As you & others here have made clear, the Declaration qualifies; -- "That to secure these Rights, - [inalienable rights, - to life, liberty, property] - Governments are instituted among men," -----. Seeing that only a republican form of constitutional government can 'secure' such rights, it is specious of ROL to claim that our declaration would allow states to secede to form ANY type of government that a states majority would will.
In reality, his position is clear. He disagrees with certain basic principles of both the declaration & the constitution/bill of rights.
He favors majority rule, - statism. - And refuses to admit this simple truth.
As I have pointed out in a private reply to Mr. Quackenbush, I have not forgotten him and will reply when I collect the necessary data.
And? -- As I pointed out, -- you do not make public replies to certain posts.
Mr. Paine, I have asked you to quit these childish personal attacks on me. I will ask you one more time to cease.
Point out what you consider personal attack, in the above. You can't, You won't. There is none.
Your personal attacks on people (and I'm certainly not the only person you routinely attack) do not add to the debate. They do not do anything except disrupt this forum. If you have something to add, some fact or some, reasonable, logical argument, then by all means, add it. Don't distort other people's arguments. Don't insult people. And don't play out childish vendettas against people.
I made bold my logical argument to your view of the declaration. You seem to have ignored it, just as I pointed out initially.
You happen to think that observations on your political stance are personal abuse. - They are not. - Get over it, -- rebut if you will, quit whining if you can't, or choose not, - to reply. -- Its that simple.
Here is the personal attack: Notice how you get 'no response' when an obvious fallacy is pointed out in ROL's position.
Before you sent that garbage, I had emailed Mr. Quakenbush to tell him that I would answer his posts when I had the material together. Unlike some people on this site, I don't go off half-cocked. I gather data, marshall facts and arguments. I check to see if I might agree with some of the arguments made by the other person. I do not claim to be infallable and if an argument is valid, I am willing to change my mind.
That's what people do who are serious about discussing an issue. It might take more time than just putting down the first bit of nonsense that comes to mind. But respect for the people on this forum demands that we take the time to do things right.