|
|
 |
Not Yours to Give |
 |
1 | |
This is a really good story I just read and is definitely worth sharing.
Being old school it is somewhat long but omg how it hit's the nail on the head!
I'd love to say more but since it's tl;dr for most of you I'll most likely be talking to myself anyhow.
May I be wrong and it's useful to you
http://studyourhistory.com/?p=34
From The Life of Colonel David Crockett
Member of the U.S. Congress 1827-31 & 1832-35
by Edward S. Ellis (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
“Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.”
“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and of course, was lost.
Later when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that I should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.
I began, ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-’
‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering right now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
This was a sockdolager, I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
‘Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.
I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’
‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional questions.’
‘No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.
If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.
Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought to appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.
The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.
So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.’
+ Show Spoiler +
‘I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said to him:
Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it and thought I had studied it fully. I have head many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.’
He haughtingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’
‘If I don’t, I said, I wish I may be shot, and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.’
No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days and we can afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday. I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday and we will go together and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
‘Well, I will be there. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’
‘My name is Bunce.’
‘Not Horatio Bunce?’
‘Yes.’
‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’
It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and have been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the world - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
But, to return to my story. The next morning I went to the barbeque and to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened by speech by saying:
Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to see your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.
I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so. He came upon the stand and said:
‘Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised to you today.’
He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.”
“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.”
|
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | Last edit: 03/04/2009 01:49 |
|
| 1 | |
APPROPRIATE: To set apart for, or assign for a particular use, in exclusion of all other uses; as, a spot of ground is appropriated for a garden. |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1
 |
PanoRaMa United States. Apr 03 2009 02:40. Posts 1655 | | |
I must be retarded because I don't get it (the ending at least), though I did skim about 5% of it. |
|
| http://panorama.liquidpoker.net | |
|
| 1 | |
u don't get the ending?
he was very happy because his job as a congressman "clicked" |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | |
oh and he was going to get reelected ^^ |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | Last edit: 03/04/2009 02:54 |
|
| 1 | |
fucking edits are becoming a bad habit
I used to never like to do them, but u do it once and now look
I'm gonna try to cut back on those
as of now |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1
 |
SakiSaki  Sweden. Apr 03 2009 04:42. Posts 9687 | | |
I dont understand this unconditional love some of you americans seem to have towards the constitution and/or freedom. I thought the value of both those came from the results when imposed/followed. You seem to read the constitution like you read the bible.
Seperation of chuch and state anyone? |
|
| what wackass site is this nigga? | |
|
| 1 | |
where you are close to being onto something is here
| | On April 03 2009 03:42 SakiSaki wrote:
I thought the value of both those came from the results when imposed/followed. |
unlike everything else in your post, this is good and true
but it's still off because if you or someone else (American) does not have an understanding of what The Constitution is, or how The Constitution even works, how then could it possibly be imposed or even followed correctly?
everything else you said I'm not even going to bother with as that seems like some personal issue you have |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1
|
SakiSaki Sweden. Apr 03 2009 07:49. Posts 9687 | | |
Its funny how you keep posting about political matters yet you dont seem to have any desire to argue about them. You should start a cult or something instead, way more convenient when you are looking to preach and not to argue points. |
|
| what wackass site is this nigga? | |
|
| 1 | |
lol what was ur point?
that I love the Constitution more than the Bible?
why the hell would I waste my time in something so dumb
|
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | |
you want to argue, give me something substantial
I actually went out of my way to make an argument with you as everything else just seems like your standard lp hate post
if u wanna continue having even having this pointless discussion/arguement be my guest, I will reply
but not for a bit for a bit as my days over |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | |
and if ur referring to the one thread where I said I wasn't going to list the reasons why a one world government is bad
I don't recall even seeing you in it first of all
srsly, where's ur obv hate coming from? |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | |
maybe it's my rat icon ...
gnight |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1
|
SakiSaki Sweden. Apr 03 2009 10:34. Posts 9687 | | |
I have an issue with you because you dismissed a perfectly legitimate question with
"everything else you said I'm not even going to bother with as that seems like some personal issue you have"
If I wasnt clear enough in my first post my question is why you ascribe the constitution so much value in it self and not only the good consequenses of it being followed? Its like you think the consitution is perfect and following it word for word will lead to prosperity and happiness for all. Sounds an awful alot like religion to me. States develope and undergo changes all the time so why shouldnt the constitution be able to change and develope equally? This whole constitution=right attitute that a bunch of ron paul enthusiast seem to hold so dear seems like nonsense to me.
If we made an unconstitutional change that, with everything else being equal, made the world a better place all around, would that be wrong simply because its unconstitutional? |
|
| what wackass site is this nigga? | |
|
| 1 | |
That is correct. Your "question" was not clear in your previous posts here to me at all.
