And those names were only in your FIRST post. And those names don't include your nasty, snarky attacks on other posters on this thread who just want to debate, as I plus all freepers want to do.
So those of us who oppose YOUR way of thinking are all of the above....just ignorant nobodies....including, I presume Phylis Schlafly, one of our most venerable, respected national conservative leaders....and who, by the way was a special guest at the Freeper DC banquet where we honored the House members who successfully managed the Clinton impeachment.
You posted your opinion.....I and others posted ours.....and as a states' constitutional convention movement plays out, our Freepers will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff and make their own minds up.
I encourage everyone to do so...and supplied one starting point for research in my original post located at # 64.
BTW, the conservative Eagle Forum is opposing any proposed "constitutional convention", or "Con-Con" as it's commonly being called.
Forewarned is forearmed when it comes to "adding" to the Founders' Constitution in these days of leftist infiltration and control of virtually everything....and especially when it comes to power grabs by the federal government when golden opportunities are opened to them....like a "Con-Con".
Leni/MinuteGal
I have responded to a number of your specific points, just as an example, your use of the term "Constitutional Convention," refuting it to the best of my ability, yet you persist, with not so much as an attempt at a rational defense of the term. You just ignore the rebuttal and repeat the same thing.
I'm sorry, MinuteGal, but that is not a debate. Frankly, it's not even a conversation. I don't know who you're talking to, because it certainly isn't me, or at least you are not in any way acknowledging my responses to you.
You asked me to leave you alone, and I agreed. Now you come back at me with the same tired screed, acting as if you want once again to engage. In the interest of civility, I'll give it one more try, but on one condition: Let's establish the topic.
I propose that we first discuss the difference between a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) and an Article V convention of states to propose amendments (CoS). That seems like a good place to start, doesn't it? At the very least, we should define the terms we're using, just so that we each know what the other is talking about, and to ensure that we are talking about the same thing.
Who knows... once I understand what you mean when you say "Con-Con" and once you understand what I mean when I say "CoS" we may discover that we agree!
Can we do this?