Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Alaska Wolf
Another asinine accusation. Arguments should be based on facts and evidence, not emotions. You are emoting.

WTF -- I showed you the relevant constitutional sections when I built my argument, those are facts and evidence, yet you claim I need cases to cite them as violations.
IOW -- The Constitution itself isn't enough to mean what it says, no, we need the courts and judges to filter and hand down the words to us plebeian mites of that High Law just as priests are needed to hand down the Word of God.

Emotions are not a problem, it is emotion unbound by reason -- but likewise, reason unsoftened by emotion a problem:
"Reason without feeling is at best sterile and worst morally reprehensible.
Feeling without reason is at best animalistic and at worst insanity."

I love [sarcasm] how you can dismiss all the reason presented because I dare to show some emotional connection.
I bet if I presented it in a dry and formal manner you'd dismiss it as obviously uninteresting because it lacked emotional connection.

630 posted on 02/15/2013 4:41:48 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies ]


To: OneWingedShark
WTF -- I showed you the relevant constitutional sections

Did you ever attend college? Posting a book title, chapter title, amendment, page number or the US Constitution to address questions doesn't cut it.

we need the courts and judges

They are indeed part of the judicial branch of government, are they not?

I bet

Is it legal where you live?

634 posted on 02/15/2013 4:56:35 PM PST by Alaska Wolf (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson