[Hugh the Scot]

You began your interaction with me in this discussion with an attempt at “shitting up”.

It’s only fitting that you close out the same way.

[nathanbedford]

I gather you are accusing me of some sort of improper conduct. Let me tell you that we have been rehearsing the same vapid arguments against Article V for many years. The arguments are always the same. Here is a reply I wrote on September 22, 2014:

So far it seems to me that opposition to Article V boils down to about four objections:

1. It won't work -so don't bother trying.

2. It won't work, even if it does work, because "they" will undo it, ignore it, or somehow overrule it, so don't bother trying.

3. It will work, but don't try it because it will work only for the other side.

4. No opinion on whether it will work or will not work, but the Constitution we have is just fine so the solution offered by the Constitution itself in Article V should be ignored in favor of redoubling our efforts and doing more of the same every election cycle because this time we will get different results.

Which category are you in?

To answer my own question, you are obviously in category number two and in category number four.

Good luck changing human nature. You've had your way now for many years, at some point in time one ought to ponder the definition of insanity, or we can keep on keeping on.