Replies

Well, if you think it’s for lack of courage that the Supreme Court doesn’t act the way you think it should, then you’re missing the bigger picture about how they’re not going to create a law where none exists in the first place, in terms of how one is to specifically vet a candidate (and not merely what the Constitutional qualifications are). That’s at the core of the whole issue. And that’s also a conservative principle in that a conservative doesn’t want the Supreme Court to create some kind of legislative action, by means of a court decision, where that legislation didn’t exist in the first place.

And I can’t discourage anyone from doing what they’re going to do in the first place. You seem to think that by some method or means that I can do that, which is making up situations which don’t exist. Now, if my rational for posting these things makes someone think and realize that what I’m saying is true — then that’s their own decision and thinking at coming to this point. It’s really up to everyone individually, anyway. I’m posting what I think, and what I say is going to happen and, as I’ve said, we’ll see (if it turns out to be true, which I think it will...).

And for sure, I don’t *know* the future, but I can sure make assessments according to how things normally work in the real world. That’s where it seems to “go wrong” with some posters here — in that they think that their *fervent desires* should dictate the “reality” of the situation. On the other hand, I know what I would like — but sometimes reality decides against me. And that’s the way it is here, with Obama and this “qualifications issue”.

But, one thing that I *do know* can very easily happen, politically, is that there can be legislation put through various states to properly vet the candidate. Now, in making an “assessment” of how well what I’m saying will work compared to how well what you’re saying will work — I’ll put my bet and assessment on my methodology. And I’ll stand by it for the future, if someone wants to check on it....

Well, if you think it’s for lack of courage that the Supreme Court doesn’t act the way you think it should, then you’re missing the bigger picture about how they’re not going to create a law where none exists in the first place,
***That’s freepin’ easy. Their job is to uphold the constitution, which states that the an ineligible candidate can’t hold the job. Also there’s that pesky 20th amendment and various others spots.

in terms of how one is to specifically vet a candidate (and not merely what the Constitutional qualifications are).
***You’re the one missing the big picture. The constitution is the framework, the laws are hung on the framework. If there’s no law in place, that doesn’t mean the constitution isn’t there. Geez, how difficult is it to see that?

That’s at the core of the whole issue. And that’s also a conservative principle in that a conservative doesn’t want the Supreme Court to create some kind of legislative action, by means of a court decision, where that legislation didn’t exist in the first place.
***The conservative upholds the constitution. Legislation doesn’t exist around the 3rd amendment because there isn’t much need for it. Does that mean the 3rd amendment wouldn’t be enforced by SCOTUS? Trolls never seem to want to answer that question.

And I can’t discourage anyone from doing what they’re going to do in the first place.
***Non sequitur.

You seem to think that by some method or means that I can do that, which is making up situations which don’t exist.
***Another nonsequitur.

Now, if my rational for posting these things makes someone think and realize that what I’m saying is true — then that’s their own decision and thinking at coming to this point.
***I understand that rationale, but your inability to stay away from logical fallacies, your constant dog-returning-to-its-vomit trolling idiocies, your overlooking simple questions like the 3rd amendment, etc. etc. means that your rationale is seriously hampered and the only thing you’ll likely accomplish is that someone might ask you why you believe in alien abductions. If your rationale were on target with what you say, you’d focus on your precious Oklahoma legislation effort for 2012 and leave us alone.

It’s really up to everyone individually, anyway. I’m posting what I think, and what I say is going to happen and, as I’ve said, we’ll see (if it turns out to be true, which I think it will...).
***more nonsequitur, which probably results from you trying your darndest to avoid that logical fallacy of arguing from silence, the silence of the future. It’s okay to think something is gonna happen in the future, but it’s a fallacy to argue forwards from that as if it were a fact. That’s why you get caught in so much fallacious reasoning, you can’t see that your original starting point has always been a fallacy.

For someone who is in need of a critical thinking class, it would seem that you’ve gone overboard to try and discount these things I’ve said — when it *should be* (according to you) that it’s so obvious that I’m wrong in my thinking.
***Interesting, roundabout, nonsequiturish way of saying... well, something pretty stupid. It’s obvious to me, but it may not be obvious to lurkers. Lotsa lurkers might be inclined to think like you and are surprised to discover they’re using logical fallacies. A few of them are right now signing up for critical thinking classes around the nation. Thanks to you. So maybe something good did result from our exchange.

Your protests indicate something different than what you’re saying...
***Yours certainly do. Get to work on that Oklahoma thing and leave us alone.

And for sure, I don’t *know* the future,
***Well, it’s about freepin’ time you started there.

but I can sure make assessments according to how things normally work in the real world.
***You’re not very good at it. Making assessments like that is utterly dependent upon your critical thinking ability, which you lack. And as far as “how things normally work in the real world”, the lurkers will forgive me for not giving credence to someone who thinks alien abduction is a real phenomena.

That’s where it seems to “go wrong” with some posters here — in that they think that their *fervent desires* should dictate the “reality” of the situation.
***You say that over and over, but it’s still not true, you’re still projecting, embarrassed about that alien abduction thing I see.

On the other hand, I know what I would like — but sometimes reality decides against me. And that’s the way it is here, with Obama and this “qualifications issue”.
***You’re a real strong constitutionalist, we can all see that. /s, for those who live in Rio Linda.

But, one thing that I *do know* can very easily happen, politically, is that there can be legislation put through various states to properly vet the candidate.
***Dog.Vomit.Return. Go ahead, knock yourself out. Same arguments, over and over and over.

Now, in making an “assessment” of how well what I’m saying will work compared to how well what you’re saying will work
***You’re setting up a straw argument here, since I never said that. Yet you keep coming back to it... over and over and over... Have fun posting all this stuff at Daily Kos.

— I’ll put my bet and assessment on my methodology. And I’ll stand by it for the future, if someone wants to check on it
***You can’t even stand by it now, because you keep coming up with the same logical fallacies again & again. I don’t give a flying freep what you think is going to happen in the future, it’s more important why you’re here on these threads, spreading logical fallacies, trolling, generally throwing a wet blanket and trying to get constitutional conservatives to accept a fait accompli that hasn’t even accompli’d yet. You’re just a simple troll. You’re trying to set yourself up to gloat. That’s a real good constitutionalist, there. /s, again...