Debate on the REPEAL of the 2nd Amendment

[ScottS]

Jesus! Is that the best you can do? Post a silly pic depicting a tin-foil hat area?

Here's a novel idea. Do some honest research. It may actually broaden your horizons and help you to see the "real" world and what's happening right under your nose.

Who knows, maybe you and I could have an intelligent conversation. Until then, keep posting pics of tin hats and tell me all about the black helicopters. I've heard it all before but it never ceases to amuse me.

Actually, I attempting to use humor to avoid pointing out that your ravings were those of a paranoid conspiracy-theorist who believes everything he reads on a website. My error.

The American Policy Center, for Christ-sake? In December '08 they wrote:

The U.S. Constitution places no restriction on the purposes for which the states can call for a Convention. If Ohio votes to call a Con Con, for whatever purpose, the United States will be only one state away from total destruction.

That's their emphasis, BTW, not mine.

"...one state away from total destruction?" Really? No, that's not sky-is-falling hyperbole. You read any of their other stuff? About how the UN is infiltrating our public education?

I'm sorry, as I'm a bit slow and must have missed it. What were the 32 states who have called for a Constitutional Convention? If you peel even one layer off the onion, you find out that all the medial hype in the Blogosphere (WorldNetDaily, St Louis Gun Rights Examiner, etc.) circles back to quoting the above website as their source. It all tracks down to one place, and one guy, Tom DeWeese.

As a side note, if, in fact, we were just two small votes away from the first Constitutional Convention since 1787, aimed at throwing out the Constitution, do you think your vehicle for receiving this information would be some obscure website run out of some guy's basement? This doesn't strike you as something that might be...oh, I don't know...newsworthy? There's not some news guy somewhere who may think, "Hey, we're just two votes away from completely throwing out the Constitution...I wonder if anyone would think this of interest...?" Of course not in the MSM, I'm sure they're in on it. But maybe somebody? Fox? Reuters? Obscure Sports Quarterly? Is this impending disaster completely unnoticed by the entire news establishment?

You know, your persuasive argument, and those of the American Policy Center, have changed my mine. It is URGENT! If, as the OP stated, I don't call in to the radio debate (on the Superstation WGN) on repealing the Second Amendment and speak my mind, The Republic is doomed. Doomed, I say. Just...doomed.

 

[Bill Nance]

Ok, here's a dissenting opinion:

I'm all in favor of an honest debate about a repeal of the 2A.

Why? a few reasons:

1. The grabbers have been distancing themselves for over a decade from the concept of total gun bans (not changed their minds, but they're pretending they don't support a total ban). An actual debate on 2A would call these people on their BS.

2. Most people have no idea why the 2A is important. A nation-wide serious discussion of the issue would benefit everyone enormously. The facts and history are on OUR side, not theirs. By all means let's have a full debate out in the open.

3. Since I'm convinced the grabbers would not prevail at this point, it would shut the door on this subject basically forever. This is a good thing since the future does not bode well for us given demographic trends and pro 2A people's consistent demonstrated ability to alienate people left and right. We've always been our own worst enemies. If we don't start reaching out to urbanites and "liberals" we're sunk.

We need to get more people "on our team," Not shouting them down and making enemies of anyone who dares voice a dissenting opinion instead of educating them and getting them interested in shooting.

 

[terraformer]

Ok, here's a dissenting opinion:

I'm all in favor of an honest debate about a repeal of the 2A.

Why? a few reasons:

1. The grabbers have been distancing themselves for over a decade from the concept of total gun bans (not changed their minds, but they're pretending they don't support a total ban). An actual debate on 2A would call these people on their BS.

2. Most people have no idea why the 2A is important. A nation-wide serious discussion of the issue would benefit everyone enormously. The facts and history are on OUR side, not theirs. By all means let's have a full debate out in the open.

3. Since I'm convinced the grabbers would not prevail at this point, it would shut the door on this subject basically forever. This is a good thing since the future does not bode well for us given demographic trends and pro 2A people's consistent demonstrated ability to alienate people left and right. We've always been our own worst enemies. If we don't start reaching out to urbanites and "liberals" we're sunk.

We need to get more people "on our team," Not shouting them down and making enemies of anyone who dares voice a dissenting opinion instead of educating them and getting them interested in shooting.

Excellent point.

