# You go back in time and become a delegate at the Constitutional Convention



## outlier (Sep 2, 2018)

Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.

So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated  each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the  bloodshed could be avoided.

Do you think you could sell the delegates on that?

Any chance if you found yourself a delegate you wouldn't even try?


----------



## the watcher (Sep 2, 2018)

If anyone were to do this, they could not imagine the takeover of the country by corporations or inside forces to the extent it has become without intervention by the people. No, I would suggest that a Bill of Deserves be added, as well as strike out the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration and replace it with  Guarantee of Happiness with a Entitlement and Closure proviso.


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

It probably wouldn’t matter how it is written. Politicians being criminals can always find a way around any law.

Dishonest Abe did yet many Americans think him our greatest POTUS, though he clearly was a traitor, solely responsible for the deaths of 850k Americans, and destruction of half the nation.


----------



## Votto (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> It probably wouldn’t matter how it is written. Politicians being criminals can always find a way around any law.
> 
> Dishonest Abe did yet many Americans think him our greatest POTUS, though he clearly was a traitor, solely responsible for the deaths of 850k Americans, and destruction on half the nation.



And Ben Franklin understood this.  He said that he did not entirely agree with everything in the Constitution, and he knew that the Constitution would only be as good as the moral fiber of those who look to it.

Eventually it would all decay into despotism, which is our nature.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.


----------



## Votto (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.



Define religion.


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.


Why are you against freedom?


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.
> ...


I'm FOR freedom, from religion.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.
> ...


The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.


----------



## Votto (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.
> ...



Let him define what exactly it is we should be free from.

To be fair, the Founding Fathers in no way wanted the state in the pulpit, which is what they came from.

But they understood that a country devoid of personal faith, could not stand.

It is just common sense really.  People either learn to govern themselves in a moral way, or the state does it for them.  If the state is forced to do it for them, because society is amoral, then it devolves into a police state, which the US seems to becoming more each and every day.


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


So if I want religion, in your world, I don’t have the freedom to do what I want.


----------



## Votto (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



So the belief and worship of people or a person is a religion?

How do you define belief and worship?


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

Votto said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Which is why the ruling class who controls the state, promotes immortality. It’s a win-win for them.  What better way other than war, to grow the state.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

Votto said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Religions are amoral at their core. It's about control and threats.


----------



## Mac1958 (Sep 2, 2018)

The framers created such an amazing document, that I wouldn't be surprised if they made secession this difficult because they envisioned a time in which we had become so egotistical and divided that we constantly lost our shit because we weren't getting our way, and wanted our state to split from the country.  Like children who don't get their way on the playground.  So they created this safeguard against childish tantrums. 

If that's the case, holy crap, they pretty much nailed that too.
.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


I didn't say you can't have religion, but religion shouldn't be allowed to dictate anything to us, like creation "science". Or possibly turning over Roe vs Wade for religious reasons. ...


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Not what I said, I used the word "superhuman", as in an invisible superbeing in another dimension.


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


I think the Constitution says pretty much what you just did.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> The framers created such an amazing document, that I wouldn't be surprised if they made secession this difficult because they envisioned a time in which we had become so egotistical and divided that we constantly lost our shit because we weren't getting our way, and wanted our state to split from the country.  Like children who don't get their way on the playground.  So they created this safeguard against childish tantrums.
> 
> If that's the case, holy crap, they pretty much nailed that too.
> .


So basically, states and their citizens aren't free, but shackled to the US forever.


----------



## Votto (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



So your main beef is belief in a super natural being?

So tell us, who has enslaved men over the centuries?  Who has created war after war?

Is it this super natural being whom you hate so much?

IF God exists, did we not come into this world free, that is, unless man takes our freedom from us?


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


The Constitution is giving people the authority to openly hate gays by claiming religious freedom.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


"So tell us, who has enslaved men over the centuries?  Who has created war after war?" Religion, i.e, Crusades, Jihad, attacking abortion doctors...


