# The Tea Party loves the Constitution?



## rightwinger

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much


----------



## Political Junky

rightwinger said:


> They why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much


That, plus Christine O'Donnell knows nothing about the constitution.


----------



## KMAN

rightwinger said:


> They why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much






Coming from a big Tea Party supporter, you obviously have no clue what it stands for...  BIG SURPRISE!!!!!  LOL!!!!!!!


----------



## Lonestar_logic

rightwinger said:


> They why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



When you lie, you lie big.


----------



## Truthmatters

Its a bullshit stance to make them sound smart.

They claim to honor the founders and our GOVERNMENT while they lie about it and trash it constantly.


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



Got any links that have examples and gives thier reasons for thinking this way?

I don't know many, and am not one myself, but;
!st;  I have yet to hear anyone say either of those.  Asking muslims not to be assholes, is not breaking the law or wanting to change the Constitution.
2nd;  well no shit, that's something Dems, libs and progs want to do away with.
4th; what?
14th;  People come into America on a regular basis just to give birth so they can't be sent home.
16th;  since when?
17th;  the electoral college sucks ass.  How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?

Sounds like they want to fix what's broken.  But broken is how the DNC wants America, so shame on those people that want to make it better.


----------



## rightwinger

Meanwhile the ACLU whose sole purpose is to DEFEND the Constitution is vilified by the Tea Party.

Have any of them even READ the Constitution?


----------



## Truthmatters

some have but they still dont understand it


----------



## California Girl

Another 'flame' in politics? I sooo never see those coming.


----------



## Sallow

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any links that have examples and gives thier reasons for thinking this way?
> 
> I don't know many, and am not one myself, but;
> !st;  I have yet to hear anyone say either of those.  Asking muslims not to be assholes, is not breaking the law or wanting to change the Constitution.
> 2nd;  well no shit, that's something Dems, libs and progs want to do away with.
> 4th; what?
> 14th;  People come into America on a regular basis just to give birth so they can't be sent home.
> 16th;  since when?
> 17th;  the electoral college sucks ass.  How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?
> 
> Sounds like they want to fix what's broken.  But broken is how the DNC wants America, so shame on those people that want to make it better.
Click to expand...


Case in point..


----------



## Bass v 2.0

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much




You forgot the 6th and 8th Amendments, they don't believe in fair and speedy trials they believe in building prisons in Cuba and detaining people indefinitely without charges and they don't believe waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishment.


----------



## DiamondDave

Get the hip waders out again.. wrongwinger is piling the unsubstantiated bullshit deep again


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Meanwhile the ACLU whose sole purpose is to DEFEND the Constitution is vilified by the Tea Party.
> 
> Have any of them even READ the Constitution?



That's a lie.

The aclu only enforces the Constitution when it wants to.

When the military was getting fucked over by your hero clinton, those lying basturds where no where to be seen.


----------



## Nosmo King

All those constitutional problems the Tea Party has problems with involve the further erosion of civil liberties and personal freedoms.

Why should we bother listening to the Tea Party when they want fewer rights for individuals yet more freedoms for corporations?


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the ACLU whose sole purpose is to DEFEND the Constitution is vilified by the Tea Party.
> 
> Have any of them even READ the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> The aclu only enforces the Constitution when it wants to.
> 
> When the military was getting fucked over by your hero clinton, those lying basturds where no where to be seen.
Click to expand...

How was the military getting fucked over by (your hero) clinton [sic]?  Be specific.


----------



## KMAN

rightwinger hates the constitution!  Loves Communism!

I guess that's how liberals start discussions around here so I guess I will try it too.


Next, people need to chime in "yes he does, rightwinger is stupid, etc....


Sheeze it sounds like I am back in elementary school...


----------



## Sallow

DiamondDave said:


> Get the hip waders out again.. wrongwinger is piling the unsubstantiated bullshit deep again



Not sure what you mean by this? Tea Party candidates are "not" asking for changes in the Constitution?


----------



## Nosmo King

KMAN said:


> rightwinger hates the constitution!  Loves Communism!
> 
> I guess that's how liberals start discussions around here so I guess I will try it too.
> 
> 
> Next, people need to chime in "yes he does, rightwinger is stupid, etc....
> 
> 
> Sheeze it sounds like I am back in elementary school...


Never read any defense of communism in the OP.  Did read plenty of food for thought vis-a-vis the Tea Party and their zeal to repeal.


----------



## drsmith1072

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any links that have examples and gives thier reasons for thinking this way?
> 
> I don't know many, and am not one myself, but;
> !st;  I have yet to hear anyone say either of those.  Asking muslims not to be assholes, is not breaking the law or wanting to change the Constitution.
> 2nd;  well no shit, that's something Dems, libs and progs want to do away with.
> 4th; what?
> 14th;  People come into America on a regular basis just to give birth so they can't be sent home.
> 16th;  since when?
> 17th;  the electoral college sucks ass.  How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?
> 
> Sounds like they want to fix what's broken.  But broken is how the DNC wants America, so shame on those people that want to make it better.
Click to expand...


1st; "asking" muslim not to build a religious center because you don't like them or their religion because people claiming to be muslim attacked us is not a valid reason to restrict their rights. 

2nd; I have no problem with the right to bears arms but do believe that there should be some restrictions and unless you believe that felons should have that right then you to believe that in can be limited and infringed upon. 

14th; doesn't change the fact that the right wants to change the constitution to "fix" this situation. 

16th; I have heard some complain about it but I can;t say that they want to eliminate it alltogether but i am sure there are some just as there are some on the left who would wish to do away with the 2nd.

17th; uh he was talking about senators and you are talking about the president so I will let you two decipher that mess. 

BTW better is a matter of opinion. What you deem as better some might see as taking a huge step backwards.


----------



## cutter

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



Lust like most libs you think if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any links that have examples and gives thier reasons for thinking this way?
> 
> I don't know many, and am not one myself, but;
> !st;  I have yet to hear anyone say either of those.  Asking muslims not to be assholes, is not breaking the law or wanting to change the Constitution.
> 2nd;  well no shit, that's something Dems, libs and progs want to do away with.
> 4th; what?
> 14th;  People come into America on a regular basis just to give birth so they can't be sent home.
> 16th;  since when?
> 17th;  the electoral college sucks ass.  How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?
> 
> Sounds like they want to fix what's broken.  But broken is how the DNC wants America, so shame on those people that want to make it better.
Click to expand...


Do Tea Baggers support?

- The mosque near ground zero?
- Equal rights for gays?
-  Birth citizenship for illegals?
-  The federal income tax?
- Direct election of Senators?

These are all rightwing conservative issues that are protected by our Constitution


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile the ACLU whose sole purpose is to DEFEND the Constitution is vilified by the Tea Party.
> 
> Have any of them even READ the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> The aclu only enforces the Constitution when it wants to.
> 
> When the military was getting fucked over by your hero clinton, those lying basturds where no where to be seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How was the military getting fucked over by (your hero) clinton [sic]?  Be specific.
Click to expand...


Clinton downsized the military.

To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.

Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.

Then he made discrimination legal.

If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.  

And then he legalised theft.

Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.


Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?

I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.


----------



## rightwinger

cutter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lust like most libs you think if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...


Really?  Then explain to me the right wing conservative positions on these issues


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any links that have examples and gives thier reasons for thinking this way?
> 
> I don't know many, and am not one myself, but;
> !st;  I have yet to hear anyone say either of those.  Asking muslims not to be assholes, is not breaking the law or wanting to change the Constitution.
> 2nd;  well no shit, that's something Dems, libs and progs want to do away with.
> 4th; what?
> 14th;  People come into America on a regular basis just to give birth so they can't be sent home.
> 16th;  since when?
> 17th;  the electoral college sucks ass.  How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?
> 
> Sounds like they want to fix what's broken.  But broken is how the DNC wants America, so shame on those people that want to make it better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do Tea Baggers support?
> 
> - The mosque near ground zero?
> - Equal rights for gays?
> -  Birth citizenship for illegals?
> -  The federal income tax?
> - Direct election of Senators?
> 
> These are all rightwing conservative issues that are protected by our Constitution
Click to expand...


So you don't have any links to prove your accusations.

- The mosque near ground zero?  Why would anyone support a kick in the teeth?
- Equal rights for gays?  I do
-  Birth citizenship for illegals?  This has backfired on us.  Taking a second look at an "amendment" is not anti-rights
-  The federal income tax?  They are against wastefull spending and high taxes.  not all taxes.
- Direct election of Senators?  one man one vote.  Who is against that?


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> The aclu only enforces the Constitution when it wants to.
> 
> When the military was getting fucked over by your hero clinton, those lying basturds where no where to be seen.
> 
> 
> 
> How was the military getting fucked over by (your hero) clinton [sic]?  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton downsized the military.
> 
> To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.
> 
> Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.
> 
> Then he made discrimination legal.
> 
> If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.
> 
> And then he legalised theft.
> 
> Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.
> 
> 
> Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?
> 
> I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.
Click to expand...

And you think the ACLU was derelect because....

Did President Clinton act without constitutional authority?  Did he disband the Amry or Navy?  There are provisons in the constitution establishing both those branches.

Do you understand what the constitution is and how it works?

Just because decisions were made that help deflate the military-industial complex, it doesn't mean that the constitution was violated.

You would have had a fit in 1928!  The Kellogg-Briand pact would have made your ears bleed!  And, you'd have a Republican president to kick around!


----------



## rightwinger

Two Thumbs said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> The aclu only enforces the Constitution when it wants to.
> 
> When the military was getting fucked over by your hero clinton, those lying basturds where no where to be seen.
> 
> 
> 
> How was the military getting fucked over by (your hero) clinton [sic]?  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton downsized the military.
> 
> To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.
> 
> Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.
> 
> Then he made discrimination legal.
> 
> If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.
> 
> And then he legalised theft.
> 
> Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.
> 
> 
> Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?
> 
> I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.
Click to expand...


Clinton took office in Jan 1993  right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course he downsized the military. Our Military was designed to fight the cold war. It was bloated, the doctrine was wrong, the equipment was wrong, the structure was wrong.

You may also note that by downsizing the military we managed to have a balanced budget


----------



## drsmith1072

cutter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lust like most libs you think if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. Just because you say it doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...



Can you prove it's a lie or are you only offering your opinions??

BTW did you happen to miss two thumbs responses where he actually defends some of the positions listed?? That kind of shows that at least some truth lies in what rightwinger has said. 



Two Thumbs said:


> Got any links that have examples and gives thier reasons for thinking this way?
> 
> I don't know many, and am not one myself, but;
> !st;  I have yet to hear anyone say either of those.  *Asking muslims not to be assholes, is not breaking the law or wanting to change the Constitution.*
> 2nd;  well no shit, that's something Dems, libs and progs want to do away with.
> 4th; what?
> 14th;  *People come into America on a regular basis just to give birth so they can't be sent home.*16th;  since when?
> 17th;  *the electoral college sucks ass.  How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?*
> *Sounds like they want to fix what's broken.*  But broken is how the DNC wants America, so shame on those people that want to make it better.



Oops.


----------



## daveman

They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.

Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.


----------



## cutter

Put the car in (D) to drive out of the ditch and put the car in (R) to go back into the ditch. - Obama
Reply With Quote


Put the car in R to ditch the democrats.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.



I don't see Liberals complaining about the Constitution. Yet somehow, the right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution have obviously never read it. That is why they want to change so much of the document


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> How was the military getting fucked over by (your hero) clinton [sic]?  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton downsized the military.
> 
> To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.
> 
> Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.
> 
> Then he made discrimination legal.
> 
> If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.
> 
> And then he legalised theft.
> 
> Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.
> 
> 
> Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?
> 
> I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you think the ACLU was derelect because....
> 
> Did President Clinton act without constitutional authority?  Did he disband the Amry or Navy?  There are provisons in the constitution establishing both those branches.
> 
> Do you understand what the constitution is and how it works?
> 
> Just because decisions were made that help deflate the military-industial complex, it doesn't mean that the constitution was violated.
> 
> You would have had a fit in 1928!  The Kellogg-Briand pact would have made your ears bleed!  And, you'd have a Republican president to kick around!
Click to expand...


It's always nice to get my hatred of democrats reconfirmed every now and then.

Your utter disreguard for honorable men and women has been echoed by every other dem I explain this too.  You always have excuses for breaking the law as long as it's the laws that fuck over honorable people.

Thanks for proving that my decision to never ever vote (d) ever again, was the right one.


----------



## kwc57

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



You're going to need to provide some documentation to back up your claims.  May I suggest links to actual Tea Party sites where this is part of the individual groups platform.  I've got a feeling that what you will find instead is a call for lower taxes and smaller government.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Liberals complaining about the Constitution. Yet somehow, the right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution have obviously never read it. That is why they want to change so much of the document
Click to expand...

Liberals don't complain about it because they work around it.  They don't need to know what it says because they ignore it.

And obviously, people who want to change it in the manner it prescribes HAVE read it.


----------



## Sallow

Nosmo King said:


> And you think the ACLU was derelect because....
> 
> Did President Clinton act without constitutional authority?  Did he disband the Amry or Navy?  There are provisons in the constitution establishing both those branches.
> 
> Do you understand what the constitution is and how it works?
> 
> Just because decisions were made that help deflate the military-industial complex, it doesn't mean that the constitution was violated.
> 
> You would have had a fit in 1928!  The Kellogg-Briand pact would have made your ears bleed!  And, you'd have a Republican president to kick around!



The navy is a permanent fixture as perscribed by the Constitution, the army is not. It must be funded by a vote every two years. IMHO the Second Amendment pertains to the Militia's right to bear arms. It's probably the most mis-interpreted amendment in the Constitution. There are a good deal of clauses that refer to the Congress drawing from militias to populate the army. Original intent..seems to be the Citizen Soldier acting in defense of the homeland. Not a professional class of permanent soldiers under federal control.


----------



## Two Thumbs

rightwinger said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> How was the military getting fucked over by (your hero) clinton [sic]?  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton downsized the military.
> 
> To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.
> 
> Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.
> 
> Then he made discrimination legal.
> 
> If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.
> 
> And then he legalised theft.
> 
> Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.
> 
> 
> Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?
> 
> I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clinton took office in Jan 1993  right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course he downsized the military. Our Military was designed to fight the cold war. It was bloated, the doctrine was wrong, the equipment was wrong, the structure was wrong.
> 
> You may also note that by downsizing the military we managed to have a balanced budget
Click to expand...


Oh, and don't forget, when we had to go to war.  We were undermanned and under equipt.  Men died and you can thank clinton.

My god man!!

It's ok to fuck Vets over for a fucking surplus!?  How fucking evil are dems?

This would have been the right way;

We are limiting enlisment of new people and limiting the re-enlistment of current people.  Here's the list of rates that will be limited...

But you fucks got your surplus, never mind who you discriminated against to get it.


----------



## daveman

kwc57 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to need to provide some documentation to back up your claims.
Click to expand...

Why should he start now?


----------



## drsmith1072

Two Thumbs said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> The aclu only enforces the Constitution when it wants to.
> 
> When the military was getting fucked over by your hero clinton, those lying basturds where no where to be seen.
> 
> 
> 
> How was the military getting fucked over by (your hero) clinton [sic]?  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Clinton downsized the military.*
> To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.
> 
> Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.
> 
> Then he made discrimination legal.
> 
> If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.
> 
> And then he legalised theft.
> 
> Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.
> 
> 
> Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?
> 
> I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.
Click to expand...


Uh so did reagan and HW. They started cutting the defense budget in 85 and that trend continued until 1999 when clinton became the first president to increase it instead of cutting it since 1985. 

BTW can you provide a link to show that clinton established the pay grade time limits? how about the weight standards that are still in effect today, do you have a link? Can you actually show where any of the things that you listed came from?

I served 4 years (95-99) while clinton was president and noticed how much we were getting even as the right complained about how much we were allegedly losing. New vehicles, new personal equipment, new computers, money for new barracks and on post housing. Yeah it was SOOO bad. LOL


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Liberals complaining about the Constitution. Yet somehow, the right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution have obviously never read it. That is why they want to change so much of the document
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals don't complain about it because they work around it.  They don't need to know what it says because they ignore it.
> 
> And obviously, people who want to change it in the manner it prescribes HAVE read it.
Click to expand...


Liberals don't "complain" about it because it was written by people who were mostly Liberal.


----------



## Bass v 2.0

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton downsized the military.
> 
> To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.
> 
> Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.
> 
> Then he made discrimination legal.
> 
> If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.
> 
> And then he legalised theft.
> 
> Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.
> 
> 
> Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?
> 
> I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton took office in Jan 1993  right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course he downsized the military. Our Military was designed to fight the cold war. It was bloated, the doctrine was wrong, the equipment was wrong, the structure was wrong.
> 
> You may also note that by downsizing the military we managed to have a balanced budget
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, and don't forget, when we had to go to war.  We were undermanned and under equipt.  Men died and you can thank clinton.
> 
> My god man!!
> 
> It's ok to fuck Vets over for a fucking surplus!?  How fucking evil are dems?
> 
> This would have been the right way;
> 
> We are limiting enlisment of new people and limiting the re-enlistment of current people.  Here's the list of rates that will be limited...
> 
> But you fucks got your surplus, never mind who you discriminated against to get it.
Click to expand...


BS, we were undermanned because a retarded monkey named Donald Rumsfeld refused to listen to then General Shinseki that the war could not be fought and maintained with the plan they had in mind and that it would take more troops, Rumsfled, Bush Monkey and Cheyney didn't listen thats why there was a debacle, that debacle had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's drawdown in the 1990s.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Liberals complaining about the Constitution. Yet somehow, the right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution have obviously never read it. That is why they want to change so much of the document
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't complain about it because they work around it.  They don't need to know what it says because they ignore it.
> 
> And obviously, people who want to change it in the manner it prescribes HAVE read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals don't "complain" about it because it was written by people who were mostly Liberal.
Click to expand...

You're right, but not in the way you think.

The Founding Fathers were classical liberals:  They believed personal liberty of the individual was the most important facet of society, and wrote the Constitution to limit government's ability to interfere with that liberty.

However, modern liberalism has nothing to do with individual liberties.  It's concerned with people as a collective, and the collective is more important than the individual.   Individual freedoms are unimportant.

Modern conservatives are classical liberals.  

You can deny this, but not credibly.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Liberals complaining about the Constitution. Yet somehow, the right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution have obviously never read it. That is why they want to change so much of the document
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals don't complain about it because they work around it.  They don't need to know what it says because they ignore it.
> 
> And obviously, people who want to change it in the manner it prescribes HAVE read it.
Click to expand...


So as a Conservative you admit that you do not like what is currently in the Constitution?


----------



## Sallow

kwc57 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to need to provide some documentation to back up your claims.  May I suggest links to actual Tea Party sites where this is part of the individual groups platform.  I've got a feeling that what you will find instead is a call for lower taxes and smaller government.
Click to expand...


Why? Tea Parties have been changing the message so they can win general elections.

But heck..here ya go.

Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution


----------



## drsmith1072

daveman said:


> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.



Just because you choose to believe something you have been spoon fed, it doesn't make it true. LOL Your "key difference" is nothing but a delusion that the right uses to justify their hypocrisy.

Furthermore, the right loves judges who legislate from the bench as long as the decision agrees with their opinions.


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't complain about it because they work around it.  They don't need to know what it says because they ignore it.
> 
> And obviously, people who want to change it in the manner it prescribes HAVE read it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't "complain" about it because it was written by people who were mostly Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, but not in the way you think.
> 
> The Founding Fathers were classical liberals:  They believed personal liberty of the individual was the most important facet of society, and wrote the Constitution to limit government's ability to interfere with that liberty.
> 
> However, modern liberalism has nothing to do with individual liberties.  It's concerned with people as a collective, and the collective is more important than the individual.   Individual freedoms are unimportant.
> 
> Modern conservatives are classical liberals.
> 
> You can deny this, but not credibly.
Click to expand...


Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.

And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.

They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see Liberals complaining about the Constitution. Yet somehow, the right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution have obviously never read it. That is why they want to change so much of the document
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't complain about it because they work around it.  They don't need to know what it says because they ignore it.
> 
> And obviously, people who want to change it in the manner it prescribes HAVE read it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So as a Conservative you admit that you do not like what is currently in the Constitution?
Click to expand...

You get awfully anxious when people don't fit into the nice neat cubbyholes you think they should be in, don't you?

Where have I said anything that would make you think I'm unsatisfied with the Constitution?  

Please note that the stereotypes you use instead of rational thought are based on nothing but the lies the Left keeps telling itself.


