KrisAnne Hall, despite the fact that she was a "Top Notch" prosecutor, lost her job for teaching the public about the founding documents. Hall has shrugged off the unfair loss of her job and has made it her mission to teach America about the intent of the founders, as well as the history of the founding documents themselves.
At the "Revealing the Roots of American Exceptionalism" conference in Tampa, on August 11, 2012, KrisAnne had a strong message for the attendees about the origins of the separation of church and state, how Christians must stand for their beliefs, how pastors must not buckle under intimidation (or fear of losing government dollars) and how "Taxed Enough Already" should change to "Tyranny Enough Already," as "taxed" implies that people can be bought. Will entitlements be enough to get Americans look the other way while the Constitution is being trampled?
KrisAnne Hall's goosebump-evoking message brought the crowd to their feet during several of her strongly delivered and passionate points, driven home with the confidence that a lifetime of dedication to an issue brings, in this case, Hall's vast knowledge of the founding documents.
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution". -Abraham Lincoln
Watch this shocking video of Congressman Paul Gosar stating that "Not everybody believes in the Constitution" at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington DC on June 28th, 2012. KrisAnne, now Director of Legal Affairs for Unite In Action, and 9/12 Project National Co-Chair, Unite In Action President, Stephani Scruggs set him straight.
This video should scare anyone who may have suspected that the future of the United States Constitution is on shaky ground. KrisAnne is an American Hero and her powerful message illustrates how far America has strayed from the intent of the founders.
"The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation - enlightened as it is - if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men." -Samuel Adam
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties." -Abraham Lincoln
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 217
We just give 'em away, our rights. To fools and criminals. The price for this stupidity will be awful.
So basically you worship the constitution, except for that pesky section in article 5 which allows for amending it? Seems to me the men who wrote it understood far better than you that it was an imperfect document that would, from time to time, need to be altered.
Be consistent, please.
Amendment formulae are part and parcel. Alterations,verboten.
Which would make the Constitution a living, breathing document, regardless of how much Renee seems to scoff at that idea (see down thread).
Your eyes will get sore from all that hairsplitting.
Bias = Usually, when conservatives whine about the Constitution being "altered", they are, in fact, speaking of the amendments and erosion of their "white Christian males are superior" self-bestowed rights being eroded.
We have these things called elections and recalls and impeachment at our disposal...
I'm curious as to your definition of "sucked." If someone isn't doing their job properly they can be recalled. If they're committing crimes they can be arrested. Or are you just referring to your desire to get rid of anyone who doesn't conform to your political viewpoint by methods other than voting?
The Constitution was never intended to be a static document; that's the whole reason it has lasted. If one wants to protect the Constitution, then one needs to protect the whole thing, not just the bits left after the line-item-veto of personal opinion.
Skadi, most are well-aware of the Amendment stipulations...and the great pains that our Founders took to see that this process wasn't abused. Go muddy the waters in a different hole.
We may not like what it allows at times, which indicates only that it may be due for some more updating. And that is the responsibility of American citizens who can act peacefully to effect constructive change. Angrily blaming something we don't like on a convenient political target simply skirts the issue. I am not really getting your point here, do you have something specific in mind?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
How about a simple start to restore the Constitution by repealing the PATRIOT Act, which clearly removes half of the Bill of Rights?
Vote Johnson, then. Or save the other half for when you want a good cry down the road. Neither Obama or Romney give a tinker's damn about the Constitution.
Plenty of us were concerned Robert. I wrote the President and told him so! I supported the law suits challenging the patriot act.
We have had this threat for quite awhile.
It is time we hold these "elite" progressives accountable, Republican or Democrat, when they attempt to diminish, marginalize or otherwise shred the Constitution. The Founders did not just come up with these ideas, they were inspired by the knowledge of the nature of men.
â€Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. … “
-Woodrow Wilson on the US Constitution
Sorry Renee but I doubt the sincerity of that statement as Wilson was the closest to a fascist President that we ever had.
...I could go for that.
If the title had been anything remotely like its content it would have been: "The Giving Up of Constitutionally Guaranteed Freedoms by Americans for a Tiny Bit of Security Act."
But hey... They called it the "Patriot" Act, and most Americans never looked past the title, and they believe that anything called Patriot has to be good for America.
The American Civil War was fought because the people of the Southern states believed the Federal government was infringing on their constitutional right. The North felt the South was unconstitutional in breaking away from the nation. Many on the Southern side would say that your statemnet atributed to Abraham Lincoln is hypocritical, becase they felt he trampled on theirs. Many individuals see the constitution in many ways
And who do you blame for this, so called anti-constitutional problem. Both the democrats and reupublicans say they are acting for the good of the people. The Supreme Courts job is to determine the constitutionality of acts of congress and state laws, so if their findings don't agree with your belief, does that mean the Supreme Court in wrong.
