You exhibit total partiality.
No, I don't. For instance, while I don't agree with much of anything BHO does foreign-policy wise, I'm the first to admit it's (a) an NP-complete problem, and (b) absolutely no one else has any clear, simple, repeatable foreign policy framework that is met with general support. But the facts of what I actually think and have said would crash your little ice cream truck.
...or their local affiliate, did to the Zimmerman (not a 911) call was every bit as dishonest and misleading as what the media did with the "Dean Scream".
That is debatable at the very least (although it would help if I knew for sure which call you were talking about). Regardless, the difference is between bringing attention to someone who chased down and killed an unarmed kid versus destroying the career of a politician simply because he was enthusiastic to be campaigning.
Being as the person who killed someone got off scot-free while the politician saw his entire career go up in smoke, you can't say that the after effects were in any way comparable either.
I don't think any one of the Founders would approve of the Progressive noise that is
"republicanism" as we know it today
OK, so words do not have meanings. Thank you for the clarification, now I know how to read this JE as well.
Tell me how that was in any way less realistic than the conspiracy theory you just presented?
I can't. Hence my admission to having been pwned.
People were convicted for Iran/Contra (of course they wouldn't touch the One), yet you still treat them with total deference.
No, I don't. Doesn't seem to abate your accusations. The point about the excessively concentrated power in DC holds, irrespective of party. Whatever, dude.
"republicanism" as we know it today
chiefly due to the fact that DC today is become as odious as Parliament then. Bravo, gold star for the day, move to head of class.
and became a prominent Anti-Federalist in Maryland
Would that mean that he opposed the beloved Federalist Papers that the tea party clings so dearly to? If he was opposed to the Federalist Papers, then that wouldn't seem to make him much of a supporter of "republicanism" as we know it today, would it?
Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.