Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

[Contumacious]

Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution

At the time the Constitution (1787) was adopted it was considered a CLASSICAL LIBERAL document. because the same as well at the Declaration of Independence recognized NATURAL RIGHTS.

Nowadays NEITHER the liberals (left wing fascists) nor the Conservatives (right wing fascists) recognize natural rights.

Both parties recognize GOVERNMENT SUPREMACY , individual nowadays are allow to exercise PRIVILEGES which are subject to governmental bureaucratic discretion.


Hence , my response is the CONSTITUTION AND CLASSICAL LIBERALISM.


.

Classical liberals believe the government was a greater threat to personal liberty and wellbeing than the forces outside of government, such as business.

After the horrors of unfettered capitalism ravaged nations like the US and Great Britain, a new liberalism emerged that (rightly) recognized that the biggest threat to personal liberty and wellbeing were not the government, but instead the private sector, the corporations, the money interests, etc.

That's where the split occurred.

The "Horrors" of unfettered Capitalism is a bullshit concept created by parasites, fascists, socialists and government supremacists in order to manipulate the government into:

a) feeding you
2) clothing you
3) insuring you
4) providing free education up to , and including , community college
5) quenching your thirst
6) invading every country on the face of mother earth


After the FDR 1935 ' Coup d'Etat, the Constitution (1787) was abolished and the Welfare/Warfare Police State Constitution of 1935 was adopted.


.

If you deny the horrors of capitalism then you simply don't know history.

I believe that I have identified what you parasites, fascists, progressives, socialists consider the "horrors of capitalism"

The "Horrors" of unfettered Capitalism is a bullshit concept created by parasites, fascists, socialists and government supremacists in order to manipulate the government into:

a) feeding you
2) clothing you
3) insuring you
4) providing free education up to , and including , community college
5) quenching your thirst
6) invading every country on the face of mother earth


After the FDR 1935 ' Coup d'Etat, the Constitution (1787) was abolished and the Welfare/Warfare Police State Constitution of 1935 was adopted.


.

 

[rdean]

Republicans love the constitution. When they aren't trying to change it. Which is all the time. Do we need examples? So many to choose from.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. So....if one is a Progressive/Liberal, and sees the Constitution as bar to the rapid reversal of the Founder's conception of America.....what will they do?

Stick to the amendment process??
Hardly.

After all...Americans wouldn't accept the changes that these Leftists demand.



Well then, ignore the Constitution, have the judges pretend that they have found the 'right' instructions.....and we'll give out food stamps in place of rights.
Lots of food stamps.....it worked with Esau.




The Constitution as written thwarts progressive objectives, but it must be temporarily respected out of political necessity because of its historic value. To handle this problem politically, progressives claim loyalty to a "living" Constitution, one that can be interpreted according to the needs of the time, and leaves out amendments....and places re-writing of the Constitution in the hands of unelected Liberal judges.

They pretend that the constitutional amendment process is obsolete -- legislators and judges can rationalize as constitutional almost any act they choose to legalize.



12. Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist warned of this sort of attack:

"..... [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

And they've been able to ensconce a similarly minded thug in the White House.


9. " The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of existence, such as the Civil War, amendment should be the sole means of circumventing the Constitution. For if a president joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions whose purpose is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind?

Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it.

Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment. There is no allowance for a president to override it according to his supposed superior conception. "
From a speech delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on September 20, 2010 by Mike Pence,U.S. Representative
Indiana's Sixth Congressional District.
The title of the thread is"Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution"



Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except, again, by amendment.
And the same applies to dictates by judges or justices.


Don't Liberals believe in preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution?

Not hardly.

Where in the Constitution is the authority of Judicial Review given to the Supreme Court, and why does the Supreme Court so often decide issues on a 5-4 vote?

I'm sure such experts as Mike Pence and PoliticalChic have answers, and PC will respond with her own spin explaining the error of Marbury v. Madison, and how much better we would be if it were overruled by the Roberts Court.

Liberals however accept the ruling as common sense, as well as our adoption of a foreign law, that being the common law of England. Funny, the conservative element believes in the Natural Law, but few understand what the Common Law is based upon.