Basically all I really saw in your first post was some preconceived assumptions made along with one random point and then you tied them all together with a "Hey I'm cool look at me pwn!!" analogy type question at the end.
But now there is actual questions and so hopefully since I've gone over the above twice now we can move along and don't need to get more into that so...
"my question is why you ascribe the constitution so much value in it self and not only the good consequenses of it being followed"
You have it so backwards. Flip what you just said here you would be right. What I am doing is I am currently stressing alot of value in The Constitution because in so many ways it is not being followed and hence we are seeing the uber bad consequences of such a basic thing not being followed. We are overstepping our bounds and doing things we should definitely not be doing.
To me fundamentals are very key and in law and in the running of this country The Constitution is the fundamentals as it is basically the legal make up of our country. I made this blog post to point out one of the very basic ways in which we quite often are unknowingly overstepping our bounds.
I wonder Saki...did you actually read the whole original post here or did you just see that it was Constitution based and just go from there...
"Its like you think the consitution is perfect and following it word for word will lead to prosperity and happiness for all."
This is you assuming again. I never said it was perfect and I have no idea where you think I implied that it was. I do say The Constitution is vitally important tho; very BIG difference.
"Sounds an awful alot like religion to me."
lol this makes me laugh really hard u have no idea and it makes me even more confident that you've never read The Constitution as this is like a total oxymoron.
If you were American I wouldn't be laughing as much as I'd be sad and scared tho
"States develope and undergo changes all the time so why shouldnt the constitution be able to change and develope equally?"
Did I say somewhere The Constitution couldn't change? -.-a
"This whole constitution=right attitute that a bunch of ron paul enthusiast seem to hold so dear seems like nonsense to me."
no offense but that is because you are speaking out of your ass
"If we made an unconstitutional change that, with everything else being equal, made the world a better place all around, would that be wrong simply because its unconstitutional?"
errr wat? another oxymoron?
By making a change to The Constitution (which HAS been done) it therefore becomes constitutional
to end this if I'm wrong and you actually did read The Constitution then I apologize
Read it again. |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1
|
SakiSaki Sweden. Apr 04 2009 07:34. Posts 9687 | | |
I have read the constitution thank you very much, however its not really its content that concerns me(fwiw I think the constitution in pretty cool in many ways) but rather they way so many ppl are refering to the constitution when making moral and/or political valuejudgements. If constitution=/=right(im not talking about "right" in the legal sense here) then you cant make arguments about why something is right or wrong based on how it relates to what is stated in the constitution. It just seems like an unecessary rethorical detour when you should be arguing a point based on the pros and cons of doing something and not on how the act will relate to what is stated in the constitution. |
|
| what wackass site is this nigga? | |
|
| 1 | |
"(fwiw I think the constitution in pretty cool in many ways)"
fwiw I think that in an argument/debate, explaining what, why or where something is cool holds considerably more weight than just saying it's cool.
"so many ppl are refering to the constitution when making moral and/or political valuejudgements"
I say two things to that..
First, I totally disagree. Not enough people in the US are doing this because of lack of education and that is the biggest cause for our current problems in America, which in turn right now will effect you.
Secondly it's so hilarious that I'm gonna use wiki here but u know since it seems to be the supreme source of LP and all I figure going there will hold most weight. I will gladly use other sources if needed or wanted.
This is the first two sentences copy and pasted of what we are dealing with here:
"The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the Federal Government of the United States."
link
and you do not see why so many people in the United States are falling back on such a thing? L O L
"If constitution=/=right(im not talking about "right" in the legal sense here) then you cant make arguments about why something is right or wrong based on how it relates to what is stated in the constitution."
Why can't you? The Constitution is open to interpretation. Do you think it is wrong somewhere?
If you take a persons morals out then what should they be arguing about when translating law? "I think you should insert a comma here!!" ?
What do you believe in SakiSaki? I look in your "arguments" and I see nothing. Do you believe in law and if so do you believe in Freedom? I see nothing towards that. Maybe you should point to me a better way of going about it in today's world since I keep seeing nothing. Do you think America should become a different entity? Say Sweden? Do you think being a patriot for your country is a good or bad thing? Do you think that believing in anything is a bad thing?
All I do see from you so far is someone being on a high horse passing around his own moral judgments onto mine based on nothing from yourself.
"It just seems like an unecessary rethorical detour"
nice spelling of calling The Constitution unnecessary and rhetorical. I disagree with both of these assumptions.
This is key so I'm going to say this again encase you missed it.
Look at the definition of what I often point out as important (The Constitution of the United States) and then look at yourself here and you can see what I am starting to assume about you.
"you should be arguing a point based on the pros and cons of doing something and not on how the act will relate to what is stated in the constitution."
You need to start over. Once again, what do you think my whole original post was about?
It is about the CONs of Congress giving appropriations in the wrong ways.