 

[Nickle]

Finally, somebody that grasps that the gun banners simply don't have the numbers, never have, never will.

They simply try to make it look like they do, when the only numbers they've had are the number of politicians they can shmooze.

If all of the gun owners in this country voted, and voted alike, things would be vastly different. We are truly our own worst enemy.

 

[Dick]

There's a lot more to the issue of the states calling for a Constitutional Convention than the "sky is falling" crowd would have us believe. Here's the pertinent discussion from the reasonably authoritative FindLaw website, which indicates there are real questions about how a valid petition by 2/3rds of the states would come about (not necessarily by a couple more joining in now) and whether we are any closer now to a ConCon than we have been a few times in the past (I edited out the numbered references to improve readability, but citations to support the statements made are provided in the original):

Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions. When and how is a convention to be convened? Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter? Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years? Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider? These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration. This method has been close to utilization several times. Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators. Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates. The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court's legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time. Arguments existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.

 

[ronbok]

I know the guy that runs that blog. I consider him a poser that's full of shit.

He talks big, knows and does little in some of the areas he speaks of. I'll give him credit for knowing how to shoot, even teach marksmanship. After that, well, he's a rabble rouser.

You didn't READ the post did you. Admit it. If by "guy" you meant David Codrea, then David Codrea didn't write that post, he offered this opinion by someone (emphasis added) else:

Ninety percent of Americans could vote to repeal the Second Amendment, and the right of free men to own and carry weapons would still exist; for our Constitution does not, and could not, grant or deny our natural rights. It can only help us defend them from those who wish it could. If you do not understand this truth, please do some studying, discussing, and pondering until you do. Free men in this world are born with their natural rights, they are not a mere privilege to be bestowed or withdrawn at the whim of a capricious government, popularly elected or not.

BTW, if David Codrea is such a rabble rouser let me ask you why he's writing for Guns Magazine and the National Gun Rights Examiner? Hmm...

 

[MassBites]

There's a lot more to the issue of the states calling for a Constitutional Convention than the "sky is falling" crowd would have us believe. Here's the pertinent discussion from the reasonably authoritative FindLaw website, which indicates there are real questions about how a valid petition by 2/3rds of the states would come about (not necessarily by a couple more joining in now) and whether we are any closer now to a ConCon than we have been a few times in the past (I edited out the numbered references to improve readability, but citations to support the statements made are provided in the original):

Without the link I can't say for certain, but what you copied and pasted above seems to be an explanation for adding an amendment to the Constitution, rather than call for a ConCon.

Scotts, I'm on my way to work. I'll answer you tonight.

 

[Dick]

Without the link I can't say for certain, but what you copied and pasted above seems to be an explanation for adding an amendment to the Constitution, rather than call for a ConCon.

Yes, that's correct - if you read the actual wording of Article V, it is specifically directed toward proposing amendments, and calling for a ConCon is one way of doing that. Article V does not deal with calling for a ConCon outside of that context.

That's why the article raises the several questions about what actually constitutes a petition by 2/3rds of the states. Here's the link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article05/02.html#3

 

[Turbocharged]

There's an old saying that I can't help but contribute;
"If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns".
Although, if owning guns is made illegal for everyone, there will be a huge increase in "outlaws" (or more appropriatly, people who won't bend over).

 

[SemiAutoSam]

While the quote below is true its the contracts that our parents set us up in (IE SSN and Birth Certificate) and that we enter into later in our adult life as well are the items that subject us to the whims of Federal (Corporate) Government.

After you accept or Acquiesce to these contracts then by virtue of being a 14th Amendment US citizen you trade your Constitutional rights for 14th Amendment civil rights or in actuality
privileges.

What people need to do is expatriate from being a 14th Amendment US citizen this is the only thing that will get them their god given rights back.

Read some of my siglines if you don't understand.

Free men in this world are born with their natural rights, they are not a mere privilege to be bestowed or withdrawn at the whim of a capricious government, popularly elected or not.

 

[Nickle]

Sam, good observations.

I am a Freeman, had to swear an oath to the fact that I am.

Of course, I live in a state that was once a country, with a Constitution that predates the US Constitution, and where what we know of as the "Bill of Rights" wasn't an afterthought.

http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconstexp.html

Pay real close attention to some of the parts of it. What we know of as the US 2A, is know to us here as Article 16 (and existed from the beginning).

Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Doesn't beat around the bush, does it?

Article 11th. Search and seizure regulated

That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions, free from search or seizure; and therefore warrants, without oath or affirmation first made, affording sufficient foundation for them, and whereby by any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his, her or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted.

And, by virtue of this, roadblock searches are harder than hell to get.

Article 13th. Freedom of speech and of the press

That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments, concerning the transactions of government, and therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained.

The true meaning of "Freedom of Speech". Concerning the transaction of the Governement, as in Political Free Speech.

 

[doobie]

Very true. Once you open that gate - there is no telling what might rush thru.

That's how we got the 17th amendment. Delaware wanted a ConCon to abolish polygamy. They corrupted the legislature instead.

 

[calsdad]

While the quote below is true its the contracts that our parents set us up in (IE SSN and Birth Certificate) and that we enter into later in our adult life as well are the items that subject us to the whims of Federal (Corporate) Government.

After you accept or Acquiesce to these contracts then by virtue of being a 14th Amendment US citizen you trade your Constitutional rights for 14th Amendment civil rights or in actuality
privileges.

What people need to do is expatriate from being a 14th Amendment US citizen this is the only thing that will get them their god given rights back.

Read some of my siglines if you don't understand.

Ok Sam, I did some quick reading thru some of the links you provided in your siglines. And I know you have alluded in other posts of yours here on NES that one way to get out from under all of this is (as I understand it) is to not be a "citizen" of the United States.

I have also read people on other forums who have claimed that they took advantage of the distinction between "income" and "wages" to actually get refunds of all they money they have paid into the IRS.

So my question to you is this:

What does all of this mean in practical terms? What can a person who is part of this system do to get out from under? I ask this because you claim to be person who knows about this - so I am curious to figure out what this means realistically if one was to want to pursue this further.

 

[SemiAutoSam]

CD
In a nutshell its mostly about freedom.

And about how the founding fathers wanted things to be as they were long dead before the travesty better known as the 14th Amendment was corruptly put into force.

IMO Government introduced the 14th to have more subjects to have under their control and to have slaves to pay their bills.

To get out of the system some things you need to do is remove yourself from all of the government contracts that you have signed.

I mean all of them, SSN BC, DL, FID, LTC, Vehicle registrations, Bank signature card, Marriage Licence, I'm sure I'm missing a few but this gives you the general idea.

Google: "Keating" "Invisible Contracts" . That will teach you more in 10 Min's than I could in an hour about contracts. ETA it wasn't Keating it was George Mercier.
http://www.constitution.org/mercier/incon.htm

I'm by no means a expert at this topic I just have an interest in it.

And yes I still have a few contracts that I am attempting to remove myself from, and in time I will do it.

Using the kings money also is a Benefit of Federal Government but unless you plan to use constitutional money at the moment its the only game in town.

TO realistically remove yourself from the system you would have to find work that does not include filing a W4 form as you would not exist in the same manner once you broke off the contracts you now have.

Since http://www.suijuris.net/ folded its replacement is just about the best place to get further information on expatriation from being a Federal Corporate US citizen will be found below.

http://www.suijurisclub.net
http://goldismoney.info/forums/


ETA: I found this on GIM thought it might interest you.
http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=362679

ETA: The following is from GIM about how to get your property off of the tax roles.
Caveat I didn't do it this way but that does not mean it wont work.