1. The 'right' was stolen by John Marshall.
His aim was to increase the power of his court and of the executive branch.
Of course, the executive agreed with him.

It was not the aim of the Founders.


2. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.





2.Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities."
History of the Federal Judiciary

a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?

Yup: unconstitutional.

I suggest most humbly (a bit of sarcasm, here) that you read John Marshall, A Life in Law, copyright 1974 by Leonard Baker. A very good though long read, based on his service as a Soldier in the Revolutionary War, his years as a lawyer, diplomat and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for three decades. One thing you might learn is, he was one of the Founders.

You have every reason to be humble.


Now....what does this post have to do with posts #80 and #82???


Oh....nothing.

You're simply trying to obfuscate.

You wrote in #80:

1. The 'right' was stolen by John Marshall.
His aim was to increase the power of his court and of the executive branch.
Of course, the executive agreed with him.

It was not the aim of the Founders.

John Marshall was one of the founders! You really ought to remember what you write, or KISS (that is, keep it simple, stupid). Don't ever assume the Founders all agreed, the document was a compromise.

No one was yelling Socialism and whining that the document needed to be repealed because they didn't agree. Yes the Federalists and Demoratic Republicans argued, heatedly, but only the issue of slavery ever threatened the Constitution - until the GOP went rogue.

Now this is one of those points in which it must be decided whether you are a dunce or a liar.
I recognize you ''limitations," so we'll go with dunce.


1. The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."


a. In 1792,Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia)(Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.




2. Clearly, the Founders had no intentions of creating a court that could write laws from the bench, nor one that could re-write the Constitution.




3. But, in 1793,the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state(Chisholm v. Georgia).

a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

4.This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was tolimit federal courtsto the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman




As I instructed you earlier, Marshall STOLE powers he had no entitlement to.

You have failed this quiz.....surely not a situation to which you are unaccustomed.

 

[Agit8r]

for the first time they professed open and direct criticism of the Constitution.

So did many of the founders. Patrick Henry for instance.

The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.

Wait, what about "The species is wiser than the individual "

 

[westwall]

1. Conservatives believe that custom and tradition result in individuals living in peace. Law is custom and precedent. Liberals are destroyers of custom and convention. To a conservative, change should be gradual, as the new society is often inferior to the old. We build on the ideas and experience of our ancestors. The species is wiser than the individual (Burke).


2. Liberals are impulsive, and imprudent. They believe in quick changes, and risk new abuses worse than the ‘evils’ that they would sweep away, since remedies are usually not simple. Plato said that prudence is the mark of the statesman. For Classical Liberals, known today as conservatives, there should be a balance between permanence and change, while liberals see ‘progress’ as some mythical direction for society.


3. The Founders, Classical Liberals, operated under the view that government is a necessary evil, simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, and incorporated principles based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

a. Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter. But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding. Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
“The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284





4. There are several incorrigible liars who insist that the Founders were of the same mentality as those we call 'liberals.'
Nothing could be further from the truth.
To see how this pertains to the title of the thread, "Your Choice: Liberalism or the Constitution," notice that those known as Liberals today, actually the group called Socialists until communist John Dewey had them steal the name 'Liberal,' work for the very opposite: collectivism, socialist economic dominance, and unlimited, overreaching government.


a. “Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.”
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OTY0MjA1YzVjNjVkOTViMzM5M2Q5M2Y0ODk0ODc0MmM=


b. Dewey reveled in the thought that the war might force Americans to “give up much of our economic freedom…we shall have to lay by our good natured individualism and march in step.” Taking liberties - LA Times

I submit that as it regards individual rights and responsibilities, true liberalism DOES follow the Constitution. In other words the reason why I support gay marriage, and a whole host of socially liberal ideas is because the Declaration of Independence, memorialized those ideals as the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. So long as I don't violate YOUR rights by my actions, you should likewise not be allowed to violate my rights.

The DoI declares that our national principles are rooted in the natural law, which does not include gay marriage.

Gay marriage and a host of socially liberal ideas are controversial. Controversy does not promote our pursuit of happiness.

