We're talking about protests, not harassment. Try to focus, little one.
What makes you think that? Be specific, please.you reread shit head. you claimed this is exactly what they feared.
What makes you think I said they did? Be specific, please.they did not fear their state
What lie is it that you think I told? If you could quote the exact statement you think was a lie, that would be helpful.you are a huge liar.
Yes, I agree you seem a little mentally delayed, but don't worry about it. I can patiently walk you through this at a pace you can handle, if you'll just be specific in identifying which parts of what I said confused you.also a retard....
DuhSantis probably trying to protect himself and his cronies from whatever election shenanigans they plan to perpetrate.
Who are you quoting?
your words.
Specifically, which ones?
They were attempting to protect the right to political protests. In the Constitution, the founders were focused on the federal government, but founders also were involved in some state constitutions. For example, the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont state constitutions date to the era and have very similar language protecting free speech and peaceable assembly. So, it's clear what the founders would have thought about attempts to abridge those rights, whether carried out by the federal government, or by some tin-pot governor of a backwater state like Florida.a state limiting speech is not what they had in mind retard
That was among their several goals. They also founded it to promote the general welfare and establish justice. It wasn't just a mutual defense treaty among sovereign nations. It was an attempt to form a more perfect union than had been accomplished with the articles of confederation.
I feel like I should be charging. So much of online discourse consists of liberals giving wingnuts a free education when it comes to basic civics material they should have gotten in elementary school. It's sad how woefully ignorant many Americans are of their own history.
so you are an ignorant, retarded narcissist. what a combo
to show how absurd your claims are - states had established churches - and the founders were fine with it.
so yeah - you lost the debate. the founders did not agree with your concerns of 1st amendment powers in their respective states
Yes, establishing justice, promoting the general welfare, and forming a more perfect union are a terrific combo of goals.
Which claim, specifically, do you think that contradicts?to show how absurd your claims are - states had established churches - and the founders were fine with it.
I understand it's hard to be losing this debate so badly, but please try to resist the urge to run away, like most right-wingers. Try to answer honestly and specifically, and we can start to identify your errors and to remedy them. I'd hate to just leave you in this state of abject ignorance of civics.
Originally Posted by Minatarddebating a tard always goes like thisOriginally Posted by minitard
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Paul Begala, "Politics is show business for ugly people."
Stephen Colbert, "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
Bookmarks