Forgive those that trespass? Not in AZ

[KrazyHorse]

Damnit, how DARE you argue with me and prove me wrong! I'm a VETERAN. I know how to drive a tank! If you ever talked to me this way in person me and my VETERAN buddies would punch you in the NONVETERAN mouth.

[Darius871]

You misinterpreted some of those.

Not just me, but several people, including a fellow combat veteran. If everybody but you takes a meaning out of your words that you didn't intend, then you should choose them more carefully.

I know it because I have read and studied it, but I guess I don't know **** because I'm not a lawyer or physicist, so I can't must be stupid.

I never said you were stupid. However, I do honestly believe that any laypersons who had "read" the Constitution and a few Federalist papers back in the day would by and large tend to know less about the text, underlying intent, amendments, and subsequent interpretations of the Constitution than licensed attorneys, because they spend years being trained and tested in these intricacies and ultimately practice it as a daily profession. That's not intended to impugn your intelligence, service, or understanding of "protecting freedom"; it's just a fact of life.

For example, I'm not going to tell a mechanic how to remove a carburetor from a 1968 Mustang even though I read "Car Repair for Dummies," I'm not going to tell a cardiologist how to conduct a triple bypass even though I took a biology class in college, I'm not going to tell KrazyHorse how to estimate the mass of a Higgs Boson even though I took a chemistry class in college, and I'm not going to tell you how to dismantle an M4 Carbine even though I have a .44 Special sitting at home. On the same token, I wouldn't expect a soldier to tell a constitutional scholar whether amendments passed pursuant to Article 5 after 1789 are any less a part of the Constitution than those that were among the original Bill of Rights, whether slightly incongruous drafts of the 16th Amendment were substantively different enough to invalidate their ratifications, whether Article 5 requires a popular referendum to back up votes by state legislatures, etc. etc. etc. Some people just have more expertise in certain topics, and there's no dishonor in that. It's just common sense.

In your 29 years of being, when have you ever fought for someone else?

Actually I was already planning to go into the Army out of college and began preparing for the PFT before I discovered a subluxation in my foot that disqualified me from enlisted duty, so I decided to go to law school and enlist in the Army JAG Corps (which has more lax medical waivers) after graduating. After reading this thread again, however, I'm really having serious second thoughts because of sheer terror that my future clients in uniform, and perhaps even colleagues, would be so utterly ignorant of basic Constitutional and legal precepts as to be impossible to advise.

Fortunately, after asking around I realize that the several combat veterans among my friends and family would gladly sock you in the goddamned face for A) purporting to speak for veterans as a group, B) incessantly whining about how your service somehow entitles you to any sort of special treatment or deference, and C) tearing up the Constitution they swore to defend whenever its text happens to be inconvenient to your preconceived point of view. I now know not to take you as a representative sample of our armed forces, most members of which I continue to respect. Hell, we even have at least one combat veteran in the thread already who has put you in his place on this point, and I hope others will chime in.

I am a veteran too of an earlier war where the foliage made the combat up close and personal. I do not think the experience made me or my colleagues experts on the US constitution. Citing being a veteran or the associated medals or injuries does not make people treat you as an authority in a discussion in which everyone has actual access to the information available.

[Kuciwalker]

I wouldn't expect a soldier to tell a constitutional scholar whether amendments passed pursuant to Article 5 after 1789 are any less a part of the Constitution than those that were among the original Bill of Rights

You say that as if the latter were not part of the former.

[KrazyHorse]

Veteran. Tank. Carbine. Durka durka durka. My great great grandfather had both testicles blown off when he charged up San Juan hill. That didn't stop him from cleaning Teddy Roosevelt's glasses, though. And my aunt's second cousin (common law) once saw an illegal immigrant. I'm pretty sure that entitles me to a place on the supreme court.

[Darius871]

I wouldn't expect a soldier to tell a constitutional scholar whether amendments passed pursuant to Article 5 after 1789 are any less a part of the Constitution than those that were among the original Bill of Rights

You say that as if the latter were not part of the former.