The Constitution is a living document, it has been amended many times, so if youl feel something is wrong then push for a new amendment.
While I don't agree with the government all the time, I don't agree with thses people either.
See conversation above, where I say, "So, now that we all agree with you, Robert, Chuck, Jeanne, can you concede that we care about anyone who tramples on the Constitution, from the left or the right? How do you feel about it? Or do you only care when people on the right do it? Because we are all in this together and we need to start acting like it."
I am trying to expose the fact that our liberties are being eroded and it I post about it, I call people out on the left and the right, and I just stated above that this should be non-partisan and we should work together.
Open your eyes, Renee, we have no fight here, we are IN THIS TOGETHER. Work to help expose it, or get out of the way.
And considering that 99% of your articles are essentially rants about liberals, I'd say that yes, you spend a great deal of time whinging about liberals.
(Whinging, by the way, needn't be written in scare quotes--it's a normal English word.)
Although you are welcome to your opinion, you are not welcome to express a false one of myself. There are countless examples in my writing to disprove what that opinion contains. I've taken issue with Unconstitutional actions and positions by pubes just as quickly as I've taken issue with the Unconstitutional actions of this current bunch of idiots, and Leftists in particular. Many of the "republicans" on this site take issue with my exposure of fools in that particular Party.
The whole finger pointing thing is getting old. Notice how some accuse others of doing exactly what they do themselves?
I know that you, also, will take issue where it is merited, "political affiliation" notwithstanding. When You've called for concern regardless of that affiliation, and are in turn mocked, it merely proves the motive of the Leftist. They've no interest in Truth; their interest lays in demonising those who oppose their Utopian wet-dream.
Yep, she does & I don't think she's really from New Zealand~or, maybe she does "live" there, but she's too familiar with our gov't. to be a "foreigner."
What is my agenda, August Lady? Is it the fact that I am a conservative? Is that what gives me an agenda? Is it that I am unfair? If you think I am unfair, I would LOVE for you to point out an unfair statement that I have made - same goes for you, Renee. Pick a "biased" statement.
Most of the commenters here, both left and right, feel the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and should be repealed. As stated in the panel discussion on the video, many people feel that this act sacrifices liberty for the sake of security. And that is true. And that has happened many times in our history, when the nation was under threat. The argument depends largely on where you live. For me, for example, as a New Yorker, I am much more willing to sacrifice the liberty of complete privacy as to what is in my backpack, for the additional security of knowing that many attempts to kill me and my friends and neighbors have been thwarted thanks to the Patriot Act. This is also why, unlkie many conservatives and liberals, I am totally in favor of killing terrorists with drones or any other means.
I can understand why people living in rural Kansas or other parts of the country might not agree. But again, none of this bears on constitutionality. That is still a decision for the Court.
I am aware that national security has been used as a flag for curtailment of liberties. I think it is a balance, and we do have the right to make our voices heard on both sides of the issue (which reminds me, the woman who claimed that we have lost our freedom of speech. I mean, do you agree with her? Can anyone provide an example?). But if you support the Constitution, and the act is not repealed by Congress, then only the Court can do it.
So Simon, SCOTUS rules that we should all murder our mothers and the people would not have a right to do something about it?
I am aware that national security has been used as a flag for curtailment of liberties. I think it is a balance, and we do have the right to make our voices heard on both sides of the issue (which reminds me, the woman who claimed that we have lost our freedom of speech. I mean, do you agree with her? Can anyone provide an example?) I think it is a fair question and what comes to mind for me is academia, and the mainstream media and the fact that those who do not have certain viewpoints are squeezed out. But I am not sure what the woman in the video was referring to....
The point is that if SCOTUS makes a ruling that the people believe is a direct infringement of our rights, should we just sit down and take it?
Anyway, I honestly find it difficult to believe these conspiracy theories, and to believe that SCOTUS would ever make such a ruling.
I disagree, and sincerely; I do think that Renee is pretty much all about getting at the rubbish, regardless of whence it comes.
Absolutely right, Renee. That is the genius of the Constitution. The Founders knew that democracy can be flawed, and that the people, or Congress or the President could make a decision that is against what the Contitution stands for. The SCOTUS is the protector of the Constitution, because the members are above politics, they answer to nobody except their God and their conscience and their deep belief in the basic freedoms and strenghts of this country. Can they be flawed, and make the wrong decisions also? OF course. We all believe that some Court decisions were wrong. That is the whole point.