I'd really recommend going back up to my original post and read again starting from this point on
"last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle."
You want another con of not following The Constitution? ok start here
http://www.liquidpoker.net/blog/viewblog.php?id=710358
the list goes on my friend... |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | | |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1
 |
failsafe United States. Apr 04 2009 13:27. Posts 1043 | | |
what the hell is wrong with you? no one is gonna wanna talk to you when you add a patronizing "LOL" after every post. saki is at least civil.
anyway his point is pretty clear to me, and yes i'm an american, and yes i've read the constitution, and so forth.
nstead of worrying about the education of others you should try harder to understand what they have to say. i've been able to understand everything saki has said the first time he's said it while you've been rambling on in a sort of unrelated, undisciplined fashion full of patronizing bullshit.
saki is saying that americans (ron paul supporters specifically) use the constitution is a sort of ultimate source for whether a change is a good change or a bad change. for instance you are likely to hear someone say "well that's unconstitutional" as a way of implying that the idea is not only a bad idea but an absurd one.
saki is arguing that this misses the point. and i'll add that i agree with him in at least one sense. many people confuse legal authority with moral authority, and i think that at least some ron paul supporters are guilty of that mistake. yes, the constitution is the ultimate legal authority in the USA, but what does that status mean? what exactly does legal authority have to do with right and wrong? if there were a law in place (hypothetically speaking) that allowed me to murder one person per day, would the law's legal authority mean that such behavior was good and justified?
from this intuition we have that simply because the constitution says something, what is said is not necessarily right. what the constitution says may be right by coincidence, by agreeing with morality and ethics but it is not right simply because the constitution says so. this is what saki meant when he was referring to you sounding religious. the original form of this argument is the famous "euthyphro argument" between socrates and euthyphro and it was concerning religious topics (and it took exactly the same form as the one i've suggested here).
what saki is saying is that legal authority is not moral / ethical authority and what makes a law a good or a bad law is that the law conforms to morality and ethics. in other words, the pressure is on the law to do good. the law is not simply good in itself. the constitution's status as the ultimate legal authority does not grant it ultimate moral authority.
from this, saki extrapolated that we could also say that there are goods outside the constitution. in other words, the constitution does not represent all that is good. the implication is that it would be possible for someone to say:
"well this is unconstitutional, but it is also good."
supposedly we should do good things, so we might further add that
"well this is unconstitutional and we should do it because it is good."
thus the notion that we should not do something because it is unconstitutional is not necessarily sound. of course you might argue the particular role of legislative bodies / executive bodies / judicial bodies is to uphold and abide by the particular laws of the land. yet i think that you do not really believe this. because if the law of the land were wrong, surely you would not want your government officials to follow it? further, if the government officials could do good by going beyond the law of the land, would you say that they were wrong to have done good at the cost of illegality? does the legal status of an action ever outweigh the moral character of an action?
the question boils down to the relationship between morality / ethics and legality. what force does legislation and law actually have if it is not good? what compels us to do capitulate to the law if it is not good? are undesirable consequences all that compel us to follow the law: a wish to avoid imprisonment or fines or some other punishment? if the only force the law has is the repercussions, if we could avoid the repercussions is the law totally negligible?
essentially the bottomline of saki's point is that you're drawing the line way too high. you're saying that the pros and cons of an action are other than they actually are.
i'm sure you won't actually understand what i've written here though i've tried to be as explicit as possible |
|
| 1
|
failsafe United States. Apr 04 2009 13:32. Posts 1043 | | |
i should probably add that my post above does not have much to do with your original article. i'm mostly responding to the way that you're conducting yourself, and i'm trying to give you some insight into more fundamental questions that have to be addressed before we can even begin to discuss the merit of some of your other points. (because if we disagree on fundamental, underlying questions then any other agreement built on our fundamental disagreements is obviously meaningless or impossible) |
|
| 1
|
SakiSaki Sweden. Apr 04 2009 14:02. Posts 9687 | | |
| | On April 04 2009 11:26 ToTehEastSide wrote:
fwiw I think that in an argument/debate, explaining what, why or where something is cool holds considerably more weight than just saying it's cool.
|
I didnt bother since the content of the constitution is more or less irrelevant for this discussion.
| | and you do not see why so many people in the United States are falling back on such a thing? L O L |
Yes I can understand that but you have to understand how falling back on the constitution can sometimes be flawed logic. I dont even understand what you mean, nothing Ive said has been contradicting a discussion of the constitution. Again, I can understand from a rhetorical point of view how falling back on the constitution can be good, but that doesnt mean it has to be a valid argument.
| |
Why can't you? The Constitution is open to interpretation. Do you think it is wrong somewhere?
If you take a persons morals out then what should they be arguing about when translating law? "I think you should insert a comma here!!" ? |
First of all, as I already stated I am not talking about "right" in a legal sense. Second of all, no you cant.
