Leftist Coward Watch - Final Edition
Seventeen Days straight of hinting he needs comments, and he gets:
Now, FOR THE LAST TIME, you whiney pussy: You had your chance, and you blew it. You trolled chatrooms and was a complete and total lying prick. You were challenged to a face-to-face, and you backed down repeatedly because you're a gutless, spineless, lily-livered, scared-to-death craven little coward. Don't like it? Then you should've backed up your empty words.
Since the Leftist leech who relies on me for material for his "blog" hasn't allowed comments yet or posted more than lame responses to the blogs I've written, the point has been made to my satisfaction.
Yes, that I'm your only reader. Not even a nibble from a reader after all these days. The Great Experiment didn't work. But at least you can go back to the chatroom now, since you have a clear conscience that you didn't ask for their help during that time. It's okay, I'm sure the daily blogging was just because you were bored these past couple weeks, since AOL Boards had to shut down due to constant use of the N-word on every single thread.
Leftists talk a great game, but delivering? That's above their pay grade.
If you deliver, then why can't you answer simple questions that have been repeatedly asked? Such as why you said a pinkie is an ear? And don't you even pretend that you didn't back down from repeated calling out to fight face-to-face. After all, it's kind of hard to forget this: "The reason you keep backing down, is because it would be impossible for you to troll chatrooms and lie on blogs if you're crying after a face-to-face."
So that's the end of your rambling on that subject, you proven coward. Get it? Got it? Good.
Just look at President Obama.
Yes, let's look at him. He's delivered on a lot. What's your point?
Elena Kagan's nomination to the USSC has run into another snag. As Solicitor General, Kagan's office (and Kagan herself) took an interesting position against free speech in their arguments in Citizens United v. FEC, which dealt with campaign finance reform. Kagan's office suggested in an opening argument in the case that the government could ban books that endorsed a particular candidate. When questioned on the initial argument before the USSC, Kagan's position changed slightly, but left the door open to ban political pamphlets under certain circumstances.
That is not true at all.
And this is the woman Obama wants to put on the Supreme Court? This gives us a chance to explore a fundamental difference between liberals and Leftists. Liberals would oppose Kagan's nomination because they still have a healthy respect for the Constitution and free speech. Leftists, on the other hand, see the Constitution as an impediment to their desires for control, so they find ways to circumvent it or justify it by claiming a "greater good" overrules the Constitution. This is made easier with the Left's "living document" argument pertaining to the Constitution. That way they can make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say, even if it goes against what the Constitution actually says.
Like a well-regulated militia?
We've already seen Kagan's position on the Second Amendment, which is decidedly anti-gun rights.
With this latest revelation, we can chalk up an active disdain for the First Amendment right to free speech to the list of concerns about Elena Kagan's USSC nomination. And this is the woman Leftists want to put on the Supreme Court?
Actually a lot of "leftists" don't want her on the Supreme Court. But not because of lies like that.
Give it up, Right-Wing Noise Machine. There's not going to be a filibuster.
UPDATE: Thomas Lindaman NEVER acknowledged the fact that he was called out to a face-to-face and he backed down because he's a coward. What else is new from him? Now THAT is the "final edition" on that subject.