[templar]

tpaine, I've pretty much come to consider you a lunatic fringe type. You either have not read the constitution or you don't even begin to understand what you read. And you never answer any question about where something is in the constitution unless it suits your (anti-constitutional) Purposes, because much of what you claim is constitutional is not, and the constitution addresses very specific issues that you seem to ignore in favor of your own (unconstitutionjal) assertions. IN short, you seem to equate anarchy with constitutional government. It is not. Constitutional government is quite the opposite of anarchy.

[inquest]

Take a look at what judges are doing to the Constitution today and tell me that's not anarchy.

[tpaine]

templar wrote: tpaine, I've pretty much come to consider you a lunatic fringe type. You either have not read the constitution or you don't even begin to understand what you read. And you never answer any question about where something is in the constitution unless it suits your (anti-constitutional) Purposes, because much of what you claim is constitutional is not, and the constitution addresses very specific issues that you seem to ignore in favor of your own (unconstitutionjal) assertions. IN short, you seem to equate anarchy with constitutional government. It is not. Constitutional government is quite the opposite of anarchy.


______________________________________


Typical.. - You can't answer my comments here: --

Replies
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1079289/replies?comment=128

-- So you call me nasty names and make declarations of your own constitutional correctness.

Take it to the backroom, and I'll answer your slurs. Otherwise, you can shove it.