----------



## daveman

drsmith1072 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to believe something you have been spoon fed, it doesn't make it true. LOL Your "key difference" is nothing but a delusion that the right uses to justify their hypocrisy.
> 
> Furthermore, the right loves judges who legislate from the bench as long as the decision agrees with their opinions.
Click to expand...

Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...


----------



## Two Thumbs

drsmith1072 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> How was the military getting fucked over by (your hero) clinton [sic]?  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinton downsized the military.*
> To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.
> 
> Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.
> 
> Then he made discrimination legal.
> 
> If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.
> 
> And then he legalised theft.
> 
> Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.
> 
> 
> Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?
> 
> I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh so did reagan and HW. They started cutting the defense budget in 85 and that trend continued until 1999 when clinton became the first president to increase it instead of cutting it since 1985.
> 
> BTW can you provide a link to show that clinton established the pay grade time limits? how about the weight standards that are still in effect today, do you have a link? Can you actually show where any of the things that you listed came from?
> 
> I served 4 years (95-99) while clinton was president and noticed how much we were getting even as the right complained about how much we were allegedly losing. New vehicles, new personal equipment, new computers, money for new barracks and on post housing. Yeah it was SOOO bad. LOL
Click to expand...


Served 84-95

Ask anyone that was there when these rules were invented.

You came in at the end of it, so you missed all the men getting fucked.  But hey, it's ok, you got a nice barracks or a house.

unreal, you think having a nice room is better than honoring those that came before you.  Glad you only did 4 years, would have felt bad for anyone that would have had to take orders from you.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Bass v 2.0 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton took office in Jan 1993  right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course he downsized the military. Our Military was designed to fight the cold war. It was bloated, the doctrine was wrong, the equipment was wrong, the structure was wrong.
> 
> You may also note that by downsizing the military we managed to have a balanced budget
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and don't forget, when we had to go to war.  We were undermanned and under equipt.  Men died and you can thank clinton.
> 
> My god man!!
> 
> It's ok to fuck Vets over for a fucking surplus!?  How fucking evil are dems?
> 
> This would have been the right way;
> 
> We are limiting enlisment of new people and limiting the re-enlistment of current people.  Here's the list of rates that will be limited...
> 
> But you fucks got your surplus, never mind who you discriminated against to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BS, we were undermanned because a retarded monkey named Donald Rumsfeld refused to listen to then General Shinseki that the war could not be fought and maintained with the plan they had in mind and that it would take more troops, Rumsfled, Bush Monkey and Cheyney didn't listen thats why there was a debacle, that debacle had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's drawdown in the 1990s.
Click to expand...


More with the "monkey" speak....  Do you really think anyone takes anything you say seriously when you work _retarded _or _monkey _into every post?  Grow up.  Ya got nothing.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.
> 
> And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.
> 
> They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.



Nonsense.  Utter nonsense.


----------



## Ozmar

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much


Here's why the whole idea of liberalism is distasteful to moderates such as myself:

I think the majority of Teabaggers realize that building Mosques and burning the flag are constitutionally protected, but they are using their own constitutionally protected free speech to express their disdain for both.

You are just being silly with the 14th amendment one. The whole anchor baby thing, while disproportionately affecting Mexicans, is not solely about Mexicans. It just so happens that the majority of people who abuse that clause of the constitution happen to be illegal Mexican immigrants. How much can one country absorb before it goes bankrupt? 

I don't know where you get this whole thing about gays. I'll put it to you trying to stir shit up.

I don't think they want the government to stop collecting income taxes on the whole, but the constitution is pretty clear that the federal government should only be collecting them at a minimum, for the constitutional functions of the government.

The part about senators elected by the people, that's more of a Ron Paul thing. Did you know America is one of the few countries in the world without its subnational units actually having representatives accountable to them in the national government?

The original purpose of having the senators selected by state legislatures was so that they would be direct representatives of the state governments, and thus accountable to those state governments. If senators are directly elected by the people in those states, the dynamic changes.

Looky here, an Australian pointing out the flaws in your logic.


----------



## kwc57

A quick search of the web didn't turn up any of the claimed items in the OP.  Here is what I found.

Nationwide Tea Party Coalition | Plug into the Tea Party Movement Ecosystem

Our Core Values
1. Limited Government, as authorized by the Constitution
2. Fiscal Responsibility
3. Free Markets

Our Goals:
1.To Defeat Tax and Spend Politicians at the Polls on Election Day, November 2010.
2.To Place a Fiscally Responsible Politician as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Tea Party Nation

Tea Party Nation is a user-driven&#8232; group of like-minded people who desire our God-given individual&#8232; freedoms written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited &#8232;Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure &#8232;Borders and our Country.

Tea Party Patriots | Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets. 


Core Values
&#8226;Fiscal Responsibility
&#8226;Constitutionally Limited Government
&#8226;Free Markets


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations. 

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law. 

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business. 


Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual. 

Home Page

A broad coalition of local and regional Tea Party groups have announced the formation of the National Tea Party Federation (NTPF). The NTPF is established to create a unified message and media response amongst key leadership and their affiliates.  At the same time, the NTPF will act as a clearinghouse and to prepare leadership to promote the Tea Party movement's objectives of:

&#9632;Fiscal Responsibility 
&#9632;Constitutionally Limited Government 
&#9632;Free Markets 

Contract from America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[2][3]

1.Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
2.Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
3.Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4.Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words &#8211; the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
5.Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
6.Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
7.Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
8.Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
9.Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
10.Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).


----------



## drsmith1072

kwc57 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to need to provide some documentation to back up your claims.  May I suggest links to actual Tea Party sites where this is part of the individual groups platform.  I've got a feeling that what you will find instead is a call for lower taxes and smaller government.
Click to expand...


uh in case you missed it there has been evidence in this very thread that the right wishes to change at least some of what rightwinger listed. 

one even tried to claim that 



daveman said:


> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.



so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

daveman said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to believe something you have been spoon fed, it doesn't make it true. LOL Your "key difference" is nothing but a delusion that the right uses to justify their hypocrisy.
> 
> Furthermore, the right loves judges who legislate from the bench as long as the decision agrees with their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...
Click to expand...


No kidding..... drsmith lives in alternate reality where up is down and left is right.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Soggy in NOLA said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to believe something you have been spoon fed, it doesn't make it true. LOL Your "key difference" is nothing but a delusion that the right uses to justify their hypocrisy.
> 
> Furthermore, the right loves judges who legislate from the bench as long as the decision agrees with their opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding..... drsmith lives in alternate reality where up is down *and left is right*.
Click to expand...


And no pun intended!


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.
> 
> And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.
> 
> They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Utter nonsense.
Click to expand...


Hogwash. You guys put up vague generalities about freedom and liberty..and when asked for specifics on exactly what that means..you point to freedom and liberty for corporate entities. Replace those corporate entities with nobility and yes..you guys are closer to the Tories and Whigs.


----------



## ClosedCaption

two thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> meanwhile the aclu whose sole purpose is to defend the constitution is vilified by the tea party.
> 
> Have any of them even read the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's a lie.
> 
> The aclu only enforces the constitution when it wants to.
Click to expand...


oh no thats horrible!  You're right they should be tar and feathered!!


----------



## The T

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much


 

SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.


----------



## The T

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals don't "complain" about it because it was written by people who were mostly Liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, but not in the way you think.
> 
> The Founding Fathers were classical liberals: They believed personal liberty of the individual was the most important facet of society, and wrote the Constitution to limit government's ability to interfere with that liberty.
> 
> However, modern liberalism has nothing to do with individual liberties. It's concerned with people as a collective, and the collective is more important than the individual. Individual freedoms are unimportant.
> 
> Modern conservatives are classical liberals.
> 
> You can deny this, but not credibly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.
> 
> And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.
> 
> They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.
Click to expand...

 

Thing is We are. The Founders were classical Liberals whom cherished Liberty across the spectrum...but they tempered it with the Rule Of LAW...this is where Statist DOLTS as you get tripped up.


----------



## rightwinger

The T said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.
Click to expand...


The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


----------



## Sallow

The T said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.
Click to expand...


Here ya go.

Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution

I put this up before.


----------



## The T

rightwinger said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Click to expand...

 
Who's wanting to change _what?_


----------



## Sallow

The T said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, but not in the way you think.
> 
> The Founding Fathers were classical liberals: They believed personal liberty of the individual was the most important facet of society, and wrote the Constitution to limit government's ability to interfere with that liberty.
> 
> However, modern liberalism has nothing to do with individual liberties. It's concerned with people as a collective, and the collective is more important than the individual. Individual freedoms are unimportant.
> 
> Modern conservatives are classical liberals.
> 
> You can deny this, but not credibly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.
> 
> And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.
> 
> They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thing is We are. The Founders were classical Liberals whom cherished Liberty across the spectrum...but they tempered it with the Rule Of LAW...this is where Statist DOLTS as you get tripped up.
Click to expand...


"Statist" gotta love Ayn Rand. Possibly the worst author of this century or any other.

What you cherish as "Liberty" and "Freedom" is the Liberty and Freedom of:

-Businesses to lock garment workers into a hot room and expose them to being killed in fires..
-Businesses to form monolopies and squash competition.
-Businesses to dump lots of cash into politicians they like to get legislation favorable to them.
-Businesses to outsource jobs.
-Businesses to use cheap materials or force jobs to be expediated regardless of the risk to employees.
-Businesses to dump all sorts of crap into the environment.

Those and other specious freedoms are not in the spirit of the Constitution. Not in a pig's eye.


----------



## kwc57

drsmith1072 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to need to provide some documentation to back up your claims.  May I suggest links to actual Tea Party sites where this is part of the individual groups platform.  I've got a feeling that what you will find instead is a call for lower taxes and smaller government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh in case you missed it there has been evidence in this very thread that the right wishes to change at least some of what rightwinger listed.
> 
> one even tried to claim that
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.
Click to expand...


And in case you missed it, the OP is broadbrushing a whole movement with the actions of a few.  You are of course aware that there are pro-life liberals/Democrats and pro-choice conservatives/Republicans aren't you?  Of course you are.  Parties and movements define core values that their candidate generally adhere to, but not always.  Each candidate brings his own individual flavor to the mix.  You still have not disproved my point.  If you go to the various tea party pages and look at the rallying points of their group, it is lower takes, free markets and limited government......period.  That is what unites them.  What individual candidates espouse is just that, their own personal view.


----------



## The T

Sallow said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here ya go.
> 
> Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution
> 
> I put this up before.
Click to expand...

 
And what's WRONG with the 17th? Plenty. It should be repealed back to Original _Intent._

The 16th we can do without as well. Why does this bee in your bonnet bother you?


----------



## Sallow

The T said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go.
> 
> Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution
> 
> I put this up before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what's WRONG with the 17th? Plenty. It should be repealed back to Origininal _Intent._
> 
> The 16th we can do without as well. Why does this bee in your bonnet bother you?
Click to expand...


Which is it? That no tea party candidate wants to change the Constitution or that you agree with the changes?

Man this is getting complicated.


----------



## The T

Sallow said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here ya go.
> 
> Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution
> 
> I put this up before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's WRONG with the 17th? Plenty. It should be repealed back to Origininal _Intent._
> 
> The 16th we can do without as well. Why does this bee in your bonnet bother you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is it? That no tea party candidate wants to change the Constitution or that you agree with the changes?
> 
> Man this is getting complicated.
Click to expand...

 I wanted clarification. Now...Answer the question. Or does it bother you that people want their fellow citizens to be responsible for themselves instead of being leeches on the rest of us?


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton downsized the military.
> 
> To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.
> 
> Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.
> 
> Then he made discrimination legal.
> 
> If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.
> 
> And then he legalised theft.
> 
> Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.
> 
> 
> Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?
> 
> I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> And you think the ACLU was derelect because....
> 
> Did President Clinton act without constitutional authority?  Did he disband the Amry or Navy?  There are provisons in the constitution establishing both those branches.
> 
> Do you understand what the constitution is and how it works?
> 
> Just because decisions were made that help deflate the military-industial complex, it doesn't mean that the constitution was violated.
> 
> You would have had a fit in 1928!  The Kellogg-Briand pact would have made your ears bleed!  And, you'd have a Republican president to kick around!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's always nice to get my hatred of democrats reconfirmed every now and then.
> 
> Your utter disreguard for honorable men and women has been echoed by every other dem I explain this too.  You always have excuses for breaking the law as long as it's the laws that fuck over honorable people.
> 
> Thanks for proving that my decision to never ever vote (d) ever again, was the right one.
Click to expand...

Breaking the law?!?!  What law?  Be specific!


----------



## Sallow

The T said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what's WRONG with the 17th? Plenty. It should be repealed back to Origininal _Intent._
> 
> The 16th we can do without as well. Why does this bee in your bonnet bother you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is it? That no tea party candidate wants to change the Constitution or that you agree with the changes?
> 
> Man this is getting complicated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wanted clarification. Now...Answer the question. Or does it bother you that people want their fellow citizens to be responsible for themselves instead of being leeches on the rest of us?
Click to expand...


Here's clarification.

The OP alluded to Tea Party candidates wanting to change the Constitution. Others and myself backed that up..while people like yourself asked for proof.

Now you've changed the goal posts.

Typical.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



I would agree that what has become the tea party only wants to uphold the parts of the Constitution they like, however, let's not pretend the left doesn't do exactly the same thing.

Furthermore, just because an amendment was added to the Constitution, doesn't mean it's a good amendment.  I'm addressing your comments regarding the 16th and 17th.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Two Thumbs said:


> 17th;  the electoral college sucks ass.  How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?.



What does the 17th Amendment have to do with the Electoral College?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think the ACLU was derelect because....
> 
> Did President Clinton act without constitutional authority?  Did he disband the Amry or Navy?  There are provisons in the constitution establishing both those branches.
> 
> Do you understand what the constitution is and how it works?
> 
> Just because decisions were made that help deflate the military-industial complex, it doesn't mean that the constitution was violated.
> 
> You would have had a fit in 1928!  The Kellogg-Briand pact would have made your ears bleed!  And, you'd have a Republican president to kick around!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's always nice to get my hatred of democrats reconfirmed every now and then.
> 
> Your utter disreguard for honorable men and women has been echoed by every other dem I explain this too.  You always have excuses for breaking the law as long as it's the laws that fuck over honorable people.
> 
> Thanks for proving that my decision to never ever vote (d) ever again, was the right one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Breaking the law?!?!  What law?  Be specific!
Click to expand...


You do know that discrimination is against the law.

clinton kicked out people for being over weight

that's discrimination and therefore is against the law

I look forward to your defence of law breaking by use of more twisted logic.

I have to take back what I said about all libs echoing.  1 liberal and 1 liberal only admitted what was done to the military was wrong.  Out the the thousands I have told this too, there is 1 decent person in your ranks.


----------



## Two Thumbs

ClosedCaption said:


> two thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> meanwhile the aclu whose sole purpose is to defend the constitution is vilified by the tea party.
> 
> Have any of them even read the constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's a lie.
> 
> The aclu only enforces the constitution when it wants to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh no thats horrible!  You're right they should be tar and feathered!!
Click to expand...


I'm glad to see you agree.

But I think disbanding them is punishment enough.


----------



## Nosmo King

Two Thumbs said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's always nice to get my hatred of democrats reconfirmed every now and then.
> 
> Your utter disreguard for honorable men and women has been echoed by every other dem I explain this too.  You always have excuses for breaking the law as long as it's the laws that fuck over honorable people.
> 
> Thanks for proving that my decision to never ever vote (d) ever again, was the right one.
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking the law?!?!  What law?  Be specific!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do know that discrimination is against the law.
> 
> clinton kicked out people for being over weight
> 
> that's discrimination and therefore is against the law
> 
> I look forward to your defence of law breaking by use of more twisted logic.
> 
> I have to take back what I said about all libs echoing.  1 liberal and 1 liberal only admitted what was done to the military was wrong.  Out the the thousands I have told this too, there is 1 decent person in your ranks.
Click to expand...

We are talking about soldiers and sailors here, right?  I mean, the topic isn't receptionists at the Department of Energy, but our fighting forces, right?  

It's OK to have fit soldiers and sailors.  In fact, I would think that it's preferred to be physically fit to go into battle.

And you are such an advocate for fat, slovenly soldiers.  What do you think about homosexual soldiers?

Were you discharged for being a chubby soldier?  If you can't perform physical tasks, should you be paid as a soldier?


----------



## Two Thumbs

Nosmo King said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking the law?!?!  What law?  Be specific!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that discrimination is against the law.
> 
> clinton kicked out people for being over weight
> 
> that's discrimination and therefore is against the law
> 
> I look forward to your defence of law breaking by use of more twisted logic.
> 
> I have to take back what I said about all libs echoing.  1 liberal and 1 liberal only admitted what was done to the military was wrong.  Out the the thousands I have told this too, there is 1 decent person in your ranks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are talking about soldiers and sailors here, right?  I mean, the topic isn't receptionists at the Department of Energy, but our fighting forces, right?
> 
> It's OK to have fit soldiers and sailors.  In fact, I would think that it's preferred to be physically fit to go into battle.
> 
> And you are such an advocate for fat, slovenly soldiers.  What do you think about homosexual soldiers?
> 
> Were you discharged for being a chubby soldier?  If you can't perform physical tasks, should you be paid as a soldier?
Click to expand...


I'm happy to see that you are in fact perfectly fine with discrimination.  You do not surprise me at all.

Like I said, I have only found 1 liberal decent enough to admit what was done was not just illegal, but immoral.

not that you care, but I was a sailor, a sub sailor, with 9 1/2 of honorable service.  I more that passed my PT test everytime, but since I was 1/2% over the limit my career was ended illegally, the money that I was due, do to my discharge being a breach of contract, was stolen from me.

Be proud liberal, your inability to see right from wrong is a common trait among your filth.


----------



## daveman

drsmith1072 said:


> so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.



There is no contradiction.  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.


----------



## daveman

Soggy in NOLA said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to believe something you have been spoon fed, it doesn't make it true. LOL Your "key difference" is nothing but a delusion that the right uses to justify their hypocrisy.
> 
> Furthermore, the right loves judges who legislate from the bench as long as the decision agrees with their opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding..... drsmith lives in alternate reality where up is down and left is right.
Click to expand...

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. 

-- Ronald Reagan


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.
> 
> And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.
> 
> They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Utter nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hogwash. You guys put up vague generalities about freedom and liberty..and when asked for specifics on exactly what that means..you point to freedom and liberty for corporate entities. Replace those corporate entities with nobility and yes..you guys are closer to the Tories and Whigs.
Click to expand...

I repeat:  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.  

Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?


----------



## Moon

When did it become a bad thing to work to change the Constitution using the means explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself?


----------



## jillian

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



They are a bit selective.

They love 'limited government' until it comes to women's bodies... 

hate the separation of church and state... 

hate the commerce clause

hate the general welfare clause

hate the supremacy clause.

but they just adore the second amendment.


----------



## jillian

Moon said:


> When did it become a bad thing to work to change the Constitution using the means explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself?



so what about the constitution is it that you want to 'protect and defend'?


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash. You guys put up vague generalities about freedom and liberty..and when asked for specifics on exactly what that means..you point to freedom and liberty for corporate entities. Replace those corporate entities with nobility and yes..you guys are closer to the Tories and Whigs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I repeat:  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
> 
> Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?
Click to expand...


hi dave. we have our areas of agreement, but i have to say that i disagree with you here because i don't see how she's 'not' thinking for herself but the tea people are. I'm also not sure how your comment responds to a simple request for specifics. That isn't defending against a stereotype, It's simply responding, imo. 

I'm actually curious about what your answer.


----------



## barry1960

Two Thumbs said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any links that have examples and gives thier reasons for thinking this way?
> 
> I don't know many, and am not one myself, but;
> !st;  I have yet to hear anyone say either of those.  Asking muslims not to be assholes, is not breaking the law or wanting to change the Constitution.
> 2nd;  well no shit, that's something Dems, libs and progs want to do away with.
> 4th; what?
> 14th;  People come into America on a regular basis just to give birth so they can't be sent home.
> 16th;  since when?
> 17th;  the electoral college sucks ass.  How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?
> 
> Sounds like they want to fix what's broken.  But broken is how the DNC wants America, so shame on those people that want to make it better.
Click to expand...


I believe you just proved the thread starter's point. The Tea Party stands by the constitution except the parts they do not agree with - those are broken and need to be fixed.


----------



## Moon

jillian said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become a bad thing to work to change the Constitution using the means explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what about the constitution is it that you want to 'protect and defend'?
Click to expand...


The principles outlined in the Constitution, including the ability to change it through the amendment process.  What about you?


----------



## daveman

Moon said:


> When did it become a bad thing to work to change the Constitution using the means explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself?



When you're desperately flinging poo, hoping anything will stick.


