doublegunshop.com - home Forums Thought For The Day........

Comrade Sralin,

On cue, you provide the statist, religious, totalitarian rationalization. All your aforementioned claptrap and mumbo-jumbo is only possible due to the indoctrination of soviet-style statist religious morality into America.

There is no "Debate". It is merely subversion and circumvention. The Constitution can be changed by the amendment process. That is obviously not happening.

Whatever you call it, you've acknowledged honestly that you're pissing against the wind. Liberty to you isn't liberty to all.

Proof please Burger King!. Show us all where Ken has acknowledged that he is pissing against the wind. Were that the case, Ken would not spend so much time and effort educating himself and others about your Soviet style of indoctrination. Educating you is impossible because you are a Leftist Socialist agenda driven fool.

You said it yourself in a most revealing statement... "Manipulation of the electorate remains more important than responsible management of public affairs.

And manipulation is exactly what it is. There was scant conflict for 150 years amongst the Jeffersonian and Hamilton schools of thought until Progressives began using lies and dishonest means to influence the most weak minded of the people into gradually exchanging freedom and liberty for taxpayer funded freebies. It certainly can change in our lifetimes. We saw just such a sea change in the blink of an eye when Carter vacated the premises and Reagan moved in.

Comrade Sralin... Comrade Shit! I chuckle every time I see it.

Preposterous.

In fact, liberty to you is Slavery for most. You have no conception of the terms Freedom and Equality. Your twisted statist religion characterizes Slavery as 'Righteous and Good", as you indoctrinate your sociopathic religious morality. Of course Freedom will win out. It may take economic destruction and conflagration due to a statist, religious "Zombie Apocalypse", but Freedom will win out. Twitter away, little zombie...

You have acknowledged honestly that your notion of liberty can't be implemented:

"There is no "Debate". It is merely subversion and circumvention. The Constitution can be changed by the amendment process. That is obviously not happening."

It is not happening. And why?


"The perils of Democracy are well known. It disintegrates into Mob Rule. That's why America is a Constitutional Republic. Now, since the Constitution is not being adhered to, the degradation, or de-evolution is accelerating."


"True, I relate topics to their philosophical basis. Statist beliefs and dogma that are sociopathically inflicted on others against their will is a main point of mine. This is because that Statist indoctrination is only possible if the person has the faith-based belief that there is no such thing as individual freedom and equality. To have this belief, one must either totally discount or disregard the existence of the American Constitution, which was designed to prevent Religious Statism."

Philosophy deals with ultimate reality, not what you would like it to be, Ken. No one discounts or disregards the constitution's existence. It may not be adhered to your liking because of public and court majorities advancing the liberal and progressive traditions of freedom- and liberty-professing Americans who live by and die for it. There is non other way for constitutionally limited government to prevail. "Preposterous" won't do.

To clear your thinking on constitutional affairs, I recommend The Classical Liberal Constitution, The uncertain quest for limited government, latest book by Richard A. Epstein, the 12th-most cited legal lawyer of the 20th century, one of the most influential legal thinkers of modern times.

That's a bunch of gymnastics to make a case. I can see where you get more mileage by just promising food stamps. Quick question, why are you the guy that gets to decide who prevails and who doesn't.

We know just mentioning a number like say 46, will unprevail a Republican candidate. Where's the rule that requires a way for select government to prevail.

Majorities decide what prevails or doesn't, Craig. True, a number like 47 can evaporate an anticipated majority. The rule to prevail is to promise better than the other guy. Ask Ken.

It's all subjective rationalization for circumvention of the the Constitution. Nothing "Liberal" about it, merely Statist Totalitarianism. The reason it has been successful is that the statists have succeeded in appointing Totalitarians to the Supreme Court, and indoctrinating their sociopathic, statist religion in the Public Schools. Since they've created a situation that cannot be sustained, just like the glorious people's paradise of the Soviet Union, it's only a matter of time. To deny this is to deny Objective Reality.

So Reagan and Bush were statists like most of the Supreme Court justices, without a sense of the freedom and liberty you espouse, eh? Not according to how the judges employed their jurisprudence and consciences when they got there. Please consider their ideological bents and what they did, from Wikipedia:

" . . .by the 1939 term, Roosevelt had moved the Court to a more liberal position by appointing four new justices including strong liberals Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and Frank Murphy. However, led by the increasingly conservative Chief Justices Harlan Stone and Fred Vinson, the Court shifted in a more conservative direction through the early 1950s.

President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to be Chief Justice in 1953, and both graphs indicate that the Court then turned in a more liberal direction as Warren grew substantially more liberal and especially when he was joined by strong liberal justices William Brennan, Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, and Thurgood Marshall (though Justices Black and Felix Frankfurter became more conservative over time).

In the 1970s, the Court shifted in a more conservative direction when President Richard Nixon appointed Chief Justice Warren Burger and strong conservative Justices Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist, and Harry Blackmun, and more so when President Ronald Reagan elevated Rehnquist to Chief Justice (though Blackmun became more liberal over time). The Court shifted to an even more conservative orientation when it was joined by strong conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts (appointed by President George W. Bush), though Justice David Souter became more liberal over time.[24]

Both graphs indicate that the current Roberts Court is quite conservative, with four very strong conservative justices (including Chief Justice Roberts) and the median position held by Justice Anthony Kennedy (appointed by President Ronald Reagan).[14][25]"

A matter of time for what? More conservatives on the Court?

No. Disintegration of the Economy, massive societal disruption, and the attempt to install totalitarian rule. All of which is intended. As I said before, the "Zombie Apocalypse". Your fellow statist, religious, totalitarian zombies.