I have not used that word EVER on this forum, and I will not now or in the future.
Trying to force your version of what the laws “should be,” not what they are,
OK, so in your world, my backing candidates that will enact laws that I agree with and repeal those that I find abhorrent is somehow "force"? Funny, I thought voting for those I agree with and speaking up about those candidates I disagree with to be "representative government" and "freedom of speech". Guess I really is stoopid.
purges, etc., etc., THAT is what I mean by Torquemada tactics.
And I would suppose going to some ones party and whizzing in the punch bowl warrants a kindly offer from the host to poop on the carpet?
I don't think I'll invite you to my upcoming B-day cookout party...
No, it wasn’t you who said the A$$wipe word, it was the owner. So the comment about pooping on the carpet takes an entirely different plane.
I meant those trying to force laws as they “should be” before they’re actually passed. Harrassment in particular of anyone who might be obeying all federal and state laws but not your own personal ethical laws.
If you can convince enough people that your way is better, then great - we do live in a representative democracy, and if the majority elect leaders who change things, then would you want me harrassing those obeying the new laws?
I don’t believe that you can convince the majority that a candidate that is unknown with the exception of a handful of the religious right can win a general election but heck go ahead and try. Don’t try to take down someone who may end up being the party favorite, however, by swatting down anyone who might like him. What’s so bad about your guy that you have to tear mine down to make any headway?