Support NeoGAF

[reilo]

The idea that the constitution is infallible and always correct is such an absurd concept. It is not the end all to every argument. Just because the constitution proclaims one thing to be law, it does not mean that it is right.

Here is a simple reason why:

It was amended twenty-seven [27!!] times.

 

[BrokenFiction]

Can someone lend some insight into polling methodology by Gallup, et al? The one thing I wonder about is if it's phone polls that these organizations are relying on, are they still tied to lists of landline numbers only, and not able to take the pulse of the public that is using cell phones?

 

[JayDubya]

Classic crackpot defense.

Remind me again what my other options were?

I suppose I could just ignore him, which is tacitly accepting his claim. Or I could state that I think he's crazy and wrong and promotes a social evil, which is the sort of reciprocation I was recently banned for. Or I could just do what I did, and illicit this response. Total catch 22.

It's funny - I'm accused of egocentrism, but you're the ones making it all about me.

 

[Fatalah]

Wow, this thread is moving so much more slowly. I blame football.

 

[Frank the Great]

The idea that the constitution is infallible and always correct is such an absurd concept. It is not the end all to every argument. Just because the constitution proclaims one thing to be law, it does not mean that it is right.

Here is a simple reason why:

It was amended twenty-seven [27!!] times.

That's a poor reason because the counter argument is that if there is a problem with the Second Amendment, it should be amended. But until they, we should follow it strictly.

I'll repost my reasoning for the same argument here because I think it's lost on the last page.

it's pretty ridiculous to analyze the sentence structure of a 330 year old document while ignoring EVERYTHING else that has happened between then and now regarding guns, including changes in gun law and experiences of people with guns.

We know a lot more now than people did then. It's kind of silly to hold their word as sacred while ignoring the real world and the effects of said sacred word.

There's a reason they say libertarians live in fantasy land. It's as if their whole outlook on life is framed with ideology and theory, with no basis in reality, past or present.

By the way, using a grammarian to interpret a sentence in the Constitution only works if one assumes that the grammar in 1780 had the same interpretation as that of today, and if one assumes that the founders used 100% correct grammar which made clear their intent.

If you don't assume these things, then you are no longer arguing for the intent of the founders, you are arguing for the sacredness of the text itself.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Can someone lend some insight into polling methodology by Gallup, et al? The one thing I wonder about is if it's phone polls that these organizations are relying on, are they still tied to lists of landline numbers only, and not able to take the pulse of the public that is using cell phones?

The posted results are a 3-day rolling average. Multi-day tracking poll.

The results are multiple days combined.

 

[Mandark]

Dude, I said that *I think* you're crazy and wrong. Of course you feel the same way in return.

It's not an insult; it's pointing out how completely different our philosophies are while still giving you credit for intellectual consistency. Learn to take a compliment!

 

[Frank the Great]

Dude, I said that *I think* you're crazy and wrong. Of course you feel the same way in return.

It's not an insult; it's pointing out how completely different our philosophies are while still giving you credit for intellectual consistency. Learn to take a compliment!

He already said he was complimented, remember.

 

[ronito]

Oh guys, you fell into the discuss the constitution arugment with Jay trap. Honestly, it's a pretty simple concept, JayDubya (like most libertarians) believes in the constitution so long as it can be correctly interpreted to screw people, especially the poor.

Half of Gaf argues their points on the constitution think that they know what their talking about and actually do. The other half of Gaf argues their points on the constitution think that they know what they're talking about and have no clue. The last half of Gaf doesn't care but likes to argue anyway, the last third don't know math.

 

[JayDubya]

Yes, Frank, many things have changed.

Here's an example of significant change: one argument the Federalists used against the creation of a Bill of Rights was that not only was a no-brainer that the people would have their own guns, but that there was no way for the government to form an army powerful enough to defeat the people should it come to down to it.

JayDubya (like most libertarians) believes in the constitution so long as it can be correctly interpreted to screw people, especially the poor.

It's really getting to the point where either you tone it down, I put you on ignore, or I get banned before I remember to put you on ignore.

