How about

[garyd]

We play, sir, the left and right game because the left in this coutry as demonstrated already by Vayank believes than constitution is little more than the toilet paper with which they'd like to wipe their ass. virtually every thing this current administration is trying to do cannot pass constitutional muster.

Partisanship is a healthy and necessary part of how politics function in this country and has been since the very beginning. You get partisanship because whether you or I like it or not there are a minimum of two different groups of people with very different ideas about the direction in which this country should move.

There are nit-wits like Richard H who believe apprently that the constituion mandates that every person has their own personal ass wiper and that the world owes them or someone else a living because soneone in it at some point in time may have treated one of there ancestors (if not them personally) shabbily. They see a world in which the fact that a has and b does not as the fault of a regardless of any action or lack their of taken by b. They are in short retarded. Understaning neither economic nor history nor human nature.

Then there are the rest of us who understand that the only secret to getting a head in life is a willingness to put in more than a forty hour week - much more. They understand that ripping off the rich and giveng the money to those not rich for whatever reason just means that we all eventually wind up poor.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I most certainly can. I have studied our American Civil War for over 15 years now. So, if you are looking for a one sentence answer, you can forget it. Do your own damn homework.

You can? By all means use as many sentences needed. You implied that negroes would not have fought in WWII had they still been slaves, and you cite the Civil War as if it would support your point, which it does not. Everyone knows that negroes did indeed fight for the Confederacy and it was a voluntary service.

"And after the battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, ...reported among the rebel prisoners were seven blacks in Confederate uniforms fully armed as soldiers..."
- New York Herald, July 11, 1863.

Did you gloss right over, or simply miss my "if they were still slaves" part?

The fact is you have no proof that IF they were still slaves they would not have fought in WWII, the fact is there IS proof that they fought for the Confederacy and they were slaves. So for you to make the assumption you did just shows how utterly stupid you are. And when called out on it, you resort to the very liberal tactic of ducking and dodging the questions posed. Now STFU!!!!

 

[Justin Case]

This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. You are part of the problem. Nothing wrong with standing your ground and doing your best to present your case in a logical constitutional manner. That is how it should be. But, parading around the internet acting impudent doesn't get the message across. If anything, people tune posts like your out. Instead of possibly helping someone learn something new about this Republic without all the spin, they see you as part of the drama and part of the problem. Like the employees, they want nothing to do with that song and dance anymore.

You sound like just another liberal. Look at your entire post, all you did was point the finger at me, then you have the gall to say that I am the problem?

Liberals have a simple philosophy - "Agree with us or you are the real problem!" That says so much about the party of tolerance.

Why is it you have no problem promoting individuality of thought when it comes to yourself, but where other individuals are concerned, you resort to logical fallacies?

Take away your broad generalizations and your insults, there is nothing of substance to your posts except a period.

As I said, this thread isn't about agreeing with me. Read the exchange again, without all your projection.

Apparently, reading comprehension does not come easily to you. Look at the gist of my original post. I stated that libtards look at the book "Rules For Radicals" as a bible. If you read that book, you will understand the rest of my post. Choosing a "victim" for vilification is one of the most basic tactics of that book. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and other libtard leaders have said that the teachings of this book helped their party to rebuild, come back, and win. Obama even taught the precepts of this book for 3 years.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

You sound like just another liberal. Look at your entire post, all you did was point the finger at me, then you have the gall to say that I am the problem?

Liberals have a simple philosophy - "Agree with us or you are the real problem!" That says so much about the party of tolerance.

Why is it you have no problem promoting individuality of thought when it comes to yourself, but where other individuals are concerned, you resort to logical fallacies?

Take away your broad generalizations and your insults, there is nothing of substance to your posts except a period.

As I said, this thread isn't about agreeing with me. Read the exchange again, without all your projection.

Apparently, reading comprehension does not come easily to you. Look at the gist of my original post. I stated that libtards look at the book "Rules For Radicals" as a bible. If you read that book, you will understand the rest of my post. Choosing a "victim" for vilification is one of the most basic tactics of that book. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and other libtard leaders have said that the teachings of this book helped their party to rebuild, come back, and win. Obama even taught the precepts of this book for 3 years.

It is you who doesn't read very well. Read the opening post again. You are the one playing partisan football games. Using terms like libtard etc., is childish. It's not even a real word. Maybe if you didn't paint with the broad brush of generalization and use made up words, some people might pay attention to what you have to say. As it stands now, you come across as hateful, ignorant, and immature in your posting. Your posts in other threads is of the same manner. This is the third time I have explained why I have said what I have to you, in regards to the opening post, and you still don't get it.

 

[Polk]

You sound like just another liberal. Look at your entire post, all you did was point the finger at me, then you have the gall to say that I am the problem?

Liberals have a simple philosophy - "Agree with us or you are the real problem!" That says so much about the party of tolerance.

Why is it you have no problem promoting individuality of thought when it comes to yourself, but where other individuals are concerned, you resort to logical fallacies?

Take away your broad generalizations and your insults, there is nothing of substance to your posts except a period.

As I said, this thread isn't about agreeing with me. Read the exchange again, without all your projection.

Apparently, reading comprehension does not come easily to you. Look at the gist of my original post. I stated that libtards look at the book "Rules For Radicals" as a bible. If you read that book, you will understand the rest of my post. Choosing a "victim" for vilification is one of the most basic tactics of that book. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and other libtard leaders have said that the teachings of this book helped their party to rebuild, come back, and win. Obama even taught the precepts of this book for 3 years.

I must laugh at this, as movement conservatism (especially since the rise of the teabaggers) uses Rules for Radicals as their handbook without ever realizing it.

 

[Polk]

While I know it was meant well, the argument set out in the OP doesn't really have any substance. The reason for partisan bickering to a large extent is disagree over what the Constitution means.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

While I know it was meant well, the argument set out in the OP doesn't really have any substance. The reason for partisan bickering to a large extent is disagree over what the Constitution means.

You are a member of several political message boards. If what you say is true, where is the debate that supposedly revolves around the Constitution and its proper adjudication? As as whole, I haven't seen such debate. This forum is no different than other message boards I have seen and participated on. If what you say is true, I wouldn't have bothered to make the thread. But as you and I both know, debate centers around the Democrats v Republicans. It is "my team isn't as crappy as your team" garbage. It is centered around one size fits all Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and any other party. A lot of people on here and other places are too busy prattling off imbecilic made up words laced with profanity.

There are threads and posts were the Constitution and issues related to it get discussed. But as a whole, that is not the rule, it is the exception.

When is the last time you heard the President, members of Congress cite the Article, Clause, and Section of the Constitution, when speaking of legislation that supposedly needs to be passed, vetoed, or forgotten? It doesn't happen very often.

When is the last time you head John Q. Public cite the Constitution, when defending their stance on a particular issue? Out side of the First and II Amendment, it rarely happens. That includes places like this, where many people like to think of themselves a politically savy.

One has to either be truly blind or rabid partisan, to not see what I am referring to.