Thanksgiving Thru The Eyes Of Our Founders

[NYcarbineer]

Did you know PoliticalChic is a Buddhist?

I fail to see how that mitigates the craziness of your previous post.

Are you arguing that her viewpoint is invalid because of her religion?

Why do you care what the Pilgrims thought?

Why do you care what the Founders intended?

They are part of our history and heritage.

Have you ever hacked a civilization out of a howling wilderness?

Have you ever written a Constitution that greatly advanced human liberty in the world?

Have you ever considered moving beyond the 18th century? The founders aren't gods.

Strawman. I said nothing about them being gods.

They are historical people of great accomplishments, who's experiences are worthy of respect and carry important lessons to be learned.

Or do you think that Freedom of Speech is an historical anachronism that no longer needs any legal protection?

I don't believe in running around barefoot, but I don't deify the inventor of the shoe.

 

[Correll]

I fail to see how that mitigates the craziness of your previous post.

Are you arguing that her viewpoint is invalid because of her religion?

Why do you care what the Pilgrims thought?

Why do you care what the Founders intended?

They are part of our history and heritage.

Have you ever hacked a civilization out of a howling wilderness?

Have you ever written a Constitution that greatly advanced human liberty in the world?

Have you ever considered moving beyond the 18th century? The founders aren't gods.

Strawman. I said nothing about them being gods.

They are historical people of great accomplishments, who's experiences are worthy of respect and carry important lessons to be learned.

Or do you think that Freedom of Speech is an historical anachronism that no longer needs any legal protection?

I don't believe in running around barefoot, but I don't deify the inventor of the shoe.

Respecting and learning from someone is not the same as "deifying" them you dishonest lib.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Turkey was not served at the original Thanksgiving table, so having turkey does not make one a patriot loyal American...

OMG…you are correct! That’s an event that usually accompanies a parting sea or a stone tablet!!!

I find you to be correct with about the same frequency as cats are mentioned in the Bible.....so this is quite an occasion!

Wait....let me sit down: I have the vapors!



Now that I've composed myself, ....what makes one a patriot loyal American is having one's views align with that of the Founders, rather than the oppression of Liberal/Progressive Leftists.

See now?

But...you can come on over and sit on the other side of the table with the Leftist side of the family.

BYOS....
....bring your own shotgun.

Better a live kitten than a dead lion...If you think a good patriot would have to be aligned to the Founders then we still need slavery in the USA, and a heavy hand on corporations...

".... Founders.... slavery in the USA,...."

The Founders opposed slavery.
It was the Democrats who supported slavery and segregation.
Your mistaken view is the after-effects of government school indoctrination.

1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.
   1. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.
   2. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. After reading about Alexander Hamilton’s work for the New York Manumission Society, I gained a greater appreciation of Alexander Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/
   3. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade. As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade. John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery. Ibid.

2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called Miracle in Philadelphia, by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

3. The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.

The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Big Journalism Articles - Breitbart


a. In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly.
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."



Amazing how much you didn't know, isn't it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do you care what the Pilgrims thought?

Why do you care what the Founders intended?

They are part of our history and heritage.

Have you ever hacked a civilization out of a howling wilderness?

Have you ever written a Constitution that greatly advanced human liberty in the world?

Have you ever considered moving beyond the 18th century? The founders aren't gods.

Strawman. I said nothing about them being gods.

They are historical people of great accomplishments, who's experiences are worthy of respect and carry important lessons to be learned.

Or do you think that Freedom of Speech is an historical anachronism that no longer needs any legal protection?

I don't believe in running around barefoot, but I don't deify the inventor of the shoe.

Respecting and learning from someone is not the same as "deifying" them you dishonest lib.

Alert: the last two words represent a redundancy.

 

[Moonglow]

Democrats were part of the Founders? But you said we must align ourselves with the Founders to be good Americans...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I fail to see how that mitigates the craziness of your previous post.

Are you arguing that her viewpoint is invalid because of her religion?

I shudder to think that you might accept anything......anything.....the NYLiar says as fact.

The only thing he knows for sure about me is that I administer thrashings to him on a daily basis.

I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew.

So what's left? Satanist? Atheist?

Oh right. Hindu!!!

"I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

Since you have done none of it....you've simply proven that you are the scummiest of liars.

Or.....provide such quotes.



Neither I nor any perceptive individual would ever share any personal information with you.
Why is it that directly after an exchange of posts with you, I feel the need for a course of penicillin?

For starters you just called me a liar for calling you Buddhist. That's one.

The other day after I speculated you were a Jew you scoffed at the idea there was even any such thing as a Korean Jew, so there's two.

No I didn't.

I revealed you as a scummy low-life liar for this:
""I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats were part of the Founders? But you said we must align ourselves with the Founders to be good Americans...

"Democrats were part of the Founders?"
No.
The seventh President is considered the father of the modern Democrat Party.


That Democrat Party has, from its inception, been in favor of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship for black Americans.

The most popular Democrat today, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, has an unbroken record as a racist.
Be happy to provide same.

 

[Moonglow]

Democrats were part of the Founders? But you said we must align ourselves with the Founders to be good Americans...