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash. You guys put up vague generalities about freedom and liberty..and when asked for specifics on exactly what that means..you point to freedom and liberty for corporate entities. Replace those corporate entities with nobility and yes..you guys are closer to the Tories and Whigs.
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat:  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
> 
> Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hi dave. we have our areas of agreement, but i have to say that i disagree with you here because i don't see how she's 'not' thinking for herself but the tea people are. I'm also not sure how your comment responds to a simple request for specifics. That isn't defending against a stereotype, It's simply responding, imo.
> 
> I'm actually curious about what your answer.
Click to expand...

Hi, jillian.  The stereotype is "all conservatives worship big business".

That's laughable, and certainly not worth debating.


----------



## Moon

daveman said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become a bad thing to work to change the Constitution using the means explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're desperately flinging poo, hoping anything will stick.
Click to expand...


You and I both swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but I don't recall in any of those oath ceremonies a caveat that I could never wish to amend the Constitution.  Maybe I slept through that part the three or four times I took the oath.


----------



## daveman

Moon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become a bad thing to work to change the Constitution using the means explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you're desperately flinging poo, hoping anything will stick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I both swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but I don't recall in any of those oath ceremonies a caveat that I could never wish to amend the Constitution.  Maybe I slept through that part the three or four times I took the oath.
Click to expand...

No, that bit was left out of my oath, too.


----------



## skookerasbil

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much





hysterical...........sometimes, the k00ks put the big old pumpkin right on the tee for you with their threads.....................


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  Utter nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash. You guys put up vague generalities about freedom and liberty..and when asked for specifics on exactly what that means..you point to freedom and liberty for corporate entities. Replace those corporate entities with nobility and yes..you guys are closer to the Tories and Whigs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I repeat:  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
> 
> Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?
Click to expand...


No stereotype at all.

And "thinking" is something I wish you guys would do once in a while. With cognition.


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat:  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
> 
> Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hi dave. we have our areas of agreement, but i have to say that i disagree with you here because i don't see how she's 'not' thinking for herself but the tea people are. I'm also not sure how your comment responds to a simple request for specifics. That isn't defending against a stereotype, It's simply responding, imo.
> 
> I'm actually curious about what your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi, jillian.  The stereotype is "all conservatives worship big business".
> 
> That's laughable, and certainly not worth debating.
Click to expand...


it is a stereotype. but to be fair, there is that part of the group calling themselves 'conservatives' (not all of whom are really conservative) who think 'small government' means laissez faire capitalism but don't get offended by government trying to regulate our most personal of decisions.


----------



## jillian

Moon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did it become a bad thing to work to change the Constitution using the means explicitly provided for in the Constitution itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so what about the constitution is it that you want to 'protect and defend'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The principles outlined in the Constitution, including the ability to change it through the amendment process.  What about you?
Click to expand...


again, specifically, what principals do you protect and defend?


----------



## skookerasbil

Lets hope the Mental Institutions are ready in two weeks.............


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash. You guys put up vague generalities about freedom and liberty..and when asked for specifics on exactly what that means..you point to freedom and liberty for corporate entities. Replace those corporate entities with nobility and yes..you guys are closer to the Tories and Whigs.
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat:  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
> 
> Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No stereotype at all.
Click to expand...

 


Sallow said:


> And "thinking" is something I wish you guys would do once in a while. With cognition.


Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":

All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.

There.  How'd I do?


----------



## jillian

skookerasbil said:


> Lets hope the Mental Institutions are ready in two weeks.............



why? are you planning on committing yourself?


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hi dave. we have our areas of agreement, but i have to say that i disagree with you here because i don't see how she's 'not' thinking for herself but the tea people are. I'm also not sure how your comment responds to a simple request for specifics. That isn't defending against a stereotype, It's simply responding, imo.
> 
> I'm actually curious about what your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, jillian.  The stereotype is "all conservatives worship big business".
> 
> That's laughable, and certainly not worth debating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is a stereotype. but to be fair, there is that part of the group calling themselves 'conservatives' (not all of whom are really conservative) who think 'small government' means laissez faire capitalism but don't get offended by government trying to regulate our most personal of decisions.
Click to expand...

I agree.  The folks you describe are more accurately termed "Republicans".  

The gulf between conservatives and Republicans is growing steadily.  We have one liberal party already -- we don't need another.


----------



## Sallow

jillian said:


> it is a stereotype. but to be fair, there is that part of the group calling themselves 'conservatives' (not all of whom are really conservative) who think 'small government' means laissez faire capitalism but don't get offended by government trying to regulate our most personal of decisions.



"Laissez-Faire" capitalism is the beginning of the end for capitalism itself. Once you eliminate competition, what's left is no longer capitalism. It's corporatism.


----------



## skookerasbil




----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":
> 
> All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.
> 
> There.  How'd I do?



well, this was my favorite car i ever owned






but these are more my kind of shoe:






i never got the whole birkenstock thing.


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":
> 
> All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.
> 
> There.  How'd I do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, this was my favorite car i ever owned
Click to expand...

Needs more bumper stickers.  


jillian said:


> but these are more my kind of shoe:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i never got the whole birkenstock thing.


Dayum.  

How YOU doin'?


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat:  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
> 
> Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No stereotype at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "thinking" is something I wish you guys would do once in a while. With cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":
> 
> All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.
> 
> There.  How'd I do?
Click to expand...


It might have worked had Liberals been lockstep and rote.

They are not.

Like Conservatives.

I basically just need a couple of words during a conversation to suss one out.


----------



## Rinata

Maureen Dowd wrote that we are living in "the era of Republican Mean Girls, grown-up versions of those teenage tormentors who would steal your boyfriend, spray-paint your locker and, just for good measure, spread rumors that you were pregnant. These women -- Jan, Meg, Carly, Sharron, Linda, Michele, Queen Bee Sarah and sweet wannabe Christine -- have co-opted and ratcheted up the disgust with the status quo that originally buoyed Barack Obama. . . . They are the ideal nihilistic cheerleaders for an angry electorate." 

Man up, Harry Reid, Sharron Angle taunted him at their Las Vegas debate here Thursday night. Thats not an idle insult, coming from a woman who campaigns at times with a .44 Magnum revolver in her 1989 GMC pickup. 

According to their own narrative, weren't conservative women supposed to be the ones who liked men  and hated seeing them put down? Isn't there something disconsonant about touting womb-to-tomb respect for life, then shouting about testicles in any language?

The sentiment behind the current usage certainly isn't new, and Madeleine Albright questioned Fidel Castro's cojones 14 years ago. But isn't it time to button up about man-pants, and maybe even big-girl panties? Women in politics and beyond would rightly cry sexism if the tables were turned. And wouldn't a little more decorum from the aspiring gentlemen and gentleladies do us all good?

Weren't Republican Women Supposed to Like Men -- and Act Like Ladies?

Like most women, I've had issues with men along the way.  But I still think women need to treat men with the same respect that we demand they show us. "Man up", is an insult, any way you shake it. I think it's just as bad as women getting called the "c" word. It's like calling a man so many negative things all rolled into one!!! If Dem women do it, the same goes for them. Knock it off, all you broads.


----------



## Moon

jillian said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what about the constitution is it that you want to 'protect and defend'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principles outlined in the Constitution, including the ability to change it through the amendment process.  What about you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> again, specifically, what principals do you protect and defend?
Click to expand...


You're going to have to be more specific, because I don't do well at gotcha moments.  I already said I support the Constitution, so I don't know what exactly you're fishing for here.


----------



## jillian

Moon said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The principles outlined in the Constitution, including the ability to change it through the amendment process.  What about you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, specifically, what principals do you protect and defend?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're going to have to be more specific, because I don't do well at gotcha moments.  I already said I support the Constitution, so I don't know what exactly you're fishing for here.
Click to expand...


it is easy to say you support the constitution. pretty and meaningless words. i asked what principals, specifically, do you protect and defend, given that you want to amend so many parts of the document.

you're the one who will have to get more specific.


----------



## shintao

Two Thumbs said:


> Got any links that have examples and gives thier reasons for thinking this way?
> 
> I don't know many, and am not one myself, but;
> !st;  I have yet to hear anyone say either of those.  Asking muslims not to be assholes, is not breaking the law or wanting to change the Constitution.
> 2nd;  well no shit, that's something Dems, libs and progs want to do away with.
> 4th; what?
> 14th;  People come into America on a regular basis just to give birth so they can't be sent home.
> 16th;  since when?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJEbFI03BNA  At 1:30*
> 
> 
> 
> 17th;  the electoral college sucks ass.  How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?
> 
> Sounds like they want to fix what's broken.  But broken is how the DNC wants America, so shame on those people that want to make it better.
Click to expand...


.................


----------



## shintao

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat:  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
> 
> Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No stereotype at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "thinking" is something I wish you guys would do once in a while. With cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":
> 
> All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.
> 
> There.  How'd I do?
Click to expand...


The republicans are so splintered and diluted that I don't even staunch party members agree on their plank. It didn't take long for the party to dis Palin & rape her of clothing. Yet she hangs in there embarrassing you, because she isn't a follower of the right. She just wants the party to gain power through an election. The same is true of t-party members and having ideas scattered to the winds.


----------



## R.C. Christian

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



Those are some pretty sweeping statements, but you need to consider what a mixed bag of nuts (pun not intended) the tea party is. Libertarian, and GOP. All equally disenfranchised yet not totally in agreement. I don't think it's accurate to make such a generalization.


----------



## Liberty

Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls. 

I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...

Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?

Why do you think the amendment process is bad?


----------



## Charles_Main

> not that you care, but I was a sailor, a sub sailor, with 9 1/2 of honorable service. I more that passed my PT test everytime, but since I was 1/2% over the limit my career was ended illegally, the money that I was due, do to my discharge being a breach of contract, was stolen from me.



See now that is some BS. If you can pass all the tests you should be able to serve.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No stereotype at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "thinking" is something I wish you guys would do once in a while. With cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":
> 
> All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.
> 
> There.  How'd I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It might have worked had Liberals been lockstep and rote.
> 
> They are not.
> 
> Like Conservatives.
> 
> I basically just need a couple of words during a conversation to suss one out.
Click to expand...

It'll probably come as a surprise to you to find out that you haven't said one single original thing.  

It's a good thing message board members have avatars so you can tell the lefties apart.


----------



## daveman

shintao said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> No stereotype at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And "thinking" is something I wish you guys would do once in a while. With cognition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":
> 
> All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.
> 
> There.  How'd I do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The republicans are so splintered and diluted that I don't even staunch party members agree on their plank. It didn't take long for the party to dis Palin & rape her of clothing. Yet she hangs in there embarrassing you, because she isn't a follower of the right. She just wants the party to gain power through an election. The same is true of t-party members and having ideas scattered to the winds.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party is bringing the GOP back to their conservative ideals, away from the Dem-Lite trend they've been following.


----------



## Moon

jillian said:


> Moon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> again, specifically, what principals do you protect and defend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have to be more specific, because I don't do well at gotcha moments.  I already said I support the Constitution, so I don't know what exactly you're fishing for here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is easy to say you support the constitution. pretty and meaningless words. i asked what principals, specifically, do you protect and defend, given that you want to amend so many parts of the document.
> 
> you're the one who will have to get more specific.
Click to expand...


I support the Constitution as it is the law of the land.  I'm not sure what you're having so much difficulty understanding here.  I don't recall ever saying I wanted to amend "so many parts" of it, but I don't see any problem with people supporting amendments to the Constitution as that is the specific method of changing it as provided in the document itself.

I think the "gotcha" you're looking for is for me to say I'd like to see some specific part changed, and then you will try to make the claim that I couldn't possibly support the Constitution if I want to change it.  That's ridiculous, of course, so if that's where you were going, you might want to consider another tactic.


----------



## Liberty

Here is an example of someone who truly loves the constitution and supports it. (ie. ME)

I love guns. I own guns, I support the NRA and gun rights.
If there is an amendment that is passed in a legal constitutional method that repeals the 2nd amendment, I will disagree with it personally, but I will also recognize that it was done in a constitutional method and therefore is legal and legitimate. Will I be sad? Yes. Will I flip out? No. However, I would flip out if guns were illegally confiscated, that is, not backed by any written law or constitutionality. Get it? Amendments to the constitution, if done in the appropriate manner, is perfectly legal and fine. The glory of the constitution is that getting an amendment passed is very difficult, which is a good thing.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls.
> 
> I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad?



This might be a valid point if most conservatives weren't strict constructionalists and orginalists. Most don't consider the document subject to change or "living and breathing". And using that as the mold...and then coming out and advocating for some pretty radical changes, really seems contradictory..no?


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> It'll probably come as a surprise to you to find out that you haven't said one single original thing.
> 
> It's a good thing message board members have avatars so you can tell the lefties apart.



That's fine..I don't need to be "original" these posts aren't subject to copyrights.

And yes..there's probably a template for the left..there is most definitely a very rigid one for the right.

But I am always surprised by Liberals, for example..Lars Erik Nelson..one of my favorite column writers. His pragmatic and liberal pieces were grounded in solid facts and extremely pragmatic. He was always on the side of human rights, fairness and equality.

After his death, I found out he was a registered Republican.

Liberal AND Republican.

Go figure.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls.
> 
> I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a valid point if most conservatives weren't strict constructionalists and orginalists. Most don't consider the document subject to change or "living and breathing". And using that as the mold...and then coming out and advocating for some pretty radical changes, really seems contradictory..no?
Click to expand...


woah woah woah. "living and breathing" as liberals understand it has nothing to do with the amendment process, but has to do with what powers the congress have, and quite honestly, is used to pervert the document as it stands, not to try to achieve an amendment of some kind.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls.
> 
> I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a valid point if most conservatives weren't strict constructionalists and orginalists. Most don't consider the document subject to change or "living and breathing". And using that as the mold...and then coming out and advocating for some pretty radical changes, really seems contradictory..no?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> woah woah woah. "living and breathing" as liberals understand it has nothing to do with the amendment process, but has to do with what powers the congress have, and quite honestly, is used to pervert the document as it stands, not to try to achieve an amendment of some kind.
Click to expand...


This is confusing and contradictory..so you might have to elaborate.

And by "living and breathing" as Liberals understand it, means that the Liberals who wrote the Constitution didn't think America was going to be a fly by night, here today gone tomorrow kind of place. They thought it would be a place that would survive the test of time. And it order to do that..the founding document must be able to grow with the nation, but keep at it's core some fundamental principles. Quite frankly, the "perversion" I see is the lobby process..which is all well and good..but I doubt it was original intent that wealth would trump ideas.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a valid point if most conservatives weren't strict constructionalists and orginalists. Most don't consider the document subject to change or "living and breathing". And using that as the mold...and then coming out and advocating for some pretty radical changes, really seems contradictory..no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> woah woah woah. "living and breathing" as liberals understand it has nothing to do with the amendment process, but has to do with what powers the congress have, and quite honestly, is used to pervert the document as it stands, not to try to achieve an amendment of some kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is confusing and contradictory..so you might have to elaborate.
> 
> And by "living and breathing" as Liberals understand it, means that the Liberals who wrote the Constitution didn't think America was going to be a fly by night, here today gone tomorrow kind of place. They thought it would be a place that would survive the test of time. And it order to do that..the founding document must be able to grow with the nation, but keep at it's core some fundamental principles. Quite frankly, the "perversion" I see is the lobby process..which is all well and good..but I doubt it was original intent that wealth would trump ideas.
Click to expand...


Ok, first of all do not try to say that modern liberals share the same views of classical liberals, that is gross and incorrect characterization.  Everything else, is true, HOWEVER, if modern liberals put that view into practice, there would be amendments that rewrite article 1 section 9. Instead, they circumvent the amendment process by saying stupid shit like the preamble allows for UHC, and they appoint judges to back up these absurd claims. I am not saying republicans are not guilty, the patriot act was obviously illegal to any legitimate constitutional scholar, but the point remains that congress is becoming TOO RADICAL and this is proven by the fact they know they can never get the American people to support amendments that legalize their illegal actions.

Side note, I believe it was Jefferson that said he would be surprised if liberty survived in the USA for more than 200 years, as then is when free societies tend to start collapsing due to power struggles, corruption etc. Unfortunately it looks like he was right.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> woah woah woah. "living and breathing" as liberals understand it has nothing to do with the amendment process, but has to do with what powers the congress have, and quite honestly, is used to pervert the document as it stands, not to try to achieve an amendment of some kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is confusing and contradictory..so you might have to elaborate.
> 
> And by "living and breathing" as Liberals understand it, means that the Liberals who wrote the Constitution didn't think America was going to be a fly by night, here today gone tomorrow kind of place. They thought it would be a place that would survive the test of time. And it order to do that..the founding document must be able to grow with the nation, but keep at it's core some fundamental principles. Quite frankly, the "perversion" I see is the lobby process..which is all well and good..but I doubt it was original intent that wealth would trump ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, first of all do not try to say that modern liberals share the same views of classical liberals, that is gross and incorrect characterization.  Everything else, is true, HOWEVER, if modern liberals put that view into practice, there would be amendments that rewrite article 1 section 9. Instead, they circumvent the amendment process by saying stupid shit like the preamble allows for UHC, and they appoint judges to back up these absurd claims. I am not saying republicans are not guilty, the patriot act was obviously illegal to any legitimate constitutional scholar, but the point remains that congress is becoming TOO RADICAL and this is proven by the fact they know they can never get the American people to support amendments that legalize their illegal actions.
> 
> Side note, I believe it was Jefferson that said he would be surprised if liberty survived in the USA for more than 200 years, as then is when free societies tend to start collapsing due to power struggles, corruption etc. Unfortunately it looks like he was right.
Click to expand...


I will break this down as such:

A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.

B. The notion of "provide for the welfare" appears in more then just the preamble. It falls under congressional powers. And the commerce clause of congressional powers more then covers the health care bill. However, IMHO, much of the military expenditures as well has it's various departments are not.

C. There has been nothing more absurd then the "Citizens United" case..which is clearly an example of legislating from the bench and judicial activism.

D. We live in a representative republic. Love it or hate it..the people in congress are duly elected by the states/districts they represent.


----------



## theHawk

rightwinger said:


> - The mosque near ground zero?
> - Equal rights for gays?
> -  Birth citizenship for illegals?
> -  The federal income tax?
> - Direct election of Senators?
> 
> These are all rightwing conservative issues that are protected by our Constitution



- The mosque near ground zero?
Just because a person does not "support" a mosque being built at ground zero doesn't mean they want to change the constitution.  The only reason a mosque is being allowed to be built is because the local government voted and allowed it (against the will of the poeple though), not because of any constitutional right.  There are many churches around the country that get denied building permits by local governments.  We don't hear you libs championing their "consitutional rights" to build where they want to.

- Equal rights for gays?
Gays have the same rights as everyone else already.

-  Birth citizenship for illegals?
Many people do want to change the law to close the loophole on illegals having anchor babies.  Funny how when libs want to change laws its "practicing democracy" but if anyone else wants to its going against the constitution. 

-  The federal income tax?
Income tax used to be unconstitutional.  Same as above, why would it be wrong to change the law?  We used to make all revenue off tariffs.  But apparently Dems would rather ship all jobs overseas and freely let the goods flow in without tariffs, and tax the American people's income instead.

- Direct election of Senators?
I don't  have any problem with how senators get elected, and I have never heard that the "Tea Party" wants to change it.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is confusing and contradictory..so you might have to elaborate.
> 
> And by "living and breathing" as Liberals understand it, means that the Liberals who wrote the Constitution didn't think America was going to be a fly by night, here today gone tomorrow kind of place. They thought it would be a place that would survive the test of time. And it order to do that..the founding document must be able to grow with the nation, but keep at it's core some fundamental principles. Quite frankly, the "perversion" I see is the lobby process..which is all well and good..but I doubt it was original intent that wealth would trump ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, first of all do not try to say that modern liberals share the same views of classical liberals, that is gross and incorrect characterization.  Everything else, is true, HOWEVER, if modern liberals put that view into practice, there would be amendments that rewrite article 1 section 9. Instead, they circumvent the amendment process by saying stupid shit like the preamble allows for UHC, and they appoint judges to back up these absurd claims. I am not saying republicans are not guilty, the patriot act was obviously illegal to any legitimate constitutional scholar, but the point remains that congress is becoming TOO RADICAL and this is proven by the fact they know they can never get the American people to support amendments that legalize their illegal actions.
> 
> Side note, I believe it was Jefferson that said he would be surprised if liberty survived in the USA for more than 200 years, as then is when free societies tend to start collapsing due to power struggles, corruption etc. Unfortunately it looks like he was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will break this down as such:
> 
> A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.
> 
> B. The notion of "provide for the welfare" appears in more then just the preamble. It falls under congressional powers. And the commerce clause of congressional powers more then covers the health care bill. However, IMHO, much of the military expenditures as well has it's various departments are not.
> 
> C. There has been nothing more absurd then the "Citizens United" case..which is clearly an example of legislating from the bench and judicial activism.
> 
> D. We live in a representative republic. Love it or hate it..the people in congress are duly elected by the states/districts they represent.
Click to expand...


