You don't get it. THere is a difference between disagreeing with something in the Constitution and trying to get the Constitution changed (what the left does) - and disagreeing with something in the Constitution and simply disregarding it (what the right does).
So if one discusses the patriot act, that implies that one wants his side to be the sole arbiter of constitutional change?The discussion of the patriot act is entirely germane as it points out that the left wishes to become the sole arbiter of constitutional change and expects those of us with our eyes open to simply sit quietly and respect their "wisdom."
Do you realize how little sense that makes? Do you have trouble understanding what words mean?
Here's an idea. How about we represent the people, instead of the states?The electoral college does a fine job of representing the states for whom the electors are chosen. Is it perfect? No. Is it able to aptly serve the people of this country? You bet it is.
I think only white males older than 25 years old with at least 1 million dollars in property, no arrests or convictions for anything, and who have never paid their taxes late in their life, should be able to vote. Plus they should have to have a minimum IQ of 120, a bachelors degree from an accredited institution, and pay a $1000 poll tax.
When you grow up and learn to read Spidey, you will find, not only that you get hair in funny places, but that you will have a much better understanding of the discussion at hand.
I know exactly how the electoral college works. Each state gets two electors for being a state and gets a number of electors based on their representation in the house.
What you have done here is brought a knife to a rhetorical gunfight and your line of argumentation has been thoroughly ventilated. Come back and play when you finish that reading comprehension course.
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F Buckley, Jr