that challenges your misconceptions about history is getting worse. Bringing up that thread is really reaching, you know..

LOL! Apparently to you, documented historical facts are “nits,” and historical documentation (including the proposed State constitution, and Jefferson's Declaration of 1825) represent “misconceptions about history!” But please, tell us again how Utah was refused admission to the union in 1850 on the basis of the (nonexistent) "State religion" issue, and its supposed conflict with the 1st Amendment...

;>)

That 'nit-pick' has been addressed ad nauseum. Get a life.

Obviously, to you the facts are “nits” – to most other people they are somewhat more important. I suggest that you “get a life” that’s a little more connected to reality.

;>)

You are reduced to repeating your petty little points.. -- Please, find some new ploys, - you're boring everyone.

It’s unfortunate that you consider documented facts to be “petty little points,” or “ploys,” or “boring.” That says a lot about you, my friend...

;>)

[P_A_I]

Yawn. -- We've argued those same points over & over again, and your obsession drives you to continue. -- How sad.

Why don't you find something else to do? - Someone else to pester?

[Who is John Galt?]

Yawn. -- We've argued those same points over & over again...

Actually, you generally present unsubstantiated, pseudo-historical opinions, and I counter them with documented, historical fact.

;>)

... and your obsession drives you to continue. -- How sad.
Why don't you find something else to do? - Someone else to pester?

LOL! In reality, it was obviously your "obsession" with 'pestering' me that caused you to invite my comments here (see your Post #4 ;>). If you're unhappy with the results, you (as usual) have only yourself to blame...

;>)