The few days of no response from me led him to believe that he had fended me off with his logical acumen and command of the facts. Well, not quite...

“Kinda hard to argue with huh? I figured.”

This may be indicative of your problem here. You assume that my absence is due to the strength of your arguments (I will be kind and refer to them as “arguments”), whereas other, just as plausible, explanations are available such as- which is in fact the case- that I have a job and other responsibilities to attend to. If you happen to make a good point and I am around to see it and I have time to respond to it, then you can be assured that I will give you the credit you deserve. It hasn’t happened yet.

And so it continues with Dakota... This response came after a few days where I didn't respond to his rejoinder, such as it was. Anyway, more on that next.

“When the power brokers and politicians break the law and go against the rule of law and the majority in order to pass legislation …. then the politicals put themselves in conflict with law and the people that they swore an oath to adhere to.”

Sure. In what way has this happened? This is what you have failed to make explicit. You are kind of hard to argue with because all you have given so far is naked assertions and non sequiturs.

“Again …. this is not a democracy 51% of the people cannot vote to hang the other 49% ….get it? ”

The United States is a constitutional republic and representative democracy. It is NOT, of course, a direct democracy (I never claimed that it was), but surely our system has a democratic component, otherwise your complaint about politicians ignoring the will of the majority wouldn’t make any sense, would it.

“But when we have the type of abandoned circus that is going on in DC that defies the law and the Constitution , then the citizens should be surprised and take measures to preserve the liberties that we are guaranteed under the Constitution, and guaranteed by the founders also.”

For a citizenry to be justified in taking violent action against a government composed of officials elected to there positions in free and fair elections, it must first be proved to be the case that the government has in fact violated the constitution in some way. You have failed to make the case that it has. I won’t dedicate any more time to discussing this issue with you until you begin to back up the assertions you have made.

““Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience.” ~ John Locke”

I wholeheartedly agree with Locke here, but notice the caveat:”Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power…”. Is that, in fact what is happening now? If that is in fact NOT what is happening now (and it remains for you to make the case that it is), then it is safe to say that you would find yourself in sharp disagreement with Locke on this point for the simply fact that a society simply cannot maintain when violent minorities attack the government when they don’t get there way.

Neal hasn't responded to my criticisms of his essay but someone calling themselves Dakota has. Here is a bit of the exchange. His stuff is in quotes.

“I really dig it when you people use those big fancy words and try to gain advantage via the “baffle them with bullshit” theory. (golly I wonder which professor indoctrinated you)”

What could you possibly have been baffled by. The argument I’m making is a simple one. And don’t flatter yourself by thinking we are having a college level discussion here. I’m trying to get you to understand basic high school level civics. In any society not everyone is going to be able to get what they want all the time. Someone is going to have to be in the political minority at any given time. The founder fathers well understood the mayhem that would ensue if those in the minority took up arms every time they didn’t get there way. Thus we have a political system in place where, if you are in the minority, you do have recourse: persuade, through reason and evidence, enough of your fellow citizens of the truth of your view so as to be successful in the election process. You haven’t given one reason for why you would be prevented from doing that. This being the case you and your ilk are not following in the footsteps of the colonists fighting off British rule, as you all like to fancy yourselves as doing. You are being lazy, you are being whiny, you are being ignorant of the basic facts of how the American system works and you are being traitors to the ideals this nation was founded on.

“Get it thru your head “sparky” I don’t care about you or any of your ilk …. you are the fodder of the left …. the “useful idiots” as Lenin coined the phrase. I am not going to do point on point with you cause frankly it is a waste of my time. I am busy preparing for more important things. DO what you will, but remember …. if you show up in my AO you will be treated like all the rest maybe worse. The gloves are off and you still wannna run to ACLU or whatever.”

I’m aligning my beliefs with the best available reasons and evidence. This is called being rational. You and your fellow tea partyers are the “useful idiots”. You are unable to formulate a cogent argument (calling someone a pinko commie does not qualify as an argument), you will believe any demonstrably false fruitcake conspiracy theory you are fed so long as it it seems to confirm your irrational prejudices (i.e. birther nonsense, death panel nonsense, acorn nonsense, communist/socialist/Nazi/whatever takeover nonsense, etc., etc., etc.). All this credulity plays into someones hands. Learning to think critically and rationally about what you are being told is the antidote.

“Funny thing about you progressives … you always accuse your enemies of doing exactly what you yourselves have been doing. Freedom of speech is your cause unless it is counter to your ideas …. then you silence swiftly by whatever means. See you in the matrix.”

I don’t know what you are talking about here. I have never advocated censoring anyone’s freedom of speech, in fact, I made my view of the importance of open debate pretty clear in an above post. It’s vital to the health of any type of democratic system. But why is that? Precisely so that those in the political minority might change the minds of their fellows, thereby AVOIDING the need for armed conflict and all the deleterious social consequences that brings about. Those in you “AO” may want to spend a little less time threatening everyone else and spend a little more time learning about the ideals this country was founded on before you destroy them.