MMORPG bouncy

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So...

...I was playing my favorite MMO last night when some guy was spouting-off on RW radio being a public threat.

When I started tossing some of Olberman-boy's quotes back at him I was treated to a PM go-'round.

It started when I corrected him that the US is not a democracy but a republic. He immediately leapt to screeching that I hate democracy. It took a good while to move him off the fact that we do not use referendums or popular votes to decide laws or the presidency. He seemed impervious to suggestions that things like the electoral college proved we were not a direct democracy and he railed that republics didn't have elections.

He also asserted that any nation calling itself a republic was of dubious value as republics, i.e. USSR were tyrannical by nature and democracies by name were enlightened. I asked how much democracy was found within the similarly named nations of N Korea and Vietnam.

When the convo migrated to economics I was excoriated for being greedy for wanting to disband any government department not enumerated in Art 1 Sec 8 or subsequent amendment (there was a considerable pause after I named the section). He went on to explain that the constitution did not decide all matters of law as the states and local governments made law too. A response that that authority is found in Article 10 availed me little, he simply repeated the statement.

I asked what do I get for my money. He said I had a responsibility to pay into the society that benefits me.

I asked what do those receiving those benefits owe society.

No answer was ever forth-coming, even to this very hour.

He did, however, claim that since the SCOTUS has not struck down ObamaCoup that it must be legal and Judge Vinson's ruling means nothing nor does the fact the case has not come before the SC as of this writing; Obama is simply too smart to do anything illegal.

That Obama is being held in contempt of court vis-a-vis the Gulf drilling ban means nothing. No pentalty will be assessed against POTUS so lack of penalty = legal.

I was told I am not a legal scholar, I do not know what the COTUS says, the Federalist Papers mean and the judges are smarter than we are.

I congratulated him on his support of Dred Scott and Jim Crowe.

He said I should stop whining on a public MMO server and run for office.

I said UCMJ forbade such things.

He refused to google UCMJ.

I said it wasn't my job to set policy but to shoot people who want to forceably deprive law-abiding Americans of their rights.

He requested the defintion of UCMJ.

I told him.

He was somewhat more conciliatory/polite but told me I had no right to complain about not being able to run for office because I chose to enlist.

He then said good night.

NOTE: if I have to look at avatars in tight spandex from behind I prefer to look at female avatars. Something just seems a little too Spartacus-bath-scene-ish about staring at rugged man butt for hours. A cape only makes it go from Spartacus to Sigfreid and Roy.

Hence, most of my characters are female (or hideously non-human males). During the conversation he insisted on calling me "dear" in the most condescending terms at every opportunity.

Liberals really are sexist jackasses that only court female votes for their personal pleasure/power and any female that doesn't meet their demands is to be ridiculed and belittled.

[DumbAss Tanker]

It started when I corrected him that the US is not a democracy but a republic. He immediately leapt to screeching that I hate democracy. It took a good while to move him off the fact that we do not use referendums or popular votes to decide laws or the presidency. He seemed impervious to suggestions that things like the electoral college proved we were not a direct democracy and he railed that republics didn't have elections.

He also asserted that any nation calling itself a republic was of dubious value as republics, i.e. USSR were tyrannical by nature and democracies by name were enlightened. I asked how much democracy was found within the similarly named nations of N Korea and Vietnam.

Well, he's an idiot...

Hence, most of my characters are female (or hideously non-human males). During the conversation he insisted on calling me "dear" in the most condescending terms at every opportunity.

...and probably a flamboyantly-gay one, on top of that.

[Karin]

calling me "dear"

  Now that I couldn't take.  I congratulate you for your cool self-restraint. 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Oh goodie, he's PMing me:

The COTUS is not written in stone, my dear. If the Founders had wanted that they would have written it in stone. Most things were written in stone back then. You display yet another trait common among COTUS fundamentalists (along with anger, paranoia and egotism)...the quaint but amusing notion that the Founders were of a single mind. They weren't. If you've read the Federalist papers, then you know that they were contentious, argumentative, and disagreed on just about every issue under the sun (slavery, for instance). The COTUS as ratified was the result of countless concessions and compromises, something that folks like you seem to despise. Once a COTUS fundamentalist told me that "compromise is the negation of principle," to which I replied, "No, compromise is the negation of pettiness." The Founders intentionally employed vague language when writing the COTUS because they where smart enough to realize that things change and it would have to be reinterpreted by future generations if it was going to stay relevant. That's why the SC exists...to interpret the COTUS with an eye towards existing practical realities. If the COTUS didn't need interpreting, there wouldn't be any need for an SC. A government run literally according to a 200+ year old document interpreted as a man of 200+ years ago would have interpreted it could not survive today, at least not as a thriving, growing, vital nation. But if you prefer a society run dogmatically according to ancient precepts, I might suggest you emigrate to Saudi Arabia.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Alas, I neglected to save my response to his earlier mutters and the email system does not have an outbox.