 

[reilo]

That's a poor reason because the counter argument is that if there is a problem with the Second Amendment, it should be amended. But until they, we should follow it strictly.

I'll repost my reasoning for the same argument here because I think it's lost on the last page.

My point was that you cannot always go "well, it says so in the constitution, therefor it must be true" to make your case all of the time. No law is perfect.

And obviously, the 2nd amendment is ambiguously written and is left up to extreme interpretation.

 

[Lemonz]

Obama Spokesperson Robert Gibbs kicked ass this morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l304a7nGk44

 

[Hitokage]

Yes, Frank, many things have changed.

Here's an example of significant change: one argument the Federalists used against the creation of a Bill of Rights was that not only was a no-brainer that the people would have their own guns, but that there was no way for the government to form an army powerful enough to defeat the people should it come to down to it.

Wha? The argument was that such rights(not just guns, geez) were obvious, and that listing them would devalue those left out.

 

[Fatalah]

Do you guys think McCain/Palin are gaining real momentum, or the regular convention bounce?

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

*SIGH*

The Bush Administration is not running, McCain and Palin are, under the banner of "Maverick." Plus, these polls don't indicate that the country is willing to tolerate four more years of the GOP, the election will. This is what's known as a convention bump. It happens to everyone.

Spoiler

You can tell from reading this thread that this is the first election a lot of people have followed.

Excuse me, don't talk down to me. A convention bump in any sense, given the current political climate, should be infinitesimal. The polls should not even be close right now.

 

[Hitokage]

Do you guys think McCain/Palin are gaining real momentum, or the regular convention bounce?

 

[Frank the Great]

Yes, Frank, many things have changed.

Here's an example of significant change: one argument the Federalists used against the creation of a Bill of Rights was that not only was a no-brainer that the people would have their own guns, but that there was no way for the government to form an army powerful enough to defeat the people should it come to down to it.

Way to ignore my point and respond with bullshit.

My point was that you cannot always go "well, it says so in the constitution, therefor it must be true" to make your case all of the time. No law is perfect.

The issue isn't whether or not the law is true. Libertarians don't use natural laws or anything.

They take a more Hobbesian approach to law - whatever the state determines to be law, is what justice is. Outside of that, no justice and no law exists. Whether or not a law is perfect or not really doesn't mean anything according to this worldview.... Of course, nobody thinks like that anymore apart from Libertarians.

But again, their argument would be that regardless of whether you think the Second Amendment is a good one or not, it needs to be followed exactly and as Supreme Law of the Land until it is amended. It may not be perfect - it doesn't matter if you think it is or isn't - but it must be followed strictly as law.

 

[JayDubya]

Hobbes? You fail so hard.

Also, no, I don't think your general argument of "we're smarter now, so we know better" logically follows.

It doesn't even have much substance to back it up. The writings and speeches of folks like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison... all available for comparison to say, Barack Obama or John McCain. By comparison, the latter are quite wanting.

 

[Cheebs]

The McCain bounce has likely hit its height since it is large than Obama's. McCain was +2 at the start of the Obama convention. Obama was +7 at the start of the McCain convention. That is a net +9 for Obama. McCain is now at +3 which is a net +10 from the start of his convention.

So:

From start of dem convention to start of rep convention Obama gained 9%

From start of republican convention till today McCain has gained 10%

 

[Beavertown]

The idea that the constitution is infallible and always correct is such an absurd concept. It is not the end all to every argument. Just because the constitution proclaims one thing to be law, it does not mean that it is right.

Here is a simple reason why:

It was amended twenty-seven [27!!] times.

Too much common sense in your argument.

Anyway, do you guys mind taking the constitution talk somewhere else? It's really bogging up this thread.

 

[Hitokage]

Anyway, do you guys mind taking the constitution talk somewhere else? It's really bogging up this thread.

Sorry to interrupt the poll panic.

 

[Frank the Great]

Hobbes? You so fail.

Did Hobbes not have that view of justice? Just because you may disagree with him on everything else doesn't make that part of his philosophy irrelevant.

Of course, I may be mixing him up with someone else.

