I don't know shit about this dude but I really like this answer
Comments
-
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true. -
I stopped reading after "you talk fancy". Actually, I then glanced and saw "losers lose", something about sucking something, and figured you probably need more time.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
You've been at the library feverishly working up a response all afternoon, and this is what you come up with?
Sad how far you've fallen. Sad, really. -
I lied. I also saw "legalese", which is my stupid father-in-law's favorite word, and THEN I stopped reading.creepycoug said:
I stopped reading after "you talk fancy". Actually, I then glanced and saw "losers lose", something about sucking something, and figured you probably need more time.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
You've been at the library feverishly working up a response all afternoon, and this is what you come up with?
Sad how far you've fallen. Sad, really. -
Coug, your contributions here are quite generic. Be happy you can even post here with a few responses. Like Browning, you peaked long ago. Your board IQ° is somewhere in the lower end of the middle of the pack. Not horrible but nothing really noteworthycreepycoug said:
I lied. I also saw "legalese", which is my stupid father-in-law's favorite word, and THEN I stopped reading.creepycoug said:
I stopped reading after "you talk fancy". Actually, I then glanced and saw "losers lose", something about sucking something, and figured you probably need more time.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
You've been at the library feverishly working up a response all afternoon, and this is what you come up with?
Sad how far you've fallen. Sad, really. -
ISAFNRCcreepycoug said:
Ok!!!!TurdBuffer said:What I like to do, whenever I really want to make an impact and get something important accomplished, is take a knee and let real men and women do the hard work of making change. That's what I like to do.
-
The c°RaceBannon said:
Coug, your contributions here are quite generic. Be happy you can even post here with a few responses. Like Browning, you peaked long ago. Your board IQ° is somewhere in the lower end of the middle of the pack. Not horrible but nothing really noteworthycreepycoug said:
I lied. I also saw "legalese", which is my stupid father-in-law's favorite word, and THEN I stopped reading.creepycoug said:
I stopped reading after "you talk fancy". Actually, I then glanced and saw "losers lose", something about sucking something, and figured you probably need more time.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You talk fancy, but in reality you're just a common idiot,Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
You posted how the judge you admire (and whose cock you'd like to suck dry) argued that the 1st amendment didn't allow the state the power to criminalize flag burning, then in the next post you 'disagreed' with his 'conclusion that the first amendment allows a state to criminalize flag burning. That's a retard level mistake.
I never took your quiz, I attacked the DSA and its views about free speech and gun rights. You can't defend those views because you yourself are a fraud and a huckster of a failed and dangerous ideology from the 20th century that's been rebranded to seem in innocuous when it really isn't. Smart people are not socialists. Successful people are not socialists. It's an ideology of envy and failure, responsible for more than 100 million deaths across multiple nations last century. What does that say about you?
It says that you're a loser. It says that you're a faggot. It says that you're an un-American POS without a basic understanding of what your own ideology represents. Or maybe you do, that's even worse.
Losers lose. Losers deflect when they're losing. You deflected away to legalese regarding the constitution. Perhaps you're a lawyer, you like to quibble about the meaning of common words. I don't know and I don't care. Constitutional law is not is not my area of expertise, I already told you that, so fuck off. That doesn't mean I don't know what the amendments are and what is in the Bill of Rights.
You're a glorified socialist stooge and you stepped into the ring with the wrong person. I'm going to pick apart your ideology piece by piece like a vulture picks apart a slab of rotted carrion, then hang it around your neck and make you own it.
BTW did you know that Mexico now has a socialist president? Why don't you pack up your shit and get the fuck out of the country and live out your Marxist dream there. Because your dream of socialism in the US will never come true.
You've been at the library feverishly working up a response all afternoon, and this is what you come up with?
Sad how far you've fallen. Sad, really. -
Are you saying that he'd be more useful as a lampshade?ThomasFremont said:
And yet he manages to be pissed off 24/7. I’d feel bad for him if he wasn’t such a waste of skin.dnc said:
disagreeThomasFremont said:
Every day is a bad day for OBKcreepycoug said:
Good day for Squirts.Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
Bad day for OBK.