If you really believe in the Constitution, you MUST follow the rulings of the Court. The only redress to get rid of a law is to elect representatives and President that will repeal the law, or in some cases to amend the Constitution.
So you still believe the myth that Obama's healthcare plan is a guise to end life for the elderly, sick, and handicapped? Death Panels are NOT a myth. This is something I can speak upon with authority as I personally know many high level players that advocate for it. They do not call it "rationing", as I mentioned. All you have to do is a google scholar search for scholarly articles about rationing and end of life care. I am not kidding, and I am not exaggerating. Many academics have been justifying death for years, this is how Abortion was justified. It is not a conspiracy, it is true for anyone who cares to do a bit of scratching.
So that being said, Jeanne, when the SCOTUS goes overboard and someday says something like "post-birth abortion" is constitutional, do we say OK?
Bullshit.
"Experience is the oracle of truth; and where it's responses are unequivocal, they should be conclusive and sacred" - Hamilton & Madison in Federalist Paper #20
"The Constitution is not a living, breathing document which must be interpreted and reinterpreted according to the changing needs of society. On the contrary, the meaning of our founding documents is firmly rooted in a long and detailed history. They embody a wisdom that was hard earned through centuries of struggle for greater liberty." KrisAnne Hall
So now this "hero" is on a "tireless quest" to make a living speaking on the Teabagger circuit, but when it came time to "put up or shut up" in court, she backed down? Wow, what an inspiring story of courage and perseverance.
To whatever extent that they know who she is, the people of Florida must surely be grateful that their tax dollars aren't being used to pay her salary any more.
I didn't notice you providing a lot of specific support for her positions before you declared her a "hero", so I'm not really sure what your issue is with my comment, Renee.
You've claimed that she "shrugged off the unfair loss of her job" and I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of that unfairness. And some explanation of how taking your employer to court counted as shrugging it off.
You've claimed that she is on a "tireless quest to restore the Constitution" and I am still waiting for you to explain how that fits in with the fact that she sued her boss, claiming that he had violated her Constitutional rights, then she settled out of court.
Are you ready to dispute something she actually says yet?
I'm not particularly interested in disputing the stuff she says. If I were, it would make more sense for me to take it up with her than with you, wouldn't it?
What I'm trying to discuss with you are the things you wrote.
Lol, Jay O!
She's correct about everything? Wow, that's a serious case of hero-worship you've got going there, Renee.
I'm still going with her being a sad, weird cross between David Barton, Orly Taitz, and Tammy Faye Bakker.
But hey, she moved on with her life after she gave up on winning her lawsuit, so, you know, HERO!
You've made claims about her and when I've asked you to provide more details and/or evidence to back them up, you've failed to do so. Shocker.
I guess the only reason he is here then is that he needs the psychological high of being the Devil's advocate because he is so bored and lonely in real life.
...you may as well start beating your head against a rock, because that's what you're talking to when you're dealing with the left.
"I've listened to her. She reminded me of some sort of sad, weird cross between David Barton, Orly Taitz, and Tammy Faye Bakker."
then "I'm not particularly interested in disputing the stuff she says."
then "If I'd accused her of saying something that was untrue, I could understand your desire for me to provide more details. But I haven't."
So, since Wil admits that he is not accusing her of saying anything "untrue", but he has claimed to have listened to her and compares her to "David Barton, Orly Taitz, and Tammy Faye Bakker", I guess we can reasonably make the conclusion that he believes what they say is true, as well. ;-)
It's your opinion that she's a hero. It's my opinion that she isn't at all heroic. It's my opinion that after having listened to several of her talks, she strikes me as some sort of sad, weird cross between David Barton, Orly Taitz, and Tammy Faye Bakker.
"So, since Wil admits that he is not accusing her of saying anything "untrue", but he has claimed to have listened to her and compares her to "David Barton, Orly Taitz, and Tammy Faye Bakker", I guess we can reasonably make the conclusion that he believes what they say is true, as well."
It would be much more reasonable for you to conclude that I haven't accused those people of saying anything untrue because doing so would be changing the subject. The subject I have been trying to discuss since my initial comment is whether or not it's true that Hall was unfairly fired, and whether or not its hypocritical for her to give lectures about the importance of fighting for liberty when she herself abandoned the legal battle in which she claimed that her constitutional rights were being violated, and settled out of court.
I don't how you've come to the conclusion that I can't "dispute anything she says" just because I've chosen not to. I also don't see why you think my thinking she is or isn't a hero depends on my being able (or choosing to) dispute anything she says.