And of course, you may have just picked that part out of my post to insult me, thus justifying yourself in completely ignoring the rest of the post.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Do you guys think McCain/Palin are gaining real momentum, or the regular convention bounce?

For fucking god sakes,some of you people are ridiculous..

 

[Fatalah]

For fucking god sakes,some of you people are ridiculous..

What's the problem? I come in here today and all I keep reading are posts about McCain/Palin gaining points in polls. I know they have a bounce coming to them from their convention, but it seems larger than anyone expected.

Which is annoying.

 

[Mandark]

Frank: JD has Hobbes slotted in the Evil category along with Adams, Hamilton and Keynes.

He's totally into Locke, though it seems to me that Locke's whole argument in favor of divinely derived natural rights becomes nonsensical if you don't believe in God.

 

[Cheebs]

As the resident Washington fanboy, you don't know what you're talking about.

No, it makes no sense for you to be a fanboy of his. He disagreed with you on govt. I know for a fact Washington held federalist views (not the democratic-republican ideals of Jefferson, a libertarian idol) and when it came to the constitution history calls him a loose constructionist, the opposite viewpoint of strict constitutionalists like libertarians. Washington was in opposition to your viewpoints on these key areas.

Washington felt the federal government should have all authority not given to the states, he was for a stronger federal govt. Which you highly disagree with.

Washington is a loose constructionist. Period. I could find you endless sources calling him one. And as you well know loose constructionists interpret the constitution loosely and view it as a living document.

George was a federalist loose constructionist, the total opposite of libertarianism.

I as a big government tax & spend librul see far more in common with Washington than libertarians ever could.

 

[thekad]

Cheebs: The McCain bounce hasn't hit its height.

 

[JayDubya]

And of course, you may have just picked that part out of my post to insult me, thus justifying yourself in completely ignoring the rest of the post.

You started with a false statement regarding our moral philosophy being one of Leviathan, when it is instead our antithesis.

Your post was this.

The issue isn't whether or not the law is true. Libertarians don't use natural laws or anything.

Uhhh, I talk about natural rights and natural law as bedrock principles.

They take a more Hobbesian approach to law - whatever the state determines to be law, is what justice is.

Um. This could not be more wrong.

But again, their argument would be that regardless of whether you think the Second Amendment is a good one or not, it needs to be followed exactly and as Supreme Law of the Land until it is amended. It may not be perfect - it doesn't matter if you think it is or isn't - but it must be followed strictly as law.

No, it needs to be followed because it's good law. It promotes individual liberty. It should be protected. I would heartily oppose any amendment to change it.

 

[Cheebs]

Cheebs: The McCaun bounce hasn't hit its height.

His net bounce is 10% so far in the 3 day rolling average. Bush in 2004 got 11%, you really think he'll go that far above Bush?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Do you guys think McCain/Palin are gaining real momentum, or the regular convention bounce?

Normal.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/what-convention-bounce-looks-like.html

 

[Fatalah]

For fucking god sakes,some of you people are ridiculous..

I hope you're typing a long reply to me, because I'm waiting for you to lay out your knowledge!

EDIT: Thanks Ghaleon!

Normal.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/what-convention-bounce-looks-like.html

 

[Cheebs]

Normal.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/08/what-convention-bounce-looks-like.html

Well, McCain has already outpaced that chart. That chart never hits R + 3. McCain has hit that.

 

[Frank the Great]

You started with a false statement regarding our moral philosophy being one of Leviathan, when it is instead our antithesis.

Your post was this.



Uhhh, I talk about natural rights and natural law as bedrock principles.



Um. This could not be more wrong.



No, it needs to be followed because it's good law. It promotes individual liberty. It should be protected. I would heartily oppose any amendment to change it.

Someone else said that you lose your sense of logic when it comes to the Constitution. This post proves it.

 

[thekad]

His net bounce is 10% so far in the 3 day rolling average. Bush in 2004 got 11%, you really think he'll go that far above Bush?

Obama's strong Thursday(?) is going to be factored out in tomorrow's Gallup.

