The Democratic Assault on the First Amendment

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Worthless dribble! Dude, give it up.

No content but noise and abuse? That's supposed to daunt me? What a stupid attempt.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

No content but noise and abuse? That's supposed to daunt me? What a stupid attempt.

Go away. Your posts on this subject are nothing but incorrect bull shit.
Just stop already.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by djv8ga

Go away. Your posts on this subject are nothing but incorrect bull shit.
Just stop already.

On the contrary, my posts are models of reasoned thought and incisive argument.

Look up 'argument.' See if you can figure out how it differs from 'name calling,' which is all you are doing. (evidence quoted above)

Name-calling is the stupid bullshit substitute for argument.

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

On the contrary, my posts are models of reasoned thought and incisive argument.

Look up 'argument.' See if you can figure out how it differs from 'name calling,' which is all you are doing. (evidence quoted above)

Name-calling is the stupid bullshit substitute for argument.

Your posts suck. You sound as if you have no real life experience with anything except blowing hot air.
Let me guess, you made your living as a fruity English teacher...?

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

On the contrary, my posts are models of reasoned thought and incisive argument.

Look up 'argument.' See if you can figure out how it differs from 'name calling,' which is all you are doing. (evidence quoted above)

Name-calling is the stupid bullshit substitute for argument.

So then you know you lost the Argument?

There is two areas of limiting that the amendmet states

Contributions

Funds

Funds is the money porsion of the law

In all that I layed out of the meening of Contribution Im not going though it again. Eather your blind or your just don't want to see it.

Even D-ray left this alone DQ

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

So then you know you lost the Argument?

Stupid troll shit. Claiming I've 'lost' an argument when you don't have one.

I dealt with your 'contribution' thing in post 56. Funny, you've totally ignored that one.

Short version: in English, meaning in conveyed in sentences and paragraphs. Focusing on single words is not adequate.

As usual, the trolls try to 'win' with everything but argument. Of course, winning with argument can be really tough, when you're wrong....

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

So then you know you lost the Argument?

There is two areas of limiting that the amendmet states

Contributions

Funds

Funds is the money porsion of the law

In all that I layed out of the meening of Contribution Im not going though it again. Eather your blind or your just don't want to see it.

Even D-ray left this alone DQ

No. I said that Cruz set up a pile of straw men. That means his speculation is not well-reasoned or valid. I didn't really have much to add to DQ's analysis. Fortunately, my real work is keeping me busy enough that I don't have to time to waste correcting misinterpretations of proposed legislation, but don't take my silence on the subject as even a mile close to endorsement of the bogus position set forth in the OP.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Stupid troll shit. Claiming I've 'lost' an argument when you don't have one.

I dealt with your 'contribution' thing in post 56. Funny, you've totally ignored that one.

Short version: in English, meaning in conveyed in sentences and paragraphs. Focusing on single words is not adequate.

As usual, the trolls try to 'win' with everything but argument. Of course, winning with argument can be really tough, when you're wrong....

So the current constitution doesn't get deliberated in a court of law as to the interpretation of it.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

So the current constitution doesn't get deliberated in a court of law as to the interpretation of it.

Now that's weak. Makes no sense at all. Certainly isn't a reply to post 56.

Like, who says it doesn't? And what does that have to do with anything?

You're pretending to argue, but you're just spouting nonsense.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Now that's weak. Makes no sense at all. Certainly isn't a reply to post 56.

Like, who says it doesn't? And what does that have to do with anything?

You're pretending to argue, but you're just spouting nonsense.

Well if you could read the argument is the writing is Vague. go look in my post pages back.

My whole premiss is how it's interpited.