Cruz' filibuster looks good. Railing against

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Cruz' filibuster looks good. Railing against

Post by awesome guy »

To me, full of yourself is the arrogance you display to demand Oakton falls into your trap, then taking the obtuse position that your message on a public forum is really some kind of private message that only Oakton can reply to, in the way you demand. Complete arrogance and it looks rather douchy. Idiotic when factoring the content and simple request to explain the vitriol at Cruz. But you are right that there is a gotcha in my request, because Cruz understands the constitution better than you. So we both know you'll get your own education when posting something explicit enough to be evaluated. That's why we get your vague ramblings, then a truck load of hubris when asked to explain.
HokieFanDC wrote:To you, full of yourself is not falling in line with people's posting styles. I have a long posting history with oakton, and it's very full of oakton disappearing from threads when he is challenged on something he says, or actually gets a direct response to something he demands. I don't go into great detail b/c he never responds. If he decides to respond in kind, I will go into whatever detail is necessary.

It's not "on me" to respond to you. I am responding to a direct request from oakton. When he responds, I will respond to him accordingly. Your insistence on interjecting yourself into this shows how full of yourself you are. You can't even spend a couple minutes to educate yourself, and instead, want me to do so? You can't spend that time to gain that knowledge, and write something meaningful, but you will spend your time writing multiple "gotcha" posts? Please.
awesome guy wrote:Can you be more full of yourself? Jeez. I've seen Oakton debate his points about a thousand times more than you. For you to paint him as a drive by posters is just asinine. Just answer the questions, it's on you to show us how Cruz is some kind of crazy idiot.
HokieFanDC wrote:No. Just to be clear, I don't what you think about it. At all. I am only interested in oakton's position.
My short and simple responses were a direct response to oakton, who claims to know a lot about Cruz, and to really, really like Cruz. He asked me to tell him specifically what I think is wrong with Cruz. He can either respond to them, or he can do what he usually does, which is ignore them. Letting you, or someone else, debate for oakton, is letting him off the hook from actually debating his points himself. When oakton can take the time to respond, to my response to his direct request, I will be more specific, and you can feel free to chime in.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Cruz' filibuster looks good. Railing against

Post by awesome guy »

I'll put it another way, think it might be your haughty style and condescension that's not getting you the response you want? Maybe Oakton isn't the problem?
HokieFanDC wrote:To you, full of yourself is not falling in line with people's posting styles. I have a long posting history with oakton, and it's very full of oakton disappearing from threads when he is challenged on something he says, or actually gets a direct response to something he demands. I don't go into great detail b/c he never responds. If he decides to respond in kind, I will go into whatever detail is necessary.

It's not "on me" to respond to you. I am responding to a direct request from oakton. When he responds, I will respond to him accordingly. Your insistence on interjecting yourself into this shows how full of yourself you are. You can't even spend a couple minutes to educate yourself, and instead, want me to do so? You can't spend that time to gain that knowledge, and write something meaningful, but you will spend your time writing multiple "gotcha" posts? Please.
awesome guy wrote:Can you be more full of yourself? Jeez. I've seen Oakton debate his points about a thousand times more than you. For you to paint him as a drive by posters is just asinine. Just answer the questions, it's on you to show us how Cruz is some kind of crazy idiot.
HokieFanDC wrote:No. Just to be clear, I don't what you think about it. At all. I am only interested in oakton's position.
My short and simple responses were a direct response to oakton, who claims to know a lot about Cruz, and to really, really like Cruz. He asked me to tell him specifically what I think is wrong with Cruz. He can either respond to them, or he can do what he usually does, which is ignore them. Letting you, or someone else, debate for oakton, is letting him off the hook from actually debating his points himself. When oakton can take the time to respond, to my response to his direct request, I will be more specific, and you can feel free to chime in.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Cruz' filibuster looks good. Railing against

Post by HokieFanDC »

Since you're so interested in this, I'll do all your homework for you, and write it out for you.

I'm assuming you know this is about his little battle with Feinstein on the 2A, and his 1A comparison.
Cruz asks whether it would be Constitutional for Congress to ban some books, and not others. And in using the 1A, he was also talking about free speech, in comparison.
First issue is that it is clearly legal for Congress to limit certain books or publications (child porn, libelous writings, govt secrets). And it's also legal to limit certain forms of speech, in terms of where you can do it, what you can say, etc.
Second is that there the overarching concept of Compelling State Interest, which allows Congress to limit rights if a compelling interest exists.
The bottom line is that Cruz is putting forth that the rights are absolute, and they are clearly not. You can argue whether the action being discussed is Constitutional or not, but you can't argue that the right is absolute, with no limits at all.
awesome guy wrote:I'll put it another way, think it might be your haughty style and condescension that's not getting you the response you want? Maybe Oakton isn't the problem?
On this point, I don't have to use the haughty style and condescension with oakton. It's perfectly fine to speak to him in a normal manner. That tone is saved for the precious few.
HokieFanDC wrote:To you, full of yourself is not falling in line with people's posting styles. I have a long posting history with oakton, and it's very full of oakton disappearing from threads when he is challenged on something he says, or actually gets a direct response to something he demands. I don't go into great detail b/c he never responds. If he decides to respond in kind, I will go into whatever detail is necessary.

