So if one of the branches of government willfully acts against our national interests, the normal constitutional processes can't work as intended.

You make so many unbelievably deranged points that one almost doesn't know where to begin. Is this spoof--please say so and save me and others the trouble of responding?

The gist of your comment appears to be that when things are going your side's way, following the constitution is perfectly fine, even preferable. But when things are not going your way--i.e. your political opposition is in control and/up standing in the way of your getting your way--the constitution can and must be ignored to protect "national interests"--as defined by your side, of course. So the constitution is something you view as something to be tolerated and even put to good use when things are going your way, but to be stomped over when they're not. It is not binding to you. In fact, it isn't even legitimate, but "just a goddamn piece of paper".

Ok, fine, you're entitled to this crazy idea. One of the wonderful things about this country--codified in this very constitution--is your right to hold such ideas, and proudly defend them in public. I respect and defend your right to do this. Sanity, prudence and intelligence are not conditions for citizenship. But the minute your side tries to actually follow through with this insanity--this ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL insanity--is when you lose all legal credibility, and are subject to the fullest wrath of the law. Sorry, that's simply how it works in this country, whether you know or like it or not. You missed the boat on trying to implement your preferred form of government around 220 years ago. Sorry. Them's the breaks.

I think that you and your friends completely miss the point of the constitution, and of the whole extended debate that took place before it was written and ratified. This is not some arbitrary document that merely suggests how we are to behave in matters legal and political, but a fundamentally binding document that effectively has the force of god on our actions. It literally cannot be violated, not legitimately that is. Your argument is not unlike that of the CSA. I.e. sorry, this arrangement doesn't suit us, see ya. Uh uh. It doesn't work that way. Like it or not, this document is as binding on those who like, respect and agree with it as on those who don't. And nyone who acts in opposition to it is breaking the law and subjecting themself to its punishment.

The constitution didn't spell out what our "national interests" were except in the most broadest of ways. Rather, it spelled out a binding process by which these could be debated and worked towards. If the result of this process, lawfully followed, doesn't please one side or another, there's a wise old saying in response: tough noogies.

Like most folks here, I try to ignore them, but sometimes simply can't, so patently idiotic, dishonest and rediculous can some of their assertions be. However, 99.99% if the time, they're just repeating the same tired old crap we've been hearing for years, if not decades or longer, perhaps reworded to suit the times and circumstances. And to respond to these idiocies is to effectively reinvent the wheel repeatedly, which is clearly a stupid waste of time.

What I'm wondering is, has anyone compiled an exhaustive list of typically trollish talking points, along with a list of the possible responses to them, to be referred to when one feels it necessary to respond to them? I.e. a trollopedia of sorts, that we could all contribute to (and defend from trolls who would clearly try to hijack or sabotage it). Sure would save an awful lot of time and effort--not to mention aggravation. Do we really need to be reliving the constitutional convention every day here, when there are clearly more important things to do?

Foreign or not--and I would contend that it's not really foreign because there have long been adherents to this far-out ideology here, to one extent or another, however few their numbers might have been--the fact is that this ideology is, aside from being crazy and loathsome, unconstitutional. That is, while its adherents certainly have every right to believe in and proudly articulate its tenets--a right that I respect and support--they do NOT have the right--as defined by the constitution--to actually follow through with it, and should they try, they immediately subject themselves to its various consequences.

Unfortunately for them--for fortunately for the rest of us--they missed their chance to have it their way some 220 years ago. And every attempt they've made over the years to revive this constitutionally dead (and ideologically repulsive not to mention idiotic) political and legal ideology has been met with ringing defeat and humiliation. McCarthy, Nixon, Reagan to certain extent, Gingrich, and now Bush II. These have all been attempts to replace our constitutional process with some form of tyranny and dictatorship. Repeated attempts at a second, quite illiberal American Revolution, if you will, by stealth, lies and intimidation.

All have failed in the end. And all must be made to fail in the future. Just because we defeated and freed ourselves from tyranny from without over 200 years ago doesn't mean that we haven't continued to face would-be tyranny from within (and, occasionally, also from without). That's precisely what these neothugs represent, would-be tyranny from within, from un-American American would-be tyrants. One of the unfortunate ironies of American history has been their presence at every step of the way. Perhaps they are the unavoidable accessories of democracy, and perhaps they even serve a purpose, in keeping the rest of us honest and alert.