U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Charleston area
 [Register]
Charleston area Charleston - North Charleston - Mt. Pleasant - Summerville - Goose Creek
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-31-2010, 07:40 AM
 
435 posts, read 731,733 times
Reputation: 75

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek View Post
You aren't calling me names, that is true enough. You ARE calling the woman flying the flag names however and she is not here to defend herself.

If disagreeing with your opinion (as the homeowner in question does) makes someone an A-hole then the world is full of them jimmy.
I said "she is an @sshole to HER NEIGHBOR." I am being very specific. If you want alternative...she is a "bad" neighbor. She is a "mean" neighbor. Her neighbors are the one complaining, clearly her neighbors think she is the one of the above if not worse. Got my point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2010, 10:01 AM
 
Location: Goose Creek, SC
870 posts, read 1,706,116 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCh View Post
I said "she is an @sshole to HER NEIGHBOR." I am being very specific. If you want alternative...she is a "bad" neighbor. She is a "mean" neighbor. Her neighbors are the one complaining, clearly her neighbors think she is the one of the above if not worse. Got my point.
Yeah I get your point exactly. Disagreeing with you or expressing oneself in a way that does not agree with your opinion makes someone a bad person...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 10:20 AM
 
1,028 posts, read 2,713,638 times
Reputation: 942
I don't know, I think that if someone has the freedom to do that then others have the freedom to express an opinion about it. It is not a factual arguement, just opinions, so is there really any right or wrong to it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Goose Creek, SC
870 posts, read 1,706,116 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCh View Post
It does, and like I said, it is precedence set after the war, which is given to the Supreme court by the constitution. However, you can argue it away, saying how court is biased blah blah blah, while forgetting our government is three but EQUAL branches.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States do not have the right to secede but allow to revolt, thus always involves war and the seceded states must win the war to gain the status.
A post war supreme court decision from 1869 made it illegal for states to secede in 1861? I don't follow.

You said that it was unconstitutional for a state to secede and you have yet to prove that point beyond an after-the-fact opinion written by a former member of Lincoln's cabinet.

Tell me where in the Constitution it says states cannot secede. Then point out where it says that the Federal Government can violate any aspect of the Constitution at will without nullifying the document.

You prove those two points to my satisfaction and I will agree with you and stop debating this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 10:36 AM
 
Location: Goose Creek, SC
870 posts, read 1,706,116 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvjd View Post
I don't know, I think that if someone has the freedom to do that then others have the freedom to express an opinion about it. It is not a factual arguement, just opinions, so is there really any right or wrong to it?
I'm not arguing free speech. I'm simply saying that resorting to any kind of name calling is kind of a childish tactic that people resort to when they don't have any real arguments to put forth.

Which of these arguments do you feel would be more effective in a nationally televised debate?

"She has the constitutionally protected right to express herself, so long as that expression does not violate laws or put other persons in any kind of danger."

or

"She's an A-hole!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Summerville
7,934 posts, read 15,050,302 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCh View Post
It does, and like I said, it is precedence set after the war, which is given to the Supreme court by the constitution. However, you can argue it away, saying how court is biased blah blah blah, while forgetting our government is three but EQUAL branches.

Texas v. White - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

States do not have the right to secede but allow to revolt, thus always involves war and the seceded states must win the war to gain the status.
I am sure the British government thought the same thing back in 1776 when the original 13 colonies declared their Independence from Britain and if they had won the war I am sure that similar rulings would have come down, but since the South did loose and to the winners not only go the spoils but also the hand in writing the history, things are different......

What is called the Civil war is not actually a civil war by the classical definition in which two separate factions fight for control of the same government, it was in fact a failed war for Independence for the right to self govern.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Summerville
7,934 posts, read 15,050,302 times
Reputation: 1350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek View Post
I'm not arguing free speech. I'm simply saying that resorting to any kind of name calling is kind of a childish tactic that people resort to when they don't have any real arguments to put forth.

Which of these arguments do you feel would be more effective in a nationally televised debate?

"She has the constitutionally protected right to express herself, so long as that expression does not violate laws or put other persons in any kind of danger."

or

"She's an A-hole!"
Unfortunately in todays society the later would get a better responce.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Goose Creek, SC
870 posts, read 1,706,116 times
Reputation: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by OleTomCat View Post
Unfortunately in todays society the later would get a better responce.......
Fair enough but the former would hold up in court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 10:45 AM
 
435 posts, read 731,733 times
Reputation: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek View Post
A post war supreme court decision from 1869 made it illegal for states to secede in 1861? I don't follow.

You said that it was unconstitutional for a state to secede and you have yet to prove that point beyond an after-the-fact opinion written by a former member of Lincoln's cabinet.

Tell me where in the Constitution it says states cannot secede. Then point out where it says that the Federal Government can violate any aspect of the Constitution at will without nullifying the document.

You prove those two points to my satisfaction and I will agree with you and stop debating this.
Like I said that will be your argument. However, the role of supreme court is to explain our Constitution (to prevent mob rule). The opinion is not really an "opinion" but explanation of Constitution, and it is given to the supreme court by our Constitution. Just like in the Constitution, it never states "separation of church and state," however, it did said "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The fact is that North won, and the precedence explained and set by our supreme court that it is illegal under our Constitution to secede, and it hasn't been challenged since.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2010, 10:49 AM
 
435 posts, read 731,733 times
Reputation: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techgeek View Post
Yeah I get your point exactly. Disagreeing with you or expressing oneself in a way that does not agree with your opinion makes someone a bad person...
No you don't get it. Bad neighbor to her neighbor is hardly "bad" person. She just can't expect her neighbors to help if she is in trouble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Charleston area
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top