Featured Texas Governor Calling For Convention Of The States To Rein In Washington

Thank you for proving my point. I never called anyone a "fool," nor any group "fools" nor did I say anyone on the BB lacks reading comprehension.

It is good to see you standing with me against false accusations.

 

And thanks, again, for the additional proof I did not call anyone a fool nor did I say they have a comprehension problem. (Asking a question is not an accusation. And having an opinion is not an accusation.)

 

A text, out of context, is a pretext. I said "I have come to the unfortunate conclusion." A conclusion is not an accusation. A conclusion is a conclusion.

No, again, context is your friend. I asked the question (a question is not an accusation, it is a question) if he had been taking reading comprehension lessons from you. That assumes nothing about either of you. It is just a question. I was asked at a symposium at STSCS Thursday if I taught Theology. That was not an accusation. It was just a question.

Sorry but your own postings disprove your theory.

 

Again, I didn't say anyone had a reading comprehension problem. I came to that conclusion. My conclusions do not constitute facts. They just constitute conclusions. And conclusions are not accusations. They are just conclusions.

No, I have understood the semantical difference between a conclusion and an accusation. It is both a distinction and a difference.

Not at all. I just asked him if he were taking reading comprehension lessons from you. That question does not pre-suppose you lack reading comprehension, even though you chose to understand it that way (you know yourself better than I do). Most people would assume you had good reading comprehension skills and are able to impart that skill set to others.

No, a question is not an accusation nor is it an insult. It is just a question.

Sorry, you are assuming a fact not in evidence. If you keep this up I may have to conclude that you may lack . . . . - uh, well, never mind.

 

I have. It seems to me Justice Scalia is putting his faith in the ratification process by the states.

 

That was not the point of my post you quoted. You asked me to read the link to Justice Scalia's opinion on the topic. I did and gave you what I took away from it.

 

He has more faith in politicians than I do. Especially when we consider the last election cycle going strongly blue.

But, on the other hand, the majority of the state legislatures are red. But in some of those legislatures the red has a very slim majority which could easily change who dominates after this coming election cycle.

I still think it is better to leave well enough alone. Just obey the constitution we already have and the problem would be solved.

I like what the late Justice Scalia said about the constitution. "The constitution is not a living document. It is a contract. It says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say." (Or words to that effect.)

If we could just get congress and the blue state legislatures to know and follow what it says our country would be a lot better off.

 

And I value your opinion. Of course. Really.

More often than I should be. And you?

 

But I am having so much fun!

 

And you should know better than expect me to answer such a question in an open forum. I'll just say this at times Tom can be a punctilious pendant. He, in many ways, is this Board's version of William Buckley.