Only so long as you are trying to impose your will on someone else. What go's on in the bedroom is no business of any but those in the bed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans love the constitution. When they aren't trying to change it. Which is all the time. Do we need examples? So many to choose from.

So many???

Yet you couldn't come up with one.

I love showing what a fraud you are.



How about I provide an example of Liberalism vs the Constitution.....one showing how corrupt individuals, Liberal/Progressive/Democrats, attempt to subvert the Constitution.


13. If a corrupt individual such as Obama manages to assume power, he can simply ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

The current occupant of the White House abhors the second amendment....
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One would believe that Obama understands 'infringed.' It means limited or undermined encroached upon.


But this thug has no intention to honor the Constitution....even though he swore this oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

You wouldn't vote for a liar like that.......would you?



Instead, he directed his administration to pressure banks, financial institutions, credit agencies to withdraw from doing business with lawful private institutions in the gun business.

Pretty much the textbook definition of 'infringing' on the gun rights of citizens.


Here:

LAS VEGAS—Banned from financial services that are essential to running a business, firearms sellers attending the world’s largest gun exhibition last week in Las Vegas spoke out against the government’s controversial program known as Operation Choke Point.

“We continue to hear from dealers and others in our industry that suddenly, out of the blue, they have been cut off by financial services or credit card processors or banks,” said Larry Keane, Senior Vice President of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Ready Aim Fire Choke Point Draws Heat From Gun Industry


So why didn't the President get a constitutional amendment?

Oh....right....because he's a Liberal....and there is the choice:

"Liberalism or the Constitution"

 

[NYcarbineer]

11. So....if one is a Progressive/Liberal, and sees the Constitution as bar to the rapid reversal of the Founder's conception of America.....what will they do?

Stick to the amendment process??
Hardly.

After all...Americans wouldn't accept the changes that these Leftists demand.



Well then, ignore the Constitution, have the judges pretend that they have found the 'right' instructions.....and we'll give out food stamps in place of rights.
Lots of food stamps.....it worked with Esau.




The Constitution as written thwarts progressive objectives, but it must be temporarily respected out of political necessity because of its historic value. To handle this problem politically, progressives claim loyalty to a "living" Constitution, one that can be interpreted according to the needs of the time, and leaves out amendments....and places re-writing of the Constitution in the hands of unelected Liberal judges.

They pretend that the constitutional amendment process is obsolete -- legislators and judges can rationalize as constitutional almost any act they choose to legalize.



12. Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist warned of this sort of attack:

"..... [Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
[URL='http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf[/QUOTE']http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf[/URL]

Does it bother you that the Ninth Amendment may pave the way for rights for other groups of people or on other issues that you might not approve of? Is the Ninth Amendment too general for you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans love the constitution. When they aren't trying to change it. Which is all the time. Do we need examples? So many to choose from.

So many???

Yet you couldn't come up with one.

I love showing what a fraud you are.



How about I provide an example of Liberalism vs the Constitution.....one showing how corrupt individuals, Liberal/Progressive/Democrats, attempt to subvert the Constitution.


13. If a corrupt individual such as Obama manages to assume power, he can simply ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

The current occupant of the White House abhors the second amendment....
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One would believe that Obama understands 'infringed.' It means limited or undermined encroached upon.


But this thug has no intention to honor the Constitution....even though he swore this oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

You wouldn't vote for a liar like that.......would you?



Instead, he directed his administration to pressure banks, financial institutions, credit agencies to withdraw from doing business with lawful private institutions in the gun business.

Pretty much the textbook definition of 'infringing' on the gun rights of citizens.


Here:

LAS VEGAS—Banned from financial services that are essential to running a business, firearms sellers attending the world’s largest gun exhibition last week in Las Vegas spoke out against the government’s controversial program known as Operation Choke Point.

“We continue to hear from dealers and others in our industry that suddenly, out of the blue, they have been cut off by financial services or credit card processors or banks,” said Larry Keane, Senior Vice President of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Ready Aim Fire Choke Point Draws Heat From Gun Industry


So why didn't the President get a constitutional amendment?

Oh....right....because he's a Liberal....and there is the choice:

"Liberalism or the Constitution"

Does the 2nd amendment protect the right of felons convicted of gun crimes to get out of prison and on the same day going and buying any gun they desire,

no questions asked?

