What the Tea Party Really Believes?

Share

The Pink Flamingo is terrified of extremes.  I see the growing extremism and irrational behavior of the tea parties as just that.  It did not start out this way, but it is getting there.  The very real problem is the fact that the people involved in the tea parties are failing to weigh the biased information they are receiving from their tin-plated gods like Glenn Beck.

If something is not done to put some of these people in check, and explain the facts of life to them, via American history, we are in for a very terrifying ride, abjectly terrifying.  How long will it be before some idiotic tea party twit who is seriously unstable does something like what happened in India over the weekend?

Am I comparing the tea parties to Islamic extremists?  No, I am not.  I am saying that when emotions run high, it provides an opening for men and women who are less than stable to act out in their euphoria of the moment.

I am also more and more convinced that the whole tea party thing runs contrary to the GOP.  The only thing that may save the GOP is the fact that the Dems are even more corrupt and pathetic than the the libertarians who are promoting the tea parties.   Anyone who thinks the tea parties are out there to help the GOP is living in some strange fantasy world.  Their ideas are a mix of Glenn Beck revisionism, Ron Paul’s idiocy, and conspiracy theories.  Throw in some abject ignorance about what is really going on in the world and a refusal to look at reality and well, we have a problem!

The Pink Flamingo has decided to feature a very long comment from a Tea Party “patriot” from South Carolina, Working Tommy C – who will not use his real name because he cherishes his privacy.  Unlike the rest of us who throw our true identity out for the world to see, he hides behind the mask of privacy.  Makes you wonder, doesn’t it.

One of the things Working Tommy C. advocates is the end of Lindsey Graham’s political career.  Evidently he is celebrating the possibility of Don’t Cry For Me Argentina’s possible run for Senate against Lindsey in 4 years.  Can you imagine advocating Mark Sanford for Senate?

So, here is his defense of abolishing various sand sundry Constitutional Amendments.  I guess what I find so sad is his abject ignorance of South Carolina history.  Then again, giving Working Tommy C. the benefit of the doubt, there is a tremendous amount of idealism here.  Way too much – and very little reality.  The poor thing does not realize how abjectly corrupt state governments are.

There is a good reason for this.  In South Carolina, we – and I do mean WE – worked very hard to clean up the state, which was quite corrupt until the middle of the 1970s.  It is rather sad.  This idealism does not allow for the fact that state governments have been – and always will be – abjectly corrupt.  Take New Mexico (please).  Look at Illinois.  Do you want all 50 states doing the same thing – and appointing something like 63 Democratic Senators?  (I think not).

The poor thing does not know the history of the corruption that went on when state legislators (and governors) appointed United States Senators.  When appointments were made, bribes were made.  Deals were cut, and corruption was the name of the game.  One of the reasons behind the 17th Amendment was to end the abject corruption of the day.

Case in point:  New Mexico in 1877 and Arizona in 1881.  Because of the corruption of the state legislatures and appointed officials I give you the Lincoln County War and the Cochise County War. Many good men were killed.  Fortunes were ruined.  Lives were destroyed.

It was all about LOCAL political corruption.

Sorry, your argument about allowing state governments to run things doesn’t hold water.  Didn’t do so for George Washington, either!

“…Yeah, a growing number of very reasonable people want to see the the 17th and 16th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution rescinded. The problem is that those two progressive amendments, in particular, have led to multiple abuses by the central government. A lot of us would also like to see amendments to the Constitution such as a balanced budget amendment and a term limits amendment.

Despite your ambivalence on the matter, amendments are themselves, by definition, changes so I’m not clear what your problem is with our desire of further changes–especially ones that are restorative in nature bringing our government back in line with original intent. We do love the Constitution but realistically recognize that there are certain improvements which could lead to a restoration of the document that is mostly ignored when it inconveniences the corrupt politicians (just ask Jim Clyburn if you do not believe me).

So yes, we love the Constitution and if it were actually strictly enforced according to the way it is currently written, we’d have few or no complaints. As things stand now, however, we will not naively pretend that it is being respected except in the basic building blocks of the governmental structure outlined there.

