David Crockett
banned-
Posts
74 -
Joined
Reputation
-267Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
-
So had I read your posts, I would have realized that my opinion was in error? Or are you assuming my post was in response to or in rebuttal of your posts? You're one arrogant cat, I'll give you that.
-
Who says I agree with Citizens United? You created the straw man; you whack away at it. I'd also offer that you're not making as much of a parallel argument as you think you are.
-
No, I didn't. But based on the bolded part, we have similar life experience and could have had a productive conversation. Do you think you're the only person around with decades of close observation of government function? Your opinion that my opinion is uninformed makes it so no more than my opinion that your opinion is shit (I don't necessarily think that) makes it so. And claiming to be the arbiter of what merits condescension displays a remarkable level of hubris.
-
Stating my opinion is hardly uninformed and the fact that it might not align with yours doesn't make it so. You made a passive-aggressive comment in response and I gave you an opportunity to clearly state your thoughts instead. You chose to stick with cheap-and-lazy and I called you the pussy you were being. That's no more disrespectful than passive-aggressive condescension; but it is certainly more direct. And now you're doing it again. "I can't understand them for you" implies that your posts are both A+ and "correct", and that any dissenting opinion is simply because I don't have the horsepower to "understand it." First of all, I never read any of your previous posts. My initial post (my opinion) wasn't in response to any of your posts which I never read. Secondly, you ain't the only person in the virtual room on the right side of the distribution. For everyone else rallying up the downvotes, go for it. "Winning" a little tiff on the internet may mean something to you, but I assure you being run out of here will change my day exactly zero. I'm a UT alum and enjoy UT sports, which is what led me to the site. I also enjoy intellectual stimulation and thought there might be some useful debate in this thread, which is what led me here. I can live without either.
-
And I'm an asshole because I disagree with what seems to be the prevailing opinion here re: the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade? I think one could say some of y'all's reaction to someone not falling in line makes YOU an asshole. Even if that's true, have at it if that's what gets you off. It makes no difference to me. It's the internet.
-
We'll never know since he appears to be uninterested in making a point, instead choosing to posture in front of his e-friends. The dynamic here is amusing. It's not my "house" though, so I have at it.
-
Is that the internet version of a bunch of pussies acting tough? If that's what brings you satisfaction and gives you a little dopamine hit, then have at it, big guy.
-
If you're looking to be the recipient of a virtual handjob from your internet friends, then based on what I've seen so far, your current approach of the intellectually shallow drive-by is likely the most effective. If you'd like to make your point about about corporate personhood, then by all means make it.
-
Because it's a straw man. If he wants to make a point regarding the Constitutionality of corporate personhood, he is free to do so. And I might even agree with it. Who knows?
-
Thank you for the reasoned argument instead of taking the shortcut of passive aggressive smart ass comments from behind a keyboard. Much appreciated. Passing amendments is supposed to be difficult. Maybe not to the extreme you indicate, but difficult nonetheless. The reason that's a good thing is because most issues, especially contentious ones, should be handled at a level closest to the people. Californians decide for Californians, Texans for Texans, and so on. It's not supposed to be easy for State A to impose their beliefs/values/desires on State B, thus the difficulty in amending the Constitution that covers us all. As for your last paragraph, I'm not sure I understand the "throw people in cages" reference, but yeah, some sort of solution that makes everyone happy would be ideal. In the absence of that though, "let the States decide" is the best alternative (because it's the Constitutional alternative).
-
Nor should you.
-
"Everyone who doesn't agree with me must be a [troll]." You don't even know my stance on abortion. It may very well be different than my view on today's ruling. Maybe intellectual honesty allows for the analysis of one to be free of influence from the other.
-
Perfect example of an argument with no basis in fact. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. You know they could add the right to abortion to the Constitution via an amendment, right?
-
Is the hobbies forum the place where people make arguments based on calm, rational thought and reason in lieu of simply emoting?
-
Can you quote/cite the right to abortion in the United States Constitution?
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!