I got that itch too, which is why I added "after 1789" to differentiate (note I said "passed," not "ratified," which would not have differentiated). I didn't want to confuse the poor soul with the simple fact that all amendments were passed under Article 5 with state legislature votes not backed by voter referenda. The idea that your evil socialist income tax and his precious right to bear arms came from the same exact procedure would surely make his head explode.

[KrazyHorse]

Time for this video again

[Wezil]

I can't believe this series was renewed for another season.

[Dinner]

For somebody who probably professes great pride in the constitution you're certainly happy to ignore it whenever you feel like...

That's pretty much the standard right wing position and has been since at least the civil rights era.

[Felch]

Poor Mexicans are being denied the chance that was given to poor Irishmen a hundred and twenty five years ago.---Poor Mexicans, oh I have such sympathy for them. They go around doing their own thing, when "125" years ago Irish was a step above being black. What are you expecting of me, to roll over and play your game? You want me to sympathize or agree with you you had should use softer tactics. Insulting my lineage does you no good, and your deeming my knowledge of family history and my heritage as stupid just doesn't work.

Ethnically speaking (as if it mattered) KH is Irish, I'm Irish, half of America is Irish. When our ancestors came here, there were no immigration controls. That's the point of what Blaupanzer was saying.

See Mexicans get here and get to do all sorts of cheap labor and get all sorts of benefits. Irish got here, legally, and weren't able to get work because they were discriminated against. Remember how blacks couldn't use some places or things, etc. Irish had the same **** end of the stick.

Mexicans do the same grueling, thankless, physical labor our ancestors performed. Forget the "No Irish Need Apply" signs, plenty of Irish found work. Digging canals, working in mines, cleaning houses, all sorts of crap. They did the same **** the Mexicans do now. Which is why I personally am a bit sympathetic to the Mexicans. I see the same WASPish bigotry against them that was against my forebears.

One of the great things about the military is that service can get you citizenship. I was born a citizen, I didn't have to go through the process. I had a few colleagues and one of my soldiers who went through it. My 1st Sergeant of my last unit was born in Venezuela and served in their military for a few years, taught himself English and then immigrated legally to the US. Upon getting to the US he signed up for the US Army as a cavalry scout. He got his citizenship the same way other soldiers do, they file the paperwork. You want exacts go look it up, all I know is that serving helped there papers along. I never asked questions of soldiers from other countries serving along side me. All I knew is that they were serving a military of a country they were not born in, that they honestly believe in, and that they obviously were willing to die for citizenship.

Why do you constantly question everything military I say? Are you that dead set against military, soldiers, and veterans? Did you get denied when you went to MEPs? Maybe too much meth as a kid? Or just a retardation that keeps you from accepting the world as open minded as opposed to your secluded one view world?

I'm not in the military, nor do I want to be. It's not fear though. It's laziness. I hate waking up in the morning, and I really hate waking up without my morning bowl of ganja. What I hate most of all is this constant ***** sucking of the Army. You're given a firearm and permission to shoot foreigners. I think that's an awesome deal. If I could wake up around noon, smoke some weed, and shoot ragheads, I'd join the Army too. They wouldn't even have to pay me. So seriously, quit with the whining, quit with the self-righteous bull****, and just chill out. It's the Internet. It's not actually important.

[Arrian]

Still attempting to make military service into a prerequisite for Constitutional expertise, eh?

FAIL.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

We might have to shoot this thread with a silver bullet in order to actually put it down for good.

I thought my teabagging had done it, but no.

[Felch]

To be fair the last several posts have been us bludgeoning the poor guy, while he meekly puts up his arms in a last attempt at defiance.

It's kind of fun. Like nuking the **** out of Monty's last city in CIV.

[Guynemer]

It's obviously a DL. Funny as hell, though.

[KrazyHorse]

I honestly don't think it is. I feel like I really put him in the crucible a few nights ago (the series where he started posting all those pics). Sure, he might have gotten a little singed, but I think I got to see what he was actually made of.

[KrazyHorse]

In other words, if somebody actually managed to fake being that much of an insecure **** then my hat is off to them.