Waterboard Yoo Too

that would be NO.

Do you have an overactive imagination and overinflated ego so that you actually believe you are someone other than a moronic ill-informed little twit?




No I have been watching your posting and you really DO have a hard on for Swamp Fox...I haven't seen the ferocity of your posting elsewhere...
 
No I have been watching your posting and you really DO have a hard on for Swamp Fox...I haven't seen the ferocity of your posting elsewhere...

well...your preceptiveness is a bit skewed, partner. I take an antagonistic approach to anyone who questions my integrity or my intelligence. My approach to those sorts of folks is unfortunately exacerbated when they turn out to be morons....like you and that fox guy.
 
well...your preceptiveness is a bit skewed, partner. I take an antagonistic approach to anyone who questions my integrity or my intelligence. My approach to those sorts of folks is unfortunately exacerbated when they turn out to be morons....like you and that fox guy.


So we are morons because we question you? :rofl:


Dude...This is a message board get over yourself...
 
Article VI(2) says it all. If you don't like a treaty that we have signed, abrogate it. Until then, obey it cuz it IS the supreme law of the land. that's a fact.

I get the point of MM argument......

Like if the "law of the land" says that a black person is only 3/5 human and can be bought and sold, we must obey the law and treat them as such........at least until it is officially abrogated....same reasoning, same logic...
 
Like if the "law of the land" says that a black person is only 3/5 human and can be bought and sold, we must obey the law and treat them as such........at least until it is officially abrogated....same reasoning, same logic...
__________________

and until it was changed, they followed it.

You make a treaty, you follow it or change it. Sort of like we did with the Native Americans.:rofl:

Dread, just because you may lose an argument, don't blame the other person for being gay.:rolleyes:
 
and until it was changed, they followed it.

Better brush up on your American History sonny.....:cuckoo:


You make a treaty, you follow it or change it. Sort of like we did with the Native Americans.:rofl:

Dread, just because you may lose an argument, don't blame the other person for being gay.:rolleyes:
88
 
I get the point of MM argument......

Like if the "law of the land" says that a black person is only 3/5 human and can be bought and sold, we must obey the law and treat them as such........at least until it is officially abrogated....same reasoning, same logic...

what does Art VI(2) have to do with slavery?
 
He was using slavery as an example, moron, to illustrate his point.

the POINT is: Article VI (2) has NOT been repealed nor is there any good reason to repeal it. Our standing in the community of nations is based upon our word. When we sign treaties, the founding fathers were absolutely unequivocal about the fact that we needed to keep our word in the world, and therefore, those treaties became sacrosanct. If you want to no longer follow a treaty, you abrogate it, until then, it is the supreme law of the land. And if you don't LIKE that part of the constitution, start up a petition to amend the constitution and strike VI(2). Until then, pissing on treaties is pissing on the constitution...and from my perspective, that makes you just as much an enemy of that document as any islamic terrorist.

MORON.
 
Moron, dumbshit, are these all conservative terms of endearment?:rolleyes:

Alpha, I don't think you got what I was saying?
 
the POINT is: Article VI (2) has NOT been repealed nor is there any good reason to repeal it. Our standing in the community of nations is based upon our word. When we sign treaties, the founding fathers were absolutely unequivocal about the fact that we needed to keep our word in the world, and therefore, those treaties became sacrosanct. If you want to no longer follow a treaty, you abrogate it, until then, it is the supreme law of the land. And if you don't LIKE that part of the constitution, start up a petition to amend the constitution and strike VI(2). Until then, pissing on treaties is pissing on the constitution...and from my perspective, that makes you just as much an enemy of that document as any islamic terrorist.

MORON.

Is this the only article of the Constitution that you know? You seem to be hooked on this. Maybe you should try to expand your horizons and read a couple other parts of the Consitution. Might be enlightening to you......
 
Is this the only article of the Constitution that you know? You seem to be hooked on this. Maybe you should try to expand your horizons and read a couple other parts of the Consitution. Might be enlightening to you......


I have read the entire document. This particular section is germane to treaties and how they are treated.

And your distaste for treaties which you don't like and your acknowledged willingness to piss on them is all the evidence I need of your status as a domestic enemy of the constitution....which I find to be repugnant in the extreme.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top