"Democrats were part of the Founders?"
No.
The seventh President is considered the father of the modern Democrat Party.


That Democrat Party has, from its inception, been in favor of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship for black Americans.

The most popular Democrat today, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, has an unbroken record as a racist.
Be happy to provide same.

The idea of separate but equal was shared by both parties...Democrats lived in the North just as republicans or Whigs lived in the south and owned slaves..It is not as clear cut as you want to promote it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats were part of the Founders? But you said we must align ourselves with the Founders to be good Americans...

"Democrats were part of the Founders?"
No.
The seventh President is considered the father of the modern Democrat Party.


That Democrat Party has, from its inception, been in favor of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship for black Americans.

The most popular Democrat today, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, has an unbroken record as a racist.
Be happy to provide same.

The idea of separate but equal was shared by both parties...Democrats lived in the North just as republicans or Whigs lived in the south and owned slaves..It is not as clear cut as you want to promote it.

""The idea of separate but equal was shared by both parties...Democrats lived in the North just as republicans or Whigs lived in the south and owned slaves..It is not as clear cut as you want to promote it."


Pleeeeezzzzzz!

1. In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party met to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery. It was called the Republican Party.

2. Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.

3. Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


That's right: they blocked every anti-lynching bill to get to the Senate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I shudder to think that you might accept anything......anything.....the NYLiar says as fact.

The only thing he knows for sure about me is that I administer thrashings to him on a daily basis.

I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew.

So what's left? Satanist? Atheist?

Oh right. Hindu!!!

"I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

Since you have done none of it....you've simply proven that you are the scummiest of liars.

Or.....provide such quotes.



Neither I nor any perceptive individual would ever share any personal information with you.
Why is it that directly after an exchange of posts with you, I feel the need for a course of penicillin?

For starters you just called me a liar for calling you Buddhist. That's one.

The other day after I speculated you were a Jew you scoffed at the idea there was even any such thing as a Korean Jew, so there's two.

No I didn't.

I revealed you as a scummy low-life liar for this:
""I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

Is this the only time of day your keepers allow you time to post?

So good to be part of your therapy.

Write soon, y'hear!

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Bahahahhaaaaa....Good one!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Democrats were part of the Founders? But you said we must align ourselves with the Founders to be good Americans...

"Democrats were part of the Founders?"
No.
The seventh President is considered the father of the modern Democrat Party.


That Democrat Party has, from its inception, been in favor of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship for black Americans.

The most popular Democrat today, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, has an unbroken record as a racist.
Be happy to provide same.

The idea of separate but equal was shared by both parties...Democrats lived in the North just as republicans or Whigs lived in the south and owned slaves..It is not as clear cut as you want to promote it.

""The idea of separate but equal was shared by both parties...Democrats lived in the North just as republicans or Whigs lived in the south and owned slaves..It is not as clear cut as you want to promote it."


Pleeeeezzzzzz!

1. In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party met to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery. It was called the Republican Party.

2. Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.

3. Prior to 1957, LBJ “had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of votes against every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching.”
Robert Caro, “Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3,” p. xv.


That's right: they blocked every anti-lynching bill to get to the Senate.

The Father of Modern Conservatism is Barry Goldwater, Republican, who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

His vote was rewarded by tens of thousands of Southern Democrats abandoning the Democratic Party and voting for him in the 1964 election.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew.

So what's left? Satanist? Atheist?

Oh right. Hindu!!!

"I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

Since you have done none of it....you've simply proven that you are the scummiest of liars.

Or.....provide such quotes.



Neither I nor any perceptive individual would ever share any personal information with you.
Why is it that directly after an exchange of posts with you, I feel the need for a course of penicillin?

For starters you just called me a liar for calling you Buddhist. That's one.

The other day after I speculated you were a Jew you scoffed at the idea there was even any such thing as a Korean Jew, so there's two.

No I didn't.

I revealed you as a scummy low-life liar for this:
""I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

Is this the only time of day your keepers allow you time to post?

So good to be part of your therapy.

Write soon, y'hear!

No denial from you regarding your penchant to LIE and your blatant HYPOCRICY by slapping that label on others as you lie!

Very telling, Chica...very telling!

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

Since you have done none of it....you've simply proven that you are the scummiest of liars.

Or.....provide such quotes.



Neither I nor any perceptive individual would ever share any personal information with you.
Why is it that directly after an exchange of posts with you, I feel the need for a course of penicillin?

For starters you just called me a liar for calling you Buddhist. That's one.

The other day after I speculated you were a Jew you scoffed at the idea there was even any such thing as a Korean Jew, so there's two.

No I didn't.

I revealed you as a scummy low-life liar for this:
""I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

Is this the only time of day your keepers allow you time to post?

So good to be part of your therapy.

Write soon, y'hear!

No denial from you regarding your penchant to LIE and your blatant HYPOCRICY by slapping that label on others as you lie!

Very telling, Chica...very telling!

Could you wipe the drool off your chin before you post.

I mean.....really disgusting.

BTW....thanks so much for (inadvertently) verifying exactly what I posted.

