(06-15-2022, 05:43 PM)Ronster Wrote:

(06-15-2022, 05:40 PM)mikesez Wrote: I pay attention to what people do, not what they say.  And especially not what you say they say. 
"most of the more radical".  You realize that's a meaningless statement, right?
If I polled all of the protestors, and most of them were in favor of continuing the constitution,  you would say, "well you were supposed to look at the more radical ones only."
If I tried to do that, and still a majority of these were for continuing the constitution, then you'd say, "those were just the radicals.  I'm talking about the "more" radicals."
And one we would go until I found a group small enough to make your statement true.  
That's what we call a tautology.  It's meaningless.  With weasel words it proves nothing.

I dare you to go into those crowds and ask what they think of the Constitution, you know, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of speech. Those freaks are anti American FASCIST and YOU are defending them, let that soak in... YOU ARE DEFENDING REAL FASCIST... take your faux outrage somewhere else, we ALL see the truth now, well except you.

I have two kids.  One is easily scared by yelling.  But it has no effect on the other.  She takes after me.  Your all caps means nothing to me.

Both the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech are subject to *some* regulation by law.  You can't have a select fire gun, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc.  So you can be for a new, stricter regulation of these and still be in favor of the constitution, as long as you wanted it imposed by a legislature's vote and a governor's signature, and as long as you would abide by judicial review.

Both the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech are also subject to the Article V process,  that is, subject to elimination by future amendments to the constitution.   So you could even be for the abolition of both amendments, and still have claim to being for the constitution, as long as you only wanted to eliminate those rights by the Article V process, and as long as you upheld both rights up until the time that the Constitution was actually amended.

You could also claim to be in favor of Presidents being appointed for life, or of the right to select the next President devolving to whichever unarmed mob overtakes the Capitol building first, and still claim to be in favor of the Constitution,  as long as you wanted these changes made by an Article V process, and as long as you abided by the existing process for selecting the President, and the existing terms of service and term limits, until that time.  

However, if you claim to be in favor of the constitution,  you cannot be in favor of a mob trying to intimidate Congress into submission, not in 2021 before any such amendment existed.

---

(06-15-2022, 06:12 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote:

(06-15-2022, 02:46 PM)mikesez Wrote: Let's assume everything on there is factually accurate.
The one row that is missing should look something like this
On the left, "continuity of the Constitution not threatened" and on the right, "continuity of the Constitution  threatened."
Some places are more important than others, and some days are more important than others.

Still an incredibly lopsided chart in disfavor of the Democrats.

The constitution is more important than money or buildings.  I wouldn't say it's more important than lives, but the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been spent defending it do imply otherwise.

---