He continues:

Your argument is, to put it bluntly, balderdash.

By your logic, the nationwide 55 MPH speed limit was unconstitutional, since the COTUS makes no mention of automobiles. Yet to my knowledge, from 1974 to 1995, no federal or supreme court judge so held. Clearly, none of them shared your interpretation of the COTUS. This may be because the question was settled back in 1791, when Alexander Hamilton argued--and George Washington agreed--that Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the COTUS (commonly known as the Necessary and Proper Clause) granted the federal goverment such implied powers as were needed for it to implement its legitimate authority. According to you, Washington and Hamilton were wrong, and therefore the federal government has been operating illegally for over two centuries. This is clearly nonsense, and therefore so is your argument.

My reply:

When did anyone at anytime argue against the feds having the power to enact such laws as would be required to enforce those powers under its purview? In fact, your very own "rebuttal" (again, "straw man" would be more accurate) proves my point.

You wrote, "...Article I, Section 8, Clause 18  of the COTUS (commonly known as the Necessary and Proper Clause) granted the federal government such implied powers as were needed for it to implement its legitimate authority."

Therein lies the key, what is defined as the "legitimate authority" of the federal government. I would love to see the historical proofs that the founders designed a system that intended, as its starting assumption, that the government controlled all and might then be pared down by amendment or repeal. On the contrary, history shows the founders sought a highly limited government that could only expand itself by amendment, with all other functions reserved for the states.

By singular example among many possible: There  is nothing within Art 1, Sec 8 or subsequent amendment that bestows the power to regulate or affect education to the federal government. Perhaps a strong argument could be made on the grounds of civil rights back when certain states were refusing to desegregate according to the requirements the COTUS and Bill of Rights. Yet enforcement has evolved to management and piss-poor management at that. So much so that people are deprived of their rights to educate their children as they see fit. In fact, only the materially well-off can afford to pay both education taxes (property, et al) as well as private school tuition. The result is cronyism and de facto racial segregation, the very evils government is supposed to guard against. And any talk of allowing parents to spend their tax dollars at the school of their choice is greeted with howls of the NON-constitutional "separation of church and state" for fear some parent might spend their own money at a parochial school (ironic considering "school" descends from the Hebrew "schul"). What a racket: forcibly extract money as a tax then claim the freedom to spend that money would violate a non-existent clause. (BTW - I'm not a christian so save the inevitable, nonsensical caterwauling).

In our first dialogue you spoke in high-minded tones about people in society working together to improve and contribute to society. Loss of freedom, sub-standard results, inflated prices, cronyism and de facto segregation are not valid contributions and I've yet to hear a valid argument that doesn't at any point devolve to exercises of political power or anti-religious bigotry. These policies are the wholly predictable result of overly centralized power and compulsory contribution. Even if there was a solid argument for the feds to constitutionally meddle in education on strictly pragmatic grounds they are simply too stupid and too corrupt to be given the reins. The reason such matters are relegated to the states is because it is easier to turn around policy on a state level rather than a national level. Centralized authority not only invites corruption it  stymies innovation. If monopolies are bad for free markets, how much more so when government takes its revenue by force of taxation.

Find for me the evil of 50 states all acting on their own and learning from each other what best suits their particular circumstances as well as what pitfalls to avoid. And if you persist and truly, truly, TRULY believe centralized education is the best approach for a nation of 300 million and that the people cannot be trusted to  properly educate their own children but must have such matters pressed upon them from above then I have only one demand...

...make ME the Secretary of Education; unless of course your entire diatribe revolves on only the right kind of people being allowed to hold power.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The anti-federalists, led by Patrick Henry, did in fact make that very argument, i.e, that the Necessary and Proper Clause would result in unchecked federal power. They wanted to include another amendment stating that the federal government could only exercise those powers EXPRESSLY delegated, which would have denied implied powers. Clearly, that would have been much more in line with your wishes, but the word "expressly" does not appear in the Tenth Amendment as ratified. Indeed, it has been argued that the Tenth Amendent is superfluous because it is a truism. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court asserted that the amendment "added nothing nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified."

The rest of your post is the usual tiresome blather about taxes and education that is the universal preoccupation of states' righters, tenthers, and the rest of the "leave us alone" coalition. These fall under the purview of the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause, respectively, which have been linked to the Necessary and Proper Clause since before either of us were born, so again you are arguing that the federal government has been exceeding its legitimate authority for a very long time. Clearly, the courts do not agree.