A. Wrong. I know of NO MODERN LIBERAL that supports John Locke's ORIGINAL concept of liberalism or has read John Locke...hell or even knows who John Locke is...the founder of classical liberalism. Read about FDR and the new deal. Read about how FDR hijacked the term liberal. Read history. 

B. it says PROMOTE the general welfare, NOT PROVIDE. Promote means to encourage, not supply. Basic english language. Don't misquote the constitution, please. You are sounding just as bad as the perversion supporters in DC.

C. Clearly.

D. Ok. They are still restricted by the enumerated powers in which they ignore. It is a gangster government now.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, first of all do not try to say that modern liberals share the same views of classical liberals, that is gross and incorrect characterization.  Everything else, is true, HOWEVER, if modern liberals put that view into practice, there would be amendments that rewrite article 1 section 9. Instead, they circumvent the amendment process by saying stupid shit like the preamble allows for UHC, and they appoint judges to back up these absurd claims. I am not saying republicans are not guilty, the patriot act was obviously illegal to any legitimate constitutional scholar, but the point remains that congress is becoming TOO RADICAL and this is proven by the fact they know they can never get the American people to support amendments that legalize their illegal actions.
> 
> Side note, I believe it was Jefferson that said he would be surprised if liberty survived in the USA for more than 200 years, as then is when free societies tend to start collapsing due to power struggles, corruption etc. Unfortunately it looks like he was right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will break this down as such:
> 
> A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.
> 
> B. The notion of "provide for the welfare" appears in more then just the preamble. It falls under congressional powers. And the commerce clause of congressional powers more then covers the health care bill. However, IMHO, much of the military expenditures as well has it's various departments are not.
> 
> C. There has been nothing more absurd then the "Citizens United" case..which is clearly an example of legislating from the bench and judicial activism.
> 
> D. We live in a representative republic. Love it or hate it..the people in congress are duly elected by the states/districts they represent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Wrong. I know of NO MODERN LIBERAL that supports John Locke's ORIGINAL concept of liberalism or has read John Locke...hell or even knows who John Locke is...the founder of classical liberalism. Read about FDR and the new deal. Read about how FDR hijacked the term liberal. Read history.
> 
> B. it says PROMOTE the general welfare, NOT PROVIDE. Promote means to encourage, not supply. Basic english language. Don't misquote the constitution, please. You are sounding just as bad as the perversion supporters in DC.
> 
> C. Clearly.
> 
> D. Ok. They are still restricted by the enumerated powers in which they ignore. It is a gangster government now.
Click to expand...


A. Have you actually read Locke? Because if you have..then your blanket and broad pronouncement makes no sense. Liberalism is not absolute. It is, however about growth. And I would suggest reading Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau and Bacon to fully understand the beginnings of Liberalism and the Social Contract.

B. Textualism? How quaint.

C. In some cases..I believe this is correct. Particularily in the case of Corporate cash. But I don't believe we have a "gangster" government.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will break this down as such:
> 
> A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.
> 
> B. The notion of "provide for the welfare" appears in more then just the preamble. It falls under congressional powers. And the commerce clause of congressional powers more then covers the health care bill. However, IMHO, much of the military expenditures as well has it's various departments are not.
> 
> C. There has been nothing more absurd then the "Citizens United" case..which is clearly an example of legislating from the bench and judicial activism.
> 
> D. We live in a representative republic. Love it or hate it..the people in congress are duly elected by the states/districts they represent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. Wrong. I know of NO MODERN LIBERAL that supports John Locke's ORIGINAL concept of liberalism or has read John Locke...hell or even knows who John Locke is...the founder of classical liberalism. Read about FDR and the new deal. Read about how FDR hijacked the term liberal. Read history.
> 
> B. it says PROMOTE the general welfare, NOT PROVIDE. Promote means to encourage, not supply. Basic english language. Don't misquote the constitution, please. You are sounding just as bad as the perversion supporters in DC.
> 
> C. Clearly.
> 
> D. Ok. They are still restricted by the enumerated powers in which they ignore. It is a gangster government now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Have you actually read Locke? Because if you have..then your blanket and broad pronouncement makes no sense. Liberalism is not absolute. It is, however about growth. And I would suggest reading Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau and Bacon to fully understand the beginnings of Liberalism and the Social Contract.
> 
> B. Textualism? How quaint.
> 
> C. In some cases..I believe this is correct. Particularily in the case of Corporate cash. But I don't believe we have a "gangster" government.
Click to expand...


A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.

B. A spade is a spade.

C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. Wrong. I know of NO MODERN LIBERAL that supports John Locke's ORIGINAL concept of liberalism or has read John Locke...hell or even knows who John Locke is...the founder of classical liberalism. Read about FDR and the new deal. Read about how FDR hijacked the term liberal. Read history.
> 
> B. it says PROMOTE the general welfare, NOT PROVIDE. Promote means to encourage, not supply. Basic english language. Don't misquote the constitution, please. You are sounding just as bad as the perversion supporters in DC.
> 
> C. Clearly.
> 
> D. Ok. They are still restricted by the enumerated powers in which they ignore. It is a gangster government now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. Have you actually read Locke? Because if you have..then your blanket and broad pronouncement makes no sense. Liberalism is not absolute. It is, however about growth. And I would suggest reading Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau and Bacon to fully understand the beginnings of Liberalism and the Social Contract.
> 
> B. Textualism? How quaint.
> 
> C. In some cases..I believe this is correct. Particularily in the case of Corporate cash. But I don't believe we have a "gangster" government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.
> 
> B. A spade is a spade.
> 
> C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.
Click to expand...


A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.

B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.

C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. Have you actually read Locke? Because if you have..then your blanket and broad pronouncement makes no sense. Liberalism is not absolute. It is, however about growth. And I would suggest reading Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau and Bacon to fully understand the beginnings of Liberalism and the Social Contract.
> 
> B. Textualism? How quaint.
> 
> C. In some cases..I believe this is correct. Particularily in the case of Corporate cash. But I don't believe we have a "gangster" government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> B. A spade is a spade.
> 
> C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.
> 
> B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.
> 
> C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.
Click to expand...


A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism

B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.

Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.

Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> B. A spade is a spade.
> 
> C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.
> 
> B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.
> 
> C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
> Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism
> 
> B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.
> 
> Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.
> 
> Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
> It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45
> 
> C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.
Click to expand...


A. Again..I am not going to nutshell liberalism..or fit it into a nice tight little conservative box. Suffice to say Locke touched upon many ideals of Liberalism..but he is not the beginning and end of the philosophy..nor I suspect would he advocate he was..

B. Well..you've touched upon the differences between the founders. Thomas Paine would be considered a "socialist" in the books of many of today's Conservatives. And Hamilton was very much against a standing army under federal control.

C. And that's the lynchpin of America's politics. People agreeing..disagreeing and compromising.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.
> 
> B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.
> 
> C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
> Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism
> 
> B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.
> 
> Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.
> 
> Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
> It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45
> 
> C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Again..I am not going to nutshell liberalism..or fit it into a nice tight little conservative box. Suffice to say Locke touched upon many ideals of Liberalism..but he is not the beginning and end of the philosphy..nor I suspect would he advocate he was..
> 
> B. Well..you've touched upon the differences between the founders. Thomas Paine would be considered a "socialist" in the books of many of today's Conservatives. And Hamilton was very much against a standing army under federal control.
> 
> C. And that's the lynchpin of America's politics. People agreeing..disagreeing and compromising.
Click to expand...


A. Locke never mentioned social justice, which is an integral idea in modern liberalism. Please, just give up on this...have some spine, i will not ridicule you.

B. My point remains valid.

C. I suppose.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
> Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism
> 
> B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.
> 
> Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.
> 
> Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
> It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45
> 
> C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. Again..I am not going to nutshell liberalism..or fit it into a nice tight little conservative box. Suffice to say Locke touched upon many ideals of Liberalism..but he is not the beginning and end of the philosphy..nor I suspect would he advocate he was..
> 
> B. Well..you've touched upon the differences between the founders. Thomas Paine would be considered a "socialist" in the books of many of today's Conservatives. And Hamilton was very much against a standing army under federal control.
> 
> C. And that's the lynchpin of America's politics. People agreeing..disagreeing and compromising.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Locke never mentioned social justice, which is an integral idea in modern liberalism. Please, just give up on this...have some spine, i will not ridicule you.
> 
> B. My point remains valid.
> 
> C. I suppose.
Click to expand...


A. What do you mean by "Social Justice". Locke was a big proponent of limited accumulation of wealth and that government should be able to establish boundries. He was an advocate of religious tolerance. He believed that the establishment of government was meant to be a civil way of settling disagreements. I can't think of anything more in line with "Social Justice" then those concepts. And seriously..there's is never a need to "ridicule" honest differences..unless they are extreme. And even then..one should tread lightly.

B. Valid in a very narrow sense. The founders were not a unified unit.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. Again..I am not going to nutshell liberalism..or fit it into a nice tight little conservative box. Suffice to say Locke touched upon many ideals of Liberalism..but he is not the beginning and end of the philosphy..nor I suspect would he advocate he was..
> 
> B. Well..you've touched upon the differences between the founders. Thomas Paine would be considered a "socialist" in the books of many of today's Conservatives. And Hamilton was very much against a standing army under federal control.
> 
> C. And that's the lynchpin of America's politics. People agreeing..disagreeing and compromising.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. Locke never mentioned social justice, which is an integral idea in modern liberalism. Please, just give up on this...have some spine, i will not ridicule you.
> 
> B. My point remains valid.
> 
> C. I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. What do you mean by "Social Justice". Locke was a big proponent of limited accumulation of wealth and that government should be able to establish boundries. He was an advocate of religious tolerance. He believed that the establishment of government was meant to be a civil way of settling disagreements. I can't think of anything more in line with "Social Justice" then those concepts. And seriously..there's is never a need to "ridicule" honest differences..unless they are extreme. And even then..one should tread lightly.
> 
> B. Valid in a very narrow sense. The founders were not a unified unit.
Click to expand...


A. Read the links I posted to see the difference.
B. K


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'll probably come as a surprise to you to find out that you haven't said one single original thing.
> 
> It's a good thing message board members have avatars so you can tell the lefties apart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine..I don't need to be "original" these posts aren't subject to copyrights.
> 
> And yes..there's probably a template for the left..there is most definitely a very rigid one for the right.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it comforts you to think so.


Sallow said:


> But I am always surprised by Liberals, for example..Lars Erik Nelson..one of my favorite column writers. His pragmatic and liberal pieces were grounded in solid facts and extremely pragmatic. He was always on the side of human rights, fairness and equality.
> 
> After his death, I found out he was a registered Republican.
> 
> Liberal AND Republican.
> 
> Go figure.


Looks like the GOP has a pretty big tent, huh?


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.


Your petulant foot-stamping is immaterial.   The current cop of liberals has no interest in individual liberty.


----------



## NYcarbineer

theHawk said:


> [
> - The mosque near ground zero?
> Just because a person does not "support" a mosque being built at ground zero doesn't mean they want to change the constitution.



Foxnews' poll on the subject found 21% of Americans did not think Muslims should have the RIGHT to build the mosque there.

Now who do you suppose that 1 in 5 Americans are?  Where do you suppose that 21% falls on the political spectrum?


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your petulant foot-stamping is immaterial.   The current cop of liberals has no interest in individual liberty.
Click to expand...


Current Conservatives embrace the values of liberals of the past. As ususal, Cons are a generation or more behind the times. The concept of being on the wrong side of history on every major movement in our history shows where cons stand


----------



## MarcATL

NYcarbineer said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> - The mosque near ground zero?
> Just because a person does not "support" a mosque being built at ground zero doesn't mean they want to change the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxnews' poll on the subject found 21% of Americans did not think Muslims should have the RIGHT to build the mosque there.
> 
> Now who do you suppose that 1 in 5 Americans are?  Where do you suppose that 21% falls on the political spectrum?
Click to expand...


I dunno my freng, buh I theeng dah eez mebbe dey RepubleyKUNG$?


----------



## rightwinger

Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution, they do have one ace-in-the hole when it comes to the Constitution. Anything they object to they have something called....

Second Amendment Remedies

The Constitution...What a document!


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution...



No, they don't.  Idiot.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  Idiot.
Click to expand...


Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
Click to expand...


1. It is legal, but distasteful.
2. State issue, vote on it.
3. Legal immigration by ANYONE in the world is fine. If you're illegal...well people have differing opinions. Usually a common sense minded individual would prefer those that break the law to be punished in some way though.

Any other brain busters?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the Tea Party opposes much of what is in the Constitution...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
Click to expand...


So:  Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?  

You're not very bright, are you?


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So:  Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> You're not very bright, are you?
Click to expand...


Notice how you ducked the question


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So:  Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> You're not very bright, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how you ducked the question
Click to expand...


Hey dumbass, wake the fuck up. I answered your childish questions. But like a typical loony ignorant moron you are ignoring it. What is it like being a hack and a fool?


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So:  Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> You're not very bright, are you?
Click to expand...


well, whether someone can build a place of worship is a first amendment issue. and it isn't just near ground zero that people seem to think the first amendment doesn't apply to muslims. Take a look at *this* link.

Hundreds protest proposed mosque and community center in Staten Island | 7online.com

gay rights is an equal protection issue, plain and simple.

and citizenship by birth is a 14th amendment issue.

you know that. so just because you disagree with him, doesn't make him 'not bright'... particularly considering he's correct on those issues.

some people on the right have a very selective love (or even respect) for the constitution... hence you get loons like sharon angle and at least one ignorant twit on this board talking about second amendment remedies if they don't like the way the majority vote.

and you're smart enough where you don't need me to tell you those things. so i can assume you're just being a curmudgeon


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your petulant foot-stamping is immaterial.   The current cop of liberals has no interest in individual liberty.
Click to expand...




The problem here is that conservatives "lose" the argument on whether or not the Constitution is a Liberal or Conservative document. Or rather..that's basically more an internal argument among Conservatives..it's something Liberals already knew. So, to make themselves feel better..so they generated this brand. Liberals are Liberals..

I didn't hear much bellyaching from the Conservative spectrum about torture, illegal wiretaps, denying trials and habeas. I did hear it from the Liberal side of the spectrum. So your argument concerning "indivdual liberty" is basically in the crapper. Unless you are talking about indivdual liberty for corporations who have magically become "people" in the eyes of the law. Then..you are on solid ground.


----------



## Sallow

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So:  Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> You're not very bright, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how you ducked the question
Click to expand...


Well there's nothing really to argue. Hence insults.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So:  Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> You're not very bright, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how you ducked the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbass, wake the fuck up. I answered your childish questions. But like a typical loony ignorant moron you are ignoring it. What is it like being a hack and a fool?
Click to expand...


Hey dumbass, wake the fuck up........your name is not daveman


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Looks like the GOP has a pretty big tent, huh?



Lars Erik Nelson died a few years back..I can't speak for him..per se. But I doubt very much if any of his views would be welcome in today's GOP..just as someone like Jack Kemp would be forced out of Today's GOP.


----------



## rightwinger

The biggest disrespect the Tea Party has against the Constitution is their abuse of the Second Amendment to resolve issues against the rest of the document. The Constitution is full of ways for citizens to exercise their rights anf peacefully resolve conflicts.

The Tea Party has their "Second Amendment Remedies" where if they don't get their way they are going for their guns


----------



## Liberty

my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?



What you guys put out there..is not reality.

And agreeing with you on this..would make us both wrong.


----------



## Dr.House

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



Nobody told me it was *Post-In-Sweeping-Generalizations-And-Stereotypical-Idiocy Day*....

I'm glad you get the inside information on these special days...  Huffington tells you what to type, right?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So:  Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> You're not very bright, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice how you ducked the question
Click to expand...

The question is flawed to begin with.  Furthermore, I feel no obligation to defend against your bigoted stereotypes. I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.  

Understand?


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So:  Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> You're not very bright, are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, whether someone can build a place of worship is a first amendment issue. and it isn't just near ground zero that people seem to think the first amendment doesn't apply to muslims. Take a look at *this* link.
> 
> Hundreds protest proposed mosque and community center in Staten Island | 7online.com
> 
> gay rights is an equal protection issue, plain and simple.
> 
> and citizenship by birth is a 14th amendment issue.
> 
> you know that. so just because you disagree with him, doesn't make him 'not bright'... particularly considering he's correct on those issues.
> 
> some people on the right have a very selective love (or even respect) for the constitution... hence you get loons like sharon angle and at least one ignorant twit on this board talking about second amendment remedies if they don't like the way the majority vote.
> 
> and you're smart enough where you don't need me to tell you those things. so i can assume you're just being a curmudgeon
Click to expand...

Jillian, thanks, but he's complaining that Tea Partiers hate the Constitution based on the fact that SOME of them want to change PARTS of it in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.

It's a ridiculous argument.


----------



## Dr.House

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So:  Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?
> 
> Really?
> 
> You're not very bright, are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how you ducked the question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question is flawed to begin with.  Furthermore, I feel no obligation to defend against your bigoted stereotypes. I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.
> 
> Understand?
Click to expand...


Leftwinger is just mad his life-partner duct taped down all his breakables in preparation for next Tuesday...  H's mad he can't play with his Hummel collection like he always does on Mondays...

At least Swallow is here to, um...  swallow his bullshit...


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.
> 
> 
> 
> Your petulant foot-stamping is immaterial.   The current cop of liberals has no interest in individual liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that conservatives "lose" the argument on whether or not the Constitution is a Liberal or Conservative document. Or rather..that's basically more an internal argument among Conservatives..it's something Liberals already knew. So, to make themselves feel better..so they generated this brand. Liberals are Liberals..
> 
> I didn't hear much bellyaching from the Conservative spectrum about torture, illegal wiretaps, denying trials and habeas. I did hear it from the Liberal side of the spectrum. So your argument concerning "indivdual liberty" is basically in the crapper. Unless you are talking about indivdual liberty for corporations who have magically become "people" in the eyes of the law. Then..you are on solid ground.
Click to expand...

Like I told the other idiot, I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the GOP has a pretty big tent, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lars Erik Nelson died a few years back..I can't speak for him..per se. But I doubt very much if any of his views would be welcome in today's GOP..just as someone like Jack Kemp would be forced out of Today's GOP.
Click to expand...

Speculation.  Got anything concrete?

Oh.  If you did, you would have posted it.


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?



i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)

but i can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.

so much for civil debate???

ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)
> 
> but i can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.
> 
> so much for civil debate???
> 
> ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.
Click to expand...


Oh you have just got to be fucking kidding me. Did you just complain about someone calling liberals hacks?  OMG!


----------



## drsmith1072

daveman said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to believe something you have been spoon fed, it doesn't make it true. LOL Your "key difference" is nothing but a delusion that the right uses to justify their hypocrisy.
> 
> Furthermore, the right loves judges who legislate from the bench as long as the decision agrees with their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...
Click to expand...



Thanks for trolling loser now let's see if you have anything valid to offer or are you here just to attack in the typical hit and run style of the lame and moronic right??

He presented a baseless OPINION and I called him out for it and all you can do is troll. GJ hack. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

Two Thumbs said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinton downsized the military.*
> To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement.  A rew took it, most laughed at it.
> 
> Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts)  That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out.  You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself;  "I don't want that job"?  We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move.  No one was promoted to fill the holes.
> 
> Then he made discrimination legal.
> 
> If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out.  That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.
> 
> And then he legalised theft.
> 
> Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns.  Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.
> 
> 
> Now,  Where the hell was the aclu?  Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?
> 
> I'll tell you.  You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh so did reagan and HW. They started cutting the defense budget in 85 and that trend continued until 1999 when clinton became the first president to increase it instead of cutting it since 1985.
> 
> BTW can you provide a link to show that clinton established the pay grade time limits? how about the weight standards that are still in effect today, do you have a link? Can you actually show where any of the things that you listed came from?
> 
> I served 4 years (95-99) while clinton was president and noticed how much we were getting even as the right complained about how much we were allegedly losing. New vehicles, new personal equipment, new computers, money for new barracks and on post housing. Yeah it was SOOO bad. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Served 84-95
> 
> Ask anyone that was there when these rules were invented.
> 
> You came in at the end of it, so you missed all the men getting fucked.  But hey, it's ok, you got a nice barracks or a house.
> 
> unreal, you think having a nice room is better than honoring those that came before you.  Glad you only did 4 years, would have felt bad for anyone that would have had to take orders from you.
Click to expand...