My quote said exactly.....exactly!...what you claimed it didn't.


So....we agree: I never lie.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

For starters you just called me a liar for calling you Buddhist. That's one.

The other day after I speculated you were a Jew you scoffed at the idea there was even any such thing as a Korean Jew, so there's two.

No I didn't.

I revealed you as a scummy low-life liar for this:
""I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

Is this the only time of day your keepers allow you time to post?

So good to be part of your therapy.

Write soon, y'hear!

No denial from you regarding your penchant to LIE and your blatant HYPOCRICY by slapping that label on others as you lie!

Very telling, Chica...very telling!

Could you wipe the drool off your chin before you post.

I mean.....really disgusting.

BTW....thanks so much for (inadvertently) verifying exactly what I posted.

My quote said exactly.....exactly!...what you claimed it didn't.


So....we agree: I never lie.

BULLSHIT Chica! Again:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

 

[PoliticalChic]

No I didn't.

I revealed you as a scummy low-life liar for this:
""I've gotten you to deny your religion was Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew."

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

Is this the only time of day your keepers allow you time to post?

So good to be part of your therapy.

Write soon, y'hear!

No denial from you regarding your penchant to LIE and your blatant HYPOCRICY by slapping that label on others as you lie!

Very telling, Chica...very telling!

Could you wipe the drool off your chin before you post.

I mean.....really disgusting.

BTW....thanks so much for (inadvertently) verifying exactly what I posted.

My quote said exactly.....exactly!...what you claimed it didn't.


So....we agree: I never lie.

BULLSHIT Chica! Again:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

Oooo....you poor, sad, lonesome thing.

I've tried tossing you a few crumbs....you being a crumb and all....but you keep chasing your own tail.

Everything I post is true, accurate, and substantiated.
Is that what irks you?
That I keep destroying your most closely held fables?


Really?


Well....so sorry....I will continue to do so.
In short, the beatings will continue until enlightenment ensues.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

Is this the only time of day your keepers allow you time to post?

So good to be part of your therapy.

Write soon, y'hear!

No denial from you regarding your penchant to LIE and your blatant HYPOCRICY by slapping that label on others as you lie!

Very telling, Chica...very telling!

Could you wipe the drool off your chin before you post.

I mean.....really disgusting.

BTW....thanks so much for (inadvertently) verifying exactly what I posted.

My quote said exactly.....exactly!...what you claimed it didn't.


So....we agree: I never lie.

BULLSHIT Chica! Again:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

And I have revealed you not only as a liar, but as a hypocrite now with your pointing to another CLAIMING, without evidence, they are what you are PROVEN to be!

Here you are Chica:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

You even lie about never lying, Chica! You don't have an honest bone in your body!

In your post #436 above [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 44 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ], you cited this quote from http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf.
"[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."
But you didn't faithfully reproduce the quote which actually read:
"The brief writer’s version 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."

The underlined portions in both quotes above display the difference. In the original, in blue font, the author was speaking about the case brief's written by LAWYERS. But that didn't jive with your desired narrative so you edited, read that as LIED, it to shift the subject from LAWYERS to JUDGES, with your bracketed "Liberal judicial activism". That is changing truth to falsehood or in common English, LYING! You altered Rehnquist's entire meaning and intent to play the altered quote into your game by LYING. That is not only lying, but truly despicable dishonesty and conduct.

I understand why you didn't respond to my post #441 [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum ] which disclosed this same dishonest conduct. I would have let it go until I read the post to which I'm responding [ Why Liberals Hate Free Speech | Page 45 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #448 ] proclaiming that you "never lie". You are an utterly disgustingly flawed person. Oh and you can expect to see this post showing up each and every time you claim that you "never lie", LIAR!

Oooo....you poor, sad, lonesome thing.

I've tried tossing you a few crumbs....you being a crumb and all....but you keep chasing your own tail.

Everything I post is true, accurate, and substantiated.
Is that what irks you?
That I keep destroying your most closely held fables?


Really?


Well....so sorry....I will continue to do so.
In short, the beatings will continue until enlightenment ensues.

If what you say is TRUE, why have you not replied to the topic of editing that citation I've posted multiple times which shows you misrepresented the truth, twit? You were caught lying and will not address that FACT!

To now claim that, "Everything I post is true, accurate, and substantiated" is nothing more than another bold face LIE. I'm not irked at all. I'm just advertising the fact that you are nothing but a phony and a two-faced LIAR!

It seems to me that breaking your silence at this time after posting your lies multiple time and my advertising that FACT is getting to you! Repent or suffer you IDIOT!

 

[depotoo]

Thanksgiving Proclamation

Issued by President George Washington, at the request of Congress, on October 3, 1789

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and—Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favor, able interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other trangressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go. Washington

 

[depotoo]

Wish I'd had time to post that on Thanksgiving day, when the thread was active.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wish I'd had time to post that on Thanksgiving day, when the thread was active.

There have been two iterations of 'America'....the 'shining city on the hill' version for which you and I still yearn.....

....and the Leftist version, begun by the 32nd President.

Sadly....we can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I appreciate your recognition of better times.