It's time to start thinking about resistance.

[P@triot]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

"Unreasonable search & seizure" are searches or seizures without probable cause.

What constitutes probable cause? And please answer only with direct quotes from the constitution, as the constitution needs no intepretation per the folks I'm discussing this issue with.

Why do you liberals act like the U.S. Constitution is some mysterious ancient text? The shit is written in plain English, black & white, and couldn't be any more straight forward.

Then you're not going to have any problem with the 'probable cause' question. Or 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

Using only the words of the constitution to define them, please.

Um.....I just explained that to you. Wow. I mean...seriously...just...wow

 

[Skylar]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

"Unreasonable search & seizure" are searches or seizures without probable cause.

What constitutes probable cause? And please answer only with direct quotes from the constitution, as the constitution needs no intepretation per the folks I'm discussing this issue with.

Why do you liberals act like the U.S. Constitution is some mysterious ancient text? The shit is written in plain English, black & white, and couldn't be any more straight forward.

Then you're not going to have any problem with the 'probable cause' question. Or 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

Using only the words of the constitution to define them, please.

Um.....I just explained that to you. Wow. I mean...seriously...just...wow

Constitutionally speaking, you're nobody. Use the constitution to define those words. Which you've never once managed to do.

And when you're done.....try 'probable cause'. Or 'general welfare' 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

The list of undefined, subjective and rather vague terms goes on and on. I mean 'cruel and unusual'? Really?

 

[P@triot]

The constitution....according to who? You speak of the constitution as assuming there's no ambiguity, debate on the meaning of terms or the scope of powers.

And none of those assumptions are actually true.

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

"Unreasonable search & seizure" are searches or seizures without probable cause. So if a police officer pulls you over and sees a crack-pipe on your dashboard, that is reasonable cause. If he doesn't and he searches your automobile anyway, that is unreasonable.

Why do you liberals act like the U.S. Constitution is some mysterious ancient text? The shit is written in plain English, black & white, and couldn't be any more straight forward.

If what you wrote were true, there wouldn't be dozens of cases heard by the SC every session, and there would be few 5-4 decisions. I hope this post is not too abstract for you.

Actually, it's exactly because what I wrote is true that there are "dozens of cases heard by the Supreme Court every session". Liberals reject and violate the U.S. Constitution. And they stack the court with unhinged radical idiots like Sotomayor, Kagen, and Ginsburgh - all of which ignore the Constitution as well so that they can be political activists rubber stamping the liberal agenda of "fundamentally transforming the United States".

 

[koshergrl]

Currently the feds have arrested one, and demanded the surrender if another woman who took pictures at the Bundy standoff and at the refuge.

 

[koshergrl]

They are arresting people for exposing them. Period.

 

[PredFan]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

So how do we start?

It's quite simple.........Quit voting for Republicans.

We start locally. Put constitutional candidates who will defend their locals from the feds, and kick federal agents offbpublic lands. If necessary, use deadly force.

Yeah, cause that worked out so well for the right-wing kooks who took over public property in Oregon.

Unlike you asshats on the left, we on the right do things because they are the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if the odds aren't I our favor, it doesn't matter how large and powerful our opponent is, if it's the right thing to do, we do it.

The right thing to do....according to who? See, that's the rub. What you consider the 'right thing' isn't what many other people consider the 'right thing'. And you don't have near the numbers of folks that agree with you to impose your will. To say nothing of your fantasies of a 'resistance', 'civil war', or other right wing fan fiction.

Wether you agree is irrelevant. If it's the right thing to do, we don't need your permission.

 

[P@triot]

The Constitution on you Bolsheviks is like salt on slugs. I should apologize for doing this, but I actually get pleasure from it.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

"Unreasonable search & seizure" are searches or seizures without probable cause.

What constitutes probable cause? And please answer only with direct quotes from the constitution, as the constitution needs no intepretation per the folks I'm discussing this issue with.

