We can’t argue with your points because your points make no sense, and when they do, are usually flat-out, easily proven wrong. We are reduced to meta-conversing, pointing out your semantic, philosophical and organizational difficulties in the hopes that you will one day be able to make cogent arguments:
So let’s break this down:
“Both of you first expressed dismissive remarks, then feigned amusement. These are similar sentiments expressed by the mob who murdered every man, woman,and child in France who happened to be well off, (not enacting legislation even or directly related to royalty, though they were often very white in complexion,) during the Reign of Terror, rememeber it was Clinton who attacked Koresh compound and murdered allthose children, if they ”
You start out right off the bat with an invalid metaphor as an attempt to discredit your ideological opponents; demonizing us through a bullshit indictment of our worldview. Then you state, in a quite fanatical fashion, that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are “murderers” for engaging an extremist cult leader and his followers. Everyone agrees that what happened at Waco was a tragedy, but you try and fail to connect it to race to support a weak point.
“Do you alll have a textbook you share for your offhand, unspecific, ad hominem responses or what? Or are you, perhaps the same person?”
Here, you’re throwing out a third-grade insult in Brown-reject English.
No, I have met too many liberal who parrot the current democratic leaderships ‘talking points’ verbatim to believe this is true. Where are the true Independents among you?
You’re the only one here parroting alarmist anti-society rhetoric, cliched buzzwords floating in inchoate arguments.
“Until the laws of the land are not only articulated, but Enforced,(Hate Crimes, Immigration,) as well as following the constitution, ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit, (not Garauntee-see affirmative action, etc..)of Happiness there is Injustice, and I will never cease to speak for the Truth.”
You’ve never read the Constitution, don’t pretend to have done so. You’re trying to argue on constitutional grounds, but in reality the constitution is two things
1. on our side
2. open to interpretation
Your overuse of the capitalized “Truth” is telling.