Replies

Analogy is useful only when appropriate which yours were not.

If you cannot see that Romney is FAR better than the Communist in terms of morality then you don’t know what the term means. There is NO doubt about this.

I doubt that your understanding of what the Constitution means would be very convincing considering the rest of your overblown rhetoric.

Most of the WoD is waged by states and localities. There is plenty of Constitutional authority for many of the feds actions. But much of your doubt is rooted in your inability to understand what the constitution says and means.

Your actions will assist the Usurper to remain in office. That is beyond a doubt. Joining the Lovers of Losers is a futile and infantile gesture only helping the enemies of America.

Your last remark is typical of those claiming “principled opposition” to supporting a candidate who could be an actual winner. Since practical actions are verboten they always raise the standard and propose things which are not in question such as armed violence. Immature silliness.

Analogy is useful only when appropriate which yours were not.

Mine was perfectly accurate: a choice between Obama and Romney is absolutely a Morton's Fork is concerned so far as NBC eligibility is concerned. It is a Morton's Fork so far as judicial appointments are concerned. (Romney's appointments are not different than Obama's.) Romney even instituted Romneycare, the father of Obamacare! Romney's for "assault waepon" bans. Thus I say Romney is no different than Obama in any field that actually matters.

If you cannot see that Romney is FAR better than the Communist in terms of morality then you don’t know what the term means. There is NO doubt about this.

See the above. Telling someone that eating their parents is morally superior to eating their children is avoiding the true issue that cannibalism is immoral. I doubt that your understanding of what the Constitution means would be very convincing considering the rest of your overblown rhetoric.

Really? I've spent the last three or four years investigating how to challenge contra-constitutional laws [statutes]. And I cannot challenge them aside from taking the weak point of violating such statute (because of 'standing') in order to challenge it.
What the fuck have you done?

Most of the WoD is waged by states and localities.

Irrelevant. If the 14th Amendment has incorperated the bill of rights, then all such locality action is violative of the Constitution; if not, well then, that makes for an interesting ball-game.

There is plenty of Constitutional authority for many of the feds actions.

Nope! Fast and Furious was an active act of war, state sponsored terrorism, and the active conspiracy against rights [fed felony]. The war on drugs is contrary to the Constitution by not being within the enumerated powers; in addition to that there is the precedence of the 18th amendment, meaning that the Constitution had to have an amendment for the federal government to have the authority to regulate a substance [in that case alcohol]. In the Case of the EPA, their rules and fines are contrary the 8th Amendment. The DOE, DOE, NEA [edu], USDA, and DEA are all excessive of the powers granted via Art 1, Sec 8.

But much of your doubt is rooted in your inability to understand what the constitution says and means.

Really? Show me hoe. Also let me appeal to its predecessor:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It seems to me that the federal government is indeed "destructive of these ends."

Your actions will assist the Usurper to remain in office. That is beyond a doubt. Joining the Lovers of Losers is a futile and infantile gesture only helping the enemies of America.

No, it is not my actions that will; but my inaction. To wit, that I am too much a coward to abolish the evils to which I have become accustomed.

Ah, and yet the 'mature' route is to throw in with someone who is exactly the same? Fuck that.
Hell, the only reason I'm not running is that I'm not eligible (too young)... but I think I'd be a far better choice than Romney.

What you fail to hear is what I have said: there is no difference between the two. Before, with McCain v. Obama, the "lesser of two evils" argument might have worked, but this case is different, the only difference is that Romney is a socialist and Obama is a... oh, socialist. It is for this reason that I can easily say that I won't vote for either of them.

Being "electable" doesn't mean that I have to vote for the guy; hell I'd be 'unelectable' because I think the fed-gov is overreaching, that I'd reduce the size thereof, that I hate injustice and would do my ever-loving best to put the terror of God into those officials who are corrupt in our government... hell, that I consider homosexuality to be a "biologically suicidal philosophy which should not be encouraged."