Prev: {BS} The View co host says Obama visit a bit too 'fluffy'.
Next: More Anti-Immigrant Wingnut Fail
From: Cliff on 31 Jul 2010 10:03

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/27/why-some-republicans-want-to-restore-the-13th-amendment.html
"Why Some Republicans Want to �Restore� the 13th Amendment"
[
..... Even so, it�s a little startling to come upon section 7.19, which calls for
�the reintroduction and ratification of the original 13th Amendment, not the
13th amendment in today�s Constitution.� Since the existing 13th Amendment bans
slavery, while the �original� one was about something else entirely ... In
making common cause with �Thirteenthers,� as those who seek to restore the
long-lost amendment are known, the party has ventured beyond the far fringes of
conspiracy theory, into a mysterious lost land without lawyers or taxes. ...
]

From: Cliff on 3 Aug 2010 13:52
On 3 Aug 2010 03:13:56 GMT, D Murphy <dmurf154(a)att.net> wrote:

>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:4ujc569t14hncon88sjitpqeu392v9lgpe(a)4ax.com:
>
>>>Wow you are stupid. Restoring the "Titles of Nobility Amendment"
>>>wouldn't replace the existing 13th amendment. Sheesh.
>>
>> Did they say that? Not AFAIK.
>
>Feel free to explain how any group could legally go about replacing an
>amendement to the constitution with a completely different one.
>
>This ought to be good.

Since when do rethugs care about legal?

It's THEIR party platform, after all.
And rethugs lie a lot too.
--
Cliff
From: Cliff on 4 Aug 2010 10:49
On 3 Aug 2010 19:48:28 GMT, D Murphy <dmurf154(a)att.net> wrote:

>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:polg561htvedj8kdvm7uc337rf61eb22nm(a)4ax.com:
>
>> On 3 Aug 2010 03:13:56 GMT, D Murphy <dmurf154(a)att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>news:4ujc569t14hncon88sjitpqeu392v9lgpe(a)4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>>Wow you are stupid. Restoring the "Titles of Nobility Amendment"
>>>>>wouldn't replace the existing 13th amendment. Sheesh.
>>>>
>>>> Did they say that? Not AFAIK.
>>>
>>>Feel free to explain how any group could legally go about replacing an
>>>amendement to the constitution with a completely different one.
>>>
>>>This ought to be good.
>>
>> Since when do rethugs care about legal?
>
>I see, the Iowa Republicans will use dark magic to change the
>constitution and enslave 1/4 of the population.

I'm not responsible for the superstitions & lies of rethugs.
These are your buddies, right?

>
>And people say that you're crazy? Don't you believe them.
>
>>
>> It's THEIR party platform, after all.
>
>No it's not. The article you linked to but obviously never read was
>about the Iowa Republican platform, not the RNC.

NOW you are claiming that Iowa rethugs are not rethugs.
Makes perfect sense to you I suppose.
Is it because "Iowa" has too many letters?

>Second, the Iowa
>platform doesn't call for slavery.

Just doing away with the laws against it.
I see.
What purpose might that serve? Let me guess ...

IIRC Someone claimed this was anti-Obama stuff ... Was he
against manure & BS too?

>But feel free to read the platform
>and cite where you think it calls for re-establishing slavery.
>
>> And rethugs lie a lot too.
>
>That's some powerful argument you have there. Do they have cooties too?

Ask them. Then suspect the opposite of their answer.
See how simple it all is?
--
Cliff
From: edspyhill01 on 7 Aug 2010 17:13
On Aug 3, 1:52 pm, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
wrote:
> On 3 Aug 2010 03:13:56 GMT, D Murphy <dmurf...(a)att.net> wrote:
>
> >Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> >news:4ujc569t14hncon88sjitpqeu392v9lgpe(a)4ax.com:
>
> >>>Wow you are stupid. Restoring the "Titles of Nobility Amendment"
> >>>wouldn't replace the existing 13th amendment. Sheesh.
>
> >>   Did they say that? Not AFAIK.
>
> >Feel free to explain how any group could legally go about replacing an
> >amendement to the constitution with a completely different one.
>
> >This ought to be good.
>
>   Since when do rethugs care about legal?
>
>   It's THEIR party platform, after all.
>   And rethugs lie a lot too.
> --
> Cliff

You can do anything with electronic voting machines. That's why the
repugnicans love them so dearly. You just put in the results the
night before. Has worked perfectly for about 15 years. The best
part
of the scam is the owners of all the electronic voting machines are
huge republican donors.
From: Gray Ghost on 7 Aug 2010 17:39
edspyhill01 <edspyhill01(a)gmail.com> wrote in news:d44efabd-aa3b-4cd8-947f-
f65869f21062(a)q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

> On Aug 3, 1:52�pm, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> wrote:
>> On 3 Aug 2010 03:13:56 GMT, D Murphy <dmurf...(a)att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>> >news:4ujc569t14hncon88sjitpqeu392v9lgpe(a)4ax.com:
>>
>> >>>Wow you are stupid. Restoring the "Titles of Nobility Amendment"
>> >>>wouldn't replace the existing 13th amendment. Sheesh.
>>
>> >> � Did they say that? Not AFAIK.
>>
>> >Feel free to explain how any group could legally go about replacing an
>> >amendement to the constitution with a completely different one.
>>
>> >This ought to be good.
>>
>> � Since when do rethugs care about legal?
>>
>> � It's THEIR party platform, after all.
>> � And rethugs lie a lot too.
>> --
>> Cliff
>
> You can do anything with electronic voting machines. That's why the
> repugnicans love them so dearly. You just put in the results the
> night before. Has worked perfectly for about 15 years. The best
> part
> of the scam is the owners of all the electronic voting machines are
> huge republican donors.
>

Actually fuckwit, noone I know likes voting machines. I'm a programmer, I know
how to rig a machine long before it shows up on election day.

To bad the demorons can't even use a punch ballot.

--
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be
construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be
sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything
or nothing at pleasure."

�Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: {BS} The View co host says Obama visit a bit too 'fluffy'.
Next: More Anti-Immigrant Wingnut Fail