If constitution=/=morally right you cant stipulate arguments such as
A: everything constitutional=morally right
B: eating babies in costitutional
Conclusion: eating babies=right
How can you disagree with this?
| | What do you believe in SakiSaki? I look in your "arguments" and I see nothing. Do you believe in law and if so do you believe in Freedom? I see nothing towards that. Maybe you should point to me a better way of going about it in today's world since I keep seeing nothing. Do you think America should become a different entity? Say Sweden? Do you think being a patriot for your country is a good or bad thing? Do you think that believing in anything is a bad thing?
All I do see from you so far is someone being on a high horse passing around his own moral judgments onto mine based on nothing from yourself. |
Sigh... I dont know why I even bothered in writing a reply after reading this cause this just shows that you have been completely missunderstanding me all this time. It doesnt matter what I believe in cause that is not what we are discussion here, and I am not attacking the US or its constitution so dont worry. What I am opposing(and evidently failing to explain to you) is the way you and many others stipulate your arguments. Your logic and your method of building arguments is logicly unsound, that is what I am saying. Nothing more, nothing less. I guess you just assumed I attacked the "american way of life" because I am from communist sweden and then proceeded acordingly yes?
You cant base moral judgements on what is said in the constitution as the constitution has no moral authority as such
Meaning since the constitution is open for change and in no way represents any moral superiority in itself(this you have more or less admitted yourself) you cant build moral judgements with it as a base.
| | nice spelling of calling The Constitution unnecessary and rhetorical. I disagree with both of these assumptions. |
Yeah, way to put words in my mouth. I say refering to the constitution when making value judgements is rhetorical and unnecessary, not the constitution itself.
And yeah, the text you posted is about exactly what I am talking about. Even though it takes sort of a consequential moral detour the main argument is that since giving 20k to victims of a fire is wrong since its uncostitutional and that isnt a good enough argument as I have showed time and time again.
Oh btw, I am sorry that my english isnt adequate enough for you, english isnt my first language. We can take this in swedish or german instead if you want to?
Anyways, I am done here. I have argued all my points to the best of my ability and if you cant understand what I mean theres no point in proceeding further. |
|
| what wackass site is this nigga? | |
|
| 1
|
SakiSaki Sweden. Apr 04 2009 14:04. Posts 9687 | | |
Oh, looks like failsafe understood what I mean perfectly. |
|
| what wackass site is this nigga? | |
|
| 1
 |
NewbSaibot United States. Apr 04 2009 14:59. Posts 4946 | | |
| | On April 03 2009 03:42 SakiSaki wrote:
I dont understand this unconditional love some of you americans seem to have towards the constitution and/or freedom. I thought the value of both those came from the results when imposed/followed. You seem to read the constitution like you read the bible.
Seperation of chuch and state anyone? |
I just had to quote this. I live in the south, and am currently engaged in a long winded argument with "friends" of mine over the value of the constitution. These guys would literally take a bullet if it was aimed at the actual written constitution. I wont really talk much more about it, but they are so hardcore about 'the good ole days' and the constitution and all their right-wing media propaganda they are spoonfed its disgusting. |
| |
|
| 1
|
k2o4 United States. Apr 05 2009 00:24. Posts 4803 | | |
| | On April 04 2009 12:27 failsafe wrote:
what the hell is wrong with you? no one is gonna wanna talk to you when you add a patronizing "LOL" after every post. saki is at least civil.
anyway his point is pretty clear to me, and yes i'm an american, and yes i've read the constitution, and so forth.
nstead of worrying about the education of others you should try harder to understand what they have to say. i've been able to understand everything saki has said the first time he's said it while you've been rambling on in a sort of unrelated, undisciplined fashion full of patronizing bullshit.
saki is saying that americans (ron paul supporters specifically) use the constitution is a sort of ultimate source for whether a change is a good change or a bad change. for instance you are likely to hear someone say "well that's unconstitutional" as a way of implying that the idea is not only a bad idea but an absurd one.
saki is arguing that this misses the point. and i'll add that i agree with him in at least one sense. many people confuse legal authority with moral authority, and i think that at least some ron paul supporters are guilty of that mistake. yes, the constitution is the ultimate legal authority in the USA, but what does that status mean? what exactly does legal authority have to do with right and wrong? if there were a law in place (hypothetically speaking) that allowed me to murder one person per day, would the law's legal authority mean that such behavior was good and justified?
from this intuition we have that simply because the constitution says something, what is said is not necessarily right. what the constitution says may be right by coincidence, by agreeing with morality and ethics but it is not right simply because the constitution says so. this is what saki meant when he was referring to you sounding religious. the original form of this argument is the famous "euthyphro argument" between socrates and euthyphro and it was concerning religious topics (and it took exactly the same form as the one i've suggested here).