So in other words you have NO specifics and can't prove anything that you are saying. Thanks for explaining that. 

You claimed clinton made up those rules so PROVE IT. 

Furthermore, NO i didn't come in at the end of it they were downsizing since 85 and continued it while I was in service and yet I don't see you compaining about it during a time when a republican was CIC. I wonder why?? 

BTW when did I say anything about thinking that having a nice room is better than honoring those that came before me?? Oh you mean I didn't say that or anything like it and that it was nothing but a lame attempt by you to put words into my mouth so you can try to smear me for something that I NEVER said. 
GJ hack.


----------



## rightwinger

Dr.House said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody told me it was *Post-In-Sweeping-Generalizations-And-Stereotypical-Idiocy Day*....
> 
> I'm glad you get the inside information on these special days...  Huffington tells you what to type, right?
Click to expand...


I notice you are the one conducting a generalized dismisal of an argument you can't defend.

How does a political groups that pretends to embrace the spirit and body of the Constitution stand against so much of what it includes?


----------



## drsmith1072

kwc57 said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to need to provide some documentation to back up your claims.  May I suggest links to actual Tea Party sites where this is part of the individual groups platform.  I've got a feeling that what you will find instead is a call for lower taxes and smaller government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uh in case you missed it there has been evidence in this very thread that the right wishes to change at least some of what rightwinger listed.
> 
> one even tried to claim that
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in case you missed it, the OP is broadbrushing a whole movement with the actions of a few.  You are of course aware that there are pro-life liberals/Democrats and pro-choice conservatives/Republicans aren't you?  Of course you are.  Parties and movements define core values that their candidate generally adhere to, but not always.  Each candidate brings his own individual flavor to the mix.  You still have not disproved my point.  If you go to the various tea party pages and look at the rallying points of their group, it is lower takes, free markets and limited government......period.  That is what unites them.  What individual candidates espouse is just that, their own personal view.
Click to expand...


and in case you missed it so is the right. Go back and read how the posters on the right in this thread are painting the left with a broad brush criticize them and then you can come back and whine about how awful it is that the tactics the right uses are being used against them. 

The FACT that there are several posters in this very thread that hold the position and defend the positions that have been mentioned shows that your point is invalid. Thanks for playing though.


----------



## Dr.House

rightwinger said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody told me it was *Post-In-Sweeping-Generalizations-And-Stereotypical-Idiocy Day*....
> 
> I'm glad you get the inside information on these special days...  Huffington tells you what to type, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you are the one conducting a generalized dismisal of an argument you can't defend.
Click to expand...

Who in their right mind would even attempt to "defend" broad-brush sweeping generalizations based upon some leftwinger's interpretations?

I suppose if you want to claim some interweb victory, go ahead...  Have at it...  I'm sure the other hacks will agree with you...



> How does a political groups that pretends to embrace the spirit and body of the Constitution stand against so much of what it includes?


Other than you and some other flaming leftists on this board, who says they do?  

Personally, I just don't see the point in defending idiotic, sweeping, stereotypical generalizations...  Waste of time...


----------



## drsmith1072

daveman said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contradiction.  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
Click to expand...


There IS a contradiction. It was shown in my post and IF you hadn;t edited my poost and removed 90% of it so you could avoid admitting and reposting that contradiction as you pretend it doesn't exist.

here is my full and complete post.



drsmith1072 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to need to provide some documentation to back up your claims.  May I suggest links to actual Tea Party sites where this is part of the individual groups platform.  I've got a feeling that what you will find instead is a call for lower taxes and smaller government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> uh in case you missed it there has been evidence in this very thread that the right wishes to change at least some of what rightwinger listed.
> 
> one even tried to claim that
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.
Click to expand...


Try not to stumble over yourself as you run away from it's entire context this time.


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your petulant foot-stamping is immaterial.   The current cop of liberals has no interest in individual liberty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that conservatives "lose" the argument on whether or not the Constitution is a Liberal or Conservative document. Or rather..that's basically more an internal argument among Conservatives..it's something Liberals already knew. So, to make themselves feel better..so they generated this brand. Liberals are Liberals..
> 
> I didn't hear much bellyaching from the Conservative spectrum about torture, illegal wiretaps, denying trials and habeas. I did hear it from the Liberal side of the spectrum. So your argument concerning "indivdual liberty" is basically in the crapper. Unless you are talking about indivdual liberty for corporations who have magically become "people" in the eyes of the law. Then..you are on solid ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I told the other idiot, I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.
Click to expand...


Then your opinion on warrantless wiretaps, denial of speedy trials, suspension of Habeas, torture, and secret prisons is what..exactly?

Perhaps..starting there would be a good point.


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the GOP has a pretty big tent, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lars Erik Nelson died a few years back..I can't speak for him..per se. But I doubt very much if any of his views would be welcome in today's GOP..just as someone like Jack Kemp would be forced out of Today's GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speculation.  Got anything concrete?
> 
> Oh.  If you did, you would have posted it.
Click to expand...


Concrete? I pointed to two people, both republican, that I think would not be at home in today's GOP. Don't know how much more concrete one can get then that.


----------



## rightwinger

Dr.House said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody told me it was *Post-In-Sweeping-Generalizations-And-Stereotypical-Idiocy Day*....
> 
> I'm glad you get the inside information on these special days...  Huffington tells you what to type, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you are the one conducting a generalized dismisal of an argument you can't defend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who in their right mind would even attempt to "defend" broad-brush sweeping generalizations based upon some leftwinger's interpretations?
> 
> I suppose if you want to claim some interweb victory, go ahead...  Have at it...  I'm sure the other hacks will agree with you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a political groups that pretends to embrace the spirit and body of the Constitution stand against so much of what it includes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than you and some other flaming leftists on this board, who says they do?
> 
> Personally, I just don't see the point in defending idiotic, sweeping, stereotypical generalizations...  Waste of time...
Click to expand...


Simple questions House...why duck them?

Does the right wing/Tea Party support banning mosques near the wtc?
Do they support eliminating birth right 14th amendment citizenship?
Do they support changing the 16 the amendment?

Who came up with the term "second amendment remedies"???


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)
> 
> but i can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.
> 
> so much for civil debate???
> 
> ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.
Click to expand...


I did ignore your comments. I was attacking rightwinger and swallow.


----------



## drsmith1072

Liberty said:


> Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls.
> 
> I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad?



what you would call "legally" and "better" is subjective and a matter of OPINION. BTW got any specfiics on that whole circumventing thing you keep spewing out?? 

No one is arguing against the amendement process so please drop the strawman BS. The primary point is that the tea party/ringwingers wrap themselves in teh anctity of the constitution claiming that only they can protect it from the evil democrats even as they wish to change what they claim they wish to protect. It reeks of hypocrisy. even you ahve to see that.


----------



## drsmith1072

Charles_Main said:


> not that you care, but I was a sailor, a sub sailor, with 9 1/2 of honorable service. I more that passed my PT test everytime, but since I was 1/2% over the limit my career was ended illegally, the money that I was due, do to my discharge being a breach of contract, was stolen from me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See now that is some BS. If you can pass all the tests you should be able to serve.
Click to expand...


yeah it's BS becuase at least in the army they don't kick you out after ONE failing of the weight and body fat standards. You would have to fail a few times before you are booted. so IF what he says is true and that he got removed from service it would be his own fault and yet he blames clinton as he refuses to take personal responsibility for his own failure.

I was always over weight but passed the body fat test and never had an issue with it. Hell we has some seriously FAT NCOs who were always under weight so they never got hassled about it. So I seriously doubt he was removed from service after one failure but then maybe the navy has different standards for the tight spaces of a sub. too much missing info to know for certain.


----------



## Liberty

drsmith1072 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls.
> 
> I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what you would call "legally" and "better" is subjective and a matter of OPINION. BTW got any specfiics on that whole circumventing thing you keep spewing out??
> 
> No one is arguing against the amendement process so please drop the strawman BS. The primary point is that the tea party/ringwingers wrap themselves in teh anctity of the constitution claiming that only they can protect it from the evil democrats even as they wish to change what they claim they wish to protect. It reeks of hypocrisy. even you ahve to see that.
Click to expand...


Your question's answer: Health Care "Law"
Also, you are wrong. Show me one tea party candidate's "issues" page in which they support what you claim. I'll wait.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)
> 
> but i can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.
> 
> so much for civil debate???
> 
> ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did ignore your comments. I was attacking rightwinger and swallow.
Click to expand...


The Conservatives of today would hae lynched the founding fathers


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)
> 
> but i can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.
> 
> so much for civil debate???
> 
> ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did ignore your comments. I was attacking rightwinger and swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Conservatives of today would hae lynched the founding fathers
Click to expand...


Well played, troll. Well played.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did ignore your comments. I was attacking rightwinger and swallow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Conservatives of today would have lynched the founding fathers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well played, troll. Well played.
Click to expand...


Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet


----------



## Dr.House

rightwinger said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you are the one conducting a generalized dismisal of an argument you can't defend.
> 
> 
> 
> Who in their right mind would even attempt to "defend" broad-brush sweeping generalizations based upon some leftwinger's interpretations?
> 
> I suppose if you want to claim some interweb victory, go ahead...  Have at it...  I'm sure the other hacks will agree with you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does a political groups that pretends to embrace the spirit and body of the Constitution stand against so much of what it includes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than you and some other flaming leftists on this board, who says they do?
> 
> Personally, I just don't see the point in defending idiotic, sweeping, stereotypical generalizations...  Waste of time...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple questions House...why duck them?
> 
> Does the right wing/Tea Party support banning mosques near the wtc?
> Do they support eliminating birth right 14th amendment citizenship?
> Do they support changing the 16 the amendment?
> 
> Who came up with the term "second amendment remedies"???
Click to expand...


Simple question, leftwinger:  Why use leftist stereotypical generalizations?  You haven't answered that yet...


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Conservatives of today would have lynched the founding fathers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well played, troll. Well played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
Click to expand...


 What is the difference between a classical liberal and a social liberal?


----------



## rightwinger

Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society

Same rhetoric, same tactics


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society
> 
> Same rhetoric, same tactics



I am stupid, right? So please explain to me what the difference between classical and social liberalism is. Help me learn.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society
> 
> Same rhetoric, same tactics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am stupid, right? So please explain to me what the difference between classical and social liberalism is. Help me learn.
Click to expand...


Sorry..I don't play those games

If you want to make a point about classical vs social liberals you are free to do so


----------



## Dr.House

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society
> 
> Same rhetoric, same tactics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am stupid, right? So please explain to me what the difference between classical and social liberalism is. Help me learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry..I don't play those games
Click to expand...


Why not?  You play the sweeping idiotic leftist generalizations game....


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society
> 
> Same rhetoric, same tactics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am stupid, right? So please explain to me what the difference between classical and social liberalism is. Help me learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry..I don't play those games
> 
> If you want to make a point about classical vs social liberals you are free to do so
Click to expand...


I don't know what the difference is though! Please help me understand! I am begging you!


----------



## daveman

drsmith1072 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you choose to believe something you have been spoon fed, it doesn't make it true. LOL Your "key difference" is nothing but a delusion that the right uses to justify their hypocrisy.
> 
> Furthermore, the right loves judges who legislate from the bench as long as the decision agrees with their opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for trolling loser now let's see if you have anything valid to offer or are you here just to attack in the typical hit and run style of the lame and moronic right??
> 
> He presented a baseless OPINION and I called him out for it and all you can do is troll. GJ hack. LOL
Click to expand...

A baseless opinion, huh?

Can you find where the right to privacy, the basis for Roe v. Wade, is enumerated in the Constitution?

Kthnxbai.


----------



## daveman

drsmith1072 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contradiction.  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There IS a contradiction. It was shown in my post and IF you hadn;t edited my poost and removed 90% of it so you could avoid admitting and reposting that contradiction as you pretend it doesn't exist.
> 
> here is my full and complete post.
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh in case you missed it there has been evidence in this very thread that the right wishes to change at least some of what rightwinger listed.
> 
> one even tried to claim that
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They  key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not to stumble over yourself as you run away from it's entire context this time.
Click to expand...

Typical leftist:  Make up shit and insist it's there.

There is no contradiction.  Now stamp your feet and pout some more.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem here is that conservatives "lose" the argument on whether or not the Constitution is a Liberal or Conservative document. Or rather..that's basically more an internal argument among Conservatives..it's something Liberals already knew. So, to make themselves feel better..so they generated this brand. Liberals are Liberals..
> 
> I didn't hear much bellyaching from the Conservative spectrum about torture, illegal wiretaps, denying trials and habeas. I did hear it from the Liberal side of the spectrum. So your argument concerning "indivdual liberty" is basically in the crapper. Unless you are talking about indivdual liberty for corporations who have magically become "people" in the eyes of the law. Then..you are on solid ground.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I told the other idiot, I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then your opinion on warrantless wiretaps, denial of speedy trials, suspension of Habeas, torture, and secret prisons is what..exactly?
> 
> Perhaps..starting there would be a good point.
Click to expand...

Not interested in playing your silly little games.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lars Erik Nelson died a few years back..I can't speak for him..per se. But I doubt very much if any of his views would be welcome in today's GOP..just as someone like Jack Kemp would be forced out of Today's GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation.  Got anything concrete?
> 
> Oh.  If you did, you would have posted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Concrete? I pointed to two people, both republican, that I think would not be at home in today's GOP. Don't know how much more concrete one can get then that.
Click to expand...

Do you know what "speculation" is?


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



*First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques*

Personally I don't think it's a good idea to burn flags, bibles, Korans to incite hate. How about you????? Do you support action by mandate or persuasion?????
Where is Mosque construction being outlawed????? Do you know how many mosques are in the United States to date????? * 1209.*
AMERICAN MUSLIM DEMOGRAPHICS - MUSLIM AMERICAN POPULATIONS OUTREACH PROGRAMS

*Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one*     


How about restoring instead. I live in NYC, where if I was even attacked by a mob, if I used an unregistered gun, a knife, even a garbage can lid as a weapon to defend myself, I am in violation of the law. Anything I use as a weapon, is against the law. Gun's have to be individually registered for a fee, that is perpetual, as long as you own the guns. 


*Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety*

As opposed to ignoring the obvious for political reasons and putting lives at risk?????
Coulda-woulda-shoulda, doesn't fly anymore.



*14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays*

So if you hide out here for 10 years without getting busted, you are entitled to a free pass, right????? That makes sense to you????? Where else in the world does that happen?????
Maybe you can elaborate on the Gay thing????? What is with that?



*16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes*
How's, no taxation without representation sound to you?????  I think the focus is more on accountability, disclosure, and balanced books. Hows that sound to you as an original concept????? Remember "Enumerated Powers" and "Government by the consent of the Governed"????? Let me help you there..... Once Upon a time......long ago, before we were even born.......




*17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people*

You do realize that once upon a time Senators were elected by the State legislators, not the people. Do you know why????? Well... let me tell you... See the Senators had a sacred trust, part of that trust, specifically given to them, not the House of Representatives, was to protect the States from the Encroachment of the Federal Government. The picking of Senators from the State Legislatures more guaranteed, loyalties to the State, not like today, where the Senators first loyalties are generally to the Party. Maybe part of the problem was that the Trust of the Security of the State went to the wrong body, maybe the trust should have gone to the House Of Representatives, who more represents the common man, not the Blue Blood Country Club Crowd, the Oligarchy Elite?? Look at the comparison to England with The Crown, the House of Lords, and The House of Commons. That was the template. Senate loyalty needs to be returned to the protection of State Authority and Interest, at least, in part. How would you suggest doing that?????


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Conservatives of today would have lynched the founding fathers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well played, troll. Well played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
Click to expand...


So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?

That's completely irrational.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques*
> 
> Personally I don't think it's a good idea to burn flags, bibles, Korans to incite hate. How about you????? Do you support action by mandate or persuasion?????
> Where is Mosque construction being outlawed????? Do you know how many mosques are in the United States to date????? * 1209.*
> AMERICAN MUSLIM DEMOGRAPHICS - MUSLIM AMERICAN POPULATIONS OUTREACH PROGRAMS
> 
> *Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one*
> 
> 
> How about restoring instead. I live in NYC, where if I was even attacked by a mob, if I used an unregistered gun, a knife, even a garbage can lid as a weapon to defend myself, I am in violation of the law. Anything I use as a weapon, is against the law. Gun's have to be individually registered for a fee, that is perpetual, as long as you own the guns.
> 
> 
> *Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety*
> 
> As opposed to ignoring the obvious for political reasons and putting lives at risk?????
> Coulda-woulda-shoulda, doesn't fly anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> *14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays*
> 
> So if you hide out here for 10 years without getting busted, you are entitled to a free pass, right????? That makes sense to you????? Where else in the world does that happen?????
> Maybe you can elaborate on the Gay thing????? What is with that?
> 
> 
> 
> *16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes*
> How's, no taxation without representation sound to you?????  I think the focus is more on accountability, disclosure, and balanced books. Hows that sound to you as an original concept????? Remember "Enumerated Powers" and "Government by the consent of the Governed"????? Let me help you there..... Once Upon a time......long ago, before we were even born.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people*
> 
> You do realize that once upon a time Senators were elected by the State legislators, not the people. Do you know why????? Well... let me tell you... See the Senators had a sacred trust, part of that trust, specifically given to them, not the House of Representatives, was to protect the States from the Encroachment of the Federal Government. The picking of Senators from the State Legislatures more guaranteed, loyalties to the State, not like today, where the Senators first loyalties are generally to the Party. Maybe part of the problem was that the Trust of the Security of the State went to the wrong body, maybe the trust should have gone to the House Of Representatives, who more represents the common man, not the Blue Blood Country Club Crowd, the Oligarchy Elite?? Look at the comparison to England with The Crown, the House of Lords, and The House of Commons. That was the template. Senate loyalty needs to be returned to the protection of State Authority and Interest, at least, in part. How would you suggest doing that?????
Click to expand...


Thanks for the great post...

Once again proving the right wing conservatives do not like the Constitution they claim to love so much


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well played, troll. Well played.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
Click to expand...


The Revolution was not about small government

It was about wanting our own government


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
Click to expand...


Seems we are still waiting. You obviously don't have a clue, and wouldn't understand the rule of law or due process if you tripped over it, which you seem to do every day. Now tell us more about how you know everything and we know nothing. It's nice make believe. Tell me another story about evil conservatives and how collectivism is Constitutional. Tell us about how we hate the Constitution. Idiot.


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
Click to expand...


you are soooooooooooooooooooooooo ignorant.


----------



## Liberty

Principle 5. Limited Government

3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)

Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty

4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems we are still waiting. You obviously don't have a clue, and wouldn't understand the rule of law or due process if you tripped over it, which you seem to do every day. Now tell us more about how you know everything and we know nothing. It's nice make believe. Tell me another story about evil conservatives and how collectivism is Constitutional. Tell us about how we hate the Constitution. Idiot.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmmm....interesting

No facts, no point of view, nothing to refute except "You are an idiot"

I will take that as a complement, come back when you have something to add to the discussion


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I told the other idiot, I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then your opinion on warrantless wiretaps, denial of speedy trials, suspension of Habeas, torture, and secret prisons is what..exactly?
> 
> Perhaps..starting there would be a good point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not interested in playing your silly little games.
Click to expand...


Not playing games. Just asking for clarification and specifics.

Without establishing those..there is no real point to start from.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> Principle 5. Limited Government
> 
> 3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)
> 
> Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty
> 
> 4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.



Wow......impressive
You are very good with the Google. Nice cut and paste from an ultra conservative website trying to "rescue the republic". Homeschool material for those trying to raise little Republicans
Doesn't mean anything....but nice effort on your part


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation.  Got anything concrete?
> 
> Oh.  If you did, you would have posted it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concrete? I pointed to two people, both republican, that I think would not be at home in today's GOP. Don't know how much more concrete one can get then that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know what "speculation" is?
Click to expand...


Okay.

Start with how you feel their ideas and orientation would fit in today's GOP.


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Principle 5. Limited Government
> 
> 3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)
> 
> Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty
> 
> 4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow......impressive
> You are very good with the Google. Nice cut and paste from an ultra conservative website trying to "rescue the republic". Homeschool material for those trying to raise little Republicans
> Doesn't mean anything....but nice effort on your part
Click to expand...


Now that you have discredited the messenger, care to source a counter to the message?
Or perhaps all you have is red herrings left?
Trading words with you is pathetic in how easy it is to dismantle everything you say. You are so naked in intellect that the very hint of a rational thought entering your pea sized brain is anathema to the unfortunate infestation of ignorance that is the main component of your tragic life. Pitiful doesn't begin to describe.


