Should the U.S. Constitution be superseded by the religion of Modern Liberalism?

[Little-Acorn]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

 

[Syriusly]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

LOL I am always amused by the whacky far right that somehow believes that anything they don't agree with must be a religion.

Your religious faith, or my preference for liberal policies do not supersede the Constitution.

Nothing supercedes the Constitution in the United States, despite the efforts of the whacky far right.

As a reminder of how things work in our Constitutional Republic

• The people elect our Congressman/legislators/Senators etc.
• Congress/etc write and pass laws
• If the courts are unconstitutional, the courts can rule them invalid.
• If the people do not like the Constitution, we can amend it.

None of that has anything to do with 'modern liberalism' or 'modern Conservatism' or Southern Baptists.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Learn the constitution and its case studies....But when you do you won't be a right wing extremist that wants to do away with everything.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

LOL I am always amused by the whacky far right that somehow believes that anything they don't agree with must be a religion.

Your religious faith, or my preference for liberal policies do not supersede the Constitution.

Nothing supercedes the Constitution in the United States, despite the efforts of the whacky far right.

As a reminder of how things work in our Constitutional Republic

• The people elect our Congressman/legislators/Senators etc.
• Congress/etc write and pass laws
• If the courts are unconstitutional, the courts can rule them invalid.
• If the people do not like the Constitution, we can amend it.

None of that has anything to do with 'modern liberalism' or 'modern Conservatism' or Southern Baptists.

Nice words.

Can you recount for us, the efforts you have made to make sure Obamacare didn't pass? And that OSHA and the EPA be disbanded? And that Social Security, Welfare, etc. be turned over to the states?

I didn't think so.

You lies are so easy to refute. It's the only "transparency" I've ever found in the Followers of Liberalism.

 

[bodecea]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

Nope. Next question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

You and your ten 'friends' who hate the Constitution should form a political party.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

 

[Syriusly]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

LOL I am always amused by the whacky far right that somehow believes that anything they don't agree with must be a religion.

Your religious faith, or my preference for liberal policies do not supersede the Constitution.

Nothing supercedes the Constitution in the United States, despite the efforts of the whacky far right.

As a reminder of how things work in our Constitutional Republic

• The people elect our Congressman/legislators/Senators etc.
• Congress/etc write and pass laws
• If the courts are unconstitutional, the courts can rule them invalid.
• If the people do not like the Constitution, we can amend it.

None of that has anything to do with 'modern liberalism' or 'modern Conservatism' or Southern Baptists.

Nice words.

Can you recount for us, the efforts you have made to make sure Obamacare didn't pass? And that OSHA and the EPA be disbanded? And that Social Security, Welfare, etc. be turned over to the states?

I didn't think so.

You lies are so easy to refute. It's the only "transparency" I've ever found in the Followers of Liberalism.

What lies? Look I know you are a whacky far right wing kook- but I will indulge your rantings.

Why would i have opposed Obamacare? Congress passed it. The President signed it into law. The Supreme Court said it was consitutional.

Oh wait- your Conservative Cult beliefs supercede the Constitution in your mind.

All the rest of your rantings is covered by the same. Your cultish Conservative Religion does not supercede the Constitution.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why would i have opposed Obamacare? Congress passed it. The President signed it into law. The Supreme Court said it was consitutional.

Already refuted many times in this forum.

The Supreme Court said nothing of the kind.

They said they were only examining one small part of the law (the Mandate), and said that even that was flatly unconstitutional as written.

Justice Roberts then took the liberty of rewriting that small part from the bench, into a form that would never have been passed by Congress, and declared the new version Constitutional, without requiring Congress to re-vote on it as the Constitution requires.

They did not evaluate the rest of the law.

I guess the misnamed "syriusly" has decided that enough time has gone by since he last got debunked on this subject, that he can now tell the same lies and get people to believe them as if they hadn't already been refuted. It's a pretty common tactic among liberals who can't justify their agenda.

So... should we support candidates who try to make their religion (modern Liberalism) supersede the Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

Why would i have opposed Obamacare? Congress passed it. The President signed it into law. The Supreme Court said it was consitutional.

Already refuted many times in this forum.

The Supreme Court said nothing of the kind.

They said they were only examining one small part of the law (the Mandate), and said that even that was flatly unconstitutional as written.

I stand corrected.

Why would i have opposed Obamacare?
Congress passed it.
The President signed it into law.
The Supreme Court in the case presented to it let the law stand and never declared Obamacare unconstitutional.

All the rest of your rantings is covered by the same. Your cultish Conservative Religion does not supercede the Constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

[
So... should we support candidates who try to make their religion (modern Liberalism) supersede the Constitution?

You will support any candidate who tries to make their religion (modern far right wing Conservatism) supersede the Constitution.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

 

[candycorn]

Liberalism isn't a religion as there is no deity, unifying text, or sacraments. You continue to surpass your own records for most inept poster ever.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Why would i have opposed Obamacare? Congress passed it. The President signed it into law. The Supreme Court in the case presented to it let the law stand and never declared Obamacare unconstitutional.

TRANSLATION: I have no mind, and am unable to either read the Constitution nor understand what it says, despite it being written in the plain common English of the period.

Or, at least, I don't dare to understand it, because then I would have to admit my agenda flatly violates it in major ways.

So I will continue to hide behind other people's statements instead, even after they have been proven wrong and illegal. It's better than admitting the truth.

Your cultish Conservative Religion does not supercede the Constitution.

It's always entertaining to be lectured on what supersedes what by somebody who can't even spell it.

Conservatism is fully consonant with the Constitution, which restricts the Fed government to only the functions and powers it lists and forbids all others, reserving them to the States and the people. It doesn't need to supersede anything, since the Constitution already forbids the liberalism of the fanatics on this board and in the Obama administration.

So, should we support the people currently in government who keep trying to impose their religion (modern Liberalism) on the rest of us, flatly violating the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

Modern liberalism is a religion,

Because you have faith that it is a religion.

Just like 'Modern Conservatism' is.

Because they are so similar to Catholicism and Judaism.......lol......

 

[Syriusly]

Why would i have opposed Obamacare? Congress passed it. The President signed it into law. The Supreme Court in the case presented to it let the law stand and never declared Obamacare unconstitutional.

: I have no mind, and am unable to either read the Constitution nor understand what it says, despite it being written in the plain common English of the period.

Finally- both an accurate and true statement from you.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Liberalism isn't a religion as there is no deity, unifying text, or sacraments. You continue to surpass your own records for most inept poster ever.

WOW, a new definition of "religion"!

When you can't win an argument, make up new "facts", eh candycorn?

Sad. But typical. What else can you expect from someone who goes completely against the Supreme Law of the Land?

 

[Little-Acorn]

: I have no mind, and am unable to either read the Constitution nor understand what it says, despite it being written in the plain common English of the period.

Finally- both an accurate and true statement from you.

Ah, the old "I know you are but what am I" defense.

I haven't seen that one since the third grade.

But I guess I should expect it from present company, who has no facts on his side.

So, should we support the people currently in government who keep trying to impose their religion (modern Liberalism) on the rest of us, flatly violating the U.S. Constitution?

 

[Syriusly]

Liberalism isn't a religion as there is no deity, unifying text, or sacraments. You continue to surpass your own records for most inept poster ever.

WOW, a new definition of "religion"!

This whole thread is about you creating a new definition of religion.

 

[konradv]

First we need to fill up those FEMA camps!!!!