Why do you liberals act like the U.S. Constitution is some mysterious ancient text? The shit is written in plain English, black & white, and couldn't be any more straight forward.

Then you're not going to have any problem with the 'probable cause' question. Or 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

Using only the words of the constitution to define them, please.

Um.....I just explained that to you. Wow. I mean...seriously...just...wow

Constitutionally speaking, you're nobody. Use the constitution to define those words. Which you've never once managed to do.

And when you're done.....try 'probable cause'. Or 'general welfare' 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

The list of undefined, subjective and rather vague terms goes on and on. I mean 'cruel and unusual'? Really?

As I said...I just explained that to you. So either you are in desperate need of a professional mental healthcare professional (and some medications) or you can't read. Either way - there isn't a whole lot left I can do for you.

By the way - the Constitution is not a dictionary. So demanding that somebody only use words in the Constitution (which is an extraordinarily small document of 3 pages) to explain a few cherry-picked words eliminates about 99% of the English language. Maybe you're doing it that way on purpose - because you've had your ass handed to you with facts. And not wanting to accept the Constitution as it is written, you have to create some absurd game where you limit everything in an attempt to "win" a debate that you can't win with facts.

 

[Skylar]

So how do we start?

It's quite simple.........Quit voting for Republicans.

We start locally. Put constitutional candidates who will defend their locals from the feds, and kick federal agents offbpublic lands. If necessary, use deadly force.

Yeah, cause that worked out so well for the right-wing kooks who took over public property in Oregon.

Unlike you asshats on the left, we on the right do things because they are the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if the odds aren't I our favor, it doesn't matter how large and powerful our opponent is, if it's the right thing to do, we do it.

The right thing to do....according to who? See, that's the rub. What you consider the 'right thing' isn't what many other people consider the 'right thing'. And you don't have near the numbers of folks that agree with you to impose your will. To say nothing of your fantasies of a 'resistance', 'civil war', or other right wing fan fiction.

Wether you agree is irrelevant. If it's the right thing to do, we don't need your permission.

Far, far more people disagree with you than agree with you. And they're far better armed and organized.

And of course you realize this. Which is why your ilk *talk*. But you don't *do*. You always have an excuse for why its someone else that has to bleed, someone else that has to fight.

But never you.

 

[Skylar]

So what is 'unreasonable' search and seizure? The 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'?

By all means, give us the definitions provided by the constitution.

"Unreasonable search & seizure" are searches or seizures without probable cause.

What constitutes probable cause? And please answer only with direct quotes from the constitution, as the constitution needs no intepretation per the folks I'm discussing this issue with.

Why do you liberals act like the U.S. Constitution is some mysterious ancient text? The shit is written in plain English, black & white, and couldn't be any more straight forward.

Then you're not going to have any problem with the 'probable cause' question. Or 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

Using only the words of the constitution to define them, please.

Um.....I just explained that to you. Wow. I mean...seriously...just...wow

Constitutionally speaking, you're nobody. Use the constitution to define those words. Which you've never once managed to do.

And when you're done.....try 'probable cause'. Or 'general welfare' 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

The list of undefined, subjective and rather vague terms goes on and on. I mean 'cruel and unusual'? Really?

As I said...I just explained that to you. So either you are in desperate need of a professional mental healthcare professional (and some medications) or you can't read. Either way - there isn't a whole lot left I can do for you.

What you just did....is give me your personal interpretations for a document that your ilk have laughably claimed doesn't need interpretation.

You have yet to use the constitution to define ANY of the terms I've asked you about.

By the way - the Constitution is not a dictionary. So demanding that somebody only use words in the Constitution (which is an extraordinarily small document of 3 pages) to explain a few cherry-picked words eliminates about 99% of the English language.

And he FINALLY gets it. With all sorts of ambiguous, subjective language......interpretation is required to glean the meaning of the constitution.

And people are going to disagree on those interpretations.