Washington man successfully removes his land from tax rolls [This document and the details of this property are on file in the office of The I.O.] Following is the story of how I successfully withdrew my land from taxation in Washington State. For three years the county prosecutor threatened to foreclose on my property for non-payment of taxes. However, my property was finally dropped from the tax roll last year, and the county treasurer ceased sending the annual tax (rent) statement. I have enclosed an affidavit from a disinterested person who walked into the county treasurer's office and inquired into the tax status of my land. He ascertained not only that the property was not being taxed, but that the county had dropped the prior three years of back taxes and penalties. As county officials took an adversarial position towards me, it was a rather complex and lengthy process walking through their defacto government minefield. Up to now I have been pretty quiet about my success, but I am now considering writing a book to detail exactly how I withdrew my property from county, state and federal jurisdiction. Given the complexity of this subject I can only give a "cocktail napkin" sketch here of my successful actions. The secret of my success is contained in a book entitled The Errant Sovereign's Handbook by Augustus Blackstone (aka "Uncle Gus"). Without the fundamentals given in this book, I would not have gotten to first base nor would I have built my case on a solid foundation. So here is an abridged version of what I did: 1. I read the above book cover to cover and followed the procedures to become a sovereign Elector. 2. I then followed Uncle Gus's procedure in Chapter 11 to attempt to extinguish all tax debt attached to my property. 3. I withdrew my property from registration. 4. I perfected a land patent on my property. 5. I complied with the Uniform Commercial Code whenever I received a "tax statement" in the mail. 6. As the treasurer and her "attorney" were totally uncooperative, I had to finally play my trump card: Article I, Section 10, united States Constitution - "No state shall.make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." Uncle Gus knows how to play this card effectively. After many unfulfilled requests for information and documents, I began to take steps to (potentially) place liens on certain county officials. In the process three lawfully recorded affidavits (which enumerated public disclosure violations) and $33 in recording fees were unlawfully removed from the county auditor's office without my consent and without a warrant (a felony in Washington.) I subsequently sought a Declaratory Judgment against a prosecutor. However, my suit was dismissed. You probably won't be surprised to learn that the judge never read my paperwork. I then began to press criminal charges and continue to do so. When I reported the "theft under false pretenses" of my affidavits, a prosecutor, named in one of the stolen affidavits, threatened me (in writing) with undisclosed prosecution. Isn't it rather ironic that it is a felony in the state of Washington to threaten a civil "servant", but the "servants" can, with immunity, threaten a citizen for reporting a crime of a "servant?” Under these conditions I had to be careful in wording my communications so as not to threaten to sue a county "servant." Therefore, I simply made it clear that I "will defend my right to private property to the highest court in the land," which is not a threat but the assertion of a right. Unfortunately, in today's world no one has any rights unless he or she is willing to defend them. I believe my success in defending my private property rights rests in the fact that 1) I used Uncle Gus's technology to build an airtight case, 2) I am willing to publicly expose abuse of power of civil servants, despite their intimidation tactics, 3) I made clear resolve to take my case to the united States' supreme court if necessary, and 4) it would cost "the county" far more to usurp my private property rights than it would ever collect through Marxist "taxation" or "foreclosure." There are no guarantees, though. I believe the evidence that I have accumulated thus far reveals not only abuse of power by county officials but the fact that the Washington state governor and attorney general do not support the supreme law of the land but, instead, knowingly support the abuse of power by county officials. Frankly, I do not find this encouraging. However, last fall I perfected a land patent on a second parcel of land and the county has never challenged it. To obtain a copy of The Errant Sovereign's Handbook, send $18.50 ( FRNs or the equivalent in coin only) to: Augustus Blackstone
c/o postal service address 9986 N. Newport Highway, #221
Spokane, Washington [99218]
I do not receive any remuneration for plugging Uncle Gus's book. I am just very grateful because the information worked for me. Yours in Liberty, An American "Steadfast and True in Washington State" *** Note: We made the editorial decision to not publish this man's name due to the nature of his accomplishments. It has been proven to us that this man has indeed been able to obtain a land patent in Washington state. Those who are interested in more information are encouraged to write to him c/o The Idaho Observer. Just indicate “land patent” on the envelope and we will pass it on. Considering the battle this man went through and the victory he won for property rights in this country, we are honored to provide this small service. ~(DWH)

Ok Sam, I did some quick reading thru some of the links you provided in your siglines. And I know you have alluded in other posts of yours here on NES that one way to get out from under all of this is (as I understand it) is to not be a "citizen" of the United States.

I have also read people on other forums who have claimed that they took advantage of the distinction between "income" and "wages" to actually get refunds of all they money they have paid into the IRS.

So my question to you is this:

What does all of this mean in practical terms? What can a person who is part of this system do to get out from under? I ask this because you claim to be person who knows about this - so I am curious to figure out what this means realistically if one was to want to pursue this further.

 

[ScottS]

That's how we got the 17th amendment. Delaware wanted a ConCon to abolish polygamy. They corrupted the legislature instead.

I don't understand this comment. Could you elaborate?

 

[MassBites]

Actually, I attempting to use humor to avoid pointing out that your ravings were those of a paranoid conspiracy-theorist who believes everything he reads on a website. My error.

