Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Sure you do, I touched on it earlier, calling people traitors is the same as calling for their deaths since death is the punishment for treason. Do you disagree? Are liberals traitors worthy of death or are you just talking shit? Back up your bullshit with examples of how liberals are working against the US on behalf of a foreign government.I don't make threats I promise you that.Yes, the silly threat he made is pretty much the opposite of wisdom. I preferIf you attack someone for defending the constitution you are not a patriot you are equal to a terrorist.
That is all.
God Bless America and long live the Republic.
Oh I thought you were going to say something more relevant like listen more than you speak.
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.
Mark Twain
The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
That's not a threat. I have no problem killing traitors that's a promise.Sure you do, I touched on it earlier, calling people traitors is the same as calling for their deaths since death is the punishment for treason. Do you disagree? Are liberals traitors worthy of death or are you just talking shit? Back up your bullshit with examples of how liberals are working against the US on behalf of a foreign government.I don't make threats I promise you that.Yes, the silly threat he made is pretty much the opposite of wisdom. I preferIf you attack someone for defending the constitution you are not a patriot you are equal to a terrorist.
That is all.
God Bless America and long live the Republic.
Oh I thought you were going to say something more relevant like listen more than you speak.
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.
Mark Twain
The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
No one has to walk the same step as I do, as long as we have the same goal.The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
Non sequitur!
That's not a threat. I have no problem killing traitors that's a promise.Sure you do, I touched on it earlier, calling people traitors is the same as calling for their deaths since death is the punishment for treason. Do you disagree? Are liberals traitors worthy of death or are you just talking shit? Back up your bullshit with examples of how liberals are working against the US on behalf of a foreign government.I don't make threats I promise you that.Yes, the silly threat he made is pretty much the opposite of wisdom. I preferIf you attack someone for defending the constitution you are not a patriot you are equal to a terrorist.
That is all.
God Bless America and long live the Republic.
Oh I thought you were going to say something more relevant like listen more than you speak.
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.
Mark Twain
The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
Non sequitur!
There is nothing about Abortion the Constitution, you would have been k with a Constitutional Convention to change that?
Yes or no?
The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
Non sequitur!
There is nothing about Abortion the Constitution, you would have been k with a Constitutional Convention to change that?
Yes or no?
Pull another adomea out of your ass. If I were you and the shit hit the fan I would be very worriedThat's not a threat. I have no problem killing traitors that's a promise.Sure you do, I touched on it earlier, calling people traitors is the same as calling for their deaths since death is the punishment for treason. Do you disagree? Are liberals traitors worthy of death or are you just talking shit? Back up your bullshit with examples of how liberals are working against the US on behalf of a foreign government.I don't make threats I promise you that.Yes, the silly threat he made is pretty much the opposite of wisdom. I preferOh I thought you were going to say something more relevant like listen more than you speak.
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.
Mark Twain
So you want to kill liberals? Go ahead and admit it tough guy. You want to murder people for their beliefs.
Thomas Jefferson would kick your ass.
About what? Some fat fuck sitting in a Laz-E-Boy running his fool mouth about treason?Pull another adomea out of your ass. If I were you and the shit hit the fan I would be very worriedThat's not a threat. I have no problem killing traitors that's a promise.Sure you do, I touched on it earlier, calling people traitors is the same as calling for their deaths since death is the punishment for treason. Do you disagree? Are liberals traitors worthy of death or are you just talking shit? Back up your bullshit with examples of how liberals are working against the US on behalf of a foreign government.I don't make threats I promise you that.Yes, the silly threat he made is pretty much the opposite of wisdom. I prefer
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.
Mark Twain
So you want to kill liberals? Go ahead and admit it tough guy. You want to murder people for their beliefs.
Thomas Jefferson would kick your ass.
Nonsense.The constitution, born from compromise, able to be amended and open to interpretation, is what protects me from your notion of what is and is not constitutional. Amazingly flexible and durable, the constitution itself explains how interpretations are to be made and adjudicated.
Only when one interpretation is seen as legitimate by one political ideology do we get into trouble. Ideologues should not stake a claim to the only proper way to interpret this document.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
Non sequitur!
There is nothing about Abortion the Constitution, you would have been k with a Constitutional Convention to change that?
Yes or no?
WOW went right to the fat boy thing? Dude you absolutely don't know a thing about me nor how I look. If you think I am fat and a key board commando so fucking be it. But truth is a lot dangerous than what you think of someone else.About what? Some fat fuck sitting in a Laz-E-Boy running his fool mouth about treason?Pull another adomea out of your ass. If I were you and the shit hit the fan I would be very worriedThat's not a threat. I have no problem killing traitors that's a promise.Sure you do, I touched on it earlier, calling people traitors is the same as calling for their deaths since death is the punishment for treason. Do you disagree? Are liberals traitors worthy of death or are you just talking shit? Back up your bullshit with examples of how liberals are working against the US on behalf of a foreign government.I don't make threats I promise you that.