 

[Mandark]

Here's all I'm going to say about the daily polling:

 

[Door2Dawn]

What's the problem? I come in here today and all I keep reading are posts about McCain/Palin gaining points in polls. I know they have a bounce coming to them from their convention, but it seems larger than anyone expected.

Which is annoying.

YES! Yes they are gaining momentum. Its a convention bounce!

Convention bounce!!

 

[ezekial45]

Obama Spokesperson Robert Gibbs kicked ass this morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l304a7nGk44

:lol :lol

 

[RubxQub]

Here's all I'm going to say about the daily polling:

:lol

 

[thekad]

Honestly Mandark, it's not looking that great. It is going to be close either way.

 

[Amir0x]

it's looking pretty rad really

 

[JayDubya]

Someone else said that you lose your sense of logic when it comes to the Constitution. This post proves it.

My post was simply one of... dumbfounded awe... at just how little you understand the ideology of those you are criticizing.

You stated that people that believe fundamentally in individual liberty believe that whatever the state makes legal is just and that the law should not be challenged. Do you even read what you are writing?

I think Frank the Great is a pretty cool guy, eh projects false negative qualities to his opponents and doesn't afraid of anything.

 

[grandjedi6]

Can someone lend some insight into polling methodology by Gallup, et al? The one thing I wonder about is if it's phone polls that these organizations are relying on, are they still tied to lists of landline numbers only, and not able to take the pulse of the public that is using cell phones?

All polls are tied to land lines, with little to no cell phone polling, which makes them overexamine older voters. Of course they do have methodologies to adapt for that.

 

[Fatalah]

YES! Yes they are gaining momentum. Its a convention bounce!

Convention bounce!!

You need to be more sympathetic to Obama supporters like me that aren't as confident as you are. Keep us calm, keep us positive.

Many of us have the mentality of Cubs fans-- we may have GREAT team this year, but we always expect the worst. We've been screwed out of winning too many times to be confident.

Against all odds, the Republicans still won in 2004. Broke my heart.

 

[Door2Dawn]

You need to be more sympathetic to Obama supporters like me that aren't as confident as you are. Keep us calm, keep us positive.

Many of us have the mentality of Cubs fans-- we may have GREAT team this year, but we always expect the worst. We've been screwed out of winning too many times to be confident.

Against all odds, the Republicans still won in 2004. Broke my heart.

Yes yes but just remember....















Convention bounce!!!

 

[Door2Dawn]

Honestly Mandark, it's not looking that great. It is going to be close either way.

Convention bounce!!

 

[Frank the Great]

My post was simply one of... dumbfounded awe... at just how little you understand the ideology of those you are criticizing.

You stated that people that believe fundamentally in individual liberty believe that whatever the state makes legal is just and that the law should not be challenged. Do you even read what you are writing?

I think Frank the Great is a pretty cool guy, eh projects false negative qualities to his opponents and doesn't afraid of anything.

I was trying to use logic to explain why the hell someone would analyze a sentence in a 330 year old document and argue that the text of the document MUST be followed EXACTLY.

I think I did a pretty good job. If you approach law with the idea that it is purely defined by the state, then I can see how a strict interpretation of the Constitution can be valued.

You are not using logic though, apparently. You think that the Constitution should be strictly followed, but you qualify the laws in the Constitution with whether they are "good" or not.

If you think it is possible for the Constitution to have bad law in it, then your whole process of analyzing the text and interpreting it literally logically falls apart.

 

[grandjedi6]

Honestly Mandark, it's not looking that great. It is going to be close either way.

Perhaps you missed the image he posted:

Here's all I'm going to say about the daily polling:

 

[Cheebs]

All polls are tied to land lines, with little to no cell phone polling, which makes them overexamine older voters. Of course they do have methodologies to adapt for that.

Uh...no. Gallup polls cellphone users. They are one of the few polling outlets to heavily poll cellphone users.

 

[Frank the Great]

nvm

 

[thekad]

it's looking pretty rad really

I assume you're talking about Ghaleon's GOTV analysis. I want to believe, but I'm still not confident about the overall intelligence of the American electorate.

And grandjedi will probably attack me for that comment