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well played, troll. Well played.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
Click to expand...


the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.

they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them

they aren't small government at all. 

and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.


----------



## xotoxi

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



Don't forget that faction of the Tea Party who want to do away with the Third Amendment so we can save money not building any more barracks.


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.
> 
> they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them
> 
> they aren't small government at all.
> 
> and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.
Click to expand...


true conservatives would rather keep abortion a state issue, or a constitutional amendment. Can you name one, just one individual choice in liberty that is not abortion or gay rights? Anything at all that you are for besides those?

Also, I could have swore I have educated you on the true meaning of the 3/5ths clause before. Are you seriously throwing that out just to keep a talking point? (and an ignorant one I might add) Come on now...


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Principle 5. Limited Government
> 
> 3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)
> 
> Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty
> 
> 4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.





jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.
> 
> they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them
> 
> they aren't small government at all.
> 
> and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.
Click to expand...


I think you will find the same group of people that want women to be human incubators, also have no problem with rich couples tossing away fertilized eggs once they get the "right" one through in vitro, having the state carry out the death penalty with out absolutely establishing its the right thing to do and sending kids off to wars regardless of whether they are justified or not.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Principle 5. Limited Government
> 
> 3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)
> 
> Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty
> 
> 4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.
> 
> they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them
> 
> they aren't small government at all.
> 
> and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you will find the same group of people that want women to be human incubators, also have no problem with rich couples tossing away fertilized eggs once they get the "right" one through in vitro, having the state carry out the death penalty with out absolutely establishing its the right thing to do and sending kids off to wars regardless of whether they are justified or not.
Click to expand...


Wow. You really do live in a fantasy world.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Wow. You really do live in a fantasy world.



Well..point by point. Disprove what I have posted.

I look forward to spirited debate..and salient facts.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You really do live in a fantasy world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well..point by point. Disprove what I have posted.
> 
> I look forward to spirited debate..and salient facts.
Click to expand...


Im growing tired of always being the one to destroy other peoples' arguments. How about you attempt to dismantle mine for once? Also, it is just factually incorrect. You have no source, and are just making up shit. So it doesn't take a fucking rocket scientist to say you are living in a fantasy world. It is a pretty accurate statement.

Also, it's a volunteer military, dumbass.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Principle 5. Limited Government
> 
> 3. "Limited government" is a key term in the American philosophy. Its great significance is indicated by describing the purpose of limiting government's power in these words: Limited for Liberty. This summarizes what is meant by the statement in the Declaration of Independence about governments being limited in power "to secure these rights"--to make and keep them ever secure. "Limited" means limited by a written Constitution adopted by the sovereign people as their basic law--never changing in its meaning, as originally intended by The Framers and Adopters, except subject to change by the people only by amendments at any time and to any extent they may see fit. All governments in America are thus limited by written Constitutions--by the United States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land" and, as to each State government, by that States' Constitution. (Note again Par. 4 of Principle 3, regarding the first eight, or Bill of Rights, amendments being intended to apply against the Federal government only.)
> 
> Limited Powers, Duties, Responsibilities and Limited Threat to Liberty
> 
> 4. The few and limited powers of the United States government are enumerated and defined in the people's fundamental law--the Constitution, as amended. This is the basis of Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution) in contrast to Rule-by-Man. The limited quantity of its powers means it is limited in potential threat to the people's liberties. These "just powers," being few and limited, automatically define the limits of the duties which the people assign to this government. It can have no duties, no responsibilities, other than those consistent with the limits of the powers granted to it by the people in the Constitution, as amended, It is equally as violative of the Constitution for government to assume duties--to pretend to have responsibilities--as it is to grasp powers, beyond these prescribed limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow......impressive
> You are very good with the Google. Nice cut and paste from an ultra conservative website trying to "rescue the republic". Homeschool material for those trying to raise little Republicans
> Doesn't mean anything....but nice effort on your part
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that you have discredited the messenger, care to source a counter to the message?
> Or perhaps all you have is red herrings left?
> Trading words with you is pathetic in how easy it is to dismantle everything you say. You are so naked in intellect that the very hint of a rational thought entering your pea sized brain is anathema to the unfortunate infestation of ignorance that is the main component of your tragic life. Pitiful doesn't begin to describe.
Click to expand...


LOL

Very nice vocabulary. I am indeed impressed. Still doesn't make up for you posting a right wing conservative home school text as proof of your right wing conservative non-schooled opinions


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> true conservatives would rather keep abortion a state issue, or a constitutional amendment. Can you name one, just one individual choice in liberty that is not abortion or gay rights? Anything at all that you are for besides those?
> 
> Also, I could have swore I have educated you on the true meaning of the 3/5ths clause before. Are you seriously throwing that out just to keep a talking point? (and an ignorant one I might add) Come on now...



of course they would rather keep it a state issue because they halve the number of places where abortions are legal. 

constitutional rights are not a state issue in that no state can give fewer rights than the feds because of the supremacy clause.

the states' rights issue has long ago been determined. if we wanted the states to be paramount, we would still be living under the articles of confederation. and if there was the slightest question left, the civil war and the civil rights era put it to rest.

people who want to limit individual rights always say it's a 'states' rights' issue.

but the reality is the right of privacy cases like griswold and loving and roe are central to individual rights... which is why the right hates them. the say they believe in individual rights but then they oppose them in every way possible.


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> true conservatives would rather keep abortion a state issue, or a constitutional amendment. Can you name one, just one individual choice in liberty that is not abortion or gay rights? Anything at all that you are for besides those?
> 
> Also, I could have swore I have educated you on the true meaning of the 3/5ths clause before. Are you seriously throwing that out just to keep a talking point? (and an ignorant one I might add) Come on now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> of course they would rather keep it a state issue because they halve the number of places where abortions are legal.
> 
> constitutional rights are not a state issue in that no state can give fewer rights than the feds because of the supremacy clause.
> 
> the states' rights issue has long ago been determined. if we wanted the states to be paramount, we would still be living under the articles of confederation. and if there was the slightest question left, the civil war and the civil rights era put it to rest.
> 
> people who want to limit individual rights always say it's a 'states' rights' issue.
> 
> but the reality is the right of privacy cases like griswold and loving and roe are central to individual rights... which is why the right hates them. the say they believe in individual rights but then they oppose them in every way possible.
Click to expand...


Is there any other individual rights that you are for besides abortion and homosexual? Anything at all? Also, 10th amendment.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. You really do live in a fantasy world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well..point by point. Disprove what I have posted.
> 
> I look forward to spirited debate..and salient facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Im growing tired of always being the one to destroy other peoples' arguments. How about you attempt to dismantle mine for once? Also, it is just factually incorrect. You have no source, and are just making up shit. So it doesn't take a fucking rocket science to say you are living in a fantasy world. It is a pretty accurate statement.
> 
> Also, it's a volunteer military, dumbass.
Click to expand...


There's nothing to dismantle. You made the ad hoc post. Nothing specific. You addressed nothing..but made an accusation.

And it seems you are ignorant of military history. It has not always been voluntary.

But I am assuming you are young..and skipped history in junior and high school..and went right to the internet as your source of information.

Spend a little time in a library.


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow......impressive
> You are very good with the Google. Nice cut and paste from an ultra conservative website trying to "rescue the republic". Homeschool material for those trying to raise little Republicans
> Doesn't mean anything....but nice effort on your part
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you have discredited the messenger, care to source a counter to the message?
> Or perhaps all you have is red herrings left?
> Trading words with you is pathetic in how easy it is to dismantle everything you say. You are so naked in intellect that the very hint of a rational thought entering your pea sized brain is anathema to the unfortunate infestation of ignorance that is the main component of your tragic life. Pitiful doesn't begin to describe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Very nice vocabulary. I am indeed impressed. Still doesn't make up for you posting a right wing conservative home school text as proof of your right wing conservative non-schooled opinions
Click to expand...


Hey, stop the red herring and critique the message. Come on, you can do it.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well..point by point. Disprove what I have posted.
> 
> I look forward to spirited debate..and salient facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im growing tired of always being the one to destroy other peoples' arguments. How about you attempt to dismantle mine for once? Also, it is just factually incorrect. You have no source, and are just making up shit. So it doesn't take a fucking rocket science to say you are living in a fantasy world. It is a pretty accurate statement.
> 
> Also, it's a volunteer military, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing to dismantle. You made the ad hoc post. Nothing specific. You addressed nothing..but made an accusation.
> 
> And it seems you are ignorant of military history. It has not always been voluntary.
> 
> But I am assuming you are young..and skipped history in junior and high school..and went right to the internet as your source of information.
> 
> Spend a little time in a library.
Click to expand...


dude ive destroyed your argument countless times in quite a few threads, but hey even this one. check the pages, look at your cowardice in addressing my points when they disprove your claims beyond doubt of a logical mind.

and when did i say it has always been voluntary? Again, you are making shit up and making yourself more of a fool. Nice. And yep, I am young and skipped history. That is why I am starting for my JD from a top University next fall and have earned a BA in History and a BS in Business with a 3.8. (Dual major 5 years blah). I might even apply to OTS first and serve my country before I do though. But hey, you must know more about me. After all you are on the internet, you know everyone instantly! Get the fuck out...you embarrass yourself.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Im growing tired of always being the one to destroy other peoples' arguments. How about you attempt to dismantle mine for once? Also, it is just factually incorrect. You have no source, and are just making up shit. So it doesn't take a fucking rocket science to say you are living in a fantasy world. It is a pretty accurate statement.
> 
> Also, it's a volunteer military, dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to dismantle. You made the ad hoc post. Nothing specific. You addressed nothing..but made an accusation.
> 
> And it seems you are ignorant of military history. It has not always been voluntary.
> 
> But I am assuming you are young..and skipped history in junior and high school..and went right to the internet as your source of information.
> 
> Spend a little time in a library.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> dude ive destroyed your argument countless times in quite a few threads, but hey even this one. check the pages, look at your cowardice in addressing my points when they disprove your claims beyond doubt of a logical mind.
> 
> and when did i say it has always been voluntary? Again, you are making shit up and making yourself more of a fool. Nice. And yep, I am young and skipped history. That is why I am getting starting for my JD from a top University next fall and have earned a BA in History and a BS in Business with a 3.8. (Dual major 5 years blah). I might even apply to OTS first and serve my country before I do though. But hey, you must know more about me. After all you are on the internet, you know everyone instantly! Get the fuck out...you embarrass yourself.
Click to expand...


Um..okay..

And I bet you have playboy models as girlfriends and drive a ferrari.

Is that you Mr. Bond?

Cheers.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing to dismantle. You made the ad hoc post. Nothing specific. You addressed nothing..but made an accusation.
> 
> And it seems you are ignorant of military history. It has not always been voluntary.
> 
> But I am assuming you are young..and skipped history in junior and high school..and went right to the internet as your source of information.
> 
> Spend a little time in a library.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dude ive destroyed your argument countless times in quite a few threads, but hey even this one. check the pages, look at your cowardice in addressing my points when they disprove your claims beyond doubt of a logical mind.
> 
> and when did i say it has always been voluntary? Again, you are making shit up and making yourself more of a fool. Nice. And yep, I am young and skipped history. That is why I am getting starting for my JD from a top University next fall and have earned a BA in History and a BS in Business with a 3.8. (Dual major 5 years blah). I might even apply to OTS first and serve my country before I do though. But hey, you must know more about me. After all you are on the internet, you know everyone instantly! Get the fuck out...you embarrass yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um..okay..
> 
> And I bet you have playboy models as girlfriends and drive a ferrari.
> 
> Is that you Mr. Bond?
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...


Well, better luck next time I guess.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> dude ive destroyed your argument countless times in quite a few threads, but hey even this one. check the pages, look at your cowardice in addressing my points when they disprove your claims beyond doubt of a logical mind.
> 
> and when did i say it has always been voluntary? Again, you are making shit up and making yourself more of a fool. Nice. And yep, I am young and skipped history. That is why I am getting starting for my JD from a top University next fall and have earned a BA in History and a BS in Business with a 3.8. (Dual major 5 years blah). I might even apply to OTS first and serve my country before I do though. But hey, you must know more about me. After all you are on the internet, you know everyone instantly! Get the fuck out...you embarrass yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um..okay..
> 
> And I bet you have playboy models as girlfriends and drive a ferrari.
> 
> Is that you Mr. Bond?
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, better luck next time I guess.
Click to expand...


Have fun storming the castle..


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems we are still waiting. You obviously don't have a clue, and wouldn't understand the rule of law or due process if you tripped over it, which you seem to do every day. Now tell us more about how you know everything and we know nothing. It's nice make believe. Tell me another story about evil conservatives and how collectivism is Constitutional. Tell us about how we hate the Constitution. Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmmmm....interesting
> 
> No facts, no point of view, nothing to refute except "You are an idiot"
> 
> I will take that as a complement, come back when you have something to add to the discussion
Click to expand...


What effect do facts have on you? Fact that the Constitution originally stipulated that Senators be elected from the State Legislators, not the General Population. What does that or anything else have to do with your fantasy claims????? How about you focus on speaking for yourself, rather than speaking for us?????


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.
> 
> they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them
> 
> they aren't small government at all.
> 
> and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.
Click to expand...


I'm conservative, yet I don't want those things for you, Jillian.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems we are still waiting. You obviously don't have a clue, and wouldn't understand the rule of law or due process if you tripped over it, which you seem to do every day. Now tell us more about how you know everything and we know nothing. It's nice make believe. Tell me another story about evil conservatives and how collectivism is Constitutional. Tell us about how we hate the Constitution. Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmmm....interesting
> 
> No facts, no point of view, nothing to refute except "You are an idiot"
> 
> I will take that as a complement, come back when you have something to add to the discussion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What effect do facts have on you? Fact that the Constitution originally stipulated that Senators be elected from the State Legislators, not the General Population. What does that or anything else have to do with your fantasy claims????? How about you focus on speaking for yourself, rather than speaking for us?????
Click to expand...


17th Amendment fixed that. Imagine the uproar if the public was told they could no longer elect their own Senators and that the State would make that decision for them.

Only a wingnut would propose taking away the vote from the people


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmmmm....interesting
> 
> No facts, no point of view, nothing to refute except "You are an idiot"
> 
> I will take that as a complement, come back when you have something to add to the discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What effect do facts have on you? Fact that the Constitution originally stipulated that Senators be elected from the State Legislators, not the General Population. What does that or anything else have to do with your fantasy claims????? How about you focus on speaking for yourself, rather than speaking for us?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 17th Amendment fixed that. Imagine the uproar if the public was told they could no longer elect their own Senators and that the State would make that decision for them.
> 
> Only a wingnut would propose taking away the vote from the people
Click to expand...


You have no clue as to what I want or don't want. You seem to be obsessed with wing nuts. You are proof that there is more than one variety. I think it's a good idea that the Election be about what the people want and not the Party. You should try that sometime. You know, putting the people first. We are a Federalist Constitutional Republic. Federalist, can you say that?????? F-E-D-E-R-A-L-I-S-T. Good... that's it. You will one day get it.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
Click to expand...

...which the FF built small on purpose. 

You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then your opinion on warrantless wiretaps, denial of speedy trials, suspension of Habeas, torture, and secret prisons is what..exactly?
> 
> Perhaps..starting there would be a good point.
> 
> 
> 
> Not interested in playing your silly little games.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not playing games. Just asking for clarification and specifics.
> 
> Without establishing those..there is no real point to start from.
Click to expand...

If only I could believe that you wanted serious discussion.

But I can't.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Concrete? I pointed to two people, both republican, that I think would not be at home in today's GOP. Don't know how much more concrete one can get then that.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what "speculation" is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Start with how you feel their ideas and orientation would fit in today's GOP.
Click to expand...

And that would be more speculation.


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)
> 
> The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the pretend constitutionalists today are not 'small government' because they want government to legislate the things THEY wanted legislated. For example, they want the government to interfere with my body and force me to carry a child to term even if i am raped or the victim of incest.
> 
> they want to prohibit a next of kin from making the final decisions about a loved ones' end of life choices if THEY disagree with them
> 
> they aren't small government at all.
> 
> and i don't think we'd be very accepting of the founding fathers' idea of government either... one where women couldn't vote and blacks weren't even considered full people and slavery was legal.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the Federal government legislating any morality.  Some questions, like abortion and gay marriage, should be left to the States.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> What effect do facts have on you? Fact that the Constitution originally stipulated that Senators be elected from the State Legislators, not the General Population. What does that or anything else have to do with your fantasy claims????? How about you focus on speaking for yourself, rather than speaking for us?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 17th Amendment fixed that. Imagine the uproar if the public was told they could no longer elect their own Senators and that the State would make that decision for them.
> 
> Only a wingnut would propose taking away the vote from the people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no clue as to what I want or don't want. You seem to be obsessed with wing nuts. You are proof that there is more than one variety. I think it's a good idea that the Election be about what the people want and not the Party. You should try that sometime. You know, putting the people first. We are a Federalist Constitutional Republic. Federalist, can you say that?????? F-E-D-E-R-A-L-I-S-T. Good... that's it. You will one day get it.
Click to expand...


I'm the one supporting our Constitution as it is currently written. I would not change a thing. Nor would I advocate taking away the direct election of Senators by the people


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...


Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally. 
The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
Click to expand...


wrong. "The government that governs best, governs least."


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 17th Amendment fixed that. Imagine the uproar if the public was told they could no longer elect their own Senators and that the State would make that decision for them.
> 
> Only a wingnut would propose taking away the vote from the people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no clue as to what I want or don't want. You seem to be obsessed with wing nuts. You are proof that there is more than one variety. I think it's a good idea that the Election be about what the people want and not the Party. You should try that sometime. You know, putting the people first. We are a Federalist Constitutional Republic. Federalist, can you say that?????? F-E-D-E-R-A-L-I-S-T. Good... that's it. You will one day get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm the one supporting our Constitution as it is currently written. I would not change a thing. Nor would I advocate taking away the direct election of Senators by the people
Click to expand...


Here's the thing, as Citizens we both pretty much support the Constitution as written and interpreted, we really have no choice but follow the rule of law or violate it and become criminal. The Constitution as written, specifically allows for reform through new construction and the amendment process. If it did not, there would be no need for the Court or Congress to interpret, mediate, write new Bills. Why with the red herrings all of the time????? How about you try to communicate whats really on your mind without trying to demonize all opposition to your point of view. Lose the anchor around your neck.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wrong. "The government that governs best, governs least."
Click to expand...


Like Somalia??


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrong. "The government that governs best, governs least."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Somalia??
Click to expand...


no, dumbshit. The rule of law is necessary.


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not interested in playing your silly little games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not playing games. Just asking for clarification and specifics.
> 
> Without establishing those..there is no real point to start from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If only I could believe that you wanted serious discussion.
> 
> But I can't.
Click to expand...


Quantify serious? Or silly?

I sort of can. When you start using insults..or being dismissive..you aren't really serious.

That's a good point to start.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
Click to expand...


Big big fail. They despised Centralized Government. The concept of one size fits all whether you like it or not is absurd. You totally miss the point of enumerated Powers and Federalism. That explains so much.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big big fail. They despised Centralized Government. The concept of one size fits all whether you like it or not is absurd. You totally miss the point of enumerated Powers and Federalism. That explains so much.
Click to expand...


If they despised a centralized government they had the capability to specifically exclude it in the Constitution. They chose not to do so


----------



## Sallow

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Big big fail. They despised Centralized Government. The concept of one size fits all whether you like it or not is absurd. You totally miss the point of enumerated Powers and Federalism. That explains so much.
Click to expand...


It's incorrect to broad brush the founders. Some were more on the side of having a sort of a sort of loose conferation of states..some were more on the side of having a strong central government. I think the unifying principle was indivdual rights..and reigning in government's control of it's citizens. Hence habeas, the right to a speedy trial, the separation of powers, representative government and trial by jury.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big big fail. They despised Centralized Government. The concept of one size fits all whether you like it or not is absurd. You totally miss the point of enumerated Powers and Federalism. That explains so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they despised a centralized government they had the capability to specifically exclude it in the Constitution. They chose not to do so
Click to expand...


Federalism opposes Centralized Government Einstein. Tyranny is bad, not good RW. You are almost beyond hope, you really need an intervention. How many times do you think Tyranny or Tyrant was referred to in the Federalist Papers????? You are either very poorly educated on the matter or a total fraud. The fact that you lead others down the path of subjugation is evident. The defense of predatory government inexcusable, RW.