----------



## Votto (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


But you believe that creation should not even be mentioned in education as a possibility, isn't that right?

The issue here is, who writes the laws and based upon what?  EVERY law written has a moral teaching behind it as to what is "good" or "bad".  So who gets to decide what is good or bad?


----------



## Votto (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Not Stalin, Mao, Chavez?

Man will use whatever tool available to him to subdue and conquer people.  Religion is but one of many tools.

To use religion as a statist tool, man once convinced us that he was God, but then when that no longer worked, man convinced us that he spoke for God, but when that no longer worked, man claimed that God did not exist, making himself a god and the ultimate authority.

In all these scenarios, the statist has the ultimate authority.

I happen to believe that God came in the form of a man, only, he said that his kingdom was not of this world nor could be.  He never raised an army and never clamored for votes.  Instead, he simply taught people the Golden Rule, which is to do unto others as you would have done to you.

Do you think that this is a good moral law for us all to adhere to?


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Creation isn't a possibility unless you can prove it scientifically. Laws define what is good and bad. 

Look, if you want freedom OF religion, then you should be allowing sharia law in the US.


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


So now I can’t have the freedom to hate?


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Nothing has held a grip over humans as long as as tightly as religion. What you're trying to say is that other things have been bad, so why not let religion rule also? You're a scapegoater.


----------



## Votto (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



You are using the idea of a super human being as being a scape goat.

Man is the one to blame for all our problems, no matter if you believe in a God or not.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Do you want to live in a society where stores have signs "we don't serve fags", or "we don't serve *******", or "we don't serve infidels, we'd prefer to kill them"?


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Religion gives man more tools to hate and wage wars.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...




Not sure, gip, if your post was tongue-in-cheek, but the truth is that opinions, even ones called 'hate' by the Leftists, is a right to think what you will....

We on the Right endorse same, and don't believe in thought crime.

How sick is it to see the Liberals, Progressives, Democrats, endorse punishment for thinking other than what they endorse.


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


No.


----------



## miketx (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.


We do.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





Gads, you're an imbecile.

Why, exactly, are you attempting to bring up religion as the cause of hate and wars????

Government schooling???

No schooling???



Where do you see that provenance in the following?

First World War (1914–18): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 million
Russian Civil War (1917–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 million
Soviet Union, Stalin’s regime (1924–53): . . . . . . . . . 20 million
Second World War (1937–45): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 million
Chinese Civil War (1945–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 million
People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong’s 
regime (1949–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 million
Tibet (1950 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,000
Congo Free State (1886–1908): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 million
Mexico (1910–20): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Turkish massacres of Armenians (1915–23): . . . . . 1.5 million
China (1917–28): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800,000
China, Nationalist era (1928–37): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 million
Korean War (1950–53): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 million
Rwanda and Burundi (1959–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.35 million
Second Indochina War (1960–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 million
Ethiopia (1962–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Nigeria (1966–70): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Bangladesh (1971): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.25 million
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975–78): . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65 million
Mozambique (1975–92): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Afghanistan (1979–2001): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 million
Iran–Iraq War (1980–88): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million
Sudan (1983 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 million
Kinshasa, Congo (1998 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 million
Philippines Insurgency (1899–1902): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,000
Brazil (1900 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Amazonia (1900–1912): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Portuguese colonies (1900–1925): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325,000
French colonies (1900–1940): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Japanese War (1904–5): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
German East Africa (1905–7): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Libya (1911–31): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125,000
Balkan Wars (1912–13): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,000
Greco–Turkish War (1919–22): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,000
Spanish Civil War (1936–39): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365,000
Franco Regime (1939–75): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,000
Abyssinian Conquest (1935–41): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Finnish War (1939–40): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Greek Civil War (1943–49): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158,000
Yugoslavia, Tito’s regime (1944–80): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
First Indochina War (1945–54): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Colombia (1946–58): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
India (1947): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Romania (1948–89): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Burma/Myanmar (1948 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130,000
Algeria (1954–62): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537,000
Sudan (1955–72): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000
Guatemala (1960–96): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200,000
Indonesia (1965–66): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
Uganda, Idi Amin’s regime (1972–79): . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Vietnam, postwar Communist regime 
(1975 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430,000
Angola (1975–2002): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,000
East Timor, conquest by Indonesia (1975–99): . . . . . 200,000
Lebanon (1975–90): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Cambodian Civil War (1978–91): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225,000
Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979–2003): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Uganda (1979–86): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Kurdistan (1980s, 1990s): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,000
Liberia (1989–97): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150,000
Iraq (1990– ): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–95): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000
Somalia (1991 et seq.): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400,000
From "The Devil's Delusion," Berlinski