 

[francoHFW]

Funny how a very conservative Supreme Court doesn't have any problems, only the Pub Propaganda Machine and the hater dupes...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans love the constitution. When they aren't trying to change it. Which is all the time. Do we need examples? So many to choose from.

So many???

Yet you couldn't come up with one.

I love showing what a fraud you are.



How about I provide an example of Liberalism vs the Constitution.....one showing how corrupt individuals, Liberal/Progressive/Democrats, attempt to subvert the Constitution.


13. If a corrupt individual such as Obama manages to assume power, he can simply ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

The current occupant of the White House abhors the second amendment....
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One would believe that Obama understands 'infringed.' It means limited or undermined encroached upon.


But this thug has no intention to honor the Constitution....even though he swore this oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

You wouldn't vote for a liar like that.......would you?



Instead, he directed his administration to pressure banks, financial institutions, credit agencies to withdraw from doing business with lawful private institutions in the gun business.

Pretty much the textbook definition of 'infringing' on the gun rights of citizens.


Here:

LAS VEGAS—Banned from financial services that are essential to running a business, firearms sellers attending the world’s largest gun exhibition last week in Las Vegas spoke out against the government’s controversial program known as Operation Choke Point.

“We continue to hear from dealers and others in our industry that suddenly, out of the blue, they have been cut off by financial services or credit card processors or banks,” said Larry Keane, Senior Vice President of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Ready Aim Fire Choke Point Draws Heat From Gun Industry


So why didn't the President get a constitutional amendment?

Oh....right....because he's a Liberal....and there is the choice:

"Liberalism or the Constitution"

So what have liberals done that was so unconstitutional, specifically?

And why hasn't the Right gone to court and gotten those actions declared unconstitutional?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread is yet another example of the arrogance and ignorance typical of the OP and common to most on the right; particularly their ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread is yet another example of the arrogance and ignorance typical of the OP and common to most on the right; particularly their ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

1. "This thread is yet another example of the arrogance ...."

Arrogance? Confidence? Well, I do blur the line....

...but it's your fault!

My posts destroy yours with such metronomic regularity.....how could I be other than?


2."....ignorance of the Constitution and its case law."

Destroying you is so 'fish in the barrel' that I have to help you out just to cut the boredom.

See...if you had any cachet, any possibility that you were correct....you'd be able to give a half dozen or so errors in my posts.

Actually, I know more about the Constitution than you do.
Case law, as you know is simply made up.

But you cannot....so you remain C_Chamber_Pot, the Quasimodo of the USMB.

3.Bet you look like him, too....

 

[Wry Catcher]

This thread is yet another example of the arrogance and ignorance typical of the OP and common to most on the right; particularly their ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

1. "This thread is yet another example of the arrogance ...."

Arrogance? Confidence? Well, I do blur the line....

...but it's your fault!

My post destroy yours with such metronomic regularity.....how could I be other than?


2."....ignorance of the Constitution and its case law."

Destroying you is so 'fish in the barrel' that I have to help you out just to cut the boredom.

See...if you had any cachet, any possibility that you were correct....you'd be able to give a half dozen or so errors in my posts.

Actually, I know more about the Constitution than you do.
Case law, as you know is simply made up.

But you cannot....so you remain C_Chamber_Pot, the Quasimodo of the USMB.

3.Bet you look like him, too....

View attachment 36507

You need counseling. Maybe one of those re-education camps fascists like you support, though I'm confident you would be transferred right quickly to a Locked Psychiatric Facility.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Republicans love the constitution. When they aren't trying to change it. Which is all the time. Do we need examples? So many to choose from.

So many???

Yet you couldn't come up with one.

I love showing what a fraud you are.



How about I provide an example of Liberalism vs the Constitution.....one showing how corrupt individuals, Liberal/Progressive/Democrats, attempt to subvert the Constitution.


13. If a corrupt individual such as Obama manages to assume power, he can simply ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

The current occupant of the White House abhors the second amendment....
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

One would believe that Obama understands 'infringed.' It means limited or undermined encroached upon.


