How EVIL is liberalism anyway?

[BluesLegend]

I'll tell you how evil liberalism is, a disabled vet wounded in battle recently told me that the rules of engagement are such at the enemy gets the first shot at them. They cannot fire unless first fired upon. He said so if a guy is sneaking up on you with an RPG the enemy gets to fire it at you first, then if you are not killed or wounded they can fire back. That's FUBAR holy shit.

Is that the least bit surprising considering their contempt for the U.S. military and their desire to lower America to the level of the rest of the world (like Cuba)?

Honestly it did surprise me even for the Obama regime, forcing our troops to give the enemy the first shot is possibly the most absurd thing I have heard in my life.

 

[P@triot]

"Look at the chilling resemblance between the old plantation and the new, right? In both cases, we start with a ramshackle dwelling, right? Used to be called the slave quarters. Now it’s public housing or some urban apartment,” D’Souza said. “Why is there so much discontent that makes the job of a cop in these areas so difficult and makes the whole thing so on a hair trigger? And the answer is that these people are living unlivable lives.”

“Right, without hope,” Glenn agreed.

“They have a meager provision, right? There’s food stamps. And if you’re sick, they’ll call the doctor, but that was even true on the plantation. If you got sick, they called a doctor, but no one got ahead. No hope. A kind of nihilism that defined the plantation, and there’s a nihilism that defines inner city life today,” D’Souza said. This is the legacy of the Democratic Party, as well as founding the Ku Klux Klan and stealing American’s wealth through corrupt deals and legislation.

Dinesh D’Souza: Inner Cities Bear Chilling Resemblance to Slave Dwellings

 

[Kosh]

As this board proves the far left is far more dangerous than ISIS!

 

[regent]

When a state ratified the Constitution apparently (Civil War) the state was a member forever with the Constitution and US laws supreme.

Yeah? And? As I've stated a zillion times already - the U.S. Constitution delegates 18 enumerated responsibilities to the federal government. Everything else is left to the sovereign states.

You seem to be confusing two separate issues - the Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment. They are not in conflict my friend. They co-exist flawlessly when the Constitution is obeyed.

They are often in conflict.

 

[P@triot]

When a state ratified the Constitution apparently (Civil War) the state was a member forever with the Constitution and US laws supreme.

Yeah? And? As I've stated a zillion times already - the U.S. Constitution delegates 18 enumerated responsibilities to the federal government. Everything else is left to the sovereign states.

You seem to be confusing two separate issues - the Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment. They are not in conflict my friend. They co-exist flawlessly when the Constitution is obeyed.

They are often in conflict.

No really. They are never in conflict. You're extremely confused. Not unusual for a liberal though.

 

[regent]

And when they are not obeyed, are they in conflict?

 

[P@triot]

And when they are not obeyed, are they in conflict?

Uh....no. When they are not obeyed then someone is breaking the law. When they are obeyed, the are not in conflict at all (that's why they were able to be part of the exact same document).

 

[regent]

And when they are not obeyed, are they in conflict?

Uh....no. When they are not obeyed then someone is breaking the law. When they are obeyed, the are not in conflict at all (that's why they were able to be part of the exact same document).

Sort like Brown vs. Board?

 

[P@triot]

And when they are not obeyed, are they in conflict?

Uh....no. When they are not obeyed then someone is breaking the law. When they are obeyed, the are not in conflict at all (that's why they were able to be part of the exact same document).

Sort like Brown vs. Board?

Sort of like nobody would be dumb enough to build a legal document that conflicted itself....

 

[regent]

And when they are not obeyed, are they in conflict?

Uh....no. When they are not obeyed then someone is breaking the law. When they are obeyed, the are not in conflict at all (that's why they were able to be part of the exact same document).

Sort like Brown vs. Board?

Sort of like nobody would be dumb enough to build a legal document that conflicted itself....

? Do you have a lawyer that advises you that legal documents do not conflict themselves? If the Constitution had no conflicts would we need a Supreme Court to rule on those conflicts?

 

[P@triot]

And when they are not obeyed, are they in conflict?

Uh....no. When they are not obeyed then someone is breaking the law. When they are obeyed, the are not in conflict at all (that's why they were able to be part of the exact same document).

Sort like Brown vs. Board?

Sort of like nobody would be dumb enough to build a legal document that conflicted itself....

? Do you have a lawyer that advises you that legal documents do not conflict themselves? If the Constitution had no conflicts would we need a Supreme Court to rule on those conflicts?