Oh bullshit. At least man up and admit that you attempted to marginalize what I wrote by posting your goofy little sign. What? You couldn't just come out and say that it is your belief that I am a "raving" "paranoid conspiracy-theorist who believes everything >he< reads on a website?" Hey! If that wrinkles your socks then I say go for it.

Trust me, I am not a delicate little flower and truth be told, I rather enjoy it when ill-informed people like yourself go into attack mode armed with nothing but your d...err...irrational emotions. I tend to destroy my chew toys and it just makes me happy when people like you offer yourselves up as a new replacement.

Do you think I haven't heard it all before? Do you think your method of attack is original? I hate to pop your balloon, but you're methods are no different from any others of your ilk. That being said, I still like the squeaky sounds my chew toys make.

The American Policy Center, for Christ-sake? In December '08 they wrote: That's their emphasis, BTW, not mine.

"...one state away from total destruction?" Really? No, that's not sky-is-falling hyperbole. You read any of their other stuff? About how the UN is infiltrating our public education?

How about this? Instead of throwing a little hissy fit over his choice of words, why don't you try to dispute the fact that we are two states away from calling a Con Con? That is the statement you took issue with when you began posting about tin foil hats. You took issue with the statement that we are 2 states away from calling a Constitutional Convention. Remember that?

You disputed the statement NOT by posting verifiable evidence to the contrary, but rather, you made a weak-minded attempt to ridicule the messenger. Furthermore, you did that without first attempting to do any honest research as to the veracity of my claims. In other words, you had no contradictory evidence which caused you to "think" that what I wrote was wrong. The only information you had at your disposal were your "feeeelings," and your "feeelings" convinced you that the statement was wrong.

I'm sorry, as I'm a bit slow and must have missed it. What were the 32 states who have called for a Constitutional Convention?

Oh no you don't. Don't even think for a moment that I am going to do your work for you, especially after you tried to marginalize me with your pathetic attempts to label me a "raving, paranoid conspiracy-theorist" in a tin foil hat. If you had shown a genuine interest in educating yourself I would have gladly offered the information. But you didn't do that so now your just my new chew toy. Do your own homework.

If you peel even one layer off the onion, you find out that all the medial hype in the Blogosphere (WorldNetDaily, St Louis Gun Rights Examiner, etc.) circles back to quoting the above website as their source. It all tracks down to one place, and one guy, Tom DeWeese.

No. It doesn't. You think it does, but that's just because you're ill-informed and worse, you're too lazy to research anything beyond what I have provided you.

As a side note, if, in fact, we were just two small votes away from the first Constitutional Convention since 1787, aimed at throwing out the Constitution, do you think your vehicle for receiving this information would be some obscure website run out of some guy's basement?

No. But it's obvious to me that you do.

This doesn't strike you as something that might be...oh, I don't know...newsworthy?

I think the fact that the presidency is being occupied by a usurper is news worthy. I think the fact that our troops fought and won a war in Iraq is news worthy. I think the fact that the usurper associates with known terrorists is news worthy. I think the fact that a close campaign adviser to the usurper was holding secret meetings with Hamas, a world recognized terrorist group, and reporting back to the usurper is news worthy. I think that the usurper's plan to help Hamas terrorists and their sympathizers emigrate to the US at tax payer expense is newsworthy. I think the fact that Islamic military training camps are operating within this country is newsworthy. I think the fact that our nation will be bankrupt in a few short years is news worthy. But do you see the so-called "main stream" media reporting on any of that?

There's not some news guy somewhere who may think, "Hey, we're just two votes away from completely throwing out the Constitution...I wonder if anyone would think this of interest...?" Of course not in the MSM, I'm sure they're in on it. But maybe somebody? Fox? Reuters? Obscure Sports Quarterly? Is this impending disaster completely unnoticed by the entire news establishment?

You may think you're being clever by posting what you obviously "feeeeel" is a rhetorical question, but humor me while I answer it. The answer to your question is, no. It has not gone unnoticed by the "news establishment." It has simply gone unnoticed by you. Just because you were not aware of it until yesterday, doesn't mean many others who get their information from more than one website aren't aware of it.

