Why Do Christians Hate the U.S. Constitution

Is this in print-form or is this your opinion? You say he's mentioned 'it' somewhere, but I believe you are just bs'ing and can't provide an actual reliable source. IMO, right-wing opinions on web-sites are NOT reliable sources for accurate information, but if that's all you can find I'd still like to see it.

 

Justify it all you want, but nothing you can say will change the fact that the majority of your efforts are of the insulting variety. If you can point at any threads in which I have ever resorted solely to personal attacks, I will apologize heartily. I seriously doubt you will find one. I want to add that I am not a self-appointed anything. Rather, there are just times I get sick of the sniping and have to speak up. If you don't like it, I'm sorry--but I have as much of a right to post my opinion as you have to post yours. (By the way, "giving some back" is never mature. Grow up.)

 

I read HM's post & your reply...I'll have to say your promise to do better didn't last very long.
Rather than trust anything I say or post simply google "obama quotes on the constitution" and you'll find more links than you'll care to read regarding BO's attitude toward the US Constitution.

Now that I've answered your question (or responded to your attack), will you answer the one I asked?

 

HM, haven't you figured out that the insults & childish behavior is what this forum is all about? When I joined (a long time ago) I was much like you...looking for a site to discuss & debate respectfully...but I found rather quickly that this is not the place. In my opinion, it starts at the top and this forum is a direct reflection on the guys in charge.
You may wonder why I keep coming back. Simple. I see this place for what it is & I find humor in some of the posts.

 

I have a question about this response, but first I have a few things to say:

Eloquent in it's simplicity, the word invokes both positive and negative connotations. For example: The word can simply mean the writer agrees with a statement made by another (positive), or it can mean something slightly less benign... to suggest that the statement was unnecessary (positive or negative, depending on perceived intent). The latter can be considered to be an admonishment, with or without prejudice. Additionally it can be used derisively, meaning the intent of the writer is to deride, or even defame, the person making the statement (negative).

Looking at the above options...

I strongly doubt you agree with every word in the statement, as it is quite long (you've recently stated your dislike for 'long-winded' statements) and there are multiple points made in it. You typically disagree with me on a variety of points so it's relatively safe to say your comment isn't in full-support of every point, therefore this option is highly unlikely to be an accurate indication of your intent.

I'm assuming you'd believe my statement was unnecessary, but that still leaves the matter of 'intent'.

From past 'conversations' with you I am of the opinion that you find it immensely difficult to admit to fault, or more to the point: that you refuse to acknowledge other people's statements that weaken your position on a subject or an issue. Furthermore, it is highly likely that you would wish others to perceive that you only 'converse' with me in a caring and supportive nature.

So, it is my opinion that you will confirm your intent was to say my statement was unnecessary... in the most caring and compasionate way. As such, none of the negative connotations would seem relevant. I believe otherwise, of course, but then again I also believe you may refuse to confirm anything, and simply ignore it altogether. But I may as well ask...

David? What was your intent?

 

OK? Just what are "conoctations"?

 

That's your opinion. I've explained ad nauseum to you why I believe you have that opinion and see no reason to continue to explain my reasonings with you on that matter. However, it's also an accusation. Since I'm well aware of what comments I've written, and believe your opinion is in part an accusation, I ask that those who wish to see who is more 'in the right' here perform an 'audit' of each of us by calculating the ratio of statements with (their perception of) insults to total statements made. The activity would be purely subjective and pointless however, as every person who would actually perform such an audit has their own ideas on what constitutes an insult or not, and neither of us has NOT claimed to have had resorted to insults. I will say this though: It is my opinion that you are incorrect to say the majority of my comments are intended to be insults. Perception though, regarding the belief that a comment is an insult, is another matter entirely.[/quote]

I can easily find specific comments, and I suspect you know that I could since you've asked for specific "threads" which can contain dozens of your comments, but to what point? I have no need for your apology, if owed.