what saki is saying is that legal authority is not moral / ethical authority and what makes a law a good or a bad law is that the law conforms to morality and ethics. in other words, the pressure is on the law to do good. the law is not simply good in itself. the constitution's status as the ultimate legal authority does not grant it ultimate moral authority.
from this, saki extrapolated that we could also say that there are goods outside the constitution. in other words, the constitution does not represent all that is good. the implication is that it would be possible for someone to say:
"well this is unconstitutional, but it is also good."
supposedly we should do good things, so we might further add that
"well this is unconstitutional and we should do it because it is good."
thus the notion that we should not do something because it is unconstitutional is not necessarily sound. of course you might argue the particular role of legislative bodies / executive bodies / judicial bodies is to uphold and abide by the particular laws of the land. yet i think that you do not really believe this. because if the law of the land were wrong, surely you would not want your government officials to follow it? further, if the government officials could do good by going beyond the law of the land, would you say that they were wrong to have done good at the cost of illegality? does the legal status of an action ever outweigh the moral character of an action?
the question boils down to the relationship between morality / ethics and legality. what force does legislation and law actually have if it is not good? what compels us to do capitulate to the law if it is not good? are undesirable consequences all that compel us to follow the law: a wish to avoid imprisonment or fines or some other punishment? if the only force the law has is the repercussions, if we could avoid the repercussions is the law totally negligible?
essentially the bottomline of saki's point is that you're drawing the line way too high. you're saying that the pros and cons of an action are other than they actually are.
i'm sure you won't actually understand what i've written here though i've tried to be as explicit as possible |
golden =)
very well written. If someone can't understand what sakisaki was talking about after reading this then there's no hope, haha. and for the record, I understood sakisaki right away too, but never would have written such a great post explaining it =) |
| |
|
| 1 | |
awww, I was expecting a bigger circle jerk than what I see here tonight
that's a shame
I have to quit laughing first so I will respond to the other crap I see and come back and reply here L O L |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | |
dammit
decisions decisions |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | |
go and finish the rest of my beer and have a good time or wrap this one up
today / tomorrow
reading alot of this was hella funny, but responding to it is nothing but work
and once I read that the choice is easily A so...
Before I leave however, I will post this first
"I dont understand this unconditional love some of you americans seem to have towards the constitution and/or freedom."
"You seem to read the constitution like you read the bible."
"Seperation of chuch and state anyone?"
"You should start a cult or something"
"I have an issue with you because you dismissed a perfectly legitimate question"
"you think the consitution is perfect and following it word for word will lead to prosperity and happiness for all"
"If we made an unconstitutional change that, with everything else being equal, made the world a better place all around, would that be wrong simply because its unconstitutional"
"so many ppl are refering to the constitution when making moral and/or political valuejudgements"
"It just seems like an unecessary rethorical detour when you should be arguing a point based on the pros and cons of doing something and not on how the act will relate to what is stated in the constitution"
"what the hell is wrong with you? no one is gonna wanna talk to you when you add a patronizing "LOL" after every post. saki is at least civil."
"i've been able to understand everything saki has said the first time he's said it while you've been rambling on in a sort of unrelated, undisciplined fashion full of patronizing bullshit"
"yes, the constitution is the ultimate legal authority in the USA, but what does that status mean? what exactly does legal authority have to do with right and wrong?"
"if there were a law in place (hypothetically speaking) that allowed me to murder one person per day, would the law's legal authority mean that such behavior was good and justified?"
"Sigh... I dont know why I even bothered in writing a reply after reading this cause this just shows that you have been completely missunderstanding me all this time"
"and for the record, I understood sakisaki right away too, but never would have written such a great post explaining it"
it has me rolling baby rolling
in 3 more and I will probably be able to speak with you in Japanese saki saki
l8r
|
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | |
"I didnt bother since the content of the constitution is more or less irrelevant for this discussion."
bullshit.
When your opening statement is, "I dont understand this unconditional love some of you americans seem to have towards the constitution and/or freedom." the content of The Constitution becomes extremely important.
Also, are you against freedom? This opening statement you make at the very least leans towards something that belittles it.
"Yes I can understand that but you have to understand how falling back on the constitution can sometimes be flawed logic."
If you are speaking generally then ok sure I can easily see this, but if you are referring to me or any posts I have made then you are going to have to back this up with something more then. I will help you decide.
When dealing with Congress, the President or the federal government in any way, falling back on The Constitution is not a flawed thing to do. Or are you trying to accuse me of doing something I haven't done.
All I have seen you do is try to devalue The Constitution and freedom as well as try to make your preconceived assumptions of me stick by talking about theory (and yes I'm playing ur silly little game because I said I would reply and I don't want you to bitch again when if I again say this conversation is going to be pointless - so don't go, let's run it into the ground)
Had I fallen back onto The Constitution in this incorrect manner somewhere before your first post?
