Proof Positive, New Jersey is run by idiots

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dakota

True enough, but the Bible also gives us this command, "Thou shalt ... kill". You just have to ignore the context.

I shared your comment with them just now...and they took rather heated offense, as if you were insulting them. I informed them that you were NOT trying to insult them; rather, it is just in your nature to be rude . They are currently preparing a rebuttal on why it is WOULD be in context of the constitution (and as an extension, case law decisions) for this type of law to be made.

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do." Then again, this guy has more experience with the legal system than many practicing lawyers!

Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours.

It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

HAVE A GREAT DAY!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

I shared your comment with them just now...and they took rather heated offense, as if you were insulting them. I informed them that you were NOT trying to insult them; rather, it is just in your nature to be rude .

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do."

You are completely misunderstanding my position here, so with you as the conduit, it is no doubt so are your little darlings.

I have no doubt that case law and court precedence would uphold such a law. But that is because courts in the 20th century have done great violence to the constitution with the reading of the commerce clause to mean, basically, "any darn thing that congress wants to regulate." We are at a position in this country where there are no surviving limits on federal power left in the constitution because neither the congress nor the executive nor the people have the guts to stand up for THEIR rights under the constitution and instead allow the courts to be the final arbitor of all things. Hell, we even have recent Supreme Court rulings based on European law, fer cryin' out loud!

If you want to have a meaningful debate, make it about the constitutional concept of limited federal powers. Start with what the founders actually wrote, and debate how much of that is left intact at the beginning of the 21st century.

Besides, this OP is about New Jersey, not the federal government. The constitution grants far more powers to the states than it does to the feds (as if that even matters anymore).

Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours.

No, but I will blow your opinion off, since, ...

It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

...it is even sadder when an instructor in government does not even recognize (or worse, refuses to recognize; or pretends to not recognize) when a debate is about strict constructionism vs. living document schools of constitutional rulings.

HAVE A GREAT DAY!

You, too.

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You are completely misunderstanding my position here, so with you as the conduit, it is no doubt so are your little darlings.

I have no doubt that case law and court precedence would uphold such a law. But that is because courts in the 20th century have done great violence to the constitution with the reading of the commerce clause to mean, basically, "any darn thing that congress wants to regulate." We are at a position in this country where there are no surviving limits on federal power left in the constitution because neither the congress nor the executive nor the people have the guts to stand up for THEIR rights under the constitution and instead allow the courts to be the final arbitor of all things. Hell, we even have recent Supreme Court rulings based on European law, fer cryin' out loud!

If you want to have a meaningful debate, make it about the constitutional concept of limited federal powers. Start with what the founders actually wrote, and debate how much of that is left intact at the beginning of the 21st century.

Besides, this OP is about New Jersey, not the federal government. The constitution grants far more powers to the states than it does to the feds (as if that even matters anymore).

No, but I will blow your opinion off, since, ...
...it is even sadder when an instructor in government does not even recognize (or worse, refuses to recognize; or pretends to not recognize) when a debate is about strict constructionism vs. living document schools of constitutional rulings.

You, too.

I cannot respond for my class, although I know how they're going to respond.

I can reply for me: I've been one of the best government teachers in the state for years...teachers ask ME how to debate items...I know pretty much every side of every issue...for you to judge me based on what you read here is, well, ignorant. Are you sure you're not from New Jersey? (please understand this is a little humor...very little) Like many people, you fail to the reality of the situation, and you (at least via your posts) apply only what you want to apply to the situation. But what else can I expect? Like every American who ever attended school, you know better than any teacher, right? (Lots of sarcasm here)

I'm having a great day, how about you?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

I cannot respond for my class, although I know how they're going to respond.

I can reply for me: I've been one of the best government teachers in the state for years...teachers ask ME how to debate items...I know pretty much every side of every issue...for you to judge me based on what you read here is, well, ignorant. Are you sure you're not from New Jersey? (please understand this is a little humor...very little) Like many people, you fail to the reality of the situation, and you (at least via your posts) apply only what you want to apply to the situation. But what else can I expect? Like every American who ever attended school, you know better than any teacher, right? (Lots of sarcasm here)

I'm having a great day, how about you?