We want a LEGAL government. If improvements in the document making it stricter and more strictly interpreted and thereby returning power to the states and the people, respectively, were passed to make it once again the Supreme Law of the Land in practice as well as is written, then we all, if we respect the fundamental concepts, should be for those changes, prima facie. That is TRUE power to the people.

The Constitution itself, in contrast to the implication of your straw man argument, is not a sacred document. It is not unalterable and perfect in every respect. It is, in fact, designed to be changed if necessary, according to set procedure as deficits are recognized. Which changes are necessary or good, are another argument, however.

Right now, it is seen by people who truly respect the concept as being the best acknowledgment and best implementation of our inalienable rights–not in current PRACTICE distorted by the flagrant exemptions set forth by the Supreme Court but AS WRITTEN–or as it SHOULD BE implemented. We want to return it, generally speaking, to being implemented AS WRITTEN.

If your child needs an operation to remove a cancerous tumor, you still love your child but you don’t mind altering him to remove that cancer even though that would change the child you love forever.

There are deeper elements of humanity involved here that have existed before any law was ever written. You don’t seem to be in touch with that basic dignity we have as human beings that should always be acknowledged and respected by government. Those are the inalienable rights, such as equality under the law and consent of the governed, of which our Founding Fathers spoke. The Constitution ACKNOWLEDGES those liberties, it does NOT create them.

Essentially, everything you and others may complain about being perpetrated by the government of Obama/Soros (or George Bush, for that matter) is made possible by ignoring the Constitution. This is, in turn, enabled by Senators who are glorified representatives instead of representing the interests of the states from which they are elected (using, in Lindsey Graham’s case, earmarks of $305 million in taxpayer funds during FY2007 alone to get re-elected).

Originally the senators were chosen by the legislatures of the states (not appointed by the governors as you erroneously state). And, of course, the state legislatures are, in turn, elected by the people of the various areas of the state.

This was intended as a balance to the direct election of representatives in the other house. Once the progressives starting screwing up the Constitution around the turn of the 20th century, the real damage to our country began. Very few amendments have passed since then due to the Federal government simply ignoring the Constitution and making Federal law instead, even in clear-cut cases when the beginning of the Bill of Rights, states, “Congress shall make no law . . . ”

And yes, there was and would be, corruption at the state level as well but would you not rather have such matters at the state level vs. the federal level? In almost all cases, the closer the governance, the easier it is to monitor for and expose corruption.

We can’t control the U.S. Senators right now and they have access to ungodly amounts of OUR money on which to get re-elected. If everyone paid proper attention, we might not have a problem there but again, corruption and voter apathy combine to destroy our system of government.

I’d rather have U.S. Senators under a tighter leash and subject to actually representing their states vs. the current situation. One side-benefit a lot of people don’t think about is that by returning to the original method of legislatively appointing U.S. Senators we’d have 100 fewer Federal seats having huge amounts of money being spent on them(where there is no corruption at least). More time and money and attention could therefore be spent on local races and local governance.

And, of course, the 16th Amendment is what funds all the corruption. The numbers of IRS abuses under any administration are legion so I won’t spend time discussing those.

As for the 14th Amendment, I’ve never had any problem with it–in and of itself and what it does according to the letter of the law which is very limited and narrow in scope. I, and many, many others only complain about the activist interpretation of it known as “incorporation” which has been used to make the Federal government the sole arbiter of what is and is not permitted under the Constitution, flagrantly violating our most basic inalienable rights in many cases.

Enforcing the availability of abortion in the states is just one example of such abuse. But then, if you never really want to do anything about an abusive Supreme Court as a member of the Republican Party, just keep your blinders on as you’ve been doing so far. As those around you wake up to see what is going on, they’re just going to laugh all the harder at your statements and unsustainable belief system….”

Share

19 thoughts on “What the Tea Party Really Believes?

  1. What is so magical about Federal government being in charge vs. state governments?

    Besides being a fundamental part of the contract of the U.S. Constitution, the states being in charge except where specifically enumerated in the Constitution is the law of the land as written.