----------



## Intense

Sallow said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big big fail. They despised Centralized Government. The concept of one size fits all whether you like it or not is absurd. You totally miss the point of enumerated Powers and Federalism. That explains so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's incorrect to broad brush the founders. Some were more on the side of having a sort of a sort of loose conferation of states..some were more on the side of having a strong central government. I think the unifying principle was indivdual rights..and reigning in government's control of it's citizens. Hence habeas, the right to a speedy trial, the separation of powers, representative government and trial by jury.
Click to expand...


You cut class allot during History, didn't you? Why not do some catching up?????

The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
Click to expand...

Neither do Democrats.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not playing games. Just asking for clarification and specifics.
> 
> Without establishing those..there is no real point to start from.
> 
> 
> 
> If only I could believe that you wanted serious discussion.
> 
> But I can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quantify serious? Or silly?
> 
> I sort of can. When you start using insults..or being dismissive..you aren't really serious.
> 
> That's a good point to start.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you pretend you haven't been dismissive.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big big fail. They despised Centralized Government. The concept of one size fits all whether you like it or not is absurd. You totally miss the point of enumerated Powers and Federalism. That explains so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they despised a centralized government they had the capability to specifically exclude it in the Constitution. They chose not to do so
Click to expand...

You really believe that, don't you?


----------



## Sallow

Intense said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big big fail. They despised Centralized Government. The concept of one size fits all whether you like it or not is absurd. You totally miss the point of enumerated Powers and Federalism. That explains so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's incorrect to broad brush the founders. Some were more on the side of having a sort of a sort of loose conferation of states..some were more on the side of having a strong central government. I think the unifying principle was indivdual rights..and reigning in government's control of it's citizens. Hence habeas, the right to a speedy trial, the separation of powers, representative government and trial by jury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cut class allot during History, didn't you? Why not do some catching up?????
> 
> The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents
Click to expand...


Cute.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's incorrect to broad brush the founders. Some were more on the side of having a sort of a sort of loose conferation of states..some were more on the side of having a strong central government. I think the unifying principle was indivdual rights..and reigning in government's control of it's citizens. Hence habeas, the right to a speedy trial, the separation of powers, representative government and trial by jury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cut class allot during History, didn't you? Why not do some catching up?????
> 
> The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute.
Click to expand...

See?


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only I could believe that you wanted serious discussion.
> 
> But I can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantify serious? Or silly?
> 
> I sort of can. When you start using insults..or being dismissive..you aren't really serious.
> 
> That's a good point to start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's funny how you pretend you haven't been dismissive.
Click to expand...


Circle jerks are not my thing.

No reason to continue.

Cheers.


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cut class allot during History, didn't you? Why not do some catching up?????
> 
> The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See?
Click to expand...


Well apart from the fact you missed how insulting the post was..and I guess in your world it isn't..

It's all good..ain't it?


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big big fail. They despised Centralized Government. The concept of one size fits all whether you like it or not is absurd. You totally miss the point of enumerated Powers and Federalism. That explains so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's incorrect to broad brush the founders. Some were more on the side of having a sort of a sort of loose conferation of states..some were more on the side of having a strong central government. I think the unifying principle was indivdual rights..and reigning in government's control of it's citizens. Hence habeas, the right to a speedy trial, the separation of powers, representative government and trial by jury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cut class allot during History, didn't you? Why not do some catching up?????
> 
> The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents
Click to expand...


care to argue those things with me? cause nothing that was said was incorrect.

and i'm not aware of the magna carta being binding on the U.S.


----------



## Intense

Sallow said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's incorrect to broad brush the founders. Some were more on the side of having a sort of a sort of loose conferation of states..some were more on the side of having a strong central government. I think the unifying principle was indivdual rights..and reigning in government's control of it's citizens. Hence habeas, the right to a speedy trial, the separation of powers, representative government and trial by jury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cut class allot during History, didn't you? Why not do some catching up?????
> 
> The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute.
Click to expand...


Just keep studying.   What is Federalism? What undermines it?

How to fight the urge to want to dominate the World.

Just say no to Tyrants.

Value for Value, you cannot supply another with that which is not yours to give without first taking it from someone else.

Think Government by the consent of the Governed, that's an Informed Governed, not a misinformed Governed. Get it? Good.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantify serious? Or silly?
> 
> I sort of can. When you start using insults..or being dismissive..you aren't really serious.
> 
> That's a good point to start.
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you pretend you haven't been dismissive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circle jerks are not my thing.
> 
> No reason to continue.
> 
> Cheers.
Click to expand...

Now it's all butthurt because its hypocrisy was pointed out.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cute.
> 
> 
> 
> See?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well apart from the fact you missed how insulting the post was..and I guess in your world it isn't..
> 
> It's all good..ain't it?
Click to expand...

And even MORE hypocrisy!


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny how you pretend you haven't been dismissive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Circle jerks are not my thing.
> 
> No reason to continue.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it's all butthurt because its hypocrisy was pointed out.
Click to expand...


Butthurt?

What the heck is that?


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big big fail. They despised Centralized Government. The concept of one size fits all whether you like it or not is absurd. You totally miss the point of enumerated Powers and Federalism. That explains so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they despised a centralized government they had the capability to specifically exclude it in the Constitution. They chose not to do so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Federalism opposes Centralized Government Einstein. Tyranny is bad, not good RW. You are almost beyond hope, you really need an intervention. How many times do you think Tyranny or Tyrant was referred to in the Federalist Papers????? You are either very poorly educated on the matter or a total fraud. The fact that you lead others down the path of subjugation is evident. The defense of predatory government inexcusable, RW.
Click to expand...


Quite a reach, don't ya think Mr Einstein??

Centralized Government= Tyranny

We have 150 years of experience to show you are wrong


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Circle jerks are not my thing.
> 
> No reason to continue.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's all butthurt because its hypocrisy was pointed out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Butthurt?
> 
> What the heck is that?
Click to expand...


Butthurt.

Number 1 is quite appropriate.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither do Democrats.
Click to expand...


It was a Democrat, FDR, who put us on a path to become a modern society. It was the conservatives of the day who had to be pulled, kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.

Since that time, the US has become the worlds predominant military and economic superpower


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's all butthurt because its hypocrisy was pointed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butthurt?
> 
> What the heck is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Butthurt.
> 
> Number 1 is quite appropriate.
Click to expand...


Ah..it's like an urban "slang" thing. I hear it from frat types..thanks for clearing it up. Not really familiar with it.

Anyway..

Have a nice day. Try not to get "butthurt".


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's incorrect to broad brush the founders. Some were more on the side of having a sort of a sort of loose conferation of states..some were more on the side of having a strong central government. I think the unifying principle was indivdual rights..and reigning in government's control of it's citizens. Hence habeas, the right to a speedy trial, the separation of powers, representative government and trial by jury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cut class allot during History, didn't you? Why not do some catching up?????
> 
> The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> care to argue those things with me? cause nothing that was said was incorrect.
> 
> and i'm not aware of the magna carta being binding on the U.S.
Click to expand...


Be specific, the Magna Carta would have been binding to the Colonies, correct????? What is your point about it?

The unifying point that separated us from every Nation Jillian was Inalienable Rights Jillian.
I would love to discuss any topic you want, with you. Let it be your platform or argument, not someone else's flawed position. 

You know what I have wanted to discuss with you for a long time from a non confrontational position was was Marbury VS Madison. Starting with the virtues of each side of the argument.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a Democrat, FDR, who put us on a path to become a modern society. It was the conservatives of the day who had to be pulled, kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.
> 
> Since that time, the US has become the worlds predominant military and economic superpower
Click to expand...

Ahhh, yes, the creation of the Welfare State.  Unsurprising that you'd see that as a good thing.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Butthurt?
> 
> What the heck is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Butthurt.
> 
> Number 1 is quite appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah..it's like an urban "slang" thing. I hear it from frat types..thanks for clearing it up. Not really familiar with it.
> 
> Anyway..
> 
> Have a nice day. Try not to get "butthurt".
Click to expand...

It's not possible to be butthurt when you're not ruled by emotion.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they built it small for a purpose. That purpose was that a country of 2.5 million did not require a large government and they lacked the communications and transportation infrastructure to manage the country centrally.
> The Founding Fathers would not have a clue of what it takes to run a modern society operating in a global economy.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a Democrat, FDR, who put us on a path to become a modern society. It was the conservatives of the day who had to be pulled, kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.
> 
> Since that time, the US has become the worlds predominant military and economic superpower
Click to expand...


From my perspective, Roosevelt secured the power and position of Government, Government Workers, Union Workers, and the Oligarchy Powers of the day. He made everyone else pay for it, some with all they possessed. Thankfully he set up bread lines and soup kitchens to feed those his policies dispossessed.  Sort of reminds me of "We The Living", by Ayn Rand. By the way, who were the biggest outside contributors to the Russian Revolution?????  Look for the Union label???? Got milk?


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cut class allot during History, didn't you? Why not do some catching up?????
> 
> The University of Oklahoma College of Law: A Chronology of US Historical Documents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> care to argue those things with me? cause nothing that was said was incorrect.
> 
> and i'm not aware of the magna carta being binding on the U.S.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be specific, the Magna Carta would have been binding to the Colonies, correct????? What is your point about it?
> 
> The unifying point that separated us from every Nation Jillian was Inalienable Rights Jillian.
> I would love to discuss any topic you want, with you. Let it be your platform or argument, not someone else's flawed position.
> 
> You know what I have wanted to discuss with you for a long time from a non confrontational position was was Marbury VS Madison. Starting with the virtues of each side of the argument.
Click to expand...


everyone gets their positions, at least in part, from others. in my own case, a lot of it from my teachers and professors. i'd say that's preferable to people who get their information on what the constitution is from rush, beck and levin, et al. 

i'm happy to discuss almost any issue with you. and you and i have no rancor between us. 

but .... what inalienable rights? there weren't any rights at all unless you were a white male landowner.

as for marbury. the reality is it was the correct decision and was the only thing that allowed the court to do the job it was intended to do. other than as a study of what the court is there for, i'm not sure what you want to discuss. it's been the law since, when? 1803?

oh...and congrats on being a mod.


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither do Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Democrat, FDR, who put us on a path to become a modern society. It was the conservatives of the day who had to be pulled, kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.
> 
> Since that time, the US has become the worlds predominant military and economic superpower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective, Roosevelt secured the power and position of Government, Government Workers, Union Workers, and the Oligarchy Powers of the day. He made everyone else pay for it, some with all they possessed. Thankfully he set up bread lines and soup kitchens to feed those his policies dispossessed.  Sort of reminds me of "We The Living", by Ayn Rand. By the way, who were the biggest outside contributors to the Russian Revolution?????  Look for the Union label???? Got milk?
Click to expand...


As a political theorist, Ayn Rand was a terrific novelist. 

roosevelt did what he had to to get the country out of the great depression.


----------



## Liberty

anyone who has studied the era knows that FDR's new deal was enacted right after the economy began to recover...then the new deal flat lined it for over two more years. The free market will fix itself. Government can ONLY damage, never fix. That is history.


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> anyone who has studied the era knows that FDR's new deal was enacted right after the economy began to recover...then the new deal plunged it into the depression. The free market will fix itself. Government can ONLY damage, never fix. That is history.



that's what the rightwingnuts like to say.

it's not bourne out by the facts and circumstances.

and the hatred of government BS doesn't fly. it was stupid when reagan said it. it still is.

50% of senior citizens lived in poverty until social security.

children worked in sweat shops until government outlawed it.

you work in a safe environment because of the EPA and OSHA.

my kid goes to a great FREE school because government pays for it.

I can't abide the BS 'i hate government' mantra.


----------



## Liberty

history is a bitch for a socialist liberal.

also, government doesn't pay for your schools. Your community does via taxes. Come on, thats 101.


----------



## jillian

Liberty said:


> history is a bitch for a socialist liberal.
> 
> also, government doesn't pay for your schools. Your community does via taxes. Come on, thats 101.



i'm not a socialist, hon.

and if you actually used the term properly, you'd know that. words have meanings and it's really important that rightwing propagandists don't misuse them because they think it sounds good and people who don't know any better listen to those words.

taxes are paid to the government. with that money, we get roads, schools, and all the other things that government pays for.

or should it only pay for blowing up people in other countries?


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> anyone who has studied the era knows that FDR's new deal was enacted right after the economy began to recover...then the new deal flat lined it for over two more years. The free market will fix itself. Government can ONLY damage, never fix. That is history.



LOL...Sure it did

Same old...."It would have worked better if you had done nothing" I guess Hoover was right....Prosperity was just around the corner

What we do know is that all leading economic indicators got better after FDR enacted his policies


----------



## Liberty

your money is ALWAYS your money. Paying taxes simply allows the governing entity to use the funds towards (presumably) helping the community and country at large. It is STILL your money.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> history is a bitch for a socialist liberal.
> 
> also, government doesn't pay for your schools. Your community does via taxes. Come on, thats 101.



My local community is not part of the Government?


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> anyone who has studied the era knows that FDR's new deal was enacted right after the economy began to recover...then the new deal flat lined it for over two more years. The free market will fix itself. Government can ONLY damage, never fix. That is history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...Sure it did
> 
> Same old...."It would have worked better if you had done nothing" I guess Hoover was right....Prosperity was just around the corner
> 
> What we do know is that all leading economic indicators got better after FDR enacted his policies
Click to expand...


History is the truth, and those who argue against history are useful idiots, have willfully chosen to be fools, or both. I came to USMB to discuss issues with people who knew the basics, yet all I find are people that need to be educated in the most basic of bases of all issues. Why I waste my time, I'll never know.


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> history is a bitch for a socialist liberal.
> 
> also, government doesn't pay for your schools. Your community does via taxes. Come on, thats 101.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My local community is not part of the Government?
Click to expand...


I really hope you are just a troll...for if you really are as stupid as you act, I feel every amount of pity I can for those that care about you. God bless them for their sacrifice.


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> care to argue those things with me? cause nothing that was said was incorrect.
> 
> and i'm not aware of the magna carta being binding on the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific, the Magna Carta would have been binding to the Colonies, correct????? What is your point about it?
> 
> The unifying point that separated us from every Nation Jillian was Inalienable Rights Jillian.
> I would love to discuss any topic you want, with you. Let it be your platform or argument, not someone else's flawed position.
> 
> You know what I have wanted to discuss with you for a long time from a non confrontational position was was Marbury VS Madison. Starting with the virtues of each side of the argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everyone gets their positions, at least in part, from others. in my own case, a lot of it from my teachers and professors. i'd say that's preferable to people who get their information on what the constitution is from rush, beck and levin, et al.
> 
> i'm happy to discuss almost any issue with you. and you and i have no rancor between us.
> 
> but .... what inalienable rights? there weren't any rights at all unless you were a white male landowner.
> 
> as for marbury. the reality is it was the correct decision and was the only thing that allowed the court to do the job it was intended to do. other than as a study of what the court is there for, i'm not sure what you want to discuss. it's been the law since, when? 1803?
> 
> oh...and congrats on being a mod.
Click to expand...


The Constitution gave Voice to Male land owners through the vote. It gave protection under the Law to most. We were divided from the start on Slavery, it took a long time to correct, from Liberty, to Suffrage, yet the foundation held. 

On Judicial Review, I support it. I also support 3 Equal distinct Branches of Government, meaning there are limits and boundaries to powers and Jurisdictions. The one thing that scares me with Judicial Review is when a Court crosses the line from reality to Imagined. There is a distinction. The "What If", may be taken into account, but not at the expense of lost reason and priority, is applying Justice to the matter at hand. Just a thought. 


From Wiki... I apologize for that.  Some of the points seem valid.


Criticism
At the time Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."[23] Jefferson expanded on this in a letter he wrote some 20 years later to Justice William Johnson, whom he had appointed to the court in 1804.[24]

Some legal scholars have questioned the legal reasoning of Marshall's opinion. They argue that Marshall selectively quoted the Judiciary Act of 1789, interpreting it to grant the Supreme Court the power to hear writs of mandamus on original jurisdiction.[25] These scholars argue that there is little connection between the notion of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court, and note that the Act seems to affirm the Court's power to exercise only appellate jurisdiction.[26] Furthermore, it has been argued that the Supreme Court should have been able to issue the writ on original jurisdiction based on the fact that Article III of the Constitution granted it the right to review on original jurisdiction "all cases affecting . . . public ministers and consuls," and that James Madison, Secretary of State at the time and defendant of the suit, should have fallen into that category of a "public minister [or] consul."[27]

Questions have also frequently been raised about the logic of Marshall's argument for judicial review, for example by Alexander Bickel in his book The Least Dangerous Branch. Bickel argues that Marshall's argument implies an unrealistically mechanical view of jurisprudence, one which suggests that the Court has an absolute duty to strike down every law it finds violative of the Constitution. Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding casesa notion that has been attacked by Richard Posner.

Marbury can also be criticized on grounds that it was improper for the Court to consider any issues beyond jurisdiction. After concluding that the Court lacked jurisdiction in the case, the further review regarding the substantive issues presented was arguably improper.[28] Also, it has been argued that Justice Marshall should have recused himself on the grounds that he was still acting Secretary of State at the time the commissions were to be delivered and it was his brother, James Marshall, who was charged with delivering a number of the commissions.[29]

Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> The Constitution gave Voice to Male land owners through the vote. It gave protection under the Law to most. We were divided from the start on Slavery, it took a long time to correct, from Liberty, to Suffrage, yet the foundation held.
> 
> On Judicial Review, I support it. I also support 3 Equal distinct Branches of Government, meaning there are limits and boundaries to powers and Jurisdictions. The one thing that scares me with Judicial Review is when a Court crosses the line from reality to Imagined. There is a distinction. The "What If", may be taken into account, but not at the expense of lost reason and priority, is applying Justice to the matter at hand. Just a thought.
> 
> Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



i deleted the stuff from wiki, not because it bothers me, but because it was taking up a lot of space. 

first, how can there be 'protection' under the law if you're denied a vote. women and blacks aren't children and the constitution guarantees EQUAL protection.  The founders were of their age and were radicals in that age. but they were not egalitarian and did not have any concept of equality.

as for a court crossing from reality to fantasy... i'd suggest that judicial activism is when you disagree with the determination of the court. the constitution was intended to be interpreted. it isn't a bible and it is specifically left vague in many areas specifically so it could cover circumstances that the founders could never contemplate.

what is crossing from reality to fantasy? the court protecting my right to purchase birth contro? (griswold v conn); the court outlawing anti-miscegenation laws? (loving v va); the court protecting my right to reproductive choice? (roe v wade). each of these is at least consistent with the idea of individual liberties which is REALLY what the constitution is intended to protect. 

or is this crossing from fantasy to reality??? pretending that corporations are people for the purpose of the first amendment? (citizens united). there is nothing in the history of the constitution or of the founders words that indicate that corporations were the entity whose 'liberties' were intended for protection. in fact, the boston tea party and the uprising against the east india company would indicate the exact opposite.

i know what the criticisms are of marbury v madison. but not knowing what 'scholars' they're talking about, i really can't comment on their scholarship. what i do know is that but for the court's interpretation of marbury v madison, the court would be powerless and congress would be the judge of the constitutionality of its actions. that doesn't make sense from either a pragmatic or ideologic perspective, imo.

equal and distinct branch of government, but that means that means only that each branch has its role. and each branch is supposed to be a check on the others.

the role of the court is to be the last gasp of protection of the minority, when an overzealous and politics driven legislature and executive branch overreaches. this is a simple fact that this current incarnation of the court seems to ignore with impunity.


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Democrat, FDR, who put us on a path to become a modern society. It was the conservatives of the day who had to be pulled, kicking and screaming into the 20th Century.
> 
> Since that time, the US has become the worlds predominant military and economic superpower
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perspective, Roosevelt secured the power and position of Government, Government Workers, Union Workers, and the Oligarchy Powers of the day. He made everyone else pay for it, some with all they possessed. Thankfully he set up bread lines and soup kitchens to feed those his policies dispossessed.  Sort of reminds me of "We The Living", by Ayn Rand. By the way, who were the biggest outside contributors to the Russian Revolution?????  Look for the Union label???? Got milk?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a political theorist, Ayn Rand was a terrific novelist.
> 
> roosevelt did what he had to to get the country out of the great depression.
Click to expand...


From his perspective, he did his best. My question is "Was Roosevelt's Remedy compatible with our form of Government or did it cause harm to our structure?" Most of us don't take advice or criticism well, I doubt he was an exception.


