Explain Republicans to Me

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I had a post ready to go about the vital role that government has historically played in establishing and protecting freedoms, but you know what? Forget it. Resume your march toward Utopia.[/quote]

I will comrade!

But I am a libertarian, we dont march:

Are you trying to say that you and the Circle Jerk Society are the one kid that does not participate? For that to be an accurate depiction, every body in the group of students would have to not participated, with a couple exceptions. The people that the Circle Jerk Society labels as liberal would be you true loners, not caring what the Circle Jerk Society thinks of them.[/quote]

Yes, I am sorry, that is me.

Telling conservatives what they like to hear since 2005.

82

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I had a post ready to go about the vital role that government has historically played in establishing and protecting freedoms, but you know what? Forget it. Resume your march toward Utopia.[/quote]

I will comrade!

But I am a libertarian, we dont march:

Are you trying to say that you and the Circle Jerk Society are the one kid that does not participate? For that to be an accurate depiction, every body in the group of students would have to not participated, with a couple exceptions. The people that the Circle Jerk Society labels as liberal would be you true loners, not caring what the Circle Jerk Society thinks of them.[/quote]

Yes, I am sorry, that is me.

Telling conservatives what they like to hear since 2005.
[/quote]

I think you are trying sarcasm , but you aare part of the crowd and by no means stand alone

83

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I had a post ready to go about the vital role that government has historically played in establishing and protecting freedoms, but you know what? Forget it. Resume your march toward Utopia.[/quote]

I will comrade!

But I am a libertarian, we dont march:

Are you trying to say that you and the Circle Jerk Society are the one kid that does not participate? For that to be an accurate depiction, every body in the group of students would have to not participated, with a couple exceptions. The people that the Circle Jerk Society labels as liberal would be you true loners, not caring what the Circle Jerk Society thinks of them.[/quote]

Yes, I am sorry, that is me.

Telling conservatives what they like to hear since 2005.
[/quote]

I think you are trying sarcasm , but you aare part of the crowd and by no means stand alone[/quote]

As long as I am on the watchlist of at least two mods because I might post mean things about the US military I think I am not a full member of the republican blow job barn.

84

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I would like to know why anyone cares about bearing the mantle of the Founders? They were far from perfect, and their model doesn’t really deserve to be emulated in my opinion. Seeing as things weren’t all that great for the common people back then, why don’t we quit aspiring to turn the clock back 200 years and try to make some progress (regardless of what your ide aof progress might be)?[/quote]

It’s about preserving the Constitution. It’s about preserving what has made The United States the most succesfull country in the world.

Their model doesn’t deserve to be emulated? What government figure does?

Far from perfect? Further than a socialist country?

NOTHING IS PERFECT, but I’ll take the Constitution over anything ever created.

85

[quote]KeepAwaySheeple wrote:

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I would like to know why anyone cares about bearing the mantle of the Founders? They were far from perfect, and their model doesn’t really deserve to be emulated in my opinion. Seeing as things weren’t all that great for the common people back then, why don’t we quit aspiring to turn the clock back 200 years and try to make some progress (regardless of what your ide aof progress might be)?[/quote]

It’s about preserving the Constitution. It’s about preserving what has made The United States the most succesfull country in the world.

Their model doesn’t deserve to be emulated? What government figure does?

Far from perfect? Further than a socialist country?

NOTHING IS PERFECT, but I’ll take the Constitution over anything ever created.[/quote]

Where and what does the constitution say about the properties of socialism ?

86

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where and what does the constitution say about the properties of socialism ?
[/quote]

Where and what does the constitution say about raping people?

87

[quote]KeepAwaySheeple wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Where and what does the constitution say about the properties of socialism ?
[/quote]

Where and what does the constitution say about raping people?[/quote]

We have laws that put people in jail for rape , I asked how can you use the constitution to bash Socialism , when it is not mentioned ?

88

why do we need to restore the constitution?
read “5000 YEAR LEAP”

89

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We have laws that put people in jail for rape , I asked how can you use the constitution to bash Socialism , when it is not mentioned ?[/quote]

My point is that the word rape is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is socialism. Does that mean that either are permitted?

Perhaps you should read and try to comprehend the Constitution before you start asking asinine questions about it.

The Constitution is all about LIMITED GOVERNMENT and putting power into the hands of the people. Is socialism anything like this? NO!!!

Also, I see that you started a thread on this topic. I’m sure you will understand now how ridiculous your question is after you get royaly flamed.