    Who is the ultimate guarantor of our rights? Do you even know?

    Here is what that extremist radical Thomas Jefferson had to say:

  2. What is so magical about Federal government being in charge vs. state governments?

    Besides being a fundamental part of the contract of the U.S. Constitution, the states being in charge–except where specifically enumerated in the Constitution–is the law of the land as written.

    Who is the ultimate guarantor of our rights? Do you even know?

    Here is what that extremist radical Thomas Jefferson had to say:

    “Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.”

    In other words, there is nothing magical about government and governance. We are all sinners and must fight temptation as well as be eternally vigilant against corruption around us. You would place the Federal government as “king” as if it were angelic in nature. It is not. The Federal government is NOT the protector of our rights. If they are, we have given up our rights and have allowed the centralized tyranny to dictate what our liberties are.

    In the end WE as individuals and as formed in the states are the ultimate guarantors of our liberty.

    As for incorporation of the 14th Amendment, Thomas Jefferson said:

    “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”

    You see, Pinkie, it’s called “rule of law.” Claiming the document says something it does not is NOT obeying the rule of law.

    Jefferson again:

    “On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

    From the extremist radical, George Washington:

    “If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”

    From the extremist radical, James Madison:

    “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

    These men who are much more expert than you and I have just affirmed my contentions and destroyed yours. I have no doubt however that you will attempt to twist their words as well.

    Flail, Pinkie, flail! =:>)

  3. Sorry, but I have other things to do besides quote out of context.

    I believe Jefferson was long dead when the 14th came along.

    Nice try.

    SJR

  4. Why don’t you just sputter, “Oh, yeah?” You’d be just as effective.

    Look up the context. Be my guest–PLEASE DO SOME READING! In context, those quotes will mean the same thing and you know it. You are an abject intellectual coward.

    And if you were so pressed for time, you wouldn’t be eating up so much virtual space with your gallons upon gallons of vomitus.

  5. Don’t take things out of context: Jefferson wrote the following in his 1st Inaugural Address:

    “… During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety. But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world’s best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question...”

  6. You failed to quote the entire paragraph of Jefferson’s 1st Inaugural Address. If so, you would have a little egg on your face.

    Quit trusting Glenn Beck’s version of history.

    SJR

  7. You are also quoting from Washington’s Farewell Address: Get it right.

    “…26 It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution, in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the Guardian of the Public Weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way, which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for, though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…”

    You might also consider the following from the same speech:

    “…9 The unity of Government, which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very Liberty, which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the Palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion, that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts…”

    Also consider:

    “…16 To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions, which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government better calculated than your former for an intimate Union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This Government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish Government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established Government.

    17 All obstructions to the execution of the Laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.

    18 However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion….”

  8. So what did you prove with the longer quote???

    He said and meant the same thing as I indicated.

    You’ve not only got egg on your face but your head is all the way up the cloaca of the chicken.

    You’re really flailing, Pinko! =:>)

    Oh, missed commenting on your snide and idiotic remark about Jefferson being dead at the time of the 14th Amendment. Flailing! My obvious point was that what he said earlier applied directly to that situation that occurred later. Your comprehension is severely lacking.

    What is your I.Q. dear? I’ve been told by many that I’m wasting my time on your Pinko Flaming L.O.G. site and, frankly, I am–but it’s so much FUN! =:>)

  9. Now, the Jeffersonian quote: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.” IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 14TH AMENDMENT. Sorry – but it was about treaties, Bonaparte, and the admission of Louisiana into the Union.

    “...Had Nicholas reasoned thus in 1798 he would have been a Federalist, as he seemed conscious, for he went on to say: “I am aware that this is to us delicate ground, and perhaps my opinions may clash with the opinions given by our friends during the discussion of the British treaty.” Nevertheless he argued that if this treaty was unconstitutional, all other treaties were open to the same objection, and the United States government in such a case could make no treaty at all. Finally, he begged the President to avoid giving an opinion on the subject: “I should think it very probable if the treaty should be declared to you to exceed the constitutional authority of the treaty-making power, it would be rejected by the Senate, and if that should not happen, that great use would be made with the people of a wilful breach of the Constitution.”