You haven't addressed the issue at all; only hurled insults, declared self-proclaimed expertise, and revealed yourself to be, apparently, only able to demean instead of debate. Apparently you are used to intimidating people. Good luck with that.

You are the one who declares things about me based on a shallow reading of what I am saying. If you are such a great government teacher, why is it you have still not addressed the issue of limited powers of the federal government?

So, oh great government teacher, what DO you think about enumerated powers? Does the concept have any meaning left? Do you think that is a good thing?

Can you debate an issue without belittling? Are you used to indoctrinating or teaching? Do you allow contrary views in your class, or do you intimidate, ridicule, and insult and call that debate?

Bottom line: I don't care what you "think" since it seems you have forgotten how.

[FUBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You haven't addressed the issue at all; only hurled insults, declared self-proclaimed expertise, and revealed yourself to be, apparently, only able to demean instead of debate. Apparently you are used to intimidating people. Good luck with that.

You are the one who declares things about me based on a shallow reading of what I am saying. If you are such a great government teacher, why is it you have still not addressed the issue of limited powers of the federal government?

So, oh great government teacher, what DO you think about enumerated powers? Does the concept have any meaning left? Do you think that is a good thing?

Can you debate an issue without belittling? Are you used to indoctrinating or teaching? Do you allow contrary views in your class, or do you intimidate, ridicule, and insult and call that debate?

Bottom line: I don't care what you "think" since it seems you have forgotten how.

I believe it was you who hurled the first insult by dismissing what my students said. I currently see 4 insults in your reply. Look in the mirror before you speak to me anymore.

I'd be glad to discuss all the issues in a true debate setting: Not the word twisting I see here.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

I believe it was you who hurled the first insult by dismissing what my students said. I currently see 4 insults in your reply. Look in the mirror before you speak to me anymore.

I'd be glad to discuss all the issues in a true debate setting: Not the word twisting I see here.

You two are starting to sound like a couple of politicians preparing for Tuesday.

[Dakota]

You believe wrong, but, hey, I'm just a poor slob who has the temerity to challenge a school teacher. (OK, increase your insult count by one. I thought I should tell you that since you seem incapable of recognizing the real insults. Now increase it by another one.)

Let's see, in my first reply to you, all I said was your recounting of what your darlings said was out of context. It was. Just because they are of the mentality that they took this "as if" I was insulting them does not mean I was. But, street thugs probably have a different definition of being insulted. Then, you then said, among other things,

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

...it is just in your nature to be rude . ... Of course, you would probably just blow them off because their opinion disagrees with yours. ... It's sad that kids with an IQ of 60 can get the connection, and adults can't (or refuse to)!

I generally (but not completely) ignored these digs, and instead focused on this comment...

The "average" kid (if you can call a triple-homicide committing, drug-dealer average) even said, "man, they're getting what they THINK the government can and can't do mixed up with what the government LEGALLY can do."

Which told me you (and therefore, they) did not understand my point. I was expressing a political opinion on the proper interpretation of the consitution, not stating what I think our current legislatures can do or what the courts would find legal.

I did, indeed, respond in kind to your IQ of 60 dig. But, you started it.

You still have not addressed the issue of enumerated powers. Do you not understand the issue, or do you just not wish to address it?

[Skahtboi]

I have oft read, and marvelled at the wisdom of Mr. Jefferson. Here is a quote that really seems to fit this original post:

"Laws provide against injury from others, but not from ourselves."

[FUBLUE]

Justification does not lead to vindication.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by FUBLUE

Justification does not lead to vindication.

Neither do short, meaningless, quips.

So, what about enumerated powers?

[Dakota]

I voted for #3! Send 'em all here... they'll go running, screaming into the night!

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by Dakota

I voted for #3! Send 'em all here... they'll go running, screaming into the night!

Probably the one statement you have made in this thread that won't bring an argument.