doublegunshop.com - home Forums Communism and the Internet

I'm agreeing with you on this Ken---Numero 15---with the caveat above. They are all in on it. You dream of utopia, I say to hell with it and dream of a dozen wings-bowed bluebills over my tollers. Maybe we're the same.

I don't dream of Utopia, I dream of Freedom. I suppose it's a kind of Utopia. In reality, I dream mostly about getting laid.

Sheesh, now you're trying to fundamentally change duck hunting. Let the puddle ducks set wings. Bluebills should be screaming by with their tail on fire. Hey good analogy, after the fun part, they're tough to swallow.

I think you're covering at least two of the Skousen points in this post. Next time try to see how many you can in one response.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. 30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

At least you can be honest with us Ken... unlike Comrade Stalin who tells us he'd rather be duck hunting, but spends most of his time advancing Socialist Liberal dogma and supporting the Leftist Democrats who would love to take away all of our guns.

I disagree with Doublefan completely. They are not all the same. That's a cop out and an excuse. No politician is perfect, and it almost always comes down to choosing between the lesser of two evils. One party is taking us toward Socialism and encroaching upon the freedoms we still have at a much faster rate. That is the Democrats. I am registered Independent but I vote with consideration of who is more likely to infringe upon our rights and regulate our freedoms. Almost invariably, the Democrat is the wrong choice. Anyone who votes a straight ticket without thoughtfully considering merits should not even have the right to vote.

If you like your internet, you can keep your internet......
(If you like your freedom, you can keep your freedom)...not

C'mon, Ken. Lowering your tip to test the old guy's reflexes? You're confusing Founding fathers who got their heads in gear with the Constitution 150 years after the Puritan fathers established law in the New England colonies.

My reference to the Constitution was that it is not immutable and inalienable, not what you ascribed to me. Hon. Sandra O'Connor's described it as "putting governance in the hands of the people" and "neither so rigid as to be stifling."

"Not so rigid as to be stifling" doesn't sound immutable---"not subject to variation in different cases"---and inalienable to me. Perhaps you bought the myth of the Founding Fathers as Puritans.

If the Constitution isn't open to interpretation---and it clearly is---why would Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars annually to test their cases in your highest court? Pick it up, please.

This one is so easy you'd have to be beyond stupid to even ask the question.

Cases end up in the Supreme Court simply because lower courts don't always get it right. The only legal interpretation is to determine that rulings abide by the Constitution and original intent. So then, there is an appeals process that ends with a body of what ideally would be the most learned Constitutional judges in the land, the Supreme Court. Their sole purpose is to determine if lower courts erred or if their rulings pass Constitutional muster.

The problem started with the Progressive movement and continues when you get Justices like Sandra O'Conner who think it is their duty to change laws and the Constitution from the Bench. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is an even better example for us here since she hates the Second Amendment and would change or eliminate it in a heartbeat. This is a violation of the Oath they take when sworn in, and it is a perversion... no matter how King Brown sees it.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Justices who tend to stray from the Constitution or the Original Intent of the Framers are Liberal Leftist judges nominated by Liberal Leftist Presidents. Sometimes a Conservative President may make the mistake of nominating a judge who turns out bad. John Paul Stevens is a prime example of this. Earl Warren was another, nominated by Dwight Eisenhower, who later remarked that his appointment was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made."

The Constitution is not immutable. It has been perverted. It is most often perverted by the kind of Left Wing Judges and politicians who King Brown supports. This is why it really makes a difference who we vote for... no matter what King thinks or what kind of dishonest KoolAid he serves.

Go shoot some bluebills King. We've had enough of your bullshit. Telling Ken, "Maybe we're the same" has to be one of the worst insults ever."

The only thing I ever see of what King enters here is when someone else quotes one of his posts. I have him on ignore because I see no point in conversing with someone who doesn't know how to be honest. King is what? 80+ years old? As much as you guys are always telling him to go away, the truth is that you need him here in this forum. Misfits will shrivel on the vine if someone else doesn't come along to replace him prior to his death. King Brown is the reason 80% of the posts in this forum are made, and the reason is that you guys actually enjoy having someone around you can argue with who is always wrong - it's like having a spouse only I haven't figured out which side of the argument represents the wife.

This article will tell you all you need to know about so-called "Net Neutrality". Anyhing funded by the Libtard scumbag George Soros is NOT good for conservatives or for freedom in general and I expect this will be the case as well.
Jim

http://www.newsmax.com/US/George-Soros-F...kt_nbr=uzndcd79