All too often conservatives insist that whatever THEY interpret must be right and everyone ELSE'S intepretations must be wrong. Because they say so. Which resolves nothing.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

They are arresting people for exposing them. Period.

Here we go again with koshergrl 's fictions.

I won't tell her to post proof because she'll say what she always says - that she already did.

And then she'll post more lies.

 

[P@triot]

"Unreasonable search & seizure" are searches or seizures without probable cause.

What constitutes probable cause? And please answer only with direct quotes from the constitution, as the constitution needs no intepretation per the folks I'm discussing this issue with.

Why do you liberals act like the U.S. Constitution is some mysterious ancient text? The shit is written in plain English, black & white, and couldn't be any more straight forward.

Then you're not going to have any problem with the 'probable cause' question. Or 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

Using only the words of the constitution to define them, please.

Um.....I just explained that to you. Wow. I mean...seriously...just...wow

Constitutionally speaking, you're nobody. Use the constitution to define those words. Which you've never once managed to do.

And when you're done.....try 'probable cause'. Or 'general welfare' 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

The list of undefined, subjective and rather vague terms goes on and on. I mean 'cruel and unusual'? Really?

As I said...I just explained that to you. So either you are in desperate need of a professional mental healthcare professional (and some medications) or you can't read. Either way - there isn't a whole lot left I can do for you.

What you just did....is give me your personal interpretations for a document that your ilk have laughably claimed doesn't need interpretation.

You have yet to use the constitution to define ANY of the terms I've asked you about.

By the way - the Constitution is not a dictionary. So demanding that somebody only use words in the Constitution (which is an extraordinarily small document of 3 pages) to explain a few cherry-picked words eliminates about 99% of the English language.

And he FINALLY gets it. With all sorts of ambiguous, subjective language......interpretation is required to glean the meaning of the constitution.

And people are going to disagree on those interpretations.

All too often conservatives insist that whatever THEY interpret must be right and everyone ELSE'S intepretations must be wrong. Because they say so. Which resolves nothing.

Um...there is nothing "ambiguous" about it junior. It couldn't be any more clear. You want to eliminate the English language so you don't have to hear the definitions of the words (it's sad that you even require the definition for basic words such as "unreasonable" and "general"). I mean...seriously junior....you really need someone to explain to you what general means?!?

 

[P@triot]

We start locally. Put constitutional candidates who will defend their locals from the feds, and kick federal agents offbpublic lands. If necessary, use deadly force.

Yeah, cause that worked out so well for the right-wing kooks who took over public property in Oregon.

Unlike you asshats on the left, we on the right do things because they are the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if the odds aren't I our favor, it doesn't matter how large and powerful our opponent is, if it's the right thing to do, we do it.

The right thing to do....according to who? See, that's the rub. What you consider the 'right thing' isn't what many other people consider the 'right thing'. And you don't have near the numbers of folks that agree with you to impose your will. To say nothing of your fantasies of a 'resistance', 'civil war', or other right wing fan fiction.

Wether you agree is irrelevant. If it's the right thing to do, we don't need your permission.

Far, far more people disagree with you than agree with you. And they're far better armed and organized.

And of course you realize this. Which is why your ilk *talk*. But you don't *do*. You always have an excuse for why its someone else that has to bleed, someone else that has to fight.

But never you.

Ok....schizophrenia boy? What are you babbling about now? To begin with - there is nobody more ill-prepared, less organized, or completely unarmed than the modern day idiot liberals. You people all rely on government to wipe your little bottoms after you go potty and wipe your little chins after you eat. You literally couldn't survive 8 hours without government. I could go the next 8 years easily without government.

Furthermore, way more people agree with me than you. Just look at the numbers junior (let me guess - you don't accept the numbers unless someone can define what they mean to you without using any words found in the English language ).

Finally, where have I said anything about bleeding or fighting? I dare you to highlight a quote of mine above where I actually said that. I explained to you (who needs someone to explain to him the definition of simple terms like "unreasonable" and "general" ) why people call for revolt. I never said I support that or feel it is a good idea. I also didn't say I don't support it. I can see why you struggle with the U.S. Constitution - reading comprehension is beyond your abilities. You know - your local library might have adult programs to assist you with that disability.