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Not tongue in cheek.  Freedom is freedom.  If one wants to hate, so be it.  The poster seems to think hate should be outlawed.  That is not freedom. That is mind control Orwellian BS.  It is the foundation of political correctness.  

If one acts on their hate and harms others, then the law should punish them.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


That's what freedom of religion should allow, as well as sharia law for anyone who wants the freedom to practise it.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

miketx said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.
> ...


No, we are one nation under god, and our money says in god we trust. And every Prez puts his hand on a bible to be sworn in...


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


You have reading problems. I never said that religion is the sole reason for hate and wars. Please try again. You zipperhead.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...




Perhaps you're too stupid to recognize Leftism as a religion....the one you've subscribed to.

A revealing comparison of the two religions…the Judeo-Christian basis of Western Civilization, and the new one, Leftism.

“Leftism’s guiding principles — notwithstanding the principles of those Christians and Jews who claim to be religious yet hold leftist views — are the antitheses of Judaism and Christianity’s guiding principles.


Judaism and Christianity hold that people are not basically good. Leftism holds that people are basically good. Therefore, Judaism and Christianity believe evil comes from human nature, and leftism believes evil comes from capitalism, religion, the nation-state (i.e. nationalism), corporations, the patriarchy and virtually every other traditional value.



 Judaism and Christianity hold that utopia on Earth is impossible — it will only come in God’s good time as a Messianic age or in the afterlife. Leftism holds that utopia is to be created here on Earth — and as soon as possible. That is why leftists find America so contemptible. They do not compare it to other nations but to a utopian ideal — a society with no inequality, no racism, no differences between the sexes (indeed, no sexes) and no greed in which everything important is obtained free.


Judaism and Christianity believe God and the Bible are to instruct us on how to live a good life and how the heart is the last place to look for moral guidance. Leftists have contempt for anyone who is guided by the Bible and its God, and substitute the heart and feelings for divine instruction.


There may be a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam, but the biggest clash of civilizations is between the West and the left.”                         
Explaining the Left, Part III: Leftism as Secular Religion - The Dennis Prager Show


----------



## miketx (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


How does that hurt you? If we are free then they are free to honor a religion or not. That's why it's called freedom OF religion.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


You just said that you didn't want to live in a society where stores had signs like "we don't serve fags". Make up your mind.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


So what invisible superbeing in another dimension do "leftists" worship?


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

miketx said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


So then if Muslims have freedom of religion, you should be allowing sharia law into the US. So the facts are that we don't have freedom of religion anyways. And imho, we should have freedom FROM sharia law.


----------



## miketx (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Nice try, but you loose. Now you gone off on a tangent like most libnuts. We already have laws in this country. Now I have wasted enough time with your America hating hide.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





Must I teach you everything??????


Have you ever read a book, or questioned the orthodoxy????



The abandonment of religion was the ‘gift’ of The Enlightenment, and of the French Revolution.

The Enlightenment gave the view that through *science and reason, man could make himself replace God. People seem to have missed the greatest difference: science can tell us what we can do, but not what we should do.*

And, people seem not to have noticed that the reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

Three days after the completion of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the mob stormed the Bastille, and marched around with the head of the prison’s commander, Marquis de Launay, on a pike. Shortly, the greatest nation in continental Europe became a human abattoir.


