Should the U.S. Constitution be superseded by the religion of Modern Liberalism?

[Sallow]

"Modern Liberalism" isn't a religion.

Pick up a dictionary.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Should the U.S. Constitution be superseded by the religion of Modern Liberalism?'

This is clearly among the most moronic of conservative thread topics, and that's quite an accomplishment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You must have meant to put this in political satire, because you can't be serious.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Should the U.S. Constitution be superseded by the religion of Modern Liberalism?'

This is clearly among the most moronic of conservative thread topics, and that's quite an accomplishment.

TRANSLATION: I can't find any way to refute it. But hate it anyway, so I'll call it names and see if I can fool any of my none-too-bright cohorts into thinking it's wrong instead of me.

 

[Sallow]

How Right Wing Propaganda Causes Cognitive Dissonance in the Conservative Brain

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LITTLE-ACORN SAID:

"How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution?"

How about you seek out the mental health treatment you so clearly need – you've become delusional.

There is no 'religion' of 'liberalism,' it doesn't exist – it's something you made up.

Consequently no one is advocating anything 'supersede' the Constitution.

 

[BlindBoo]

The question I want to know is "Should reality be superseded by repetitive ramblings of a nonsensical hypothesis"

 

[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.

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?

You're the one who seems to be against the Constiution.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Poor liberals. All they can do is scream "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!", mouth feeble lies, and call names.

None of them can refute the actual topic. Few even dare to try.

To no one's surprise.

So... should we continue to support the people in elected office today, who keep trying to make laws imposing their religion of modern Liberalism on the rest of us, in clear defiance of the Constitution?

 

[konradv]

None of them can refute the actual topic.

How would you know? You apparently can't recognize a refutation when you see one. "Modern Liberalism isn't a religion", to quote a board member you chose to ignore! Why?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Poor liberals. All they can do is scream "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!", mouth feeble lies, and call names.

None of them can refute the actual topic. Few even dare to try.

To no one's surprise.

So... should we continue to support the people in elected office today, who keep trying to make laws imposing their religion of modern Liberalism on the rest of us, in clear defiance of the Constitution?

Given the idiocy of your thread premise, you're in no position to 'pity' anyone; this thread is ridiculous and pathetic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LITTLE-ACORN SAID:

"None of them can refute the actual topic"

There is no 'topic' to 'refute.'

 

[Little-Acorn]

Poor liberals. All they can do is scream "Stupid! Stupid! Stupid!", mouth feeble lies, and call names.

Given the idiocy of your thread premise, you're in no position to 'pity' anyone; this thread is ridiculous and pathetic.

See?

 

[Little-Acorn]

LITTLE-ACORN SAID:

"None of them can refute the actual topic"

There is no 'topic' to 'refute.'

That sound you just heard was little ccj running away from the subject at high speed, his tail tucked tightly between his hind legs.

So, should we continue to support the people currently in elected office, who keep trying to make laws imposing their religion of modern Liberalism on the rest of us, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, there is no 'liberal religion,' 'modern' or otherwise.

The thread premise is a ridiculous lie and fails as a straw man fallacy.

And no one advocates the Constitution be 'superseded' by anything, liberals in particular – given the fact liberals respect and defend the Constitution and its case law, often defending the Constitution against attacks by conservatives.

 

[Syriusly]

None of them can refute the actual topic. Few even dare to try.

I can't refute the topic of what 10 monkeys hitting keyboards with their fingers put out either.

Of course the monkeys are more likely to make sense.

 

[Syriusly]

LITTLE-ACORN SAID:

"None of them can refute the actual topic"

There is no 'topic' to 'refute.'

That sound you just heard was little ccj running away from the subject at high speed, his tail tucked tightly between his hind legs.

So, should we continue to support the people currently in elected office, who keep trying to make laws imposing their religion of modern Liberalism on the rest of us, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States?

 

[regent]

So liberalism is now protected by the First Amendment and would that hold true for the Democratic party as well? And of course the communists, socialists and fascists will apply for equality under the First Amendment also. That will leave only one political party the Republican party, wonder if that's their goal?

 

[Wildman]

Nothing supercedes the Constitution in the United States,

oooh really ? so you would have no problem with impeaching the muslime mulatto scumbag in the W.H. who has violated so much of the Constitution it would take months to read the articles of impeachment.

 

[regent]

Nothing supercedes the Constitution in the United States,

oooh really ? so you would have no problem with impeaching the muslime mulatto scumbag in the W.H. who has violated so much of the Constitution it would take months to read the articles of impeachment.

What's holding the Republicans back, they have a majority in the House and the nation would love to see the president they elected twice be impeached by Republicans.