And we don't. The Supreme Court does not exist because the U.S. Constitution contradicts itself. The Supreme Court exists to rule on legislation created by Congress (where conflicts could exist - such as unconstitutional Obamacare). Not to decide on the Constitution itself.

 

[P@triot]

This is how evil liberalism is.... Not only inflicting pain on babies but also lying about the fact that the babies can feel the torture.

AMA Dismisses Evidence of Baby’s Pain in Later Abortions

 

[regent]

And when they are not obeyed, are they in conflict?

Uh....no. When they are not obeyed then someone is breaking the law. When they are obeyed, the are not in conflict at all (that's why they were able to be part of the exact same document).

Sort like Brown vs. Board?

Sort of like nobody would be dumb enough to build a legal document that conflicted itself....

? Do you have a lawyer that advises you that legal documents do not conflict themselves? If the Constitution had no conflicts would we need a Supreme Court to rule on those conflicts?

And we don't. The Supreme Court does not exist because the U.S. Constitution contradicts itself. The Supreme Court exists to rule on legislation created by Congress (where conflicts could exist - such as unconstitutional Obamacare). Not to decide on the Constitution itself.

The Supreme Court decided the Constitution created by the framers said the Supreme Court was supposed to decide on what the framers meant.

 

[P@triot]

This is how evil liberalism is...purchasing votes from foreigners because they can't win clean elections.

Tim Kaine promises bill to legalize illegal immigrants in ‘first 100 days’

 

[P@triot]

Uh....no. When they are not obeyed then someone is breaking the law. When they are obeyed, the are not in conflict at all (that's why they were able to be part of the exact same document).

Sort like Brown vs. Board?

Sort of like nobody would be dumb enough to build a legal document that conflicted itself....

? Do you have a lawyer that advises you that legal documents do not conflict themselves? If the Constitution had no conflicts would we need a Supreme Court to rule on those conflicts?

And we don't. The Supreme Court does not exist because the U.S. Constitution contradicts itself. The Supreme Court exists to rule on legislation created by Congress (where conflicts could exist - such as unconstitutional Obamacare). Not to decide on the Constitution itself.

The Supreme Court decided the Constitution created by the framers said the Supreme Court was supposed to decide on what the framers meant.

That's a power the Supreme Court simply doesn't have....

 

[regent]

Can anyone describe the "core values" of liberalism? Liberalism is not the means to achieve a small or large government but the reason small or large government fits the core values of a political ideology.

 

[regent]

Sort like Brown vs. Board?

Sort of like nobody would be dumb enough to build a legal document that conflicted itself....

? Do you have a lawyer that advises you that legal documents do not conflict themselves? If the Constitution had no conflicts would we need a Supreme Court to rule on those conflicts?

And we don't. The Supreme Court does not exist because the U.S. Constitution contradicts itself. The Supreme Court exists to rule on legislation created by Congress (where conflicts could exist - such as unconstitutional Obamacare). Not to decide on the Constitution itself.

The Supreme Court decided the Constitution created by the framers said the Supreme Court was supposed to decide on what the framers meant.

That's a power the Supreme Court simply doesn't have....

IT HAS IT NOW.

 

[P@triot]

Can anyone describe the "core values" of liberalism? Liberalism is not the means to achieve a small or large government but the reason small or large government fits the core values of a political ideology.

Yes. Here are the "core" values of liberalism:

• Power
• Control
• Money
• Ends Justify the Means at any cost
• Avoidance of personal responsibility at all cost
• Lie
• Cheat
• Steal

 

[P@triot]

Sort of like nobody would be dumb enough to build a legal document that conflicted itself....

? Do you have a lawyer that advises you that legal documents do not conflict themselves? If the Constitution had no conflicts would we need a Supreme Court to rule on those conflicts?

And we don't. The Supreme Court does not exist because the U.S. Constitution contradicts itself. The Supreme Court exists to rule on legislation created by Congress (where conflicts could exist - such as unconstitutional Obamacare). Not to decide on the Constitution itself.

The Supreme Court decided the Constitution created by the framers said the Supreme Court was supposed to decide on what the framers meant.

That's a power the Supreme Court simply doesn't have....

IT HAS IT NOW.

You can keep telling yourself that but it doesn't change the reality. It's like me robbing a bank and screaming "I have the money now". Yeah - and as soon as someone catches up with me the money will be taken away and I will go to prison.

 

[P@triot]

This is how evil liberalism is...