Did the Founders want a weak central government?

[bigrebnc1775]

Stop that crap, Little Saul of the Far Right. Misuse your firearms, and, yes, "they" will come for them.

Little Saul, you are anything but tough. Every time you get whacked here, you squeal like a little girl.

No you stop the shit ***** You are not making any sense what the **** is lkittle saul? I don't support his agenda you do. I use his and your playbook against you.

As for the rest I am sure they will come and I am sure I will die but you can rest asuredly I will take some with me. They don't **** with me I will not **** with them.

Every time you get wacked you copy what you were wacked with and repeat it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Little Saul of the Far Right acting oh so tuff, just like a little girl. Little Saul, you are squealing again.

You moron, why do you talk that "I wanna be a moron hero martyr" nonsense?

Little Saul, you are so goofy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Little Saul of the Far Right acting oh so tuff, just like a little girl. Little Saul, you are squealing again.

You moron, why do you talk that "I wanna be a moron hero martyr" nonsense?

Little Saul, you are so goofy.

little stalin just pushing shit out of his mouth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are drinking early.

 

[Bern80]

You clearly understood what I wrote; you just don't like it. Tuff.

No I really don't. Your writing is really quite poor and occassionally bordering on just plain giberish.

Whatever it was you said it was at least, as you are so fond of pointing out, simply an opinion substantiated with absolutely nothing.

 

[Chris]

The "Founding Fathers" owned slaves.

Who give a rat's ass what they wanted?

 

[Bern80]

The "Founding Fathers" owned slaves.

Who give a rat's ass what they wanted?

Which goes to my point earlier. Which was essentially do we really need to throw out the baby with the bath water?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, we are not going back to the 1790s. I don't want cooperative federalism at all, period. We saw what happened to tens of millions of American for more than a century under that nonsense. No good Republican wants anything to do with that. Go join the Tea Party.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, we are not going back to the 1790s. I don't want cooperative federalism at all, period. We saw what happened to tens of millions of American for more than a century under that nonsense. No good Republican wants anything to do with that. Go join the Tea Party.

I know Jake. You've only said it a dozen times now. I don't give a shit about what you want or don't want. What I give a shit about is you ascribing positions to me that I don't have. I'm an honest person. You tell me what it is you think I believe and what the **** it has to do with giong back to 1790 and I will tell you whether that is an accurate representation of what I believe. Fair enough?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, what you think is immaterial. What you hope for will not happen. I don't care if you run from what you say and hide behind negatives when in fact you are saying what I ascribe to you. You need to be honest with yourself, and stop being in denial of who you are and what you believe. Definitions of words have particular meanings and you and the others who try to change those meanings will fail every time.

I am not sayin', just sayin'.

 

[Bern80]

What you hope for will not happen.

What is it you believe I hope will happen?

I don't care if you run from what you say and hide behind negatives when in fact you are saying what I ascribe to you.

What position am I running from? Don't you get it Jake? I can't run from the position you have ascribed to me because I don't know what to run from. I can't deny something if I don't know WHAT I'm denying. The factual reality is what you did is decide what YOUR position is. What that position is is anyone's guess because you are too spineless to take a definitive stand anything. As a result you also made up the opposition to that position. You then ascribed that position to me disregarding whether that's what I really think or not simply so you would have something tangible to argue against rather than arguing with a brick wall. I have bad news for you. You're still arguing against a brick wall.

You need to be honest with yourself, and stop being in denial of who you are and what you believe. Definitions of words have particular meanings and you and the others who try to change those meanings will fail every time.

I am plenty honest with myself. I have zero problem sticking up for what I believe in. I do have a problem with people tellng me what I believe if it's something I don't. I would think that is something you would want to know because if someone doesn't really have the position ascribed to them it makes you look pretty stupid. The fact is you already look pretty stupid because I told you what my position was in terms of how we should abide by the constitution. You said you agreed with that. So you can imagine why it is so confusing to me that you are arguing against something you said you agreed with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then tell us in clear terms exactly what you want from government and how government is supposed to do or not to do that.

 

[Bern80]

Then tell us in clear terms exactly what you want from government and how government is supposed to do or not to do that.

I want government to abide by the constituion as constructed and currently written. A sentiment you said you agreed with.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"As constructed". You mean the original ratified document and then amended through the centuries. I do not know by what you mean "currently written." Elaborate, please.

 

[Bern80]

"As constructed". You mean the original ratified document and then amended through the centuries. I do not know by what you mean "currently written." Elaborate, please.

I simply mean that I have no problem with the ammendments that followed after the original ratification.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do you disagree then with the doctrine of judicial review as developed in the last two centuries?

 

[Bern80]

Do you disagree then with the doctrine of judicial review as developed in the last two centuries?

I can't say that I know what that doctrine is or what you're referring to. What doctrine are you referring to.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are clearly showing your ass here, Bern. You clearly are a far right wackaloon, a not mainstream yoke trying to be smarmy, and you are much poorer at it then even daveman, who is a fool. Shame on you.

 

[Bern80]

You are clearly showing your ass here, Bern. You clearly are a far right wackaloon, a not mainstream yoke trying to be smarmy, and you are much poorer at it then even daveman, who is a fool. Shame on you.

Jake if a bunch of people don't know you're talking about, maybe you should consider whether the communication deficiency lies on your end. I really do not know what doctrine of judicial review you are talking about. Once you explain what you are referring to then I can tell you whether I agree or disagree with it. The only thing being shown here is your lack of spine and inability to commit to any position at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Everyone knows what the doctrine of judicial review is, what its history is, and how it has been applied in American history. The history is taught in high school, college, and university. You are a smarmy fool who does not have the strength of his principles to discuss this.