France’s revolution-by-mob has become an inspiration to be imitated in Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Venezuela, in short, for liberals everywhere.

The characteristics of the French Revolution that most clearly identify it as Liberal are that it was spontaneous, impulsive, passionate, emotional, romantic, utopian, resentful, angry, dreamy- anything and everything except disciplined and reasoned and stable.
See Coulter, “Demonic”


And Western Civilization was changed forever.


----------



## Pilot1 (Sep 2, 2018)

gipper said:


> It probably wouldn’t matter how it is written. Politicians being criminals can always find a way around any law.
> 
> Dishonest Abe did yet many Americans think him our greatest POTUS, though he clearly was a traitor, solely responsible for the deaths of 850k Americans, and destruction of half the nation.



The courts have destroyed the Constitution, and Abe destroyed state's rights.  So yes, the words don't matter when dishonest politicians do things, and dishonest lawyers, and judges "interpret".


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

miketx said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


When you have no proper comeback, resort to the personal attack, that makes you look so intelligent.

Freedom of religion = sharia law in the US.


----------



## miketx (Sep 2, 2018)

Pilot1 said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > It probably wouldn’t matter how it is written. Politicians being criminals can always find a way around any law.
> ...


And this is one of the things Trump is attacking and trying to fix.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


If leftists don't worship an invisible superbeing in another dimension, then it's not a real religion as we are talking about here.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

miketx said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Trump is going to fix dishonesty in government?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





The concept 'big government' is your god.


----------



## fncceo (Sep 2, 2018)

the watcher said:


> Guarantee of Happiness


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


So you have nothing as pertaining to the invisible superbeing that leftists worship. Got it. Now shut the fuck up, you fucking zipperhead.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...





You've been schooled, and reacted exactly the way a Liberal would be expected to.


----------



## Taz (Sep 2, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Big government isn't an actual god. Do you need me to explain to you what this thread is about?


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

Taz said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I don’t. Do you really think a store owner who posts such a sign, will be successful?  If so, you need to evaluate your thinking.  

I have NEVER seen such a sign, and I have been around awhile.


----------



## gipper (Sep 2, 2018)

Votto said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > It probably wouldn’t matter how it is written. Politicians being criminals can always find a way around any law.
> ...


Ben Franklin was a very smart man. Yet he had to know the natural inclination of a politician, is criminality.  I suspect he knew our system wouldn’t work due to this huge flaw.


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



There is just as much possibility for abiogenesis as there is for creation.

I would think that to give abiogenesis some credibility, scientists would at least have to create the kind of conditions they think produced life and create a living cell, but they cannot.

Again, the mystery of where matter came from and life came from are two unexplainable problems science faces and there is no evidence as to how these two phenomenon occurred.


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

gipper said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



This is perhaps the greatest commentary on the Constitution ever given by Franklin

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right — _Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison_."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred.

On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.

Franklin correctly surmised that the key to individual freedom was individual morality.


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


There is no possibility for creation, it simply hasn't been proven at all. With abiogenesis, scientists are at least looking and will likely eventually get it to happen in a lab. We can't yet do fusion either, but that doesn't mean that that isn't how the sun works.


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



In North Korea, they erect massive status of their glorious leader where people are made to come and bow down and cry.  If they do not, bad things happen to them.  Then they are all required to put a picture of their glorious leader on the walls of their house.  Again, if they do not, bad things will happen to them.

Now in the US, the worship is a little different.  In Washington DC we see massive shrines to past political leaders.  Men like FDR are revered as one of the greatest Presidents in US history, even though he arguably violated the Constitution worse than any other President in US history by locking up Japanese Americans due to racial prejudice and attempting the Court Packing Scheme to stack the Supreme Court in his favor to get his programs passed, etc.  In fact, because of the vision of FDR and his "positive rights", he has become the forefather of the Progressive movement.  No doubt, people like yourself worship at his alter every day saying what a great President he was, while saying in the same breath that Trump is by far the worst President.  Funny how Trump is the racist while blacks enjoy the lowest levels of unemployment in US history and not once has thrown Americans in concentration camps like FDR did because of their race.  Then Trump instituted a travel ban based on whether the people come from terrorist countries and not based upon being Muslim, something that Obama did as well, yet, Trump is the racist one.  Funny how that works.

