Posted on 06/04/2019 3:40:31 PM PDT by dontreadthis
No, I am saying the Founding Fathers know better than the stooges in the UK and that the U.S. constitution is superior.
So, let’s take it away from you and me and let’s both say yes or no to this, a principle alone:
Is the U.S. constitution superior because of the first and second amendment? Yes, it is.
And where am I advocating for ordering anyone around? I am not. It is you that is using slight of hand here in your post I am responding to to shift to I am supposedly saying that contries should be ordered around. I never said they should be ordered around. You keep using a straw man.
I am simply saying and have said on here what I think should be amd the U.K. shoulsd have a first and second amendment. And the U.S. is superior because it has both.
You don’t want to say that the UK is superior because you know that without the first and second amendment at the very least they aren’t equal to the U.S.
All true Americans and righties will say YES!
Now you are going off the rails! I have no God complex because I am not for ordering people around but you do subscribe to relativism bcause you will not admit that the U.S. is superior because it has a superior document in which is contained the first and second amendment.
It is you that keeps losing your cool in your posts, btw, showing that you know I have hit the nail on the head.
I never called for the U.S. to change other countries. It is you that keeps shifting the argument to where you now say that I advocate the U.S. bullying other countries.
My saying the U.S. is superior because of a superior gov’t because of auperior document having a first and seciond amendment is not the same as me saying the U.S. should bully others around. and I have not sai tjhis nor advocated for it. You are just using slight of hand in saying that I am saying this amd using a straw man.
In fact, it is the UK that has a history of doing this.
No, I did not bring the cumulative IQ down. I exposed that you subscribe to liberal relatvistic thought in that you show you do not think that some govt’s are superior to others and actually have argued against this by your refusal to say the U.S. is superior because of a first and second amendment, so you flail by digging to see how long I have been here, used personal attacks against me, etc.
Your posts show you use liberal tactics and thus are at least quasi-liberal and trying to get rid of me.
Joe DiGenova said on Hannity’s show that Steele is going to be interviewed by Durham, not by Horowitz, and that it will be given overseas.
And you started off with the personal attacks in post #52, not me. I had no desire to dom this nor did so what you did to me.
And you posted stuff that I supposedly advocate that cannot be found in any of my posts like me advocating for these things, like ordering other countries around.
I simply said that the UK should do this or that, never that they should be made or ordered to do those things.
It all comes down to you going all over ghe place when I simply want you to say yes, the U.S. has a superior gov’t and document because it has a first and seciond amendment and you flail, go all over the place, make accusations, and engage in personal attacks because you simply won’t say yes to this.
Nor have you once said the UK should have a first and second amendment but instead twisted it when I said they would first have to have a U.S. constuitution to do this and should, not that they must be ordered to do this.
I haven't said that one nation is better than another, nor have I bothered to say what the UK should have as laws or not; unlike you. And your abject stupidity, abysmal lack of factual history, current events, and understanding of much of anything and EVERYTHING is not just shocking, but abhorrent.
Go learn some correct grammar ( it's you and "I", not "you and "me" ! ), factual history, how to debate, the rules of this site ( we are supposed to discuss the article/header of the threads and to NOT go off on some childish, idiotic theme of our own! ), and try to pay attention and reply to what is replied to you! Better still...go to some other site!
And finally, trying to claim that I am a liberal/use liberal tactics is delusional and just PROJECTION on your par; though truth to tell, you have less than NO idea what a "liberal tactic" is.
You appear to also lack any skill at all vis-a-vis reading comprehension. Pity that and NO, I can't dumb down my replies any further, so that you might be able to understand them.
You can't stick to the topic, are incapable of debate, and obviously can't take the heat that goes on here, so just go tell your mommy, and then sit in a corner with your blanky and suck your thumb.
miss marmelstein whistled for her little pet attack dog to join the discussion back in comment #18 after I made a harmless comment about President Trump having a chat with the Queen. nopardons was quick to trot over, start yapping & snapping at people’s ankles and generally just being an asshole. Pay no attention to him...he’s obviously an unhappy person. Such is life.
And so in sad retaliation, you had to drag in several of YOUR pals.
I only asked no pardons to comment because, as always, she knows more about these royal matters than anyone else on board not because of some kind of sad retaliation you indulge in.
I noticed the same thing.
I have no more use now to talk to him.
It is historical fact the Windsors are actuallty a Germanic family, and had a Germnan coat of arms and name until they did a name change to cover it up.
And the Quueen can get a bill passed if she wishes and did so in Australia through indirect means by having a lackey of hers she appointed fire someone and then replace him with someone else who did what she wanted.
“...you had to drag in several of YOUR pals.”
You’re delusional. Please point out ANY comment I made in this thread that CC’d a “pal” in an effort to “drag” them into the conversation...the way you did in comment #18 with your invite to nopardons. You’ll find zilch. However, if you’re using nopardons as a reference tool/weapon, you might want to reconsider. She’s not a nice person.
Oh and also...please show me the other 999 times you’ve corrected me on the Queens role in English government. I, of course, am referring to your comment in #18.
“For the thousand time - the Queen does not make policy or enforce laws or get Brits to testify in America.”
I think I missed those admonishments.
Ok, you dragged ONE person over. Why, I have no idea.
The thousand remark was a general remark about freepers lack of knowledge about English history and the limited role of the Queen.
No Pardons is an old friend who has been here since the beginning. She knows a lot about English history and royalty. It gets very boring telling freepers over and over again that the Queen has a limited role in government and does not command armies or navies like Henry 8 or Elizabeth I.
“Ok, you dragged ONE person over. Why, I have no idea.”
I dragged NO person over. Period. Show me the comment where that occurred.
With a degree in History and a minor in International Studies, I have a pretty fair idea about the structure of English government and the Queen’s role. However, I am always willing to learn...unless the teacher is a bitch.
You were obviously not taught very well if you think the Queen makes policy or is busily firing folks in Australia as the Washington Post recently posited. The reporter who printed that is being taken to task by Australians in the comments section.
And no reason to start using nasty words.
You are very confused. I...
Never said the Queen makes policy.
Never mentioned Australia.
Never referenced a WaPo article.
PLUS, you still haven’t shown where I brought “pals” into the conversation.
As for “...no reason to start using nasty words.”...
Please share that discussion with your pet rat terrier “nopardons”.
Have a good day.
I don’t know why you think I control anyone here - much less No Pardons. She speaks for herself. You posted to me as well as to another person - the very person who is stupidly going on about the Queen somehow firing someone in Australia. Now can we end this futile conversation?
“Now can we end this futile conversation?”
Yes...much rather discuss Taormina.
When it comes right down to it the only part of the report that were clearly original were the parts about Cohen and Page. I suspect that the FBI gave him those names and asked him if his sources could confirm that they did what the FBI suspected.
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.