[Godebert]

"I am not calling all conservatives fascists. I am calling those who seem to think any President can do everything a tiny fraction of never-satisfied ideologues desire, regardless of what harm it brings to the nation as a whole, fascists. "

How does protecting and defending the Constitution bring harm to the nation? Do you think CFR and the so called "Assault Weapon" ban is Constitutional? Perhaps you think our Constitution is "Fascist"? You're not as "reformed" a liberal as you think you are. To call you a "moderate" would be generous.

[Common Tator]

How does protecting and defending the Constitution bring harm to the nation? Do you think CFR and the so called "Assault Weapon" ban is Constitutional? Perhaps you think our Constitution is "Fascist"? You're not as "reformed" a liberal as you think you are.

How ignorant do you have to be to not know the constitution is what ever 5 of the 9 judges say is is ... today. Do you really think the constitution says slavery is legal? Do you really think the constitution says blacks are not human beings? Do you think the constitution says blacks are property like dogs or cows, and can never be citizens?

That is exactly what the Supreme court said in the Dred Scott Decision way back in 1857. Only a complete idiot could read the constitution and then examine the supreme court decisions of the last 200 years, and not know that the constitution and used toilet paper are the same thing... Both are worthless sh*t on paper.

What is constitutional, is what ever the Supreme court says is constitutional. They can and often do change their minds a few years later. They don't care what the words in the constitution mean. Those words mean what ever the justices want them to mean.... no more no less. What you and ohters who are not Supreme court Justices think they mean is of no consequence. That has been going on for 200 years. Read the 200 year old Marbury Vs. Madison decision. Madison wrote the constitution and the in 1804 they court ruled in that case that the author of the constitution did not know what the words in the constituion meant. They supreme court in 1804 ruled the court and not the author had the right to say what the author of the constitution meant by his words. Does that give you a clue? I didn't think so.

It does not matter if the next person put to death for murder is innocent or not. It only matters that the courts ordered that person put to death for murder. Life or death is determined by courts not the words in the law.

You read the words in the constitution and think you know what they mean. You are silly enough to think the words mean what the dictionary says the mean. Madison the author of the constitution thought he knew what he had written, but the justices said he was mistaken.

How many enforced supreme court decisions will it take until fools figure out that

it is of no importance what the words in the constitution say or mean to anyone. It only matters who gets to be the justices.

[reformedliberal]

No, I don't think defending the Constitution brings harm, per se. I do think that the paleo faction (don't know what else to call y'all) puts all its bets on that one line, is on a hair trigger and will go to the wall over one deviation, real or imagined. It is the hair-trigger part that alarms me.

I deplore the CFR and I was shocked that the SCOTUS upheld that 60-day ban.

The *assault weapon* issue is one where I can see both sides. I believe the 2nd Amendment allows individuals to be armed. As a 61-year-old female, I am not convinced that I need more than a semi and I am a bit worried about what is in the hands of the gangs, but I don't think a law will stop them, either. I see the *camel's nose* argument, as well. It wouldn't be a make it or break it issue for me, though.

The Constitution is not fascist. That is hyperbole. What is fascist is demanding that all Americans, who all have the right to speech and an opinion and, if adults who are not felons, also have a vote, all concur in every interpretation.

What I find fascist is the *my way or die* tone I hear in the posts of the paleos.

As long as this faction demands the same degree of agreement on constitutional purity from everyone and dismisses any different interpretation (even strict constructionists disagree at times)as not *conservative* enough to be included, they lose any ability to be a national party.

Moderates exist all along the spectrum and is not the same as leftist. I am very aware that many paleos believe any moderate is a RINO, but that is far from being a socialist. Neither does moderate mean wishy-washy, indecisive, lukewarm or marginal.I see nothing evil is moderation. Those that do are not going to be part of any national party.

Politics is compromise. It is making deals. It is war by other means. It either accommodates a spread of views or it becomes totalitarian. I loathe totalitarians. I have no wish for Civil War II.

Call me whatever names you wish. The left purges everyone who doesn't follow the party line and disparages those who disagree w/labels like Trotskyite/Leninist/Maoist/bourgeois/deviationist.

I see the same tendency on the far right w/RINO/lib/socialist/moderate as the disparaging labels.
I see little difference between the tactics of the fringe of either side.

I know it is anathema to the far right and the far left, but most of us fall somewhere in the center on many issues. It is that center, the moderates or , as I prefer, the pragmatists, who decide elections.

Frankly, I have no desire to control anyone else and that tendency is what I dislike intensely about both the far left and the far right.
I grant you the right to your POV. But I do not want your POV controlling the entire country because it is inflexible and exclusionary. Both traits are, IMO, the antithesis of what it means to be an American.