The Progressive Patriot

[quote=Dave]

The popular cry of let's raise the taxes on the other guy is little more than evidence why pure democracy lead to mob rule. When popular cry against gay marriage was clear, liberals tell us that you can't allow popular voices to settle right or wrong, but when the issue is taxes on anyone else but me, popular v**e is critical.

That's bogus Dave. Taxes and marriage are not the same. You do not put a civil right to referendum . Taxes are another matter

The Progressive Patriot

Dave wrote"The popular cry of let's raise the taxes on the other guy is little more than evidence why pure democracy lead to mob rule. When popular cry against gay marriage was clear, liberals tell us that you can't allow popular voices to settle right or wrong, but when the issue is taxes on anyone else but me, popular v**e is critical."

That's bogus Dave. Taxes and marriage are not the same. You do not put a civil right to referendum . Taxes are another matter

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

When the Democrats kept the Senate open, Bush respected that and avoided recess appointments. Obama didn't. That is a simple fact - and twist as you may like, reality is something else.
It does take a particular ego to think your knowledge of the law is superior to the DC court of appeals, but then arrogance is a trademark of the left.

oilfieldDave Loc: From AK live in WA

Ahh, but he has done something repubs never did. Repubs kept the sessions open by having sessions all thru the "vacation" time, and Barry still appointed people. THAT, is against the constitution. Reagan appointed during the actual vacation, which is now determined to also be illegal, but wasnt when he was there.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I see, the right to retain the furits of one's labor is the provence of the masses, but the right to marry the same g****r is better left in the hands of the elite.

Interesting - those superior human beings, called liberals or progressives get to decide when popular sentiment trumps individual rights

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

I find that argument laughable. All people presented for office these days are elitists. It's rare these days that someone gets into any office without being vetted by someone from some party first.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

His every waking thought centers on how to get around the provisions of the Constitution. The entire Health Care issue is unconstitutional. The government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to enact it. It falls outside the clearly defined responsibilities the Constitution provides for the government...as does every social program. Pay particular attention to the 10th Amendment. It explicitly states that anything not permitted by the Constitution to the Government defaults to the States or the People. SO, social programs made by States is lawful, but not such programs made by the federal government.

Now, lets look at BHO's attacks on the 2nd and 1st Amendments. When our forefathers created the Constitution and wrote the first 10 Amendments, they did not place any language prohibiting the ownership of any weapon, not even cannons, what may be considered as their era of WMD. They didn't place a restriction on how much ammunition a person may possess. In fact, they expressly stated that the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide citizens the means to resist an oppressive government. So, who but the government has to gain by disarming the people? It's not about public safety. Even the top experts for gun control admit that gun control laws do not improve gun related crimes. The government knows that it cannot win this argument in public debate, so they attack magazine sizes and ammunition availability (by buying as much ammo as the government can get it's hands on through the DoHD.) It's clear that the government is in violation of the Constitution.



Nice, a typical Liberal dodge. This one's almost as good as "It depends upon what the definition of 'is' is." How about we start going by the spirit of the law, and not the loopholes the letter of the law provides us?

The Progressive Patriot

I see that you're a constitutional scholar , or so you think.

The Progressive Patriot

I see that you're a constitutional scholar , or so you think.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

mem - Only this Chardo guy is a constitutional scholar - note that earlier he even schooled the DC circuit court on the constitution - it takes a bold arrogance to hold liberal views so extreme - or being a useful i***t.

memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)

I'm more than just a Constitutional Scholar, I have also studied law. However, you seem to be of the wrong opinion that only people who go to school can be a scholar. This couldn't be further from the t***h. A true scholar is a person who dev**e themselves to the pursuit of knowledge, and beyond that, t***h.

The problem with liberals like you is that you like to take an eraser to everything so that you can blur meaning and intent. You're not interested in t***h. You're only interested in how you can twist thing into wh**ever meaning you intend. There's a word for this, deception. You are a deceiver who mangles things into something other than what's intended. That's why you don't like the Constitution as defined by our forefathers' writings. It's because they contradict what you believe the Constitution should mean.



I'm used to this. I've studied their idols, Cloward and Piven. I know their playbook and methods. This is nothing new. "If you cant get them to agree, attack, discredit and deny." After all, "the ends justify the means." Who cares if you have to lie, c***t, and steal to win. Winning is the only thing that matters. T***h be damned. 'Nuff said.

JIMMY DELL

If you can't attack the idea, attack the man.....Well done Sir.

JIMMY DELL

I see that you're a constitutional scholar , or so you think.

Richard "The Chardo" Lee


If you can't attack the idea, attack the man.....Well done Sir. 8-)

oilfieldDave Loc: From AK live in WA

You must understand how the liberal is "taught".
(1) First, the new liberal is given a handbook to read. "progressive Liberalism 101" edition # 77. In said handbook is the "pat" answers to all of the questions ever asked in a political discussion.

(2) If a question is asked that isn't in the handbook, then the proper response is to scream "r****t", and then make the statement that you will not be debating anymore because of the stupidity of the person you are debating with.

(3) If by some unlikely chance you actually have to debate with someone who can prove you wrong, immediately call your handler on his/her cell, and get the answer you need.

(4) Any argument can be won by screaming i a shrill voice, and putting the debater on the defense.

(5) If r****t doesn't work, there is also "h********c", "Misogynist", "super right religious kook", etc.

(6) If none of these work, leave, hang up, or log off. It isnt good if there are people around and they hear you losing the battle.

Once one understands the progressive mind, one can then debate with said liberal. Keep in mind, the handbook is ever changing to reflect the changing t***h that must be subjugated.

Al Gore, Michael Moore, Babs Striesand, George Clooney, etc. All can be thrashed in a debate knowing these simple rules.

The one they h**e the most is when they throw out the Koch brothers, and you reply with George Soros. After all, he did collaborate with the N**i's.

JIMMY DELL

Mr. Richard "The Chardo" Lee

While I do disagree with most of what you say, I must comment on your hat. I think it's very stylish. I've been looking for one similar to it.