But the bottom line here is, we all are in need of a shepherd.   The Bible paints human beings as sheep.  Those of faith recognize their God as their shepherd as where those not of faith adopt the state as their shepherd.  The attitude of a statist is that without the helping hand of Big Brother, we would all be dying in the streets.  From cradle to grave you wish to enact an ever present Big Brother to guide us and help us through life.

Now this shepherd may not be a supernatural being, but men who assume the role are the next best thing.  I've noticed that men like Lenin, Mao, Chavez, etc. all mummify themselves to be put on display when they die, as if they have immortalized themselves to be put on display for the sheep who could not possibly live without them, and they are idolized and worshiped as FDR is today.  I also notice that the Left builds up their leaders as being the most intellectually gifted of the bunch to assume the role of glorious leader, as where the GOP front runner is always painted as a racist buffoon.  And lastly, American politics has shifted power to the Executive Branch so that now we have a President that decides everything from what doctor we see to how our children are educated in the first grade.  This has been accomplished by the deterioration of state rights and Congress delegating their job to the Executive Branch by creating a massive body of unelected bureaucrats who pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws, laws Congress was given to pass and not the Executive Branch.

But that is how we are wired.  As in the days of ancient Israel as the people stood up and demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, today we do the same.  We demand a human king who is flawed and corrupt beyond measure, or soon will be once given next to unbridled power.  The Lord of the Rings pretty much nailed it.


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Not relevant to the conversation. Please try again.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Does that include Obama?


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



There is no possibility of creation?  I've never heard a scientist say this.  How can you even prove such a a thing?

Again, science is all about hypothesis and observation and putting your ideas to the test.  As such, abiogenesis is what has not been proven, just as much as creation.

As for a God being put to the test, this is equally impossible.


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Wait....wut?

Big old whiff, eh.

Two more and you are OUT!


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Not even Trump.


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Science has proven that the world was not made in 6 days. Nor was a woman made out of a man's rib. Nor was there a worldwide flood...


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


We are talking about giving proof that the leftists, as she calls them, worship an invisible superbeing god, and are therefore a religion. The only whiff around me is the whiff of weed.


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



You said that science has disproved creation, but apparently you meant that science has disproved the Bible instead.  Is this right?

As for creation being in only 6 days, you are correct, science says that this is BS.  However, not all those who believe in the Bible think so either.  There are two camps on the issue, there are old earth creationists and there are those who think that the story is only allegory.

For example, you could take the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth, or you could take it as allegory.  If taken as allegory, the story is about two people being told not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.  Does it strike you as odd that the forbidden tree was named "Knowledge"?   Well looking at society today, knowledge is what is destroying us.  WMD's, global warming, plastics that will not degrade, genetically altered plants that cannot reproduce, and soon to be AI that is so terrifying that it's creator stopped and washed his hands of it.

For you see, knowledge without wisdom brings death.

As for Genesis being taken literally from an Old Creationist point of view, Dr. Gerald Schroeder is the only one I know who has attempted to bring science and the Bible into agreement on this issue.  His book Genesis and the Big Bang did a pretty good job in bridging the two.  Here is a video if interested.


Also understand that the person who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest, someone Einstein discarded because he had a reputation to protect, but was later shown to be correct.

As for what was meant by the "rib", that is more or less a mystery whether being taken literally or as an allegory.  Suffice it to say, it signified that man and woman were from the same origins.

