Global Warming Climate Models Have Made a Successful Prediction

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 04:51:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Your dogma, of course, makes it impossible for you to accept that not
everyone believes what you believe.

Incorrect. Obviously, I see your opinions as different, and not legitimate because they are based on false premises.

Opinions need not have any premises at all, beyond personal values.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 05:15:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

IOW, you were wrong and you are failing to admit that.

I thought I just did admit that.

You only admitted that I was right, but not that you were wrong.

You would be laughable but for the tragedy of your apparent mental
illness.

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:28:18 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Free exercise of religion. You have to ask yourself what did they mean by
free.

Free from any government interference whatsoever. (Well, maybe human sacrifices might be regulated.)

If you want to propose that this means no taxes then this should
apply to the press too.

There is no tax on free speech and the press is a business.

It's obvious to anyone with at least half a brain
that "free" in this case means without coercion.

So, you just barely qualify.

It doesn't mean allowing
these organisations to freeload on the taxes of the rest of the population.

They aren't freeloading. The congregation pays taxes already.

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:52:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:31:55 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Your constitution seems very badly written if you need so many lawyers to
fight over its interpretation.

Or maybe it's well written because of that. Much of it is arguably
obsolete if interpreted as originally written.

Merely your opinion, which is based on your usual false premises.

But as an
_interpretable_ document, given a judiciary empowered to reinterpret
it as society has changed, it has generally done a pretty good job.

No, the judiciary is supposed to -understand- the Constitution, not make things up as it goes along.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:27:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:52:45 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 15:31:55 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Your constitution seems very badly written if you need so many lawyers to
fight over its interpretation.

Or maybe it's well written because of that. Much of it is arguably
obsolete if interpreted as originally written.

Merely your opinion, which is based on your usual false premises.

But as an
_interpretable_ document, given a judiciary empowered to reinterpret
it as society has changed, it has generally done a pretty good job.

No, the judiciary is supposed to -understand- the Constitution, not make things up as it goes along.

The judiciary needs to understand the Consititution and to understand
society. It then seeks an interpretation most consistent with both.
Otherwise, the Constitution ends up being just another immoral
obsolete document like the Bible.

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 8:43:01 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

It's very well written for an eighteenth century document. But it's now the
21st century and the principles of the constitution are now shrouded in
misinterpretation and circumstances and language have changed.

The ONLY circumstances that have changed are that "freedom of the press" is extended to electronic media, which should be an obvious thing to do, and we now have a new branch of the military.

As far as language, the 18th-Century meanings of the words haven't changed and the interpretations are generally straight forward unless you are an idiot liberal justice or an idiot liberal Congress critter.


It needs to be brought up to date.

Are you a US Citizen? If not, it is really NONE of your GD business!

Does the right to bar arms mean that individuals should be allowed to own
nuclear weapons?

Strawman argument. Hard to use a nuclear weapon against a burglar.

That's just one example.

An idiotic one.

It needs to be brought up to date and then revised at least every 50 years.

Again, if you are not a US Citizen, it is NONE of your GD business!

Maybe you should think about creating your OWN constitution, no?

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 9:40:57 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:43:01 AM UTC-6, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 11:32:02 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Actually it is very well written. It contains sensible limits on
government power, a system of checks and balances, and a tacit
acknowledgement of the existence of natural rights.

It's very well written for an eighteenth century document. But it's now the
21st century and the principles of the constitution are now shrouded in
misinterpretation and circumstances and language have changed.
It needs to be brought up to date.
Does the right to bar arms mean that individuals should be allowed to own
nuclear weapons?
That's just one example.
It needs to be brought up to date and then revised at least every 50 years.

I'm not so sure. While the example you cite is a place where a real controversy
exists, at least of a theoretical kind, in general the Constitution may be an
oldie but a goodie.

However, it is actually rather weak in its acknowledgment of natural rights;
which is why the Declaration of Independence, although unlike the Constitution,
is more emotionally stirring to many Americans particularly because it clearly,
unequivocally, and explicitly acknowledges natural rights.


The Declaration was certainly more emphatic, but the Constitution is clear that such rights already exist and shall not be infringed upon.

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:35:32 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 04:33:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

"If we are smart we vote for candidates who will correct blatant misinterpretation of the Constitution by appointing judges and justices who -respect- the Constitution instead of urinating on it."

What of it? A juvenile statement that conveys nothing but you complete
lack of respect for everyone who thinks differently than you do. It
isn't worth a reply.

Reply? You just did! Not very well, of course.

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:37:29 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 04:51:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Your dogma, of course, makes it impossible for you to accept that not
everyone believes what you believe.

Incorrect. Obviously, I see your opinions as different, and not legitimate because they are based on false premises.

Opinions need not have any premises at all, beyond personal values.

Yours ARE based on false premises, however.

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:38:56 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 05:15:40 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

IOW, you were wrong and you are failing to admit that.

I thought I just did admit that.

You only admitted that I was right, but not that you were wrong.

You would be laughable but for the tragedy of your apparent mental
illness.

That's a lame and JUVENILE response, peterson.