"First of all, as I already stated I am not talking about "right" in a legal sense. Second of all, no you cant.
If constitution=/=morally right you cant stipulate arguments such as
A: everything constitutional=morally right
B: eating babies in costitutional
Conclusion: eating babies=right"
I guess you are going to have to reword this statement without a =/= because I am translating that into equals or "the same as"
Encase that is the correct translation of it, then your statement would read:
If constitution is the same as being right(im not talking about "right" in the legal sense here) then you cant make arguments about why something is right or wrong based on how it relates to what is stated in the constitution
And now you've added =/=morally right
Do you know what morals are? They are the distinction between right and wrong
Yes The Constitution is believed in by people because it is thought to be morally right and I ask again, do you think The Constitution is wrong somewhere?
This is the wonderful thing about America.
If enough people believe in something strong enough they can change any law
Take slavery for instance
When this country was founded slavery was a normality and it was considered morally right.
Eventually a war was fought over it and the exclusion of it was added into The Constitution.
The same thing could happen with eating babies if enough people thought it was right; it could be changed within The Constitution
Do you disagree with this?
"Sigh... I dont know why I even bothered in writing a reply after reading this cause this just shows that you have been completely missunderstanding me all this time."
I admit that the whole paragraph you quoted for this response is junk (except the last sentence) and was nothing more than mere bait to get more out of you towards your not understanding why people here love freedom; which I think is the best question for you to answer but you don't have to because honestly I don't care.
| | On April 03 2009 03:42 SakiSaki wrote:
I dont understand this unconditional love some of you americans seem to have towards the constitution and/or freedom. |
"It doesnt matter what I believe in cause that is not what we are discussion here, and I am not attacking the US or its constitution so dont worry"
Don't worry about me, I'm not. I do however think that what you believe in is in fact what we should be talking about as it would ultimately have much an interesting point to it if you really don't believe in freedom.
"What I am opposing(and evidently failing to explain to you) is the way you and many others stipulate your arguments"
Where have I done this thing you keep talking about? I have already said repeatedly that The Constitution equaling the bible is very dumb and pointless towards me, yet you seem so very persistent towards that. So please show me where I have done this or have been flawed or unsound before you made your first post here.
"I guess you just assumed I attacked the "american way of life" because I am from communist sweden and then proceeded acordingly yes?"
No, I guess you guess wayyy to much yes?
"You cant base moral judgements on what is said in the constitution as the constitution has no moral authority as such"
Meaning since the constitution is open for change and in no way represents any moral superiority in itself(this you have more or less admitted yourself) you cant build moral judgements with it as a base."
When dealing with Congressmen, The President of the United States, or the court systems etc then yes, you can.
Also, there are TWO types of law in the U.S.A.
state, and federal
most of the time everything that you will see me talk about, is going to be a federal issue
State laws do not apply to federal
The Constitution IS the defining document above all others that essentially provides the "framework" between the rights off the people, the rights of the STATES and the power of the Federal Government.
There is no other such document
If you do not understand this you can not proceed into my arguments.
For example, when Congress decides to bailout banks, The Constitution fundamentally plays a huge role as The Constitution is what gives Congress definition.
"And yeah, the text you posted is about exactly what I am talking about. Even though it takes sort of a consequential moral detour the main argument is that since giving 20k to victims of a fire is wrong since its uncostitutional and that isnt a good enough argument as I have showed time and time again."
and I will say it again, and again and again if I have to
READ IT AGAIN
Based on fundamental principles it is wrong for Congress to give appropriations worth 20k to victims of a fire.
I even underlined the word principle before when replying to you because it's so important. God, do you want me to just keep copy and pasting til the whole story gets recopied 2x?
This time the paste will start where I left off in the last reply.
In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.
What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.
If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.
Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.
"Oh btw, I am sorry that my english isnt adequate enough for you, english isnt my first language. We can take this in swedish or german instead if you want to?"
This is you. "If constitution=/=right(im not talking about "right" in the legal sense here) then you cant make arguments about why something is right or wrong based on how it relates to what is stated in the constitution. It just seems like an unecessary rethorical detour when you should be arguing a point based on the pros and cons of doing something and not on how the act will relate to what is stated in the constitution."
One of two things is happening here. Either I am not translating constitution=/=right correctly or you are calling The Constitution unnecessary and rhetorical without realizing it because you do not understand the structure of our system.
"Oh, looks like failsafe understood what I mean perfectly."
I won't be impressed until he can explain to you perfectly what I mean. Now I will read and retort to failsafe who in skimming just looked like a henchman trying to do your will to gain your love and approval and god how he made me laugh.