I highlighted my comment above to show that I had believed each of us understood that we've resorted to insults on this site, but I may have underestimated how truthful you are with yourself. This isn't meant as a personal attack, only an observation that is relevant to the charges you repeatedly bring against me.

I never said you didn't have the right to speak your mind. What I said was that you've repeatedly chosen to chastise me specifically despite the abundance of opportunities to chastise others for their behaviors. That said, I also acknowledged that you've made more of an effort to chastise others lately. More to the point though: You're assuming I prefer the sniping. I don't.

Not quite a 'thread', but the highlighted words are unnecessary and can be viewed as insulting. Moreover, I never claimed to be incapable of sniping back at someone, in fact I've repeatedly stated I could, and would, as I saw fit. You asked me to refrain and so I have, yet you yourself feel free too? I understand insults are not pleasant for you to read, but surely you can now see how you yourself are guilty. If not, oh well... I can deal with it, I'm mature that way.

 

From my point of view I hadn't personally attacked you in that comment. As I mentioned in the comment though, right-wing opinions are not proof. You've stated he actually said the words. I've stated you are most likely spreading bs and can't provide proof. I asked to see proof, even your right-wing-nuts kind of proof, and you tell me to search the internet lol

Like I said: You have an issue of admitting fault, and the comment is your fault lol

 

I find it amusing, and more than a little ironic, that you have pointed-out misspellings I've made, on more than one occasion... considering the sheer number of misspellings and other inaccuracies you've had during the same time-period. It's highly likely to be on a ration of 10:1 ...or more. That's ten of your misspellings to one of my own. Or more.

But of course, your intent is being perceived by myself as an intentional slight, and meant to be derisive... but is benign enough for you to claim otherwise. I find that rather cowardly, if accurate.

However, you were successful in getting a response from me, and despite the inevitable denials, that was a large part of your intent.

 

I am still trying to figure out if you were trying to say connections or connotations. Oh well.

BTW, if you are trying to be so erudite, the least you could do would be to look up the definitions so you could use the words in their proper context.

 

Why do some people want to know a President's religious beliefs? Everyone has their own reason(s), but one point of this thread was to show how religious people have a greater need, so I'll address that.

The religious want to see whether or not the President shares the same religious principles as themselves.

I'd personally like to see a Presidential candidate win the office without ever having to declare his religious beliefs, but that isn't likely to happen since most people are religious and the demand will always be too difficult for any candidate to refuse... not if he or she intends to win anyway.

 

Wow...you sure c

That's what I thought.....
You still can't answer, huh?

 

Actually you asked to not see "proof" from right wing sources so I offered a very specific (not a generic "search the internet" response) google search phrase that returned hundreds of links to BO making derogatory comments about the US Constitution.

 

Your 1st sentence is incomplete. That said, back up your claim that you don't believe the poor are unwilling to put in the effort. While your at it, I still haven't seen proof of your other claim:

David said: ↑

BO has mentioned what a thorn in his side the Constitution has been as he tries to push his agenda & ideals on the country.​

You still haven't backed this claim up. Are you admitting you can't?

 

Of course his comment is total nonsense. Obama is a constitutional scholar. Unlike any con that has ever been in office in modern times. Remember David, you can make up whatever you to as long as YOU believe it. Riiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!

 

Just because a person is a constitutional scholar, it does not mean that he supports the Constitution. "Know your enemy" is a commonly expressed and widely held sentiment. What better way to know an "enemy" than to become an expert on it? Personally, I feel that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse for beginning the erosion of our constitutional rights and that Obama has followed gleefully behind. I fear that if he remains in office another four years then we won't recognize what our country has become--I'm not sure that I entirely recognize it even now.

 

If there is any doubt, just look at Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 

Post the proof. If he's mentioned it, and apparently you are aware of it (while we, apparently, are not), it falls on you to provide the proof that Obama has mentioned it. At this time I will not accept anything less than a direct quote from Obama as proof, since that is your claim.

 

How much do you think I care what you will or won't accept?
Just a hint, if you guess anything more than ZERO you are wrong.