Your argument that the feds are too stupid and corrupt to manage education and that the states can do a better job is amusing in the extreme, in light of recent decisions by the school boards of Kansas and Texas, both dominated by creationists who seek to wedge their religious beliefs into public schools in violation of the First Amendment. Yes, the states ARE INDEED too stupid and corrupt to manage education, as they are dominated by local interests and provincial prejudices. I certainly see no advantage to students in New York being taught one thing while students in Texas are taught the opposite. And the phrase "separation of church and state" (originally coined by Thomas Jefferson) has been quoted in SC opinions many times as evidence of original intent.

My reply:

Congratulations, you've learned to lift passages from wikipedia articles. If nothing else at least it shows that for the first time you are troubling to familiarize yourself with the material and educate yourself on its implementation. Now, all we need do is work on your interpretation.

Yet, while you are quick to cite the Sprague ruling you overlooked the cases cited in the article that bolster my contention, many of which are much more recent than the 1931 ruling including state-based medical marijuana laws (BTW - have you renewed your prescription?).

I hasten to add that terms such as "unnecessary and superfluous" do not dismiss the amendment's force but underscore the ironclad seal of confining the congress to only that which is enumerated. What you are admitting is that the enumeration of powers confined to Art 1, Sec 8 absolutely established as admitted fact. I commend you on bolstering my point.

You may dismiss it as so much blather but the 10th Amendment, like the balance of the COTUS, is in full effect. Which other amendments will you so casually dismiss and am I and those with whom I have political truck entitled to dismiss such constitutional precepts that we believe to be nettlesome? The only thing posts such as yours do is convince me that deep inside liberals are tyrants who raise or discard the rights of others based solely on their personal whim.

But there is one case I would bring to your attention: the case of the saucing of Goose v. Gander. Why confine creationism to merely Kansas and Texas when you yourself have extolled the virtues of centralized power to dictate every facet of life. And no need to cry about a so-called wall of separation, assuming it were even a constitutional citation or even quoted in context (which you do not). If the 10th amendment can be as malleable as you (mis)represent I see no reason why the 1st Amendment should fair any better especially since your position against anti-creationism is little more than anti-religious bigotry in the face of ~90% of the world's population and ~80% of the US population affirming some form of creatinism. Golly, that would be unfair regardless of what the law actually says to the matter.

PS - be a pet. If you still have my first reply be so kind as to copy and paste it in to a PM and send it to me as I wish to maintain a record of our correspondence. As you may have noted the messaging system here lacks an outbox.

RE: my claim of plagiarism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I refer you to section 3 of the article; which appears to be the limit of his reading and/or conveyance of the material therein.

[Karin]

Yes, the states ARE INDEED too stupid and corrupt to manage education, as they are dominated by local interests

  Well, I was taken aback here.  The very founding philosophy of the USA is the sovereignty of the states!  This guy clearly doesn't think so.  He has that irritating style that liberals have, of stating his opinion as fact.  "It is so because I say it is so." 

Reminds me of an article that appeared at the Kostard's place.  A guy was refuting "point by point" someone else's article criticizing Obamacare.  His refutations consisted of "Obama said in a speech it wouldn't do that" several times.  It was roll-on-the-floor laughable, and even the DUmmies said it weak.   

[dutch508]

So...

snipped to cut out all the blathering

...Liberals really are sexist jackasses that only court female votes for their personal pleasure/power and any female that doesn't meet their demands is to be ridiculed and belittled.

You don't use a bunny/furry avatar when you are playing your little on-line games?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

You don't use a bunny/furry avatar when you are playing your little on-line games?

Actually I decline to associate with furries.

People who run around pretending to be animals are just sick in the head.

  Well, I was taken aback here.  The very founding philosophy of the USA is the sovereignty of the states!  This guy clearly doesn't think so.  He has that irritating style that liberals have, of stating his opinion as fact.  "It is so because I say it is so." 

Reminds me of an article that appeared at the Kostard's place.  A guy was refuting "point by point" someone else's article criticizing Obamacare.  His refutations consisted of "Obama said in a speech it wouldn't do that" several times.  It was roll-on-the-floor laughable, and even the DUmmies said it weak.

What amazes me is that, as demonstrated here, the tone of his conversation has changed. He's evolved from arguing rhetoric to actually trying to make a point based on history, case law and/or the actual writings of the COTUS.

But that demands we ask: if he is only just now arguing those points (albeit incorrectly) what was his initial assumptions based upon?

Moreover, not only was he arguing out of his ass when he finally did do some research he totally misinterpreted the context of "unnecessay and superfluous" because he didn't read to comprehend, he read to reinforce a presupposition. Ditto his use of "separation fo church and state" but that one has already been hashed to death.