Layla 27 wrote:Who is buffy? and I am really enjoying how we have reduced Chosens overly intelllectual crap into another meat run. Otherwise it would be annoying.

Yes, there is "CHOSEN's" overly intellectual extreme and then there is the other extreme.  Pointing it out is somewhat anti-climactic though given your exemplary demonstrations posted earlier.

I thought my arguments against CHOSEN were actuallly good. I guess thjey were just too "low" for you to comprehend.

Layla 27 wrote:I thought my arguments against CHOSEN were actuallly good. I guess thjey were just too "low" for you to comprehend.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my point so effectively.

paleocon wrote:

Layla 27 wrote:I thought my arguments against CHOSEN were actuallly good. I guess thjey were just too "low" for you to comprehend.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my point so effectively.

I dont understand. This must be some kind of Harvard language trick.

Layla 27 wrote:

paleocon wrote:

Layla 27 wrote:I thought my arguments against CHOSEN were actuallly good. I guess thjey were just too "low" for you to comprehend.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my point so effectively.

I dont understand. This must be some kind of Harvard language trick.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate my point so effectively.  If I have to be up working this late I might as well have some fun too.

Now, wait A minute, I did bring up the fact that his arrogant "revolution " ideas were pointless. I dont see how that could be wrong. You should have more respect for our CONSTITUTION.

We should SOLVE these problems PEACEFULLY, and not through MARXIST-STYLE REVOLUTIONS.

RESPECTING our CONSTITUTION is the BASE for CONSERVATISM. But I guess our CONSTITUTION is too "low" for you and the CHOSEN ONE .

I remember a time when CONSERVATIVES respected the constitution. But I guess those days are over, and now you ignore it. WHAT A DISGRACE.

Layla 27 wrote:Now, wait A minute, I did bring up the fact that his arrogant "revolution " ideas were pointless. I dont see how that could be wrong. You should have more respect for our CONSTITUTION.

We should SOLVE these problems PEACEFULLY, and not through MARXIST-STYLE REVOLUTIONS.

RESPECTING our CONSTITUTION is the BASE for CONSERVATISM. But I guess our CONSTITUTION is too "low" for you and the CHOSEN ONE .

I remember a time when CONSERVATIVES respected the constitution. But I guess those days are over, and now you ignore it. WHAT A DISGRACE.

Once again, you pull conclusions out of nowhere.  Do you understand the meaning of non sequitur?  Do you understand that both you and “CHOSEN” can be completely wrong and it has nothing to do with anyone else’s understanding of our constitution?  Your logic and comprehension is disgraceful.  Of that there can be no doubt.

paleocon wrote:

Layla 27 wrote:Now, wait A minute, I did bring up the fact that his arrogant "revolution " ideas were pointless. I dont see how that could be wrong. You should have more respect for our CONSTITUTION.

We should SOLVE these problems PEACEFULLY, and not through MARXIST-STYLE REVOLUTIONS.

RESPECTING our CONSTITUTION is the BASE for CONSERVATISM. But I guess our CONSTITUTION is too "low" for you and the CHOSEN ONE .

I remember a time when CONSERVATIVES respected the constitution. But I guess those days are over, and now you ignore it. WHAT A DISGRACE.

Once again, you pull conclusions out of nowhere.  Do you understand the meaning of non sequitur?  Do you understand that both you and “CHOSEN” can be completely wrong and it has nothing to do with anyone else’s understanding of our constitution?  Your logic and comprehension is disgraceful.  Of that there can be no doubt.

CHOSEN was advocating a REVOLUTION and IMPLIED that HE SHOULD LEAD IT. REVOLUTION means overthrowig OUR CONSTITUTION. It is simple. If  you support CHOSEN, you hate our constitution. If you SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTION, you DISAGREE with CHOSEN.

And conservatism is all about BACKING OUR CONSTITUTION. That is the VERY DEFINITION of CONSERVATISM.

Layla 27 wrote:
CHOSEN was advocating a REVOLUTION and IMPLIED that HE SHOULD LEAD IT. REVOLUTION means overthrowig OUR CONSTITUTION. It is simple. If  you support CHOSEN, you hate our constitution. If you SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTION, you DISAGREE with CHOSEN.

You keep missing the point.  I can disagree with “CHOSEN” and I can disagree with you.  It is not an either/or proposition.  You continue to establish a false dichotomy.  And I grow weary of demonstrating how wrong you are to do so.  I wrote a post commenting on how poorly written “CHOSEN's essay" was.  You lacked the fundamental comprehension to discern that a relatively simple post was aimed at him rather than you.  I noted that “CHOSEN's essay” was tripe.  And I noted that your logic and comprehension are virtually non-existent.  I can disagree with both of you.  The problem is you don't seem to know who is disagreeing with whom.  And it doesn’t seem to bother you.

paleocon wrote:

Layla 27 wrote:
CHOSEN was advocating a REVOLUTION and IMPLIED that HE SHOULD LEAD IT. REVOLUTION means overthrowig OUR CONSTITUTION. It is simple. If  you support CHOSEN, you hate our constitution. If you SUPPORT OUR CONSTITUTION, you DISAGREE with CHOSEN.

You keep missing the point.  I can disagree with “CHOSEN” and I can disagree with you.  It is not an either/or proposition.  You continue to establish a false dichotomy.  And I grow weary of demonstrating how wrong you are to do so.  I wrote a post commenting on how poorly written “CHOSEN's essay" was.  You lacked the fundamental comprehension to discern that a relatively simple post was aimed at him rather than you.  I noted that “CHOSEN's essay” was tripe.  And I noted that your logic and comprehension are virtually non-existent.  I can disagree with both of you.  The problem is you don't seem to know who is disagreeing with whom.  And it doesn’t seem to bother you.

You cant. If you are BACKING A REVOLUTION, then YOU HATE OUR CONSTITUTION. If NOT, then you are not. What exactly is your position? You suppport our constitution 50%?

You are starting to sound like CAPTAIN JOHN MCCAMNESTY: Im a conservative, i just disagree with everything they say!

I remember, so long ago, when conservative wouldnt have tolerated this nonsense, but I guess those days are gone. I guess our constitution is gone.

I guess America is just gone away. I guess EVEN CONSERVATIVES HATE OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DOCUMENTS. What an awful shame.