Why does Gingrich hate the Constitution?

[johnhp]

That would be a violatuion of the forum rules.

Not at all.  My real first name?  Heaven only knows how many people share my first name.  The first three subject headings on my 1st book?  The year i published my first book?  Dozens of books in my field were published that year.  The fact is, you could not even name the city i moved to four months ago.

Bwesides... it is fun watching you squirm, wondering about what I have dug into and what I haven't.   

You are mistaking mocking your pretense at being a detective, little man, with squirming.  The fact is every time you are called on your bullshit rather than nut up you shut up.

[Observer]

But not the words i quoted.

The link is what is supposed to corroborate your quote. Your word is simply not good enough.

You have a quote and cannot find out if it is accurate

That was why you provided a link, right? Of course, the link you provided bore no resemblance to what you posted.

shit you don't even know that the building in question is not a mosque.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, a "community center". You can call an elephant a rabbit, but that doesn't make it one. The building itself is not the issue. The issue is that you contend Gingrich supports a violation of the Free Establishment Clause because he opposes its construction.

And how would we as a nation prevent the building of a mosque without law?  Are you claiming Mr. Gingrich is calling for terrorism?

This is not a Federal issue. It isn't even a State issue. It is a City of New York issue. They can either issue a building permit or not issue a building permit to anyone who build on the property. Either way, the First Amendment is not relevant to the issue, at all. That is why I have been laughing at your stupid ass from the beginning of this thread.

You really are a pompous fool.   

[johnhp]

The link is what is supposed to corroborate your quote. Your word is simply not good enough.

That was why you provided a link, right? Of course, the link you provided bore no resemblance to what you posted.

Can't help it if his site changed things around.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, a "community center". You can call an elephant a rabbit, but that doesn't make it one. The building itself is not the issue. The issue is that you contend Gingrich supports a violation of the Free Establishment Clause because he opposes its construction.

You were the one repeating that it is a mosque.

This is not a Federal issue. It isn't even a State issue. It is a City of New York issue. They can either issue a building permit or not issue a building permit to anyone who build on the property. Either way, the First Amendment is not relevant to the issue, at all. That is why I have been laughing at your stupid ass from the beginning of this thread.

They issues it quite a while ago.  Mr. Gingrich said "we" meaning the US, not the City of New York.  Mr. Gingrich is not a New Yorker.

You really are a pompous fool.   

You really do love to run away from an issue.

[johnhp]

What about it detective, going to take the challenge or are you going to fold again?

[Observer]

John, you are incapable of posing a challenge to me.

[johnhp]

John, you are incapable of posing a challenge to me.

You are folding again.  Got it.  Enjoy your day.

[Observer]

You are folding again.  Got it.  Enjoy your day.

John, you don't get it do you? You are in no position to make demands of anyone. In order for me to pay any attention to your demands, at least one of 4 conditions would have to exist. I would have to respect you, I would have to like you, I would have to fear you, or I would have to have something to gain.

Since none of those 4 conditions exist, what you want does not matter. I am however, enjoying the fact that this has worked itself under your skin and is bugging the shit out of you.   

[johnhp]

John, you don't get it do you? You are in no position to make demands of anyone. In order for me to pay any attention to your demands, at least one of 4 conditions would have to exist. I would have to respect you, I would have to like you, I would have to fear you, or I would have to have something to gain.

Since none of those 4 conditions exist, what you want does not matter. I am however, enjoying the fact that this has worked itself under your skin and is bugging the shit out of you.   

You haven't done a thing but run away from the topic and demonstrated for everyone how little you know about the subject.

[JC]

If he has rejoined this forum with no intent of demonstrating ot practicing respect, and has openly admitted that, I don't see the point of allowing membership. I don't make the calls here but if someone came in to my house and said "I'm going to be an asshole to you because in order to be nice to you I'd have to respect you and I don't" and then begin to throw shit at my walls, I know I wouldn't allow it. Especially after past behavior.Further that with, if this is a discussion board and you ask the guy to back up his claims he declares "I dont have to, or I don't owe you"-what's the point in participating other than to be a major shit stirrer?..Whatever....

[Observer]

John, I didn't run away from the topic.

I made you look like an idiot and demonstrated quite clearly that you are clueless about this particular issue.

Nothing you cited by Gingrich demonstrated a desire on his part to enact a law to infringe on the Free Exercise rights of anyone. Nothing you cited demonstrated that the First Amendment even applies to this issue.

You did on this thread what you normally do. You picked up a snippet of information from some Leftist website somewhere, then tried to run with it and convince everyone that you actually knew something about the subject. However, as usually happens with you, when confronted with actual facts, you retreated and resorted to the same tactics you always use when you need to deflect attention away from your ineptitude... personal attacks.

It is rather pathetic and slightly annoying, but it is also kind of funny to watch you flail away.  

[Observer]

If he has rejoined this forum with no intent of demonstrating ot practicing respect,

Respect is earned.

[johnhp]

John, I didn't run away from the topic.

I made you look like an idiot and demonstrated quite clearly that you are clueless about this particular issue.

Nothing you cited by Gingrich demonstrated a desire on his part to enact a law to infringe on the Free Exercise rights of anyone. Nothing you cited demonstrated that the First Amendment even applies to this issue.

You did on this thread what you normally do. You picked up a snippet of information from some Leftist website somewhere, then tried to run with it and convince everyone that you actually knew something about the subject. However, as usually happens with you, when confronted with actual facts, you retreated and resorted to the same tactics you always use when you need to deflect attention away from your ineptitude... personal attacks.

It is rather pathetic and slightly annoying, but it is also kind of funny to watch you flail away.  

Then you are going with the Gingrich terrorism approach.  i do not agree with that at all.

[Observer]

Don't put words in my mouth, John Boy. I never said any such thing.

What I said is that on this topic, as with most topics, you are woefully misinformed. You regularly and desperately hope everyone else is as ill informed as you are so you can pass yourself off as being well versed in topoics about which you know little or nothing.

When someone who does actually know what he is talking about points out your deficiencies, you resort to personal attacks in an attempt to intimidate your opposition and to deflect attention away from your inadequacies.

I am sure that works with some people, but in this case, you be far better off if you just attempted to correct your shortcomings.

Don't get mad. Get better.

[johnhp]

Don't put words in my mouth, John Boy. I never said any such thing.

What I said is that on this topic, as with most topics, you are woefully misinformed. You regularly and desperately hope everyone else is as ill informed as you are so you can pass yourself off as being well versed in topoics about which you know little or nothing.

When someone who does actually know what he is talking about points out your deficiencies, you resort to personal attacks in an attempt to intimidate your opposition and to deflect attention away from your inadequacies.

I am sure that works with some people, but in this case, you be far better off if you just attempted to correct your shortcomings.

Don't get mad. Get better.

You floated quite a few suppositions that had nothing to do with what Gingrich was actually talking about.  However, he was talking about us as a nation.  If you do not think he was calling for legislative action, the only option is that he is looking at extra-legal options.  Shame on you.

[Observer]

I am still waiting for you to provide the quote in which Gingrich proposed "making a law" to restrict the Free Exercise of ANYone's religion.

Get on that, would you, John Boy?