Do you support candidate who wants Constitution superseded by religion of Liberalism?

[Little-Acorn]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

[Gunny]

Several people have complained about those who try to use government to implement their own religion as law, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

How about people who believe that the religion of Modern Liberalism should supersede the Constitution? They support taxation to transfer funds directly to various special interest groups (forbidden by the Const), and govt getting involved in workplace conditions, land zoning, local environmental conditions, medical insurance, retirement funding, unemployment compensation in various forms, and even the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can buy - all functions forbidden to the Fed govt by the Constitution, and reserved instead to the States and the People.

Modern liberalism is a religion, of course: There is no proof that it works (and plenty of evidence to show it doesn't), it is perceived as different things by different people in different places, it requires absolute faith and devotion to its ideals without question, and seeks to destroy anyone who doesn't unquestioningly obey and proselytize it requirements. Its devotees dare not mention its name, and regularly castigate anyone who applied ANY spoken name to it ("We're NOT socialists! We're NOT communists! Don't you DARE call us that! We're NOT....", etc.). And they can tolerate no other religion except Modern Liberalism. They regard anyone who disagrees, as not only wrong but evil.

Does your view that "there is no religion that supersedes the Constitution", include the religion of Modern Liberalism? What do you propose we should to with the people already in office, who are clearly fanatical devotees to that religion and regularly violate the Constitution to make laws implementing their religion in its place?

What do you want to do with the GOP devotees to an outmoded brand of governing? I agree on your points about the "religion of the left". Don't you think we might want to clean our OWN house before we start stepping outside and looking around? Think about it. You always have these cerebral threads.

The right is living on people like me. We don't have to work, he'll vote against the left. Haven't figured out last 2 elections that trick hasn't worked. People have stayed home. Getting a new plan seems to be the one thing that hasn't crossed the GOPs' minds. We have hold-overs from the 90's who haven't done crap. We had Congress when Bush was elected and no one did shit.

I'm ALL for blaming the left, but let's put blame where it's due. If the GOP had done HALF what it's promised, there would be no left.

[Perianne]

I like Little-Acorn's posts.

[Gunny]

I like Little-Acorn's posts.

I kinda do. Usually informative and intelligent. But as previously reported, I have the attention span of a moth anymore when it comes to reading. I find that weird when I can sit an wire an electrical panel for hours.

I've known Little Acorn for like forever, I think. If I was going to have a problem it's that he posts someone else's material and until recently, rarely ever showed back up to defend it. I have recently been pleasantly surprised that he's shown back up here to defend his posts. I wish he'd do it more often. He's usually got something to say but you can't learn from someone who ain't talking.

[gabosaurus]

I am more concerned about extreme right-wing conservatives attempting to usurp the Constitution with their own ideology.

[Gunny]

I am more concerned about extreme right-wing conservatives attempting to usurp the Constitution with their own ideology.

Who would THAT be? The extreme right conservatives you speak of are a small minority. Most of the people I see calling themselves "conservative" now would have made good Democrats in the 60s-70s.

[Little-Acorn]

I agree on your points about the "religion of the left".

I didn't call it that. It's the religion of modern liberalism. I made no distinction to which party has adherents, because clearly they both do.

Should we allow these people to impose their religion on the country by making laws, in clear defiance of the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

[aboutime]

I am more concerned about extreme right-wing conservatives attempting to usurp the Constitution with their own ideology.


Really Gabby? If what you said above is true. You don't nearly have as much to worry about with conservatives, since liberals like Obama and Hillary ARE ALREADY USURPING the Constitution every day.

Think about it. Then go back to school.

[Elessar]

I am more concerned about extreme right-wing conservatives attempting to usurp the Constitution with their own ideology.


You prefer the Ultra -Left that will trash the original concept that "Majority Rules"..

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I am more concerned about extreme right-wing conservatives attempting to usurp the Constitution with their own ideology.
Those you call-"extreme right-wing" are usually patriots that would die to defend the constitution.
That mislabeling thing comes straight from the damn dem playbook.--Tyr

[fj1200]

I didn't call it that. It's the religion of modern liberalism. I made no distinction to which party has adherents, because clearly they both do.

Should we allow these people to impose their religion on the country by making laws, in clear defiance of the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

To which laws would you be referring?


You prefer the Ultra -Left that will trash the original concept that "Majority Rules"..

:confused: We are not a "majority rules" country.

[Gunny]

I didn't call it that. It's the religion of modern liberalism. I made no distinction to which party has adherents, because clearly they both do.

Should we allow these people to impose their religion on the country by making laws, in clear defiance of the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

But I'm an old-school liberal and resent the Hell out of the term being misused. If you're going to caveat with modern, I'll let you slide. :) In case you don't read much, I'm against ANYONE doing something unconstitutional. The can call themselves Martians, be green and bounce on their heads for all I care.

I rarely disagree with your posts. Just wish you'd speak for yourself instead of cut n pasting all the time.

[gabosaurus]

I didn't call it that. It's the religion of modern liberalism. I made no distinction to which party has adherents, because clearly they both do.

Should we allow these people to impose their religion on the country by making laws, in clear defiance of the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

What about all the Republicans that are trying to impose THEIR religion on the country? In clear defiance of the many Americans of faiths that are not Christian. Or have no religion at all.
Kim Davis comes to mind. She has a right to her religious beliefs. But needs to keep them out of her job. As does everyone.

[Gunny]

What about all the Republicans that are trying to impose THEIR religion on the country? In clear defiance of the many Americans of faiths that are not Christian. Or have no religion at all.
Kim Davis comes to mind. She has a right to her religious beliefs. But needs to keep them out of her job. As does everyone.

WHO is trying to impose a religion? That's a left-wing fairey tale.

Same as the BS left wing crap that our laws are not based on Judeo Christianity when any blind person with half a brain can see they are.

When you lefties get a REAL argument based on fact, you be sure and bring it on around. I'm easily amused.