Posted on 06/12/2014 5:10:40 AM PDT by Jacquerie
State Sen. Jim Arnold, D-LaPorte, will join some 105 delegates from 33 states at the Indiana Statehouse on Thursday and Friday for the second meeting of the Convention of the States planning group dubbed The Mount Vernon Assembly.
Arnold did not attend the group's first session in December at George Washington's Virginia estate, but said he jumped at the chance to participate this time when Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, an organizer of the planning group, asked Arnold to join him and state Rep. Ben Smaltz, R-Auburn, as Indiana's delegation.
However, because an Article V convention never has been called, there are no clear procedures on how it would begin, what rules the convention would follow or whether it could be limited in scope.
Long said The Mount Vernon Assembly is focused on putting a parliamentary structure in place for a Convention of the States, "so that we can have consensus on how this thing is going to be run" prior to Congress authorizing the convention.
"Without this structure, it won't work," Long said.
Arnold said many Hoosier legislators and lawmakers in other states agree that something must be done to bring the federal government under control, and a Convention of the States just might be it.
"There's a lot of unhappiness out there, on both sides, about out-of-control spending in Washington, mandates Washington makes on states, bureaucracy and so forth," Arnold said. "I hope that this striving to have a convention is where some of these things will be answered."
(Excerpt) Read more at nwitimes.com ...
No problem. You don't understand basic human nature. And your points (while true) are totally beside the point in this discussion.
Just taking the cue from you, the Master of Making Crap Up.
So stop trying to get pedophiles to babysit children. I don't care for your affinity for perverts.
You took lessons from the leftists, eh? You’re inventing things no one ever said here, and trying to personalize the argument. Nah, you’re not getting away with that. Everyone can see what you’re doing. Rules for Radicals, indeed. You’re following the Alinsky playbook pretty closely.
Not to mention he advocates for pedophiles and wants them to babysit children. WHY WOULD HE WRITE THAT????
Honestly, are you that self-unaware that you don’t see how nonsensical you come across in this discussion?
Ex-ZACT-ly what YOU did.
I will give you a cashiers check for 100 dollars, and another 100 dollar donation Free Republic if, on this thread, you can find me using the phrase 'shooting war' (besides in a quote from you, or on this post).
But you insist I said it.
So, you get the same treatment, you heinous pedophile-lover. STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT LEGAL FOR THEM TO BABYSIT CHILDREN!
Pretty much as nonsensical as you, claiming I wrote something I didn't.
Don't like heat, get out of Arizona.
LMAO.
As for your incredibly offensive pedophilia charge, you are only making yourself look like a fool by making it.
Whatever happened to "You're ugly, and your mother dresses you funny"?
Not necessarily. Maybe he just plans to sit back and watch our once-great nation circle the bowl.
That is, of course, a possibility. He may just be one of those chronic complainers who can’t ever be bothered to actually try to make things better.
LOL. Fool. By the very same criteria, you also like pedophiles and want them to babysit children. After all, you never ONCE denied it. At least I denied your false charge, here.
You, on the other hand, have never ONCE denied you like pedophiles and want them to babysit children. Silence signifies consent. Get it now?
Mostly, I plan to fight against those who advocate for pedophilia.
You really don’t get logic at all, do you? You never asked a question for me to respond to, you just invented slanderous allegations. You really are a silly man.
Not offensive enough. When I'm giving someone the exact same treatment they give me, the underlying charge has gotta be much more offensive than that.
Which you never denied, and according to you, silence equals consent.
I found your 'shooting war' question silly, and skipped it. When you repeated it, I then denied it. When you persisted and planted words in my mouth, I hit you with an equally baseless allegation.
Get over yourself, sparky. You ain't all that.
It’s clear that you have no rational argument against an Article V convention, which was the original point of this discussion (although I did let you sidetrack it with your intentionally-offensive slanders). If you want to try to justify your frankly unjustifiable position vis-a-vis the convention, please do so. Otherwise, there’s no point in playing to your Alinskyite tactics of attempted personal destruction.
Oh son, you’re not half as smart as you imagine yourself to be either.
LOL :) I definitely have YOU beat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.