    Such reasoning in the mouths of Virginia Republicans, who had asked and gained office by pledging themselves to their people against the use of implied powers, marked a new epoch. From them the most dangerous of all arguments, the reductio ad absurdum, was ominous. What right had they to ask whether any constitutional grant was less complete than the people might have wished or intended? If the Constitution were incomplete or absurd, not the government, but the people of the States who had made it were the only proper authority to correct it. Otherwise, as Nicholas had so often pointed out, their creature would become their tyrant, as had been the law of politics from the beginning.

    Jefferson was distressed to find himself thus deserted by his closest friends on an issue which he felt to be vital. The principle of strict construction was the breath of his political life. The Pope could as safely trifle with the doctrine of apostolic succession as Jefferson with the limits of Executive power. If he and his friends were to interpret the treaty-making power as they liked, the time was sure to come when their successors would put so broad an interpretation on other powers of the government as to lead from step to step, until at last Virginia might cower in blood and flames before the shadowy terror called the war-power. With what face could Jefferson then appear before the tribunal of history, and what position could he expect to receive?

    All this he felt in his kindly way; and with this weight on his mind he wrote his reply to Nicholas. Beginning with the warning that Bonaparte could not be trusted, and that Congress must act with as little debate as possible, particularly as respected the constitutional difficulty, he went on:—

    “I am aware of the force of the observations you make on the power given by the Constitution to Congress to admit new States into the Union without restraining the subject to the territory then constituting the United States. But when I consider that the limits of the United States are precisely fixed by the treaty of 1783, that the Constitution expressly declares itself to be made for the United States, . . . I do not believe it was meant that [Congress] might receive England, Ireland, Holland, etc., into it,—which would be the case on your construction. . . . I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless. Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution.”
    From the Virginia standpoint nothing could be better said. Jefferson in this letter made two points clear: the first was that the admission of Louisiana into the Union without express authority from the States made blank paper of the Constitution; the second was that if the treaty-making power was equal to this act, it superseded the Constitution. He entertained no doubts on either point, and time sustained his view; for whether he was right or wrong in law, the Louisiana treaty gave a fatal wound to “strict construction,” and the Jeffersonian theories never again received general support. In thus giving them up, Jefferson did not lead the way, but he allowed his friends to drag him in the path they chose. The leadership he sought was one of sympathy and love, not of command; and there was never a time when he thought that resistance to the will of his party would serve the great ends he had in view. The evils which he foresaw were remote: in the hands of true Republicans the Constitution, even though violated, was on the whole safe; the precendent, though alarming, was exceptional. So it happened that after declaring in one sentence the Constitution at an end if Nicholas had his way, Jefferson in the next breath offered his acquiescence in advance:—

    “I confess I think it important in the present case to set an example against broad construction by appealing for new power to the people. If, however, our friends shall think differently, certainly I shall acquiesce with satisfaction, confiding that the good sense of our country will correct the evil of construction when it shall produce ill effects.”
    With these words Jefferson closed his mouth on this subject forever. Although his future silence led many of his friends to think that he ended by altering his opinion, and by admitting that his purchase of Louisiana was constitutional, no evidence showed the change; but rather one is led to believe that when in later life he saw what he called the evils of construction grow until he cried against them with violence almost as shrill as in 1798, he felt most strongly the fatal error which his friends had forced him to commit, and which he could neither repudiate nor defend. He had declared that he would acquiesce with satisfaction in making blank paper of the Constitution….”

  10. Oh, so now we are insulting my IQ. You are losing, aren’t you. Sorry, don’t mix it up with me when it comes to history.

    You do realize that the Jefferson quote you are using had NOTHING to do with your context, and everything to do with the fact that there were those who were trying to do an end run around the Constitution (sorta like the tea party freaks). Jefferson disapproved of what they were doing.