90

[quote]KeepAwaySheeple wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We have laws that put people in jail for rape , I asked how can you use the constitution to bash Socialism , when it is not mentioned ?[/quote]

My point is that the word rape is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is socialism. Does that mean that either are permitted?

Perhaps you should read and try to comprehend the Constitution before you start asking asinine questions about it.

The Constitution is all about LIMITED GOVERNMENT and putting power into the hands of the people. Is socialism anything like this? NO!!!

Also, I see that you started a thread on this topic. I’m sure you will understand now how ridiculous your question is after you get royaly flamed.[/quote]

I must admit it has been many years since I read it may be I will. I do not remember reading anything in the constitution that would prohibit Obama from reworking our health care system
Do you think I fear being royally flamed, I think you circle jerkers over estimate your selves.

91

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think you circle jerkers over estimate your selves.
[/quote]

Circle jerker, does this indicate frequent usage of internet forums?

Pittbull - May 2005, 3484 posts

KeepAwaySheeple - June 2005, 671 posts

92

[quote]KeepAwaySheeple wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think you circle jerkers over estimate your selves.
[/quote]

Circle jerker, does this indicate frequent usage of internet forums?

Pittbull - May 2005, 3484 posts

KeepAwaySheeple - June 2005, 671 posts

[/quote]

Well maybe it is hard to tell the people that are adamant that are correct from the group that are adamant that they are right.

93

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Well maybe it is hard to tell the people that are adamant that are correct from the group that are adamant that they are right.[/quote]

So that’s your definition of “circle jerker”.

You are just as adamant that the Constitution warrants socialism as I am adamant that the Constitution does not warrant socialism.

In any case, there are way more of us than there are of you. I guess we’re all a bunch of crazy, racist, violent circle jerkers. May God help all of you against our rath.

94

[quote]KeepAwaySheeple wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Well maybe it is hard to tell the people that are adamant that are correct from the group that are adamant that they are right.[/quote]

So that’s your definition of “circle jerker”.

You are just as adamant that the Constitution warrants socialism as I am adamant that the Constitution does not warrant socialism.

In any case, there are way more of us than there are of you. I guess we’re all a bunch of crazy, racist, violent circle jerkers. May God help all of you against our rath.[/quote]

I am not adamant, I asked a simple question, because all I hear is Obamaâ??s socialism is not constitutional, I mean look at the answers I got on that question. Most were like you thinking I was making a statement, I was asking a question.

My nick name for the core at the political forums on T Nation comes from everybody getting on one subject, example Obama, then trashing him and agreeing with each other in other words stroking themselves and each other. It is like an orgy at times:)

If you have something to the contrary of what they want to convey then they as you say flame you :slight_smile:

Your last sentence is exactly how I feel :slight_smile: It coincides with my second paragraph.

95

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]KeepAwaySheeple wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We have laws that put people in jail for rape , I asked how can you use the constitution to bash Socialism , when it is not mentioned ?[/quote]

My point is that the word rape is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is socialism. Does that mean that either are permitted?

Perhaps you should read and try to comprehend the Constitution before you start asking asinine questions about it.

The Constitution is all about LIMITED GOVERNMENT and putting power into the hands of the people. Is socialism anything like this? NO!!!

Also, I see that you started a thread on this topic. I’m sure you will understand now how ridiculous your question is after you get royaly flamed.[/quote]

I must admit it has been many years since I read it may be I will. I do not remember reading anything in the constitution that would prohibit Obama from reworking our health care system
Do you think I fear being royally flamed, I think you circle jerkers over estimate your selves.
[/quote]

Do you remember the bit where it says that the federal government does only have the powers listed in the document?

Was there a power to socialize healthcare?

Could those who wrote this with any stretch the imagination have meant that this power was somehow implicit in the welfare or the interstate commerce clause?

96

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not adamant, I asked a simple question, because all I hear is Obamaâ??s socialism is not constitutional, I mean look at the answers I got on that question. Most were like you thinking I was making a statement, I was asking a question.

My nick name for the core at the political forums on T Nation comes from everybody getting on one subject, example Obama, then trashing him and agreeing with each other in other words stroking themselves and each other. It is like an orgy at times:)

If you have something to the contrary of what they want to convey then they as you say flame you :slight_smile:

Your last sentence is exactly how I feel :slight_smile: It coincides with my second paragraph.
[/quote]

I don’t come here for ego stroking. I could care less. If I read something that I object to, I respond.

