One month ban For NO REASON

@sonhouse said
So the fact Biden won by some 7 MILLION votes means NOTHING to you.

As in England, it means nothing whatsoever. In the two-party system you both have, politicians win by seats, not by votes. If votes meant anything, Clinton II would've been president. The UK would actually have had many coalition governments, when in fact it has had noneReveal Hidden Content.

Oh, I'll grant you it should mean something. It should mean everything. But under your current constitutions, it means Sweet Fanny Adams.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

That's why it's a myth, dear. Do keep up at the back. That it's blatantly untrue doesn't stop Founding Father worshipers and American Dream mythmakers from repeating it in their attempts to hoodwink people into believing the USA constitution was written to benefit the common people.

(By the way, this site has an actual quoting mechanism. It would be more useful if you learned to use it. Also by the way, your claims that I jump on your every post to carp at you sound more hollow with each within-the-quarter-hour cheap criticism of mine. Obsessed much?)

The post that was quoted here has been removed

So I was right after all, but you can't bring yourself to admit that.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Note duchess's insistent and intentional misrepresentation of anything anyone else writes.

Sorry, dude - you lie, you lose.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Sorry, boy, but you're still lying about what I actually wrote. Do stop trying to fool people.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

This thread has not been about right/wrong, black/white, true/untrue for some time now. It's been about how SB is winding you up like a toy brass monkey. And you let him do it.

@suzianne said
This thread has not been about right/wrong, black/white, true/untrue for some time now. It's been about how SB is winding you up like a toy brass monkey. And you let him do it.

Erm, no. I posted my original remarks about the Founding Fathers to correct your misunderstanding of their intentions. (Yours, and many of your compatriots'.) It had nothing to do with winding anyone up, and was meant as honest debate with someone I do take seriously.

I'm not winding Duchess up. Duchess is winding herself up, and hypocritically abusing my posts to do so. Don't blame me for that, nor for pointing out that in doing so, she lies about me.

Mais revenons à nos moutons: do you really believe the Founding Fathers genuinely had the equality of all voters and all candidates in mind when they drafted the constitution? Because surely you must admit that, if they did, they failed miserably.

@shallow-blue said
Erm, no. I posted my original remarks about the Founding Fathers to correct your misunderstanding of their intentions. (Yours, and many of your compatriots'.) It had nothing to do with winding anyone up, and was meant as honest debate with someone I do take seriously.

I'm not winding Duchess up. Duchess is winding herself up, and hypocritically abusing m ...[text shortened]... ey drafted the constitution? Because surely you must admit that, if they did, they failed miserably.

Yes, I do, but it is obvious that they didn't look beyond the concept that all voters were male land-owning citizens. What's not obvious to me is if they really thought much about women gaining the vote, nor former slaves or their descendants, much less immigrants from other countries. What IS clear is that ALL citizens MUST be allowed equal protection by law, as codified in the fourteenth amendment. Now whether the actual application of the law is fair is another debate. I agree that it is not always fair. This is what needs work.