[SaxxonWoods]

Agree with me or you are a hypocrite!

FU (to the writer).

I’m not convinced, and being called names doesn’t sway me.

[Alas Babylon!]

Practically everyone I know agrees that strictly obeyING the Constitution (what?--run on sentence) and that is why those that oppose the calling forth of an Article V Convention are Constitutional hypocrites.

Keith badly needs an editor.

[Iron Munro]

Practically everyone I know agrees that strictly obey the Constitution and that is why those that oppose the calling forth of Article V Convention are Constitutional hypocrites.

Gibberish sentence of the day.

[Alternate Universe]

First of all, the writer needs to get a proofreader (proofreaders are Constitutional). That first sentence is awful.

That said, agreeing that a Section V convention is allowed under the Constitution is NOT the same thing as believing it is a good idea. That is not hypocrisy, that is a disagreement over the best method to cure the problem.

[Repeal The 17th]

I think I agree with what the author says,
but he is in desperate need of a proofreader.

[dontreadthis]

ok, so we have criticisms regarding grammar and a call for armed revolt

[Pollster1]

I’m sure such a convention would run as honestly as the DNC convention https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs (see 1:23, 1:43, and 2:10). I imagine such a convention would run with the openness of the debates over ObamaCare. I imagine such a convention would run with all the concern for our fundamental human rights that the IRS and NSA show on a daily basis. What could go wrong?

We already have a great Constitution, and the main weakness is that we the people elect sleazy politicians who are too corrupt to follow the Constitution. Why would we risk that for something so unlikely to be better, especially when there is a significant risk that the modification or replacement would be worse?

A better answer (and we do need a solution) is for decent people to get involved in politics and in government. We need to scale back government because excess government action is inherently inefficient and harmful. We need to scale back government because big government inherently reduces freedom. We need to scale back government because the massive spending of big government attracts corrupt and sleazy people who want to enrich themselves by guiding those billions (and now trillions) of our tax dollars into the hands of crony capitalists who repay them with thousands (and now millions) in donations and gifts.

It’s not enough to complain online. We have to get active - in every town hall with or without a prior fuss over any particular issue, in public rallies over specific issues or to support conservative candidates, in writing to our state and federal legislators on a regular basis to urge both specific and general cuts in the size of government and especially to identify potential cuts, in writing to the newspapers and posting online anywhere our words might be read by swing voters (which is probably not here on FR), and in considering how our positions might best be phrased to be convincing (which can most definitely be done here on FR).

[Straight Vermonter]

Let me know when an English version is available.

[nothingnew]

Practically everyone I know agrees that strictly obey the Constitution and that is why those that oppose the calling forth of Article V Convention are Constitutional hypocrites.

What the hell does that mean? I read it 5 times...no sense whatever.

FMCDH(BITS)

[Sherman Logan]

There have already been more than 34 states that have petitioned Congress for an Article V Convention

I would like to see some documentation of this.

[ExGeeEye]

1. I respect, adhere to, and support the provisions of Article V.

2. I consider a 2nd Amendment Reset more desirable than an Article V reset, as the latter could end up abolishing the former.

3. If this be treason hypocrisy, make the most of it.

[Gene Eric]

I can’t get past the first sentence, but I tried a few times.

Broader needs an editor.