Im quite proud to be at the top of muslim extremists list for elimination. I suspect you won’t be, since you, like them, hate ‘socialism’.

Thomas is unworthy of your courtesy.

As Saul Alinsky once said, you can always tell a liberal — he’s the first one to leave when a fight breaks out. You won’t be missed, Thomas. Your pathetic name-calling and disparaging people who disagree with you severely diminishes the value of anything you have to say.

“Assault weapons” are already banned, Thomas, and they have been for a long time, in every jurisdiction in this country.

You really are disgusting and demented. Do you know a thing about the Tea Party? Have you even seen one of their rallies? They are entirely devoted to defeating creeping socialism via the ballot box, and they have been remarkably successful. Not a single Tea Party organizer or member has been arrested for any crime associated with the movement or its rallies. When the Tea Party meets in public, afterward there is no litter, no destroyed property, and no violence committed against anyone.

Interesting that among so-called nutters (more evidence of your pathetic nature) you failed to mention the Occupy movement, whose members have indeed committed violence against police and against the women in their midst. They’ve also destroyed property and defaced public memorials, and everywhere they’ve gone they’ve left huge messes in their wake that must be cleaned up by taxpayers.

The ironic thing about you, Thomas, is that if Islamists actually took control of this country — and there’s plenty of evidence they’re infiltrating the government — people of your ilk would be at the top of their list for elimination. You should hope with all your heart that the nutters can fend off these acts of war against us. They’re your protection.

I will miss Thomas and hope that he will reconsider his decision. He made some good points and observations, the strongest of which was that I really am not the best speller.

Best regards Thomas.

“No disrespect intended.”

That is a false statement, as in this very same paragraph you use the sexual term “tea baggers” to refer to the tea party movement. Nor has this been the first time you have done this. By doing so, you reveal yourself to either be intentionally rude and disrespectful to those you disagree with, or incredibly ignorant.

If you want to continue to post here, I insist that you stop with this kind of name calling. You might not like the tea party movement, but calling it dirty names is hardly a decent way for a civilized person to debate the issues.

Thanks, but no. Nothing more to add. Have a nice night.

No problem.

Thomas a heads up, I have omitted the D after the AN between the words WRITTEN and THINK in the last sentence of my previous post. I hope it does not cause problems for you, it should read AND.

I again apologize.

I apologize for any misspelled words and if those mistakes have caused you to be unable to compensate for them and understand what I have written.

Like I said, Thomas is having a bad day.

All I am interested in Thomas is what is your understanding of the purpose of the Constitution and the second amendment and how they relate. Your lack of substantive answers to the questions tells the tail and in my opinion it indicates that you should be doing more asking of questions rather than the making of statements on those subjects and the related subjects of how Islam and sharia law relate to those subjects.

(you will have to reread that)

Ok, JGL, whatever. Maybe if I get drunk, and read your post slowly,underwater, upside down , and in a mirror, your gibberish will begin to make sense. But I doubt it.

Obfuscation. JGL, learn English, stop embarrassing yourself.

He is on subject, his subject is obfiscation, name calling and attempting to define the conversation to serve his purpose which is obfiscation.

Your president does it every day.

I wrote this very slowly so you will be able to better understand and, you should read it that way.

And, I do not write gibberish, it may be difficult to understand but that only means that you need to reread what I have written an think objectively about it.

After these two giant insights, JGL offers up this prophecy:
3.The Constitution will be attacked and will continue into the future, made stronger each time it is tested (hopefully).

What a giant of an intellect.

*equating the two

‘Americans should be able to answer these question intuitively, that comes after there has been objective thought, thats not equating the thought.’
Actually, that is equating the thought. Not only do you have no grasp of English, but you have no grasp of logical thinking, or even common sense.
The real ‘miracle’ will happen, when you begin to comprehend what gibberish it is you write.

Its all related, let it flow. Thomas is about to have a bad day.

So what you are establishing without question is that you really don’t know much about where the Constitution comes from and what its designed purpose is (by the way, that really disqualifies you from discussing the subject of Islam, Sharia law and how it relates to America and the Constitution, you should be doing more listening instead of making statements). Its a common condition, most of your coments on the subject are based in emotion and what you feel the answer should be. Unfortunately for you the Constitution and law is based in objectivity and not subjective emotion.

And you are misrepresenting what I have written, when I said that Americans should be able to answer these question intuitively, that comes after there has been objective thought, I have not equated the two. You see what you need to see in order to validate your opinion. Very weak, speak to the subject, test what it is that you think you know.

Another dishonest representation of fact, trying to label and define instead of testing what it is that you “know” in a specific conversation on a specific subject. When you are tested your reality model fails because it is based on emotion and name calling. This is the progressive mind.

And somehow I am still optimistic, the country will continue, the Constitution will be attacked and will continue into the future, made stronger each time it is tested (hopefully). This is a testament to the founders genius, it really is a miracle of the human mind. You might do yourself and the people who surround you some good and attempt to adjust your perspective.

The second amendment issue was raised by JGL, not by me, so accusing me of trying to ‘distract’ from the issue is ridiculous. Robert, in his post, asked a question, and I answered it , directly. Try paying attention.

‘…Americans must be able to intuitvely answer these kinds of questions.’
‘Politicians LOVE people like you, intelligent, educated, well read and tend to be more to the emotional end of the spectrum but not so steeped in objective, critical thought as it relates to this subject.’

Im also a bit annoyed that you say that people must be able to ‘intuitively’ answer the question, then go on to criticize people for not being ‘objective’.
You don’t seem to realize that intuition and objective are completely contradictory terms:

intuition- a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning
objective- not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

A person with such a poor grasp of English is not in much of a position to criticize anyones ‘level of understanding’.

…Again, no disrespect intended.

JGL- Im not going to pretend to a scholarly or lawyerly level of sophistication on Constitutional Law. I know President Obama taught Constitutional law, and most conservative don’t have much regard for his interpretations, either. And I doubt most tea baggers have much sophistication about it either, and I would hazard the guess that your own knowledge is that of the passionate amateur, rather then one who has taken professional level courses in it. No disrespect intended, of course.

If you have a real point to make, Im all ears.