So you want to kill liberals? Go ahead and admit it tough guy. You want to murder people for their beliefs.
Thomas Jefferson would kick your ass.
Nonsense.The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
Non sequitur!
There is nothing about Abortion the Constitution, you would have been k with a Constitutional Convention to change that?
Yes or no?
The right to privacy can be found here in the Constitution:
“The woman's constitutional liberty interest also involves her freedom to decide matters of the highest privacy and the most personal nature.
[...]
A woman who has, in the privacy of her thoughts and conscience, weighed the options and made her decision cannot be forced to reconsider all, simply because the State believes she has come to the wrong conclusion.”
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 1992
Consequently, the state has no authority to dictate to a woman that she must give birth against her will.
Remember that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, where “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'
Indeed, nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words 'individual' or 'self-defense,' but as a fact of Constitutional case law the Second Amendment does very much enshrine the right of an individual to posses a handgun pursuant to the right of self-defense; and one will never hear a conservative whine about the Heller ruling being 'wrong' because the words 'individual' and 'self-defense' are 'not in the Second Amendment.'
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
Non sequitur!
There is nothing about Abortion the Constitution, you would have been k with a Constitutional Convention to change that?
Yes or no?
The right to privacy is well established in the Constitution, and since the fetus has NO personhood rights, explicitly or implicitly, in the Constitution,
a woman has the right to an abortion as a privacy issue.
So what? You can be a cross between The Wolverine and Rambo and still be an ignoramus still not even slightly succeed in striking fear into my liberal heart, fear is for pussies. Why do you fear libs so much? Afraid the Gay is contagious?WOW went right to the fat boy thing? Dude you absolutely don't know a thing about me nor how I look. If you think I am fat and a key board commando so fucking be it. But truth is a lot dangerous than what you think of someone else.About what? Some fat fuck sitting in a Laz-E-Boy running his fool mouth about treason?Pull another adomea out of your ass. If I were you and the shit hit the fan I would be very worriedThat's not a threat. I have no problem killing traitors that's a promise.Sure you do, I touched on it earlier, calling people traitors is the same as calling for their deaths since death is the punishment for treason. Do you disagree? Are liberals traitors worthy of death or are you just talking shit? Back up your bullshit with examples of how liberals are working against the US on behalf of a foreign government.
So you want to kill liberals? Go ahead and admit it tough guy. You want to murder people for their beliefs.
Thomas Jefferson would kick your ass.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent.
The ONLY legitimate interpretation is done through original intent
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
Non sequitur!
There is nothing about Abortion the Constitution, you would have been k with a Constitutional Convention to change that?
Yes or no?
Are you now claiming that you are opposed to your own right to privacy?
You can have all the education in the world and you'll still be an ignorant fuck just because you support obama.So what? You can be a cross between The Wolverine and Rambo and still be an ignoramus still not even slightly succeed in striking fear into my liberal heart, fear is for pussies. Why do you fear libs so much? Afraid the Gay is contagious?WOW went right to the fat boy thing? Dude you absolutely don't know a thing about me nor how I look. If you think I am fat and a key board commando so fucking be it. But truth is a lot dangerous than what you think of someone else.About what? Some fat fuck sitting in a Laz-E-Boy running his fool mouth about treason?Pull another adomea out of your ass. If I were you and the shit hit the fan I would be very worriedThat's not a threat. I have no problem killing traitors that's a promise.
So you want to kill liberals? Go ahead and admit it tough guy. You want to murder people for their beliefs.
Thomas Jefferson would kick your ass.
In which case the only legitimate interpretation can be that the original intention was that the Founding Fathers fully intended for the Constitution to be Amended and expanded to accommodate changes in society.
Why else would they have included the ability to change the Constitution if they wanted it "set in stone"?
The funny thing is this, YOU like most Lefty's think we all are just like you guys, lockstep.
Non sequitur!
There is nothing about Abortion the Constitution, you would have been k with a Constitutional Convention to change that?
Yes or no?
The right to privacy is well established in the Constitution, and since the fetus has NO personhood rights, explicitly or implicitly, in the Constitution,
a woman has the right to an abortion as a privacy issue.
Abortion is not "enumerated"is it?
Nope, it was"found"....now surely you would not have objected to a Constitutional Convention to change it?
