"OK seriously, I'm sitting here asking myself, 'why on god's green earth would you guys keep umm....debating with this guy?'" - "Ms" Elena.
Why [edited by FireSerpent: excessive name calling]? Perhaps now you could answer your own question, then further explain why you're being a hypocrite by doing the exact opposite of what you wanted others to do:
"I'm begging you guys who I adore......for the love of god, ignore him and make it go away." - "Ms" Elena
How about it [edited by FireSerpent: excessive name calling]? How about doing what you preached?
MsElena: Again....truly nothing to brag about.
REPEAT POINT
What part of…
"I'm sending a message to the opposition that I don't put a shelf life on a debate… that I'll continue ad infinitum." - herfacechair
DIDN'T you understand? Or are you [edited by FireSerpent: excessive name calling]? WHERE in that statement, does it say that I'm bragging?
Again, don't mistake my telling it like it is as "bragging," no matter how much your emotions would tell you otherwise.
MsElena: Are you going to go into work tomorrow and tell them how you're "debating" on a hooker board?
Who'd I tell that to? I'm a freelance copywriter. Going to work for me consists of logging onto my laptop, accessing the internet, or writing offline.
MsElena: Better yet, you going to tell your wife? LOL
My wife knows that I get onto debates on message boards like this. I told her about it back in 2003, when I started to debate on what used to be, www.nvbrothels.net back in late 2003.
MsElena: "Honey, you want to know why I'm not in bed with you at nights? I'm debating on a hooker board.
The vast majority of the times that I've posted here, since coming back to Virginia, have been before 8 PM. All you have to do is look at my posting times on this board. But again, expecting you to look up the facts would be a stretch.
MsElena: The best part of my debating though is that I don't cite my facts." Citing facts is something a jr high debater knows to do. Try it sometime.
I have. Since you want to pull shit out of your ass, I'm going to ask you questions that thorough9 failed to answer:
From "Vindicating the Founders" (http://www.vindicatingthefounders.co...colonists.html )
The Rights of the Colonists, Adopted by the Town of Boston on November 20, 1772:
Among the Natural Rights of the Colonists are these First a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can—Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature—
What I said:
"Our concept of rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness derived from the British' philosophy. Prior to "pursuit of happiness," the colonials used the one from the British, which stated that we had the right to life, liberty and property. This concept is based on English Common Law." - herfacechair
Questions:
Does the belief of the right to right to life, liberty and property show up in both, the Colonials' statement and mine? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Does my statement say that the Colonials' used "life, liberty and property" prior to the use of "life, liberty and happiness? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Does the Colonials' statement take place before the shot heard around the world? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Something else that you're ignoring:
From James Madison, the Father of the US Constitution: ( http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/201...aw-of-nations/ )
What can he mean by saying that the Common law is not secured by the new Constitution, though it has been adopted by the State Constitutions. The common law is nothing more than the unwritten law, and is left by all the constitutions equally liable to legislative alterations. I am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is, nothing more is provided than a general declaration that it shall continue along with other branches of law to be in force till legally changed.
What I said:
"Under English Common Law, or Natural Law, you didn't always spell things out. Many of the rules, and intentions, were "unwritten." - herfacechair
Did the Father of the US Constitution argue that Common Law should continue with all other branches of the law, until legally changed? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Did the Father of the US Constitution argue that Common Law was unwritten? YES [ ] NO [ ]
Simply copy all my reply above, to include those questions, and paste it to your response. Place an "X" in the boxes that represent your response, and spare me your BS response.
If you chose "Yes," then your statement, that I'm presenting an "opinion," that's "not" verified by fact, is wrong. If you chose "No," then you're a straight up liar… on top of your not having any integrity.
Here's me citing my facts:
http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=220
[edited by FireSerpent: Unnecessary Rudeness]. Try it sometime.
[I'm sure you do a great job of making your point when taking the high road of actually making your point and not being verbally abusive, rude or resulting to name-calling.]