I have heard scientists say that there was no global flood, but I have also heard them say that there was not enough water on earth to flood the entire world.  The later has changed, however, after discovering oceans of water below the earth.  Also, there are other ancient accounts of a massive flood in that region from other ancient cultures, all of them varying to some degree.  Looking at this from such a position, it is impossible to refute that there was a massive flood in the region, albeit speculative that it engulfed the entire world.

Scientists discover an ocean 400 miles beneath our feet that could fill our oceans three times over - ExtremeTech


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Whiffing the weed is perhaps one of the impediments to talking to you about these things.

No wonder Dims are all about legalizing it.


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


So you don't believe the bible is true either, and that's where the story of creation comes from. I'm listening to the video now, but it doesn't seem relevant, everyone needs to attribute a different meaning to what is written, so basically, NOBODY believes that the bible is true.


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Maybe you should try some, it might help you stay on topic.


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



You are listening to the video now?

You nave not watched the video, in other words.  FYI, there are 5 of them and should come one after the other.

Of course, if you don't have the time I can just summarize it for you.

Schroeder looked at ancient rabbinical writings on Genesis and discovered that the consensus was that the Earth was not made in only 6 days.

If you look at the Hebrew terms for the days in Genesis, what you will discover is that the terms "morning" and "evening" can be translated "chaos" and "order".

Then when man is made, the terms used to denote the passage of time changes as we are given a second clock to measure time.  The generations from Adam measure about 6000 years.

Now as for Adam's creation, these same rabbis came to the startling conclusion that there may have been other humanoids around.  In essence, Adam became man only when God breathed his spirit into him.

Schroeder points to these rabbinical writings to show that he is not just pulling his theories out of thin air to match modern science because these same conclusions were reached by rabbis pre-modern science.

Then he comes up with his own clock from the beginning of creation.  Using his scientific knowledge, he hypothesized that with each day time halves.  This means that the first day was 8 billion years, the second day was 4 billion years, and the third day was 2 billion years, etc.  If you use his clock then the scientific calendar matches the Bible calendar.

As he points out, time is relative and is manipulated by such things as speed and gravity.  Time is different all throughout the universe.


----------



## Hiryuu (Sep 3, 2018)

outlier said:


> Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.
> 
> So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated  each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the  bloodshed could be avoided.
> 
> ...




I would not try to argue with the good delegate from the State of What If regarding his concerns for portions of the country I would be attempting to unite, to deicide they could dissolve such a Union. For all particle purposes if would defeat the purpose of having a Union in the first place and cause conflict along designated borders. None of which should really matter if the Federal Government adheres to the 10th Amendment and allows the States and/or People more powers than the Federal Government to start with.

I would however suggest we include Balanced Budget requirements on Congress when we get to Article 1, Sections 8 and 9.


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Humans were dumb ape-like beings for millions of years until around 100,000 years ago or so when we became an "intelligent" species. To me, it sounds like alien intervention, but not of the supernatural kind, just regular aliens. But that aside, basically, everyone needs to make up an alternate meaning to the Torah/bible because they agree that it makes no sense as written. The guy makes up his own calendar to fit with science with his first day was 8 billion years long... Totally made up nonsense.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 3, 2018)

outlier said:


> Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.
> 
> So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated  each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the  bloodshed could be avoided.
> 
> ...



Well, I don't see in Article I where it says anything about a bill having to get a majority to pass into law.  In other words, it seems to me that if the House or Senate leadership was keen on the idea and could get their members to go along...they could make it to where if a bill gets one vote, it passes.  Meaning a 1-99 vote would mean the bill passes the chamber.  Or, they could implement a rule that says bills must be unanimous meaning that a 99-1 vote fails.  I stand to be corrected on this...can anyone quote the Constitution or the amendments that ensure a 51-49 or 218-217 margin is needed?  

Given that we also recently seen where the Senate refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court justice--a pretty visible figure--based on nothing more than political interests...if I'm around at the time of the framing; I'm telling my members that we need to put some rules in the constitution to prevent such things.


----------



## Hiryuu (Sep 3, 2018)

candycorn said:


> outlier said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.
> ...