 

[Skylar]

What constitutes probable cause? And please answer only with direct quotes from the constitution, as the constitution needs no intepretation per the folks I'm discussing this issue with.

Then you're not going to have any problem with the 'probable cause' question. Or 'general welfare'? 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

Using only the words of the constitution to define them, please.

Um.....I just explained that to you. Wow. I mean...seriously...just...wow

Constitutionally speaking, you're nobody. Use the constitution to define those words. Which you've never once managed to do.

And when you're done.....try 'probable cause'. Or 'general welfare' 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

The list of undefined, subjective and rather vague terms goes on and on. I mean 'cruel and unusual'? Really?

As I said...I just explained that to you. So either you are in desperate need of a professional mental healthcare professional (and some medications) or you can't read. Either way - there isn't a whole lot left I can do for you.

What you just did....is give me your personal interpretations for a document that your ilk have laughably claimed doesn't need interpretation.

You have yet to use the constitution to define ANY of the terms I've asked you about.

By the way - the Constitution is not a dictionary. So demanding that somebody only use words in the Constitution (which is an extraordinarily small document of 3 pages) to explain a few cherry-picked words eliminates about 99% of the English language.

And he FINALLY gets it. With all sorts of ambiguous, subjective language......interpretation is required to glean the meaning of the constitution.

And people are going to disagree on those interpretations.

All too often conservatives insist that whatever THEY interpret must be right and everyone ELSE'S intepretations must be wrong. Because they say so. Which resolves nothing.

Um...there is nothing "ambiguous" about it junior. It couldn't be any more clear. You want to eliminate the English language so you don't have to hear the definitions of the words (it's sad that you even require the definition for basic words such as "unreasonable" and "general"). I mean...seriously junior....you really need someone to explain to you what general means?!?

Then explain to us what the 'general welfare' means. Specifically and in context of actual policy in real world situations. With no intepretations. As everything you've offered so far have been pure interpretation.

And what 'cruel and usual' punishment is. And 'natural born'. And 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....'probable' cause?

Your personal opinoins on the matter are legally meaningless. Show me the actual constitution or the actual dictionary exclusively and singularly resolving every resolving every real world situation.

Oh, and if the constitution doesn't need to be interpreted.....why then did the founders indicate that the interpretation of the constitution was the role of the judiciary?

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, cause that worked out so well for the right-wing kooks who took over public property in Oregon.

Unlike you asshats on the left, we on the right do things because they are the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if the odds aren't I our favor, it doesn't matter how large and powerful our opponent is, if it's the right thing to do, we do it.

The right thing to do....according to who? See, that's the rub. What you consider the 'right thing' isn't what many other people consider the 'right thing'. And you don't have near the numbers of folks that agree with you to impose your will. To say nothing of your fantasies of a 'resistance', 'civil war', or other right wing fan fiction.

Wether you agree is irrelevant. If it's the right thing to do, we don't need your permission.

Far, far more people disagree with you than agree with you. And they're far better armed and organized.

And of course you realize this. Which is why your ilk *talk*. But you don't *do*. You always have an excuse for why its someone else that has to bleed, someone else that has to fight.

But never you.

Ok....schizophrenia boy? What are you babbling about now? To begin with - there is nobody more ill-prepared, less organized, or completely unarmed than the modern day idiot liberals. You people all rely on government to wipe your little bottoms after you go potty and wipe your little chins after you eat. You literally couldn't survive 8 hours without government. I could go the next 8 years easily without government.

Furthermore, way more people agree with me than you. Just look at the numbers junior (let me guess - you don't accept the numbers unless someone can define what they mean to you without using any words found in the English language ).

If 'way more people agree with you', then why not just vote in your policy rather than babble about 'revolt'?