    SJR

  11. Yeah, baby! QUOTE THE FULL TEXT OF EVERY SPEECH! GO FOR IT!!!!

    More importantly, please read AND understand them as well.

    EVERYTHING you quoted before only reinforces the points I’m making, IN SPADES, PINKO!

    Honestly, I was only meaning to be concise in not making my posts longer than they already tend to be. I know how to click and drag, too.

    It reminds me of the time a fellow quoted Jefferson in an argument to disprove what I was saying in that the states have the right to have or not have a state religion. The very quote he posted had the unequivocal statement supporting what I’d just said–by Thomas Jefferson.

    Must have something to do with liberals’ reading comprehension.

  12. AGAIN, SINCE YOU DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THIS, PINKO, WHAT JEFFERSON SAID MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SAID ABOUT THE 14TH AMENDMENT BUT IT APPLIES EQUALLY IN PRINCIPLE.

    The quote in fuller context expresses the same principle. Whatever the outcome or implications of the Louisiana Purchase–and admittedly some abuses started, though considered by some to be mild in degree, very early in our country’s history. (The corporate welfare subsidizing of northern fishing industries was probably the most poisonous of such violations, IMHO.)

    And why do you find it necessary to go beyond Jefferson’s words by quoting from a book by someone else on Jefferson’s actions?

  13. I like to have background on a subject. That is what we writers who actually write about historical subjects do. We don’t take the word of a single web site or talk show host. It is called critical thinking.

    I gather you have no actual historical background and do not know what was going on in the world about the time of the quote. Sorry but it makes a big difference.

    SJR

  14. No, dear, what you did is the result of concrete-level thinking and severe rigidity of your mental processes. You can’t see the forest for the trees. Either that or you’re playing useless games in not addressing the points I made.

    The quotes I posted were perfectly apt and expressed the same principle in their shorter forms and supported the point I was making: if we allow politicians to play sleazy lawyer games with the wording of the Constitution for expediency’s sake, the document is virtually meaningless. You can’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are valid without legally amending the document.

    And yes, I’ve read the quotes in fuller context. I obviously have the advantage of reading AND comprehending what is being stated in terms of the creation of the Constitution and its implementation.

    (And, in case you’re curious, since you brought up the incident of the Louisiana Purchase, I think Jefferson was right. The way to properly and legally address it was to amend the Constitution according to Article V.)

    You, however, seem to think that because Thomas Jefferson threw up his hands after arguing with a brick wall for so long (and I know EXACTLY what that feels like now)that the principle he so eloquently and lengthily argued for is invalid and that he did not mean it.

    You further seem to think that you need to go into lengthy historical explications instead of addressing the exact point of principle being made. You’re not debating the point. You’re attempting to paper over your lack of moral principles with an effusion of verbiage that does not support your attacks on the points I have made nor does it in any way refute what I have said.

    You say one thing, I counter it very effectively but rather than addressing the point I made, you simply repeat what you have said in the post before again and again and then throw out a lot of verbiage. That’s not normal behavior.

    You’re either purposely evading or have a deficit of reasoning ability. Don’t worry, if the latter is the case, that puts you in the big fat part of the bell curve along with the greater portion of the population. You’ve got plenty of company, in other words.

    If you’re evading, I seriously think you need to reevaluate the reason you blog and the way in which you debate and then honestly re-evaluate your very flawed and obviously unsupportable belief system.

  15. Flail! =:>)

    For the most part I have quit reading it.

    Your frothing posts have resulted in your being taken you off the mainstream SC news feeds which were, believe it or not, actually feeding links to your blog for a short while–but that was well over a year ago.

    It’s only morbid curiosity that brings be back occasionally. Or maybe it’s like visiting the apes at the zoo. I find you very amusing in small doses. On the other hand, if you were purposely engaging in self-defeating parody, it would not be nearly as entertaining.

  16. I would not want to waste your time, considering how important you are. If you don’t bother reading my blog, why spend so much time degrading, insulting and trying to bully me into silence?

    SJR

Comments are closed.