In your article, you've said that she was unfairly fired from her job. I've asked for evidence to back up that claim, and you haven't provided any. Jarvis said he didn't fire her, but that she quit. In the complaint she filed in federal court, she said that he'd threatened to fire her, and that she was afraid she'd lose her job if she didn't comply with his directive, but that she was still employed and had not been fired. So when did the firing take place, and how was it unfair? And if she really believed that she was being treated unfairly, why did she drop the lawsuit?
You're the one who said it's a fact that she was a "top-notch" prosecutor. I have no idea if that's true or not. Maybe she was; maybe she wasn't.
Based on what I've seen of her Teabagger talks, I have trouble believing that she was good at any job if it required her to present a series of coherent, factual statements leading to a logical conclusion. But that's an observation based on watching an hour or two of her Teabagger crazy-talk, and absolutely no direct knowledge of how she performed when she worked as a prosecutor. I do know that despite all her talk about how important it is to fight for our liberties, she gave up her own fight and settled out of court, which doesn't seem like a "top-notch" result to me.
jay o Aug 13, 2012, 4:14am EDT
And then, confirm,(with links), that, in your second paragraph, the message was indeed strong. I'll wait for definitive proof that goosebumps were indeed evoked as per your third,(waiting here), a quantitive assessment of "vast" in your fifth, and then, as I'm waiting, I'll think of fifty other sidebars that have nothing to do with the meat of the article but "Woman likes Constitution" just needed a bit of buffer.
Renee Nal Aug 13, 2012, 5:39am EDT
I am hungry for an actual discussion, I guess
C.O.N.S.T.I.T.U.T.I.O.N
And from what I've heard of her, at least part of her message is about the importance of fighting for our liberty, yet when had the opportunity to take that fight to the federal courts, she chose to quit.
Those are the things about KrisAnne Hall that I'm interested in having an actual, honest discussion about. If that's not a discussion that you're interested in having, I don't see why you keep responding and trying to change the subject.
No one said he is gay - and why would you use a bigoted term like that?
Apparantly a homophobe!
With regard to the sexual act, you're aware that a teabaggee can be female, right?
Since my cousin was beaten to a comma, with the word spray painted on his chest because he was a gay man - I resent it.
But hey, feel free to make excuses for any word you want to use - after all Maher used the "C" word, as well as Rush saying the "S" word, and many comedians use the "N" word, heck even the act of anal sex is now used as the name of a bag toss game!
No reason for you to have an iota of couth.
Just keep on spreading the use of homophobic, hate-filled words, and hide behind the fact that a few ignorant people used it, without knowing what it means.
I remember doing the same when I repeated the "F" word at 5 years old, cause I thought it sounded cool, and heard an older kid use it.
And so glad you admit in your last sentence that you know EXACTLY what sexual act it describes, further demonstrating your hatred, bigotry, and general rudeness on the matter!
"an iota of couth"? Seriously??
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
Doesn't matter your reference Wil, we all know you used the term to try to demean those you don't like, you infer the original intended meaning as those progressives who first used the term.
That's what you progressives do!
You are making excuses.
So the definition you prefer, that was adapted only in the last 4 years, to legitimize the slanderous usage, is all that is acceptable?
I remember when a "fag": was a cigarette. The Oxford English dictionary defines it as "a tiring or unwelcome task".
Why not throw that term around in your inane banter while you are at it?!
You think you are getting away with something, being 'cute' I can even imagine you smirking as you use the word! Like an 8 year old saying "I saw a pussy" then claiming they meant a cat!
No one is fooled by your BS.
It is a derisive, dividing, obnoxious term, no matter what ignorant fool used it first, later, or last.
Yes, you are not even showing an iota of couth, not a modicum of honerable conversation, not a whit of decency, and not a spec of civility, when you use terminology like that!
So stop the offensive language!
You say she is nutty but you are unable to refute her statements.
"KrisAnne Hall, despite the fact that she was a "Top Notch" prosecutor, lost her job for teaching the public about the founding documents. Hall has shrugged off the unfair loss of her job and has made it her mission to teach America about the intent of the founders, as well as the history of the founding documents themselves."
These are the sentences use chose to start your article. These are the statements I've been trying to discuss. If you're not interested, that's fine. Maybe somebody else will be, or maybe my attempt to discuss them will fail.
"You say she is nutty but you are unable to refute her statements."
I say she is nutty and I have not refuted her nutty statements because I'm not particularly interested in having a discussion about her nuttiness or her nutty conspiracy theories.
lolololololololololololololololol
Tell you what - call a gay man a teabagger, or a fag - see how fast you are thrown off Gather!
Or do it with a group to their face .... that would wipe the smirk off your face! (ouch - THAT would leave a mark!).