(I didn't even get halfway in reading his post before skipping it)
|
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | |
ya seriously this is as far as I can get atm
| | On April 04 2009 12:27 failsafe wrote:
what the hell is wrong with you? no one is gonna wanna talk to you when you add a patronizing "LOL" after every post. saki is at least civil.
anyway his point is pretty clear to me, and yes i'm an american, and yes i've read the constitution, and so forth.
nstead of worrying about the education of others you should try harder to understand what they have to say. i've been able to understand everything saki has said the first time he's said it while you've been rambling on in a sort of unrelated, undisciplined fashion full of patronizing bullshit.
saki is saying that americans (ron paul supporters specifically) use the constitution is a sort of ultimate source for whether a change is a good change or a bad change. for instance you are likely to hear someone say "well that's unconstitutional" as a way of implying that the idea is not only a bad idea but an absurd one.
|
my response to you is going to be me using your own post in k2's blog
I'm just going to switch my name with yours and "your" to "my" and "there" to "here"
failsafe I've posted in my blog on "not yours to give." hopefully you'll read what I've said, and hopefully you'll understand enough of another person's perspective to understand that content of what I've said here. |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1
|
SakiSaki Sweden. Apr 06 2009 07:40. Posts 9687 | | |
You just pour out random clichés that have nothing to do with what I am trying to say so it just shows that you
A: either dont really understand me, or
B: You simply think what I am discussing is uninteresting or unconfortable so you keep stearing the discussion into a field where you feel more at home.
1. I ask about love for the constitution -> you ask if im against freedom.
2. I say falling back on the constitution can sometimes be flawed logic -> you say sometimes falling back on the constitution is necessary (DUH?)
3. I say the constiution has no moral authority-> you say it has legal authority over congressmen.
4. I say the main argument in the original text is that giving money to fire victims is unconstitutional and thus wrong -> You say I am wrong and instead say that based on the constitution it is wrong for Congress to give appropriations worth 20k to victims of a fire. WHAT? We just said the exact same thing and yet you keep insisting on me being wrong.
In the end I guess it isnt my shortcomings in the english language that made all of this come to a halt, but rather you being completely oblivious when it comes to logic.
ToTehEastSide =/= communist
ToTehEastSide =/= ron paul hater
ToTehEastSide =/= smart
ToTehEastSide =/= makes a compelling argument
ToTehEastSide = arrogant anoying redneck
I hope this gives you a clue on what =/= means. Next time dont argue for 2 pages before you admit you dont know what something means ok? Might save you some time in the future.
Oh btw, I dont hate freedom, but I dont unconditionally love it either. I like freedom for the good consequenses that bringing it about presents the world with. I do think that from a theoretical standpoint(hang on here, I know this isnt your strong suite) there could be situations where freedom can be sacreficed to eachieve other, greater things.
Just something to think about, you shouldnt be quick to be offended and to go on the turbo defensive when someone questions the american way of life or w/e. After all, USA are running around the world killing people who disagree with it, with that much at stake you should atleast allow us to question for what these ppl are getting killed.
This is the last thing I write to you as it has become clear to me that you have no desire to argue and you prefer to attack people/preach instead. Ill leave you with a quote that I think is pretty fitting.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell"
Bye |
|
| what wackass site is this nigga? | |
|
| 1
|
failsafe United States. Apr 06 2009 17:55. Posts 1043 | | | |
|
| 1
|
failsafe United States. Apr 06 2009 18:25. Posts 1043 | | |
| | On April 06 2009 05:53 ToTehEastSide wrote:
ya seriously this is as far as I can get atm
Show nested quote +
On April 04 2009 12:27 failsafe wrote:
what the hell is wrong with you? no one is gonna wanna talk to you when you add a patronizing "LOL" after every post. saki is at least civil.
anyway his point is pretty clear to me, and yes i'm an american, and yes i've read the constitution, and so forth.
nstead of worrying about the education of others you should try harder to understand what they have to say. i've been able to understand everything saki has said the first time he's said it while you've been rambling on in a sort of unrelated, undisciplined fashion full of patronizing bullshit.
saki is saying that americans (ron paul supporters specifically) use the constitution is a sort of ultimate source for whether a change is a good change or a bad change. for instance you are likely to hear someone say "well that's unconstitutional" as a way of implying that the idea is not only a bad idea but an absurd one.
|
my response to you is going to be me using your own post in k2's blog
I'm just going to switch my name with yours and "your" to "my" and "there" to "here"
failsafe I've posted in my blog on "not yours to give." hopefully you'll read what I've said, and hopefully you'll understand enough of another person's perspective to understand that content of what I've said here.
|
anyway, saki's perspective is another person's perspective as it is not my perspective. the only irony is that you're too stupid to realize this |
|
| 1
|
failsafe United States. Apr 06 2009 18:45. Posts 1043 | | |
| | On April 06 2009 05:48 ToTehEastSide wrote:
"Oh, looks like failsafe understood what I mean perfectly."