Simple: because you don't have the numbers you pretend you do. Or anything close to them. Which is why your ilk are threatening violence instead simply using constitutional processes to enact your will.

Finally, where have I said anything about bleeding or fighting? I dare you to highlight a quote of mine above where I actually said that. I explained to you (who needs someone to explain to him the definition of simple terms like "unreasonable" and "general" ) why people call for revolt. I never said I support that or feel it is a good idea. I also didn't say I don't support it. I can see why you struggle with the U.S. Constitution - reading comprehension is beyond your abilities. You know - your local library might have adult programs to assist you with that disability.

So the 'talk about revolt' in the thread doesn't involve any violence?

Have you read this thread?

 

[PredFan]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

So how do we start?

It's quite simple.........Quit voting for Republicans.

We start locally. Put constitutional candidates who will defend their locals from the feds, and kick federal agents offbpublic lands. If necessary, use deadly force.

Yeah, cause that worked out so well for the right-wing kooks who took over public property in Oregon.

Unlike you asshats on the left, we on the right do things because they are the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if the odds aren't I our favor, it doesn't matter how large and powerful our opponent is, if it's the right thing to do, we do it.

No you don't. You righties are like petulant 4 year olds who cry and stomp your feet when you don't get your way. This thread is a perfect example where rightards are threatening to kill federal employees because America is not electing who they want or because federal officials won't kiss their ass.

ZZZZzzzzzzz.....

 

[PredFan]

Even if the Dems don't take the White House, there are local battles to fight.

If it's Hillary or Sanders, only we can stop the destruction and loss of basic rights.

It's time to organize, to unite, to resist. If there are enough of us, they cannot throw us all in jail.

A little revolution now and then is a good thing.

So how do we start?

Nothing says 'leadership' like asking other people how to start your revolution.....

In the United States we have a Constitution- and the way to 'prevent' things is by having the most voters.

If you don't have the most voters- and want to rebel against what the voters want- you are just bitter losers who despise our Constitution.

It's ironic to listen to people who have violated the U.S. Constitution because they have a deep contempt for its limitation on powers complain about other people "dispising" the Constitution.

If Democrats (and even most Republicans now) actually respected and adhered to the U.S. Constitution, you would never hear a single citizen talking about revolt.

Ignore them. Liberals have nothing worthwhile to add to this discussion.

 

[P@triot]

Um.....I just explained that to you. Wow. I mean...seriously...just...wow

Constitutionally speaking, you're nobody. Use the constitution to define those words. Which you've never once managed to do.

And when you're done.....try 'probable cause'. Or 'general welfare' 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....

The list of undefined, subjective and rather vague terms goes on and on. I mean 'cruel and unusual'? Really?

As I said...I just explained that to you. So either you are in desperate need of a professional mental healthcare professional (and some medications) or you can't read. Either way - there isn't a whole lot left I can do for you.

What you just did....is give me your personal interpretations for a document that your ilk have laughably claimed doesn't need interpretation.

You have yet to use the constitution to define ANY of the terms I've asked you about.

By the way - the Constitution is not a dictionary. So demanding that somebody only use words in the Constitution (which is an extraordinarily small document of 3 pages) to explain a few cherry-picked words eliminates about 99% of the English language.

And he FINALLY gets it. With all sorts of ambiguous, subjective language......interpretation is required to glean the meaning of the constitution.

And people are going to disagree on those interpretations.

All too often conservatives insist that whatever THEY interpret must be right and everyone ELSE'S intepretations must be wrong. Because they say so. Which resolves nothing.

Um...there is nothing "ambiguous" about it junior. It couldn't be any more clear. You want to eliminate the English language so you don't have to hear the definitions of the words (it's sad that you even require the definition for basic words such as "unreasonable" and "general"). I mean...seriously junior....you really need someone to explain to you what general means?!?

Then explain to us what the 'general welfare' means. Specifically and in context of actual policy in real world situations. With no intepretations. As everything you've offered so far have been pure interpretation.

