Are you totally sick in the head? What exactly are you in favor of? 9.6 unemployment, runaway spending on payoffs to political allies? Massive taxation and regulation on every sector of the economy and our lives? I just don't understand what makes somebody like you tick. All I can think is that you believe that the world is static; you believe the pie never increases or decreases. So, in your sick mind, if the US prospers, it comes at a cost to other people in other countries, so you want the US to be destroyed, and you want anybody who is successful to be destroyed. But, the world isn't static. The US being successful is helpful to the world, not harmful. Successful people help the world, creating things of value and leading...

Are you totally sick in the head? What exactly are you in favor of? 9.6 unemployment, runaway spending on payoffs to political allies? Massive taxation and regulation on every sector of the economy and our lives? I just don't understand what makes somebody like you tick. All I can think is that you believe that the world is static; you believe the pie never increases or decreases. So, in your sick mind, if the US prospers, it comes at a cost to other people in other countries, so you want the US to be destroyed, and you want anybody who is successful to be destroyed. But, the world isn't static. The US being successful is helpful to the world, not harmful. Successful people help the world, creating things of value and leading...

The libs are out in force today. Probably govt workers hired to post on forums like this to try to sway opinion.

In a sane world, of course. The Constitution was voted on in 1787. It never needs to be voted on again. The military pledge, and the pledge for new citizens, state clearly the promise to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Obviously, that means with violence and with killing, unless you believe that the military was formed to hold rallies and voting drives. Is that pledge extremist? Hah.

I consider anybody not willing to kill govt workers (and elected reps) who violate the Constitution to be radical pacifists. I think people who are opposed to violence in defense of the Constitution are the extremists.

I think that we (and, by "we" I mostly mean talk show hosts and elected pols), should start re-defining moderate to mean "following the Constitution." That should be the literal moderate. That should be the middle line. We've let the Constitution become defined as extremist.

I suppose Rush is a RINO also - he is happy with the Pledge, it seems. Listening to him now. In a primary, I'll vote for the most libertarian (I consider conservatives to be tyrants, compared to what I'd like to see, but of course they are far better than libs). But, as I said, now that the primary is over, obviously I would vote for Susan Collins, over the Dem. Of course, I'd never vote for her in a primary. I'd like to see a Pledge a 100 times more "radical" (i.e. Constitutional) than how it is. But so what? It is still far better that what the govt is like now. If followed, the Pledge would at least give us a reasonable, stable country, even if it still would be a horrific tyranny, compared to what I'd like to see.

Thanks, Vito, for proving my point, or at least providing solid evidence for it.

Seems like the libs are making a concerted effort to shape opinion on this thread. I think they are really scared of the Pledge. I don't believe that conservatives really are upset by the Pledge, just because it doesn't go even farther.

Exactly right. Persuasion 101, if somebody is moving in the direction that you want, you praise them and then encourage them to go farther. You don't whine and complain that they aren't moving fast enough.