What are you adamant about? It doesn’t sound like just innocent little you asking a valid question. I mean, you did create an entire thread about it and when people responded you state -

“I am going to assume the answer is no where” with a smiley face on the end.

To me this means you are happy with the results. Results that are false by the way.

As I said in your other thread that you didn’t bother to respond to -

So let me get this straight, you are asking a question about the Constitution of the United States in an internet forum.

You will then base your assumptions off of what people tell you?

Please go read the documents for yourself and come to your own conclusions without the reliance on internet based forums, etc.

After reading for yourself, come back here and if you still feel the same way, then let us debate.

97

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]KeepAwaySheeple wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We have laws that put people in jail for rape , I asked how can you use the constitution to bash Socialism , when it is not mentioned ?[/quote]

My point is that the word rape is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is socialism. Does that mean that either are permitted?

Perhaps you should read and try to comprehend the Constitution before you start asking asinine questions about it.

The Constitution is all about LIMITED GOVERNMENT and putting power into the hands of the people. Is socialism anything like this? NO!!!

Also, I see that you started a thread on this topic. I’m sure you will understand now how ridiculous your question is after you get royaly flamed.[/quote]

I must admit it has been many years since I read it may be I will. I do not remember reading anything in the constitution that would prohibit Obama from reworking our health care system
Do you think I fear being royally flamed, I think you circle jerkers over estimate your selves.
[/quote]

Do you remember the bit where it says that the federal government does only have the powers listed in the document?

Was there a power to socialize healthcare?

Could those who wrote this with any stretch the imagination have meant that this power was somehow implicit in the welfare or the interstate commerce clause?

[/quote]

I did not say it did , I asked the question did it ? I was making no implications .

98
99

[quote]KeepAwaySheeple wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not adamant, I asked a simple question, because all I hear is Obama�¢??s socialism is not constitutional, I mean look at the answers I got on that question. Most were like you thinking I was making a statement, I was asking a question.

My nick name for the core at the political forums on T Nation comes from everybody getting on one subject, example Obama, then trashing him and agreeing with each other in other words stroking themselves and each other. It is like an orgy at times:)

If you have something to the contrary of what they want to convey then they as you say flame you :slight_smile:

Your last sentence is exactly how I feel :slight_smile: It coincides with my second paragraph.
[/quote]

I don’t come here for ego stroking. I could care less. If I read something that I object to, I respond.

What are you adamant about? It doesn’t sound like just innocent little you asking a valid question. I mean, you did create an entire thread about it and when people responded you state -

“I am going to assume the answer is no where” with a smiley face on the end.

To me this means you are happy with the results. Results that are false by the way.

As I said in your other thread that you didn’t bother to respond to -

So let me get this straight, you are asking a question about the Constitution of the United States in an internet forum.

You will then base your assumptions off of what people tell you?

Please go read the documents for yourself and come to your own conclusions without the reliance on internet based forums, etc.

After reading for yourself, come back here and if you still feel the same way, then let us debate.

[/quote]

Just curious on what you think my nefarious motivation for starting a thread is, I will be honest; today I am a little bored and have a little time to kill :slight_smile:

I read the constitution in high school; I think my memory will suffice for this conversation. If everybody here just read the constitution then I would not be think your suggestion stupid .

So you got me straight, I was asking a question? Do you understand :)?

MY smiley face indicates when I laugh or sometimes smile. Maybe you could call it enhanced communication :slight_smile:

NO I will not base my opinion on what others tell me, Like Bill Roberts comment on property rights, I see his point, I just disagree with it. But that is why I asked the question.

100

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Just curious on what you think my nefarious motivation for starting a thread is, I will be honest; today I am a little bored and have a little time to kill :slight_smile:

I read the constitution in high school; I think my memory will suffice for this conversation. If everybody here just read the constitution then I would not be think your suggestion stupid .

So you got me straight, I was asking a question? Do you understand :)?

MY smiley face indicates when I laugh or sometimes smile. Maybe you could call it enhanced communication :slight_smile:

NO I will not base my opinion on what others tell me, Like Bill Roberts comment on property rights, I see his point, I just disagree with it. But that is why I asked the question.
[/quote]

Ok, you were asking an honest question then. I apologize for thinking that you had other intentions for starting that thread.

I’m glad you read the Constituion in high school. Now I’m asking you an honest question that I am truly curious about -

Did you comprehend the Constitution? I mean you don’t have to even know every detail but did you understand the parts about limited government?

The words no and not employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles.