Comment: "constructive critism"? Hardly. You sir need to study.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: constructive criticism; (see in situ)

"constructive critism"? Hardly. You sir need to study.

Ok wormwoodtwentytwelve,

I've gone through your other posts from the past which are all rather uneventful and definitely not insightful. Your criticism of this young lady, even if it were valid (which it is not) hinges on her "s#$%$" handwriting? I'de take 100 others of that versus the millions of others her age that have no clue and will grow up "paying their taxes", and "voting as their duty".. aka feeding the beast.

Now to be more specific about her take on the Constitution, it is absolutely correct. You might want to actually READ these documents before posting your opinion. Here is an excerpt for you since you apparently don't like to look these things up. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that ALL men are created equal."

It goes on to state that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.. So you mean to tell me Mr. wormwood2012 that only Americans have a creator? That's both odd and extremely ignorant. Even if you don't believe in a creator as such, you must admit that the passage is referring to the authors belief that mankind was created and they specifically state ALL men.. not American men.

I'm guessing the reason you are so upset at this "kid" as you put it (she's got more on the ball than a lot of adults I know btw) is because your wormwood deathstar or event didn't show up in 2012. Since you've had that handle for 4 years now I think it time you got off the fake Conspiracy train and joined the rest of us in scholarly reality.

Oh, and you owe that "kid" and her father an apology.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but the