And what 'cruel and usual' punishment is. And 'natural born'. And 'Privileges and immunities'.....'natural-born'....'needful' building....'free exercise'....'infamous crimes'.....'just' compensation....'probable' cause?

Your personal opinoins on the matter are legally meaningless. Show me the actual constitution or the actual dictionary exclusively and singularly resolving every resolving every real world situation.

Oh, and if the constitution doesn't need to be interpreted.....why then did the founders indicate that the interpretation of the constitution was the role of the judiciary?

They didn't. Just once read the U.S. Constitution before commenting. No where in the Constitution does it grant the Supreme Court the power to "interpret" the Constitution itself. It doesn't exist and never did because the Constitution was written in plain English, set in stone, and is not open for interpretation. I dare you to post any section of the Constitution granting any governing body the power to interpret the Constitution itself. You can't (especially since you've never read it - but also because it doesn't exist).

You can pretend all you want that words have no meaning - but at the end of the day they do and the rest of the rational, sane world not looking for a loophole knows the meaning of those words and accepts them as written.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's the spirit boy, just go to sleep on the couch. Another 20 or 30 lbs around that 60" waist won't hurt at all.

Flap yap about resistance all you want, ya gotta get off the couch first.

 

[P@triot]

Unlike you asshats on the left, we on the right do things because they are the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if the odds aren't I our favor, it doesn't matter how large and powerful our opponent is, if it's the right thing to do, we do it.

The right thing to do....according to who? See, that's the rub. What you consider the 'right thing' isn't what many other people consider the 'right thing'. And you don't have near the numbers of folks that agree with you to impose your will. To say nothing of your fantasies of a 'resistance', 'civil war', or other right wing fan fiction.

Wether you agree is irrelevant. If it's the right thing to do, we don't need your permission.

Far, far more people disagree with you than agree with you. And they're far better armed and organized.

And of course you realize this. Which is why your ilk *talk*. But you don't *do*. You always have an excuse for why its someone else that has to bleed, someone else that has to fight.

But never you.

Ok....schizophrenia boy? What are you babbling about now? To begin with - there is nobody more ill-prepared, less organized, or completely unarmed than the modern day idiot liberals. You people all rely on government to wipe your little bottoms after you go potty and wipe your little chins after you eat. You literally couldn't survive 8 hours without government. I could go the next 8 years easily without government.

Furthermore, way more people agree with me than you. Just look at the numbers junior (let me guess - you don't accept the numbers unless someone can define what they mean to you without using any words found in the English language ).

If 'way more people agree with you', then why not just vote in your policy rather than babble about 'revolt'?

Simple: because you don't have the numbers you pretend you do. Or anything close to them. Which is why your ilk are threatening violence instead simply using constitutional processes to enact your will.

Finally, where have I said anything about bleeding or fighting? I dare you to highlight a quote of mine above where I actually said that. I explained to you (who needs someone to explain to him the definition of simple terms like "unreasonable" and "general" ) why people call for revolt. I never said I support that or feel it is a good idea. I also didn't say I don't support it. I can see why you struggle with the U.S. Constitution - reading comprehension is beyond your abilities. You know - your local library might have adult programs to assist you with that disability.

So the 'talk about revolt' in the thread doesn't involve any violence?

Have you read this thread?

So I ask you again - please highlight above where I stated my support for revolt or violence (man is it difficult to discuss an issue on a message board with someone who has a reading comroehension disability).

By the way - you've made more comments in this thread than I have. By your "logic", can we assume you are bloodthirsty for violence and revolt?

 

[P@triot]

That's the spirit boy, just go to sleep on the couch. Another 20 or 30 lbs around that 60" waist won't hurt at all.

Flap yap about resistance all you want, ya gotta get off the couch first.

In other words - you recognize that only liberals resort to violence while conservatives are the only law abiding citizens. And knowing that, you feel really comfortable popping off like an old school "internet tough guy"