But this thug has no intention to honor the Constitution....even though he swore this oath:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

You wouldn't vote for a liar like that.......would you?



Instead, he directed his administration to pressure banks, financial institutions, credit agencies to withdraw from doing business with lawful private institutions in the gun business.

Pretty much the textbook definition of 'infringing' on the gun rights of citizens.


Here:

LAS VEGAS—Banned from financial services that are essential to running a business, firearms sellers attending the world’s largest gun exhibition last week in Las Vegas spoke out against the government’s controversial program known as Operation Choke Point.

“We continue to hear from dealers and others in our industry that suddenly, out of the blue, they have been cut off by financial services or credit card processors or banks,” said Larry Keane, Senior Vice President of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Ready Aim Fire Choke Point Draws Heat From Gun Industry


So why didn't the President get a constitutional amendment?

Oh....right....because he's a Liberal....and there is the choice:

"Liberalism or the Constitution"

Does the 2nd amendment protect the right of felons convicted of gun crimes to get out of prison and on the same day going and buying any gun they desire,

no questions asked?

And here, a return performance at open mic night....the NYLiar!

His act includes only two tricks:

Trick #1....lies

Trick #2....obfuscation and changing the subject.


Today it's Trick #2 on display:


For today, NYLIar chooses Trick #2!!!!

So....instead of having to agree that the government’s controversial program known as Operation Choke Point, cutting off financial services or credit card processors or banks to lawful businesses, is an underhanded way of infringing citizens protections under the second amendment....

...the Liar attempts to change the subject to felons doing something or other.

 

[Edgetho]

Brian Williams.

That is all

 

[PoliticalChic]

This thread is yet another example of the arrogance and ignorance typical of the OP and common to most on the right; particularly their ignorance of the Constitution and its case law.

1. "This thread is yet another example of the arrogance ...."

Arrogance? Confidence? Well, I do blur the line....

...but it's your fault!

My post destroy yours with such metronomic regularity.....how could I be other than?


2."....ignorance of the Constitution and its case law."

Destroying you is so 'fish in the barrel' that I have to help you out just to cut the boredom.

See...if you had any cachet, any possibility that you were correct....you'd be able to give a half dozen or so errors in my posts.

Actually, I know more about the Constitution than you do.
Case law, as you know is simply made up.

But you cannot....so you remain C_Chamber_Pot, the Quasimodo of the USMB.

3.Bet you look like him, too....

View attachment 36507

You need counseling. Maybe one of those re-education camps fascists like you support, though I'm confident you would be transferred right quickly to a Locked Psychiatric Facility.

Ooops.....I forgot...Quasimodo is your pet name.


Now....did you just lie?

"Maybe one of those re-education camps fascists like you support,...."

Care to retract and beg forgiveness...?

Or can you quote me as to support of fascism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Brian Williams.

That is all

Edgey.....I just heard part of the story on the news.....he lied about being in harms way?



Hey....remember this:
"Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Bill Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous."
... In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."
Sniper Fire and Holes In Clinton s Recollection

 

[Edgetho]

Ooops.....I forgot...Quasimodo is your pet name.


Now....did you just lie?

"Maybe one of those re-education camps fascists like you support,...."

Care to retract and beg forgiveness...?

Or can you quote me as to support of fascism?

This is funny. knee pad-wearing, dimocrap scum shill Brian Williams even lied in his APOLOGY for lying (which was brought about by the Foreign Press, BTW)

The scumbag said he 'misremembered' about being shot down by an RPG while riding in a Helicopter.

Suck a what? How do you 'misremember' being shot down?

dimocraps are lying scum. ALL of them.

That's the point I'm making. Not just a few of them. Not just the Lying Cocksucker in Chief. Not just his Sec State, not just the rapist, Clinton.....

ALL of them. every last one.

 

[Edgetho]

Edgey.....I just heard part of the story on the news.....he lied about being in harms way?



Hey....remember this:
"Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Bill Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous."
... In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."
Sniper Fire and Holes In Clinton s Recollection

Yeah, they're having a big time about it over on the Media Board in here.

Fun stuff. dimocrap scum are running for the exits.