Good day for Latinos and brownies everywhere!!
Every day is a great day for @creepycoug!
AYY YI YI YI YI YI YI YI YI!!! Ariba! Ariba!
-
You would know about those kind of lampshades, you're descended from a Nazi after all.BearsWiin said:
Are you saying that he'd be more useful as a lampshade?ThomasFremont said:
And yet he manages to be pissed off 24/7. I’d feel bad for him if he wasn’t such a waste of skin.dnc said:
disagreeThomasFremont said:
Every day is a bad day for OBKcreepycoug said:
Good day for Squirts.Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
Bad day for OBK.
Good day for Latinos and brownies everywhere!!
Every day is a great day for @creepycoug!
AYY YI YI YI YI YI YI YI YI!!! Ariba! Ariba! -
You relentlessly yammering dumbfuck, you can't even get one simple thing straight. My great uncle was the SS officer; my grandfather got himself discharged from the Wehrmacht because of bleeding ulcers. I'm descended from a fucking Viennese tailor who didn't want to be in Hitler's army.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You would know about those kind of lampshades, you're descended from a Nazi after all.BearsWiin said:
Are you saying that he'd be more useful as a lampshade?ThomasFremont said:
And yet he manages to be pissed off 24/7. I’d feel bad for him if he wasn’t such a waste of skin.dnc said:
disagreeThomasFremont said:
Every day is a bad day for OBKcreepycoug said:
Good day for Squirts.Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
Bad day for OBK.
Good day for Latinos and brownies everywhere!!
Every day is a great day for @creepycoug!
AYY YI YI YI YI YI YI YI YI!!! Ariba! Ariba!
I know about lampshades because, unlike you, I read and understand history. -
Yes, significant upgradeBearsWiin said:
Are you saying that he'd be more useful as a lampshade?ThomasFremont said:
And yet he manages to be pissed off 24/7. I’d feel bad for him if he wasn’t such a waste of skin.dnc said:
disagreeThomasFremont said:
Every day is a bad day for OBKcreepycoug said:
Good day for Squirts.Squirt said:
Um, you were responding to my post about John Paul Stevens' views about the American flag as an interesting example of how many Americans see the flag. Then you offered your own opinion about the meaning of the U.S. Constitution---you even quoted it---and then insulted "'liberal' leaning judges" for your views of the Constitution.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nice opening salvo, but like I said, I never claimed to be a lawyer, nor present myself as an expert on American history. I'm not interested in the law or interpreting the intricacies of it. That's creepy coug's domain. Maybe you are him. Either way, you're still a little fish with less than 500 poasts, the alt of someone who doesn't have the gonads to poast under his real sn.
American history bores me. I hate the civil war period for example. I'm more interested in Roman and WW2 history. My interest in WW2 Soviet/Nazi history and knowledge of the political movements of that era allow me to draw parallels between and the socialist/communist/fascist movements of the 20th century and the 'democratic socialist' movement that you're a goose-stepping member of. Clearly you're more intellergent than than that dufus HardlyClothed. You replied to a poast that was addressing the intentions of your movement regarding free speech and the right to bear arms, with the red herring of my 'constitutional knowledge' or lack thereof.
The point of my little civics quiz for you was to demonstrate who you really are.oregonblitzkrieg said:Prohibiting flag burning is a violation of free speech. Again, not surprising that 'liberal' leaning judges would err on the side of authoritarianism in their interpretation of the Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You hold yourself out as a defender of American greatness. You offer strong opinions about American politics, law, and culture. You insult those who disagree with you.
But you don't even know or understand the basics about the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the Reconstruction-era amendments.
You know little about American history, even proudly proclaiming that it "bores" you.
You couldn't pass the test required for immigrants to be naturalized as citizens.
You're a fraud.
Bad day for OBK.
Good day for Latinos and brownies everywhere!!
Every day is a great day for @creepycoug!
AYY YI YI YI YI YI YI YI YI!!! Ariba! Ariba!