It's not "on me" to respond to you. I am responding to a direct request from oakton. When he responds, I will respond to him accordingly. Your insistence on interjecting yourself into this shows how full of yourself you are. You can't even spend a couple minutes to educate yourself, and instead, want me to do so? You can't spend that time to gain that knowledge, and write something meaningful, but you will spend your time writing multiple "gotcha" posts? Please.
awesome guy wrote:Can you be more full of yourself? Jeez. I've seen Oakton debate his points about a thousand times more than you. For you to paint him as a drive by posters is just asinine. Just answer the questions, it's on you to show us how Cruz is some kind of crazy idiot.
HokieFanDC wrote:No. Just to be clear, I don't what you think about it. At all. I am only interested in oakton's position.
My short and simple responses were a direct response to oakton, who claims to know a lot about Cruz, and to really, really like Cruz. He asked me to tell him specifically what I think is wrong with Cruz. He can either respond to them, or he can do what he usually does, which is ignore them. Letting you, or someone else, debate for oakton, is letting him off the hook from actually debating his points himself. When oakton can take the time to respond, to my response to his direct request, I will be more specific, and you can feel free to chime in.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Cruz' filibuster looks good. Railing against

Post by awesome guy »

thanks for the teeth pulling exercise. It was your work, not mine.
HokieFanDC wrote:Since you're so interested in this, I'll do all your homework for you, and write it out for you.

I'm assuming you know this is about his little battle with Feinstein on the 2A, and his 1A comparison.
Cruz asks whether it would be Constitutional for Congress to ban some books, and not others. And in using the 1A, he was also talking about free speech, in comparison.
First issue is that it is clearly legal for Congress to limit certain books or publications (child porn, libelous writings, govt secrets). And it's also legal to limit certain forms of speech, in terms of where you can do it, what you can say, etc.
Second is that there the overarching concept of Compelling State Interest, which allows Congress to limit rights if a compelling interest exists.
The bottom line is that Cruz is putting forth that the rights are absolute, and they are clearly not. You can argue whether the action being discussed is Constitutional or not, but you can't argue that the right is absolute, with no limits at all.
awesome guy wrote:I'll put it another way, think it might be your haughty style and condescension that's not getting you the response you want? Maybe Oakton isn't the problem?
On this point, I don't have to use the haughty style and condescension with oakton. It's perfectly fine to speak to him in a normal manner. That tone is saved for the precious few.
HokieFanDC wrote:To you, full of yourself is not falling in line with people's posting styles. I have a long posting history with oakton, and it's very full of oakton disappearing from threads when he is challenged on something he says, or actually gets a direct response to something he demands. I don't go into great detail b/c he never responds. If he decides to respond in kind, I will go into whatever detail is necessary.

It's not "on me" to respond to you. I am responding to a direct request from oakton. When he responds, I will respond to him accordingly. Your insistence on interjecting yourself into this shows how full of yourself you are. You can't even spend a couple minutes to educate yourself, and instead, want me to do so? You can't spend that time to gain that knowledge, and write something meaningful, but you will spend your time writing multiple "gotcha" posts? Please.
awesome guy wrote:Can you be more full of yourself? Jeez. I've seen Oakton debate his points about a thousand times more than you. For you to paint him as a drive by posters is just asinine. Just answer the questions, it's on you to show us how Cruz is some kind of crazy idiot.
HokieFanDC wrote:No. Just to be clear, I don't what you think about it. At all. I am only interested in oakton's position.
My short and simple responses were a direct response to oakton, who claims to know a lot about Cruz, and to really, really like Cruz. He asked me to tell him specifically what I think is wrong with Cruz. He can either respond to them, or he can do what he usually does, which is ignore them. Letting you, or someone else, debate for oakton, is letting him off the hook from actually debating his points himself. When oakton can take the time to respond, to my response to his direct request, I will be more specific, and you can feel free to chime in.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Cruz' filibuster looks good. Railing against

Post by HokieFanDC »

You're welcome. Do you at least have an opinion? That's a lot of teeth pulling for nothing.
awesome guy wrote:thanks for the teeth pulling exercise. It was your work, not mine.
HokieFanDC wrote:Since you're so interested in this, I'll do all your homework for you, and write it out for you.

I'm assuming you know this is about his little battle with Feinstein on the 2A, and his 1A comparison.
Cruz asks whether it would be Constitutional for Congress to ban some books, and not others. And in using the 1A, he was also talking about free speech, in comparison.
First issue is that it is clearly legal for Congress to limit certain books or publications (child porn, libelous writings, govt secrets). And it's also legal to limit certain forms of speech, in terms of where you can do it, what you can say, etc.
Second is that there the overarching concept of Compelling State Interest, which allows Congress to limit rights if a compelling interest exists.
The bottom line is that Cruz is putting forth that the rights are absolute, and they are clearly not. You can argue whether the action being discussed is Constitutional or not, but you can't argue that the right is absolute, with no limits at all.
awesome guy wrote:I'll put it another way, think it might be your haughty style and condescension that's not getting you the response you want? Maybe Oakton isn't the problem?
On this point, I don't have to use the haughty style and condescension with oakton. It's perfectly fine to speak to him in a normal manner. That tone is saved for the precious few.
HokieFanDC wrote:To you, full of yourself is not falling in line with people's posting styles. I have a long posting history with oakton, and it's very full of oakton disappearing from threads when he is challenged on something he says, or actually gets a direct response to something he demands. I don't go into great detail b/c he never responds. If he decides to respond in kind, I will go into whatever detail is necessary.

It's not "on me" to respond to you. I am responding to a direct request from oakton. When he responds, I will respond to him accordingly. Your insistence on interjecting yourself into this shows how full of yourself you are. You can't even spend a couple minutes to educate yourself, and instead, want me to do so? You can't spend that time to gain that knowledge, and write something meaningful, but you will spend your time writing multiple "gotcha" posts? Please.
Post Reply