[Dane]

I don't know why any of us even bother to entertain the thought that you're capable of honest, logical debate. I certainly won't make the mistake of thinking it anymore

I agree, especially when debating with those that think a Hillary Presidency is a certainty in the future.

If you were honest about your soothsaying, you would actually might suggest a stock tip to prove your psychic accuracy, IMHO.

[truenospinzone]

Great, then, one more direct question:

When did I say or even imply that "a Hillary presidency is a certainty in the future"? For that matter, when, prior to this post, did I even mention the word "Hillary"?

Show me where I made that statement, or admit that you're making up the opposing viewpoint so that you don't have to enter into an honest debate.

[jmc813]

Dane, more terrorism in the future is not a certainty. Why the need for the Patriot Act?

[Abundy]

I agree, especially when debating with those that think a Hillary Presidency is a certainty in the future.

No one is saying it is a certainty except you when you intentionally mis-represent the statements of indivdiuals trying to educate you.

The point of every post to you is that the Constitution, and the limitations it places on government, was/were created for the eventuality of the type of corrupt, socialist, power-mad administration that would come with a Hillaryesque president. The Founders believed they could predict the future - in that power corrupts.

No one is saying they know who will be president in the future - what they are saying is that our theory of government is premised upon giving as little power as possible to the government because YOU CAN NEVER BE SURE WHO WILL GET TO EXERCISE THAT POWER.

Have you got it through your thick skull yet, or are you just plain incapable of learning?