You know, your persuasive argument, and those of the American Policy Center, have changed my mine. It is URGENT! If, as the OP stated, I don't call in to the radio debate (on the Superstation WGN) on repealing the Second Amendment and speak my mind, The Republic is doomed. Doomed, I say. Just...doomed.

Here's whats going to doom us, that trillion dollar spending spree your boy is attempting to ram down our throats. When deficits and national debt expands without restraint, and when suddenly fiscal matters are described in terms of trillions rather than billions, you have a trajectory that is unsustainable. Given the Usurper's current spending path, the interest on the national debt by 2019 alone will be $806 billion. That interest figure is more than what will be spent on national defense. Our national debt is on a path to reach $10 trillion, an unsustainable amount. THAT'S what's going to doom us. But hey! You can keep living in your dream world of "hope and change." But just remember this, I'm not the one wearing the tin foil hat.

 

[ScottS]

RANT, RANT, RANT...SCREEED

One simple fact: you claimed we're just "two states away from a Continental Convention." I asked for proof of this assertion. You provided none, save the unsupported ravings from the website of a nut-job who thinks, among other things, that the UN is infiltrating our public schools. (The same UN that couldn't organize a 1-car funeral.) Now, suddenly I'm supposed to go out and disprove your unproven assertion. Yeah, I think we're done here.

P.S. BTW, how did I, the guy with the irreverent ObaMessiah avatar, with the NOBAMA sticker on his truck, suddenly become an Obama-supporter? That would be funny if it weren't so...so...no, I guess it is funny.

Step away from the crack-pipe, and breathe...

 

[MassBites]

One simple fact: you claimed we're just "two states away from a Continental Convention." I asked for proof of this assertion. You provided none, save the unsupported ravings from the website of a nut-job who thinks, among other things, that the UN is infiltrating our public schools. (The same UN that couldn't organize a 1-car funeral.) Now, suddenly I'm supposed to go out and disprove your unproven assertion. Yeah, I think we're done here.

Of course we're done here.

I made a factual statement.

Your adolescent come-back was to post a picture of a tin-foil hat zone, call me a raving, paranoid conspiracy theorist, and then question the validity of my remarks. Which, by the way, is a classic tactic of the left. When incapable of debating the issue, always default to ridicule.

I posted a link to "one" site which provided evidence to support my contention.

You ridiculed the messenger (sans the tin foil hat pic), and questioned the existence of other sites that might also provide the same evidence.

I told you that in fact, there are other sites available, (one of which is a news source that quotes an elected official stating exactly what I stated; that we are 2 states away from a ConCon. But I'm not going to provide that link to you because, well,.. you're lazy, and because you have provided indisputable proof that...."You can't handle the truth!" ).

Without providing any proof to the contrary, you made up your mind that the truth doesn't exist, and anyone who says differently is a "raving" paranoid conspiracy-theorist who believes everything they read on a web-site. Another classic characteristic of a leftist. When reality doesn't fit your world view, then simply alter reality.

You expected me to labor on your behalf and provide you with the names of the 32 states.

I refused to excuse you from your responsibilities and told you to do your own homework.

You still refuse to take personal responsibility for doing the research to find the evidence that you "feeeeel" exists and will prove me wrong. Because you "feeeel" it exists then it exists. That is life in your altered reality. Again, it is another trait of a leftist. They "feeeel", therefore they "think."

And finally, your latest retort was to post this:

Originally Posted by MassBites View Post

RANT, RANT, RANT...SCREEED

Wow! I am in awe of your sterling intellectual capabilities!
Rilly! You're so like totally tubular, man!

Again, the example above is another classic tactic of the left. When backed into a corner by facts, continue to ignore them and certainly don't quote them. To save face, sanctimoniously declare that the debate is over.

P.S. BTW, how did I, the guy with the irreverent ObaMessiah avatar, with the NOBAMA sticker on his truck, suddenly become an Obama-supporter? That would be funny if it weren't so...so...no, I guess it is funny. Step away from the crack-pipe, and breathe...

Nope. I'm not buying it. You are the quintessential leftist so-called debater. Your mind is slammed shut, and no amount of realty and facts, even if served to you via a 2x4 to the forehead is going to breach your thick scull. Debate wise, you are a lightweight. Intellectually, you are completely dishonest.

Good luck in your altered reality. And ah...oh ya! Have a nice day!

 

[ScottS]

Ahh...that's better. Now, what were we talking about?