THE "YOU DON'T LOVE THE CONSTITUTION" CRAP IN THIS FORUM!

Imagine if that first Amendment was suddenly ratified. We'd have a zillion Congresscritters.

Yes, a good thing it was not ratified. Even the other amendment which became the 27th in 1992 was obsolete. It said if Congress voted itself a pay raise that raise would not go into effect until after the next election. By 1992 Congress had voted to give itself the same cost of living increase as Social Security recipients; therefore, they did not have to vote to get a raise making that amendment obsolete. They automatically get a raise each year unless they vote not to accept it which they have done. They have not had a raise since 2009.
 
Yeah...look at a significant minority of almost every forum in which Libertarians or American conservatives participate.

You'll see.

I don't think internet forums are necessarily representative of the American public.

I don't think those people do not want to be governed--they just don't want government regulations about stuff they oppose. Many of them would favor more regulations on imports, immigration.......
 
yeah, come back when you are smarter and make better sense, because all I see is a blathering idiot sticking to wrong and incorrect theories like he doesn't want to know better.

I can easily forgive the insults you hurl at me (a result of a childish nature on your part)...but to use that screen name and insult the English language the way you do with each post...is unforgivable.
 
I don't think internet forums are necessarily representative of the American public.

They are. They may not be a fair indicator...or a valid indicator...but they are.

I don't think those people do not want to be governed--they just don't want government regulations about stuff they oppose. Many of them would favor more regulations on imports, immigration.......

Six of one, Flash.

There are people who oppose government way too much...people who actually buy into the nonsense that Ronald Reagan put forth in that unfortunate first inaugural address.

But it is just an opinion of mine...and you may be right.
 
I guess that phony quoting is allowed here...but only a loser would use it.

It is known as satire, a legitimate form of communication.

You would have satire censored huh, Freedom loving Frank?
You are a hypocrite of the lowest order.

By the way, myopic idiot, this forum is a libertarian free speech forum.
You want sycophants, go join Libs R US.
 
It is known as satire, a legitimate form of communication.

You would have satire censored huh, Freedom loving Frank?
You are a hypocrite of the lowest order.

By the way, myopic idiot, this forum is a libertarian free speech forum.
You want sycophants, go join Libs R US.

Why is so difficult for you to post without all that venom? Does hate so consume you that you must feed it to keep it contained?

The crap that guy is doing is NOT satire. It is misquoting!

I am not asking that it be censored...and I did not ask that it be censored.

I merely noted that it is the kind of thing someone with no spine or ethics would do.

For the record, it also is something no one with any real spine or sense of ethics would defend...by pretending it is just satire.
 
They are. They may not be a fair indicator...or a valid indicator...but they are.

If they are not fair or valid then they are not representative. People who write on political forums are going to be more politically interested, have stronger opinions, and usually are more extreme left or right than most Americans--the same applies to presidential primary voters.
 
If they are not fair or valid then they are not representative. People who write on political forums are going to be more politically interested, have stronger opinions, and usually are more extreme left or right than most Americans--the same applies to presidential primary voters.

Okay, you've made your case...and done it well.

I'll concede the point.

I'll rephrase it to: My experience is that there are lots of people who seem not to want to be governed at all...or not nearly as much as a civilized society appears to require.
 
Okay, you've made your case...and done it well.

I'll concede the point.

I'll rephrase it to: My experience is that there are lots of people who seem not to want to be governed at all...or not nearly as much as a civilized society appears to require.

I don't disagree with you although we may differ on what percentage of Americans fit in that category. Would you include people like David Koresh or the Warren Jeffries sect in that group? They seemed to want very regulated governance but their their group (leader) rather than civil authorities.
 
I don't disagree with you although we may differ on what percentage of Americans fit in that category. Would you include people like David Koresh or the Warren Jeffries sect in that group? They seemed to want very regulated governance but their their group (leader) rather than civil authorities.

Nah, Flash, I'm not talking about cults at all. As you pointed out, they seem to want governance...but not from the lawfully elected government.

I'm certainly including people like Clive Bundy...or Tim Mcveigh.

But mostly my comments were aimed at the Internet posters...particularly of the extreme libertarian variety...who just seem unable to tolerate laws...of any but the most fundamental kind.

The entire of the American population seems to be leaning toward a more libertarian bent...to me.

People seem to want to be "free" in a way that society cannot abide...and still be a functioning society.

I'm not going to get into it in depth. I think you get a flavor of what I am saying...and what prompted me to initiate this thread.

I honestly think right now...the greater danger is from that element...rather than from government overstepping reasonable bounds.

 
You're being stupid Frank. Not sure if on purpose or not. The meaning of liberal and conservative has changed sine the Revolution. You are the Tory here, since you "seek a strong federal government with cradle-to-grave control over their lives."

I believe that Frank thinks he's a "wordsmith" and that his lengthy replies show a greater degree of intelligence, then those he's conversing with; all the while ignoring the fact that it makes him look pompous and an ass.

:truestory:
 
Why is so difficult for you to post without all that venom? Does hate so consume you that you must feed it to keep it contained?

The crap that guy is doing is NOT satire. It is misquoting!

I am not asking that it be censored...and I did not ask that it be censored.

I merely noted that it is the kind of thing someone with no spine or ethics would do.

For the record, it also is something no one with any real spine or sense of ethics would defend...by pretending it is just satire.

Add sanctimonious and judgemental to your unobserved list of personal charater defects.
And to think...at your age you could have been.....wise.
 
I believe that Frank thinks he's a "wordsmith" and that his lengthy replies show a greater degree of intelligence, then those he's conversing with; all the while ignoring the fact that it makes him look pompous and an ass.

:truestory:

I'll try not to use big words with you, USF. I know it bothers you.
 
Add sanctimonious and judgemental to your unobserved list of personal charater defects.
And to think...at your age you could have been.....wise.

I coulda been a contenda.

But instead I find myself in a duel of wits with you...an unarmed opponent.

Oh, well.

on-the-waterfront-1954-movie-review-terry-malloy-gent-charley-i-could-have-been-a-contender-marlon-brando-rod-steiger.jpg
 
Back
Top