Hiding behind BS, does not change the stink of the words you use, in sullying an a post with vile, disparaging, and insulting names.
Go use that kind of talk with those that like to "roll a fag", or shove a baton down the throat of a "teabagger".
There is no place for that language here.
I would think, thaqt out of human compassion, after I TOLD you about my own relative (10 years in that comma people that talk like you put him in) would have at least brought out some small sliver of decency and couth - guess I was wrong.
As WC FIelds said - Go away boy, you bother me!
Mick, Hiding behind BS, does not change the stink of the words you use, in sullying an a post with vile, disparaging, and insulting names. Yes, the use of that word diminishes credibility, for sure. Very low class.
I haven't called any member of Gather, gay or straight, a teabagger or a fag, so it's not an issue. The term has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
"Or do it with a group to their face .... that would wipe the smirk off your face! (ouch - THAT would leave a mark!)."
Are you advocating or encouraging an act of violence?
"There is no place for that language here."
That's not your call. Chuck McGuire of Gather Member Support has confirmed that use of the term "teabagger" is not a violation of the Terms of Service, as long as it's not used to refer to a specific Gather member.
"As WC FIelds said - Go away boy, you bother me!"
That's not your call, either.
Based on my understanding of the complaint she filed in court, whether she was or wasn't "respected at her job" had nothing to do with it.
I haven't called any member of Gather, gay or straight, a teabagger or a fag, so it's not an issue. The term has nothing to do with sexual orientation.
How do you know you havent? I already told you about my familial experience with the word,m yet you insist on using it - have you no decency, couth, or respect for others feelings?
"Or do it with a group to their face .... that would wipe the smirk off your face! (ouch - THAT would leave a mark!)."
Are you advocating or encouraging an act of violence?
Not encouraging it at all - simply warning you via pointing it out, that it could easily happen, if you use vile inflammatory words like that to the wrong people. And they would not bother to ask you for your definitions I am afraid.
"There is no place for that language here."
That's not your call. Chuck McGuire of Gather Member Support has confirmed that use of the term "teabagger" is not a violation of the Terms of Service, as long as it's not used to refer to a specific Gather member.
In spite of Mr. McGuires ruling on this specific subject, There will copme a time when he recognixzes that he iis in error - because it is a highly poffensive term - expecially to anyone Gay, or Gay-friendly.
"As WC FIelds said - Go away boy, you bother me!"
That's not your call, either.
well - you are finally partially correct - it is not my call. Nor was it a "call"(demand), it was a request to use some small bit of common human decorum.
You have already defiled my family, and my entire sense of decency. by refusing to refrain from your inflammatory hate speech.
Because I haven't used the term "teabagger" to refer to any particular member of Gather. Because that would be considered a violation of the Terms of Service. Using the term "teabagger" referring generally to people who protest Pres. Obama's tax policies and stumulus package, etc. is not against the Gather Terms of Service.
"Not encouraging it at all - simply warning you via pointing it out, that it could easily happen, if you use vile inflammatory words like that to the wrong people."
I've used the term "teabaggers" to reference people involved in the Tea Party movement when talking to GLBT people, and I've heard them do the same. It's never been an issue, and I've never been assaulted. I find it very difficult to take your "warning" seriously, but to whatever extent that I risk being assaulted for using the term "teabaggers" to refer to people involved in the Tea Party movement, I'll take my chances. I choose not to live in fear.
"In spite of Mr. McGuires ruling on this specific subject, There will copme a time when he recognixzes that he iis in error - because it is a highly poffensive term - expecially to anyone Gay, or Gay-friendly."
Well, you'd have to check with Chuck, but my guess is that he considers himself "gay-friendly". As do I, since I have quite a few gay friends. Chuck has pointed out to me that the term is "clearly inflammatory to many conservatives" (I'm not sure I agree about the "many" part, but to some conservatives, anyway), but my understanding is that Gather doesn't ban people simply for saying something that people with different political views consider offensive or inflammatory.
"Nor was it a "call"(demand), it was a request..."
Really? A request? I don't think "So stop the offensive language! and "Go away boy, you bother me!" could be considered requests. I was taught that requests usually include words like "please", and don't involve threats of violence or "warnings" if the "request" isn't granted. But maybe we not only have very different notions of decency and decorum, but different definitions of the word "request" as well.
Feel free to find any definition that suits your purposes at the time.
End result is this: You are knowlingly being offensive.
So are you. But I guess it's okay when you do it, right?
Must be far more exhausting than stating the obvious:
"I dunno, I just wrote what the source said without looking it up."
Figured as much.
bye now
Thanks for stopping by ;-)