In the comments of my recent post, Moonbats on the Constitution, I was accused of all kinds of wacky stuff by our current representative of the moonbat community, "Don Myers" - we've been calling him "Donny" ... TNS loves to refer to him as "Donna" (perhaps a tad eloquent for the situation, but I didnt edit it ... let TNS have his fun, ya know?) ... His response to my post was the usual non-response ...

Rocker, there is no way I'm gonna wade into that morass of far-right insanity. It would take a semester's worth of civics class and really---who has that kinda time? Not me! You're a fanatic, and we'll have to agree to disagree. Go with God. I do have one question for you, though. Did you know that the John Birch Society is a gang of conspiracy nuts who think Eisenhower was a communist?

Ha ha ha ... A "morass of far-right insanity". Ok, Don, but exactly why would it take a semester's worth of civics class to explain the plain language of the Constitution? Just read it. It says what it says. No need to get involved in "nuance' or any bullshit like that. JUST READ IT. Call me a fanatic if you want, but you haven't quoted a single constitutional provision allowing the things I have cited to legally occur in the United States. You can rant about the John Birch Society all you want. Quite frankly, I have no clue as to their opinion of any particular person (nor do I care), but their mission statement is clear, and it is about time SOMEONE stood up in an attempt to protect the rights granted by God to all Americans and guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

So I asked Don exactly why he was out to defent communism ... no answer. I further posted the following:

Also, if you want to call my post, "far-right insanity", you will have to cite examples, not just call it insanity. I have demonstrated the sanity of the post through documentation of the very plain language of the Constitution. Since you won't even attempt to prove me wrong, I can only assume that you have a problem with the Constitution. If that's the case, and all evidence thus far points squarely in that direction, then exactly who is the one around here whois "insane"?

No examples, despite my clear citing of the Constitutional provisions to support my position. I guess it's safe to assume Donny's got a gripe or two with the Constituton itself. No attempt was made to refute a single point I had made, yet I am being called "insane". Interesting. With this in mind, I also posted the following comment:

As for the JBS, they can believe whatever they want. They have the First Amendment right to do so. However, I quoted their mission statement for you in a previous comments section. Do you deny that there is a systematic effort on the part of the Left to dismantle the Constitution? If you do, I submit that you are the one around here with a sanity problem.

So what does he say? Nothing to refute the JBS's mission statement - nothing to refute my positions. Just this:

(Quoting me) Do you deny that there is a systematic effort on the part of the Left to dismantle the Constitution?

Of course I deny it. I also catagorically deny that the left is working with the aliens to build orbital mind-control lasers at Area 51.

Of course, no one on this blog made a single charge regarding aliens at Area 51. And since you seem to constantly harp on my sentence structure, may I take a moment to correct your spelling of "categorically"? I mean, in the heat of argument, sometimes we all (including myself) hit a wrong key here and there, but hey, I might as well, since your sentence structure is so far superior to mine (sic).

But check out what he said - OF COURSE HE DENIES THERE IS A SYSTEMATIC EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE LEFT TO DISMANTLE THE CONSTITUTION.

Well, Donny, old pal, it's time, then, that you took a moment to refute one - just one - of the allegations I have made (and strongly supported) that the Constituton has been violated. I have made more than enough allegations to support the idea that there MUST be a systematic effort on SOMEONE'S part to dismantle the Constitution. Pick one and let's discuss the matter from there. Perhaps we can go on to others. In the meantime, we will have to simply accept Hoosierboy's analysis ...

Typical Liberal response. "I do not have to prove my point because it is superior, and if you keep asking for proof, I am no longer going to respond." I am afraid Don's stupid pregnant analogy applies more to his arguments.

RWR