The delegates agreed to use Parliamentarian Procedures in conducting the Constitutional Convention, and in writing the Constitutional requirements. That requires a simple majority in most cases (although I could see where it may have been a good idea to identify the actual requirement for goofballs that may choose to pretend it should be conducted any other way without specification). They went further to specify any time when a simple majority vote would not be the requirement. Article 1, Sections 3, 5 and 7 - Article 2, Section 2 – Article 5 [which covers a Constitutional Convention] , and the 12th, 14th and 25th Amendment all require super majority votes (and were identified as such).

Furthermore, Article 1, Section 5 does allow both Houses of Congress to set their own rules.

_"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."_


----------



## candycorn (Sep 3, 2018)

Hiryuu said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > outlier said:
> ...



"The delegates agreed to use Parliamentarian Procedures in conducting the Constitutional Convention, and in writing the Constitutional requirements. That requires a simple majority in most cases (although I could see where it may have been a good idea to identify the actual requirement for goofballs that may choose to pretend it should be conducted any other way without specification)"


Are the Parlimentary Procedures written in the Constitution...when it comes to bill consideration?


----------



## Hiryuu (Sep 3, 2018)

candycorn said:


> Hiryuu said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



No, but this is ..._ "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." _Which would pretty much negate the idea that it isn't covered who gets to make the rules.


----------



## candycorn (Sep 3, 2018)

Hiryuu said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Hiryuu said:
> ...



So...such a 1-99 pass or 99-1 failure is possible; it's just extremely unlikely.


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



Wait........wut?

Aliens done it?


----------



## Hiryuu (Sep 3, 2018)

candycorn said:


> So...such a 1-99 pass or 99-1 failure is possible; it's just extremely unlikely.



It wouldn't follow general  Parliamentarian Procedures that are the basis for most (English) law. It is possible to the extent they don't say it couldn't happen, but the Founding Fathers did identify the circumstances when something else was required, and defined the requirements (super majority).

(Edit)
If you're asking me whether or not goofballs would ever attempt to interpret the Constitution to mean something it doesn't, or use an instance where the Founding Fathers failed to address all the possible bullshit someone could think of to favor their desires ... I don't think there's really a question to that.


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


A possibility, sure. It's no dumber than an invisible superbeing in another dimension that nobody has seen or been to did it.


----------



## Hiryuu (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> A possibility, sure. It's no dumber than an invisible superbeing in another dimension that nobody has seen or been to did it.



You can call the advanced intelligence being an alien, someone else can call it God. I wouldn't suggest that the God Alien would be required to play by your rules considering you may not know what it knows, but if it makes you feel better to assume everything is a product random chance, go with that.

I mean if matter is really only altered, then giving it a particular order is what provides purpose.


----------



## Votto (Sep 3, 2018)

Taz said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...



What is the difference between an ET and God?


----------



## Taz (Sep 3, 2018)

Votto said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Aliens are real, god has yet to be proven real.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 4, 2018)

outlier said:


> Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.
> 
> So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated  each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the  bloodshed could be avoided.
> 
> ...



States can leave the Union.....using pretty much the same process that they used to enter it.


----------



## Skylar (Sep 4, 2018)

Votto said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


That assumes that morality can only be taught by religion. Which is nonsense. That also assumes that people learn to be moral through religion. I argue that religion reflects the values of the people. Not creates them.

Take.....the Puritans. And they'd kill you for adultery or homosexuality.

Then take the founders. They'd kill you for homosexuality. But not adultery.

Now take more modern Christians. They won't kill you for either.

*Did God change His mind? *Or did the conception of god change to match the values of the people? As we're talking about the same faith, the same general location, the same language, the same bible....separated _only by time. 

Demonstrating that perceptions of God are adapted to match societal changes.. Or that God is capricious and malleable, changing over time. 
_
Either of which nixes the idea of faith being an objective measure for moral reasoning. Or a reasonable basis of it.


----------