I won't be impressed until he can explain to you perfectly what I mean. Now I will read and retort to failsafe who in skimming just looked like a henchman trying to do your will to gain your love and approval and god how he made me laugh.
(I didn't even get halfway in reading his post before skipping it)
|
your "arguments" can't be understood as arguments because you're speaking a different language than anyone else. it's not that there are obvious logical problems in what you have to say, it's that we can't even evaluate the logical content of what you have to say because we have no idea what the fuck you mean. unfortunately, even if we wanted to understand your retardese we'd have no means of learning as whatever content floats around in your head is probably not the content in the minds of intelligent people. a funny consequence is that while everyone thinks you're confused, you think we're confused. (and being a self-righteous bitch you're unwilling to consider the possibility that everyone legitimately disagrees with you)
also, stop whining about getting gangbanged. everyone legitimately thinks you're a retard. this isn't some kind of LP.net conspiracy to gang up on the ron paul supporter. if we're intellectually honest with ourselves we can't just agree with you in order to be nice - and of course you're acting like a tool so there's no real appeal to being nice to you anyway. let me reiterate, it is possible that everyone reached the conclusion that you're an idiot, and that everyone did so independently. also that is not only possible, it's what happened. everyone read what you had to say, and thought "well what a dumb shit."
as for the english-retardese communication barrier, it's probably all but insurmountable, and i've got no desire to talk to retards, so i'll probably ignore you from now until you learn english.
|
|
| 1
|
k2o4 United States. Apr 07 2009 01:25. Posts 4803 | | |
| | On April 06 2009 17:45 failsafe wrote:
Show nested quote +
On April 06 2009 05:48 ToTehEastSide wrote:
"Oh, looks like failsafe understood what I mean perfectly."
I won't be impressed until he can explain to you perfectly what I mean. Now I will read and retort to failsafe who in skimming just looked like a henchman trying to do your will to gain your love and approval and god how he made me laugh.
(I didn't even get halfway in reading his post before skipping it)
|
your "arguments" can't be understood as arguments because you're speaking a different language than anyone else. it's not that there are obvious logical problems in what you have to say, it's that we can't even evaluate the logical content of what you have to say because we have no idea what the fuck you mean. unfortunately, even if we wanted to understand your retardese we'd have no means of learning as whatever content floats around in your head is probably not the content in the minds of intelligent people. a funny consequence is that while everyone thinks you're confused, you think we're confused. (and being a self-righteous bitch you're unwilling to consider the possibility that everyone legitimately disagrees with you)
also, stop whining about getting gangbanged. everyone legitimately thinks you're a retard. this isn't some kind of LP.net conspiracy to gang up on the ron paul supporter. if we're intellectually honest with ourselves we can't just agree with you in order to be nice - and of course you're acting like a tool so there's no real appeal to being nice to you anyway. let me reiterate, it is possible that everyone reached the conclusion that you're an idiot, and that everyone did so independently. also that is not only possible, it's what happened. everyone read what you had to say, and thought "well what a dumb shit."
as for the english-retardese communication barrier, it's probably all but insurmountable, and i've got no desire to talk to retards, so i'll probably ignore you from now until you learn english.
|
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Failsafe always manages to put into words things I was thinking but would only write in a poor, boring way. God that was so hilarious. But also so true.
eastside, just open your mind for 1 second and think that maybe everyone is against you because it's extremely obvious to all of us that you're completely wrong, full of shit, or retarded. If you check my blog you'll see that failsafe totally disagrees with me about Obama lots of times, but we're still friends and respect each other. Because he's not a moron.
It's like you're running around screaming that the sky is purple and the rest of us are looking up and saying "nope, that's blue" and you think it's some sorta coordinated assault against you. I'm happy for you because you found a leader you believe in. Now you can stop quadruple posting it down all of our throats, especially cause I think that you're falling into the category of Ron Paul supporter that Ron Paul would quickly say "he supports me but I don't support him" about. |
|
| InnovativeYogis.com | Last edit: 07/04/2009 01:27 |
|
| 1 | |
now why would I waste anymore time here in trying to explain to people that show so obviously their opinions and assumptions are 110% correct
tho Saki did get a great win in getting public opinion against me (tho how hard could that really be? nice job) in actuality, the levels on you
I will give ya one last clue to how it really went; tho I doubt it will do anything but I don't wanna say I didn't try
| | On April 03 2009 06:55 ToTehEastSide wrote:
lol what was ur point?
that I love the Constitution more than the Bible?
why the hell would I waste my time in something so dumb
|
I could continue but it's pretty much similar to this point now
 |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| 1 | |
oh and I gotta admit that my translating =/= into the same as is right up there in top2 of the gold found in this thread lol
even if against all assumptions I did say something as soon as I realized it, it's still hilarious |
|
| fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity | |
|
| |
|
|
 Poker Streams | |
|
Contact Users: 473 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 14:26
