Failed to understand " The grandest of these ideals is an American promise that everyone belongs"

It is the story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom, the story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer. It is the American story.

oristarA wrote:

American Promise: "When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho,
we will not pass to the other side."

David:"I will pass to the other side! Am I illegal?"

Yes Dave you're legal, but you're heartless.
That is why there is a reason that American Promise must exist.

Regardless of what putatively "must exist",
there remains a question qua the legitimacy of its jurisdictional predicate.

The difference between charity and robbery is freedom of volition.
I never consented to any such promise.

David

Bush had and has favorable approval ratings nationwide. Please be noted, he gave his point of view (see the opening post of this thread) eight months before 911 terrorist attacks

The challenger: David, former New York City trial lawyer
The challenged: George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States

Bush had and has favorable approval ratings nationwide.
Please be noted, he gave his point of view (see the opening post
of this thread) eight months before 911 terrorist attacks, when the
United States was a God-like prosperous nation on this planet.

David's approval ratings are questionable.

I suspect you will be fighting alone, Dave.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oristarA wrote:

American Promise: "When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho,
we will not pass to the other side."

David:"I will pass to the other side! Am I illegal?"

Yes Dave you're legal, but you're heartless.
That is why there is a reason that American Promise must exist.

Regardless of what putatively "must exist",
there remains a question qua the legitimacy of its jurisdictional predicate.

The difference between charity and robbery is freedom of volition.
I never consented to any such promise.

David

Under circumstances of necessity, an amendment can be added into the Constitution legitimately,
and the legitimacy will be made.
We all can do more, be more.

Americans rally around their leaders in times of war.

Bush had and has favorable approval ratings nationwide.
Please be noted, he gave his point of view (see the opening post of this thread)
eight months before 911 terrorist attacks

Wrong!

8 months before 9/11 Bush's approval ratings were quite poor. Half the country hated him.

all, his political allies in the US Supreme Court had just stolen the 2000 US Presidential election
from Al Gore and had handed Bush the White House. . . .

Americans are the most gullible sheeple on the planet. Americans have always simply surrendered their brains to the war criminals that occupy the highest "offices" in the land.

That is either a lie,
or a bloviation of mindless ignorance

OmSigDAVID wrote:

That is either a lie,
or a bloviation of mindless ignorance

(Lead with that I'm not going to read the rest.)

What a gentleman!

Guess who just replaced JTT on my ignore list!

Oristar wrote:

The challenger: David, former New York City trial lawyer
The challenged: George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States

Bush had and has favorable approval ratings nationwide.
Please be noted, he gave his point of view (see the opening post
of this thread) eight months before 911 terrorist attacks, when the
United States was a God-like prosperous nation on this planet.

No one 's approval ratings are relevant to the factual
veracity of anything that he says; e.g., if a popular person
says that 3 + 3 = 7, that allegation remains incorrect
no matter HOW MUCH people like him.


David

oristarA wrote:

Bush had and has favorable approval ratings nationwide. Please be noted, he gave his point of view (see the opening post of this thread) eight months before 911 terrorist attacks

Wrong!

8 months before 9/11 Bush's approval ratings were quite poor. Half the country hated him. After all, his political allies in the US Supreme Court had just stolen the 2000 US Presidential election from Al Gore and had handed Bush the White House.

His approval ratings soared after terrorists attacked in September. Americans rally around their leaders in times of war.

Oristar wrote:

David's approval ratings are questionable.

The alleged American promises
remain devoid of any foundation in truth, even if I be ostracized.

Oristar wrote:

I suspect you will be fighting alone, Dave.

No one is fighting for the proposition that no
insignificant person has ever been born, etc.
If u deny that, then please tell us who is fighting
in support of that notion and tell us the nature of the struggle.

David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Oristar wrote:

The challenger: David, former New York City trial lawyer
The challenged: George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States

Bush had and has favorable approval ratings nationwide.
Please be noted, he gave his point of view (see the opening post
of this thread) eight months before 911 terrorist attacks, when the
United States was a God-like prosperous nation on this planet.

No one 's approval ratings are relevant to the factual
veracity of anything that he says; e.g., if a popular person
says that 3 + 3 = 7, that allegation remains incorrect
no matter HOW MUCH people like him.


David

Don't try mixing up the fuzziness of social science with the accuracy of mathematics of formal science, Dave.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Oristar wrote:

David's approval ratings are questionable.

The alleged American promises
remain devoid of any foundation in truth, even if I be ostracized.

Why didn't you say "The alleged American promises remain devoid of any foundation in law (or "the current law")"?
That would sound more reliable. Because there is no point in saying that.
I see no reason to speculate, nor to guess, that matters
will degenerate away from Original Americanism. David




I tell you: Bush and his supporters think the promise is a truth.

Kolyo wrote:

oristarA wrote:

Bush had and has favorable approval ratings nationwide.
Please be noted, he gave his point of view (see the opening post of this thread) eight months before 911 terrorist attacks

Wrong!

8 months before 9/11 Bush's approval ratings were quite poor. Half the country hated him. After all, his political allies in the US Supreme Court had just stolen the 2000 US Presidential election from Al Gore and had handed Bush the White House.

His approval ratings soared after terrorists attacked in September. Americans rally around their leaders in times of war.

Don't compare the approval ratings of Bush to that of Al Gore.
Compare it to that of David, the former NYC trial lawyer.

The old dog would not budge
even if his special spellings were bombarded by 99.9% of A2K members.
And now you can rethink about his support rate.

Oristar wrote:

I suspect you will be fighting alone, Dave.

No one is fighting for the proposition that no
insignificant person has ever been born, etc.
If u deny that, then please tell us who is fighting
in support of that notion and tell us the nature of the struggle.

David

The proposition that no insignificant person has ever been born
is the another form of the expression that all men are created equal.

NO men have EVER been equal; not even identical twins, nor identical triplets.
On close examination, differences will be found; (ask them).
Admittedly, thay might be equal in some respects, e.g. same number of lungs or legs, etc.
Even cloned animals are not 1OO% equal;
differences, however minute, will be discovered upon investigation.

If David thought he's not born to be insignificant,
then everyone's not born to be insignificant.
So everyone deserves a chance.

U have now altered your premises.

Abraham Lincoln was fighting for the proposition (See Address at Gettysberg),

He was fighting to prevent
the withdrawal of a large block of States from the USA. He said so.

so was Martin Luther King Jr.(See the address I Have a Dream).
The list is an endless stream, Dave. It is called American Dream.

I challenge no one 's right to dream, but I challenge anyone's
attempt to limit my liberty because of his dreams. My legal rights
and my Constitutional rights remain intact.