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my perspective, Roosevelt secured the power and position of Government, Government Workers, Union Workers, and the Oligarchy Powers of the day. He made everyone else pay for it, some with all they possessed. Thankfully he set up bread lines and soup kitchens to feed those his policies dispossessed.  Sort of reminds me of "We The Living", by Ayn Rand. By the way, who were the biggest outside contributors to the Russian Revolution?????  Look for the Union label???? Got milk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a political theorist, Ayn Rand was a terrific novelist.
> 
> roosevelt did what he had to to get the country out of the great depression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From his perspective, he did his best. My question is "Was Roosevelt's Remedy compatible with our form of Government or did it cause harm to our structure?" Most of us don't take advice or criticism well, I doubt he was an exception.
Click to expand...


why wouldn't it be compatible? there is a difference between form of government and economic system.

you do what's best for your people. it's really that simple, imo.


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution gave Voice to Male land owners through the vote. It gave protection under the Law to most. We were divided from the start on Slavery, it took a long time to correct, from Liberty, to Suffrage, yet the foundation held.
> 
> On Judicial Review, I support it. I also support 3 Equal distinct Branches of Government, meaning there are limits and boundaries to powers and Jurisdictions. The one thing that scares me with Judicial Review is when a Court crosses the line from reality to Imagined. There is a distinction. The "What If", may be taken into account, but not at the expense of lost reason and priority, is applying Justice to the matter at hand. Just a thought.
> 
> Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i deleted the stuff from wiki, not because it bothers me, but because it was taking up a lot of space.
> 
> first, how can there be 'protection' under the law if you're denied a vote. women and blacks aren't children and the constitution guarantees EQUAL protection.  The founders were of their age and were radicals in that age. but they were not egalitarian and did not have any concept of equality.
> 
> as for a court crossing from reality to fantasy... i'd suggest that judicial activism is when you disagree with the determination of the court. the constitution was intended to be interpreted. it isn't a bible and it is specifically left vague in many areas specifically so it could cover circumstances that the founders could never contemplate.
> 
> what is crossing from reality to fantasy? the court protecting my right to purchase birth contro? (griswold v conn); the court outlawing anti-miscegenation laws? (loving v va); the court protecting my right to reproductive choice? (roe v wade). each of these is at least consistent with the idea of individual liberties which is REALLY what the constitution is intended to protect.
> 
> or is this crossing from fantasy to reality??? pretending that corporations are people for the purpose of the first amendment? (citizens united). there is nothing in the history of the constitution or of the founders words that indicate that corporations were the entity whose 'liberties' were intended for protection. in fact, the boston tea party and the uprising against the east india company would indicate the exact opposite.
> 
> i know what the criticisms are of marbury v madison. but not knowing what 'scholars' they're talking about, i really can't comment on their scholarship. what i do know is that but for the court's interpretation of marbury v madison, the court would be powerless and congress would be the judge of the constitutionality of its actions. that doesn't make sense from either a pragmatic or ideologic perspective, imo.
> 
> equal and distinct branch of government, but that means that means only that each branch has its role. and each branch is supposed to be a check on the others.
> 
> the role of the court is to be the last gasp of protection of the minority, when an overzealous and politics driven legislature and executive branch overreaches. this is a simple fact that this current incarnation of the court seems to ignore with impunity.
Click to expand...




*first, how can there be 'protection' under the law if you're denied a vote. women and blacks aren't children and the constitution guarantees EQUAL protection.  The founders were of their age and were radicals in that age. but they were not egalitarian and did not have any concept of equality.*

Easy, through Statute, through the rule of law. Being denied participation in the framing of a law has no connection to the protections applied under it what so ever. If that were the case, I could argue everyone having Powers less than the President, is being denied Unalienable Rights. The realization of Unalienable Right's is that they are born of Our Creator, by what ever name one chooses to call him, or not, and that they are recognized by Society and Government. As Individuals, some did, at least in some sense, as a Government Body, they were limited in what had support. 



*as for a court crossing from reality to fantasy... i'd suggest that judicial activism is when you disagree with the determination of the court. the constitution was intended to be interpreted. it isn't a bible and it is specifically left vague in many areas specifically so it could cover circumstances that the founders could never contemplate.*

From my perspective Judicial Activism is when the Court oversteps it's authority. Decisions are reversed all the time, so it's not like it is even uncommon. Moral absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism. Circumstance, application, remedy are unique, not the formula, necessarily, but the application. There are boundaries that should not be crossed. Method does not by itself justify, even though the cause may be justified, sloppy administration of proclaimed justice causes more problems. 



*what is crossing from reality to fantasy? the court protecting my right to purchase birth contro? (griswold v conn); the court outlawing anti-miscegenation laws? (loving v va); the court protecting my right to reproductive choice? (roe v wade). each of these is at least consistent with the idea of individual liberties which is REALLY what the constitution is intended to protect. *

I have seen arguments against Griswold from people that support abortion. It wasn't the perfect argument aside. That aside, being the issue, abortion, guns, busing,  voting , shouldn't reason prevail? There are boundaries to what is acceptable and what is not. Even the Will of the people in Super Majority numbers trump the power of any Executive, Legislature, Court, or Agency. The will of the People is Paramount. One of the roles of the Courts, in a sense, is Conscience. It's hard discerning what is right from what is legal, and that is why things are challenged. Reform is always a part of the equation. Guide lines, limits, boundaries. There are those that would argue that Abortion should be legal up to the second year after birth? I personally find that shocking. Personally I do believe that the Abortion issue should have stayed under State jurisdiction, giving flexibility and access through travel if necessary. Part of the experiment of Federalism was to try things and compare, learning both from what works and what doesn't on a small scale. Personally I also think, being Pro Life, that the Right to choose to have an abortion is personal, and should be decided either way, by the Individual, freely, not by force of law. On Birth Control, we are on the same page.


*or is this crossing from fantasy to reality??? pretending that corporations are people for the purpose of the first amendment? (citizens united). there is nothing in the history of the constitution or of the founders words that indicate that corporations were the entity whose 'liberties' were intended for protection. in fact, the boston tea party and the uprising against the east india company would indicate the exact opposite.*

From my perspective, voice is voice, the content of the message paramount to the source. I want the Right to decide what is relevant to my life, to suppress witness or knowledge, or relevant pertinent information infringes on that. There is that which serves Justice and that which serves schemes, compounded one on another. People get together in different groups to voice. There are different kinds of Lobby's each serving their own interest, how is that different from business having a say? Are we about a fair playing field? Shouldn't all who are effected have a voice? Challenge it through voice, not mandate. 

It was Hamilton that was so bent on the National Bank, some Federalist he was. The unholy alliance between Government and Monopoly, forever corrupting what was the impartial referee. 



*i know what the criticisms are of marbury v madison. but not knowing what 'scholars' they're talking about, i really can't comment on their scholarship. what i do know is that but for the court's interpretation of marbury v madison, the court would be powerless and congress would be the judge of the constitutionality of its actions. that doesn't make sense from either a pragmatic or ideologic perspective, imo.
*

I'm mixed on it. What it boils down to for me was did Madison as the incoming President have the authority to ignore unfulfilled Court Appointments of the preceding President??? I see merits on both sides of the issue. I am truly undecided.



*equal and distinct branch of government, but that means that means only that each branch has its role. and each branch is supposed to be a check on the others.

the role of the court is to be the last gasp of protection of the minority, when an overzealous and politics driven legislature and executive branch overreaches. this is a simple fact that this current incarnation of the court seems to ignore with impunity.*

I totally support checks and balances, accountability, disclosure, procedure, and record. I support boundaries too. I know you do too.

The Court is the last resort for the victim to seek justice. It's that simple. What effect should , whether the should what majority or minority the victim belongs to, or how much the victim own's have on the impartial administration of justice? None.


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a political theorist, Ayn Rand was a terrific novelist.
> 
> roosevelt did what he had to to get the country out of the great depression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his perspective, he did his best. My question is "Was Roosevelt's Remedy compatible with our form of Government or did it cause harm to our structure?" Most of us don't take advice or criticism well, I doubt he was an exception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why wouldn't it be compatible? there is a difference between form of government and economic system.
> 
> you do what's best for your people. it's really that simple, imo.
Click to expand...



Do you think somebody ought to tell GE? 

Seriously Hamilton changed that. Too many economic ties between Government and Big Business. All focused on exploitation and keeping us in line. Roosevelt was a Progressive, You probably are too. I lean very heavily towards Madison, and believe it or not, Thoreau.


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> From his perspective, he did his best. My question is "Was Roosevelt's Remedy compatible with our form of Government or did it cause harm to our structure?" Most of us don't take advice or criticism well, I doubt he was an exception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why wouldn't it be compatible? there is a difference between form of government and economic system.
> 
> you do what's best for your people. it's really that simple, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think somebody ought to tell GE?
> 
> Seriously Hamilton changed that. Too many economic ties between Government and Big Business. All focused on exploitation and keeping us in line. Roosevelt was a Progressive, You probably are too. I lean very heavily towards Madison, and believe it or not, Thoreau.
Click to expand...


'progressive' then is different from 'progressive' now... same as republicans today are not the same as republicans even when i was a kid. so i'm not sure exactly how you define progressive

i tend not to identify my politics with founding fathers because i don't see them as any different than our politicians today. they gave us a great document.... one they intended to live and breathe and grow with us.

times change and things that are moral in one era are not necessarily moral in the next. the definition of equality under the law meant one thing is 1890 when the court decided plessy and another in 1950 when they decided brown. you can't separate constitutional analysis from the changing meanings of words.

i suspect that a lot of the differences in the way people see things are based in geographical location (e.g., urban vs rural) or religious belief or non-belief.

for example... we are no longer an agrarian society favoring landed gentry.

we are no longer a society that views women and blacks as lesser beings.

whether something is 'equal' or not has to be viewed in that context.

i suspect that a lot of how i view the world comes from the fact that my religious beliefs are based in questions... not answers... 

there is an old story (well, it might be written in the talmud for all i know)... but the story goes like this... a bunch of rabbis were sitting around the table arguing over what G-d intended when he handed down a certain law. the discussion got heated and suddenly G-d joined the arguing rabbis and said 'what i meant when i handed down that law was......'

at which point the rabbis cut him off and said, well, thanks but no thanks. you gave it to us. so it's for us to interpret. G-d shrugged and agreed.

that's pretty much how i feel about the constitution.

it was given to us by men who were briliant and flawed and who saw the world very differently from the way we do today.

it was given to us and it's ours to interpret... within certain guidelines... but ours to interpret nonetheless.


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> why wouldn't it be compatible? there is a difference between form of government and economic system.
> 
> you do what's best for your people. it's really that simple, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think somebody ought to tell GE?
> 
> Seriously Hamilton changed that. Too many economic ties between Government and Big Business. All focused on exploitation and keeping us in line. Roosevelt was a Progressive, You probably are too. I lean very heavily towards Madison, and believe it or not, Thoreau.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'progressive' then is different from 'progressive' now... same as republicans today are not the same as republicans even when i was a kid. so i'm not sure exactly how you define progressive
> 
> i tend not to identify my politics with founding fathers because i don't see them as any different than our politicians today. they gave us a great document.... one they intended to live and breathe and grow with us.
> 
> times change and things that are moral in one era are not necessarily moral in the next. the definition of equality under the law meant one thing is 1890 when the court decided plessy and another in 1950 when they decided brown. you can't separate constitutional analysis from the changing meanings of words.
> 
> i suspect that a lot of the differences in the way people see things are based in geographical location (e.g., urban vs rural) or religious belief or non-belief.
> 
> for example... we are no longer an agrarian society favoring landed gentry.
> 
> we are no longer a society that views women and blacks as lesser beings.
> 
> whether something is 'equal' or not has to be viewed in that context.
> 
> i suspect that a lot of how i view the world comes from the fact that my religious beliefs are based in questions... not answers...
> 
> there is an old story (well, it might be written in the talmud for all i know)... but the story goes like this... a bunch of rabbis were sitting around the table arguing over what G-d intended when he handed down a certain law. the discussion got heated and suddenly G-d joined the arguing rabbis and said 'what i meant when i handed down that law was......'
> 
> at which point the rabbis cut him off and said, well, thanks but no thanks. you gave it to us. so it's for us to interpret. G-d shrugged and agreed.
> 
> that's pretty much how i feel about the constitution.
> 
> it was given to us by men who were briliant and flawed and who saw the world very differently from the way we do today.
> 
> 
> 
> it was given to us and it's ours to interpret... within certain guidelines... but ours to interpret nonetheless.
Click to expand...



Well stated. My thing is that when there is a need for Amendment, there is no substitute. Every Jurisdiction has it's boundary. Where there is no means, yet there is a justified need, the mechanism is developed through consent and due process. When we distinguish between the right to interpret, abusing that power, and remedy, we serve justice in the present, adapting to circumstance, which is only reasonable. When we use power to deny reason, there will always be repercussions. That is only natural. That's why God made Lawyers.


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> Easy, through Statute, through the rule of law. Being denied participation in the framing of a law has no connection to the protections applied under it what so ever. If that were the case, I could argue everyone having Powers less than the President, is being denied Unalienable Rights. The realization of Unalienable Right's is that they are born of Our Creator, by what ever name one chooses to call him, or not, and that they are recognized by Society and Government. As Individuals, some did, at least in some sense, as a Government Body, they were limited in what had support.



absolutely, positively not. if something is a right then the government can't infringe on it, but neither should anyone have to wait for congress to enact it.

additionally, the whole point of the court is to make sure that the majority doesn't infringe on the minority.

your solution is counterintuitive. 

there is no such thing as inalienable rights. though it's a nice philosophical construct. rights are as close or as far as the stroke of a pen, the vote of the legislature or the determination of the court.



> From my perspective Judicial Activism is when the Court oversteps it's authority. Decisions are reversed all the time, so it's not like it is even uncommon. Moral absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism. Circumstance, application, remedy are unique, not the formula, necessarily, but the application. There are boundaries that should not be crossed. Method does not by itself justify, even though the cause may be justified, sloppy administration of proclaimed justice causes more problems.



that's tail wagging dog... no one thinks the court is exceeding its authority unless you disagree with the court's ruling. the rest i'm afraid i'm not following. because i'm not following, i'm afraid i don't see what it has to do with constitutional construction.



> I have seen arguments against Griswold from people that support abortion. It wasn't the perfect argument aside. That aside, being the issue, abortion, guns, busing,  voting , shouldn't reason prevail? There are boundaries to what is acceptable and what is not. Even the Will of the people in Super Majority numbers trump the power of any Executive, Legislature, Court, or Agency. The will of the People is Paramount. One of the roles of the Courts, in a sense, is Conscience. It's hard discerning what is right from what is legal, and that is why things are challenged. Reform is always a part of the equation. Guide lines, limits, boundaries. There are those that would argue that Abortion should be legal up to the second year after birth? I personally find that shocking. Personally I do believe that the Abortion issue should have stayed under State jurisdiction, giving flexibility and access through travel if necessary. Part of the experiment of Federalism was to try things and compare, learning both from what works and what doesn't on a small scale. Personally I also think, being Pro Life, that the Right to choose to have an abortion is personal, and should be decided either way, by the Individual, freely, not by force of law. On Birth Control, we are on the same page.



again, the 'will of the people' is 100% irrelevant to what is constitutionally guaranteed. unless you can get past that concept, then you aren't following what the constitution intends. everything in the constitution is geared so that governemtn, whether by legislature, executive, or majority vote or super-majority vote can NEVER infringe on the rights of people.

in other words... the constitution doesn't care what the majority wants... that's the point. if it did, we wouldn't need a constitution.

as an aside... under roe v wade, abortion IS a personal decision. the right-to-lifers have workes since roe came down to make that choice be mandated by government. and for the record, i've never heard anyone criticize the result in Griswold.




> *From my perspective, voice is voice, the content of the message paramount to the source. I want the Right to decide what is relevant to my life, to suppress witness or knowledge, or relevant pertinent information infringes on that. There is that which serves Justice and that which serves schemes, compounded one on another. People get together in different groups to voice. There are different kinds of Lobby's each serving their own interest, how is that different from business having a say? Are we about a fair playing field? Shouldn't all who are effected have a voice? Challenge it through voice, not mandate.*


*

voice is NOT voice... person has meaning under the first amendment. a dog is not a person. a corporation is not a person. a car is not a person notwithstanding the fact that particular vehicles are individually named as respondent in certain replevin actions. 

here again... you like the result so it doesn't offend you. i think it's the most disgusting decision i've seen come down from the court since i graduated law school. 




			It was Hamilton that was so bent on the National Bank, some Federalist he was. The unholy alliance between Government and Monopoly, forever corrupting what was the impartial referee.
		
Click to expand...


so how could you think corrupting the system by flooding it with the money of multinational corporations and not require reporting of where the money comes from is a good thing???




			I'm mixed on it. What it boils down to for me was did Madison as the incoming President have the authority to ignore unfulfilled Court Appointments of the preceding President??? I see merits on both sides of the issue. I am truly undecided.
		
Click to expand...


well, i understand that from a philosophical pov. but really, no one is ever touching the decision in marbury. so as an intellectual exercise discussing whether it was right or wrong can be fun.

but realistically, it doesn't really matter. 




			I totally support checks and balances, accountability, disclosure, procedure, and record. I support boundaries too. I know you do too.

The Court is the last resort for the victim to seek justice. It's that simple. What effect should , whether the should what majority or minority the victim belongs to, or how much the victim own's have on the impartial administration of justice? None.
		
Click to expand...


ah... there's the rub... and here's what you're missing. the majority doesn't NEED the court's protection from the minority. the minority has no ability to impose its will on the many. it;s the MINORITY that is protected from the tyranny of the majority. That is where the court's intervention is required.

The Court is supposed to be the last protection of individual rights infringed upon by the majority.

and THAT is where the right misses the boat. the court was never supposed to be conservative in regard to protecting individual rights.*


----------



## drsmith1072

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> A. Yes. Liberty as he described is NOT something modern liberals choose to embrace. Not by a long shot. Limited government, rights endowed by God, a government of men is derived by men, etc etc etc. Modern liberalism promotes more government control and more government power, the exact opposite of classical liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> B. A spade is a spade.
> 
> C. its so obvious we have a gangster government. bailouts? buying out GM? Dealerships had to beg their senators to stay open. Is this not gangster? Where is the private sector? Come on, think a little bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A. Basically..like most conservatives..you are cherry picking through Locke. That's understandable since if you'd actually read anything by him..in full..you'd know that Liberalism isn't so narrow.
> 
> B. Then..exactly what do you mean by "Promote"..this should be good.
> 
> C. "Gangsters" don't wait for a vote. They promote their agendas by violence or the threat there of..think a little bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A. Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = classical, american founders liberalism
> Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia = modern social liberalism
> 
> B. Promote means to encourage through private means, and by the free market. This is outlined in one of the federalist papers that I do not recall the specific paper, however it is mentioned by Hamilton I believe, that to promote simply means to encourage the free market to work innovative, well, and fair.
> 
> Edit: sorry, its Madison and its federalist #45. Will edit with quote shortly.
> 
> Edit#2: Here is the full paragraph to provide context:
> It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.
> 
> The Avalon Project : Federalist No 45
> 
> C. Agree to disagree I suppose, since the term is heavily based on opinion more than fact, I will concede. Personally I find it accurate, but can understand how others do not.
Click to expand...


Uh I only have one real question since sallow is handling you quite clearly on all of the other points but how does the federal government PROMOTE through private means and by the free market?? For the government to get involved in private means would be called socialism by most on the right and how can you promote something in a market that is supposed to be free of governmental influence?? 

BTW your quote does not say what you claimed it did. But nice try.


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, through Statute, through the rule of law. Being denied participation in the framing of a law has no connection to the protections applied under it what so ever. If that were the case, I could argue everyone having Powers less than the President, is being denied Unalienable Rights. The realization of Unalienable Right's is that they are born of Our Creator, by what ever name one chooses to call him, or not, and that they are recognized by Society and Government. As Individuals, some did, at least in some sense, as a Government Body, they were limited in what had support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> absolutely, positively not. if something is a right then the government can't infringe on it, but neither should anyone have to wait for congress to enact it.
> 
> additionally, the whole point of the court is to make sure that the majority doesn't infringe on the minority.
> 
> your solution is counterintuitive.
> 
> there is no such thing as inalienable rights. though it's a nice philosophical construct. rights are as close or as far as the stroke of a pen, the vote of the legislature or the determination of the court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perspective Judicial Activism is when the Court oversteps it's authority. Decisions are reversed all the time, so it's not like it is even uncommon. Moral absolutism V.S. Moral Relativism. Circumstance, application, remedy are unique, not the formula, necessarily, but the application. There are boundaries that should not be crossed. Method does not by itself justify, even though the cause may be justified, sloppy administration of proclaimed justice causes more problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's tail wagging dog... no one thinks the court is exceeding its authority unless you disagree with the court's ruling. the rest i'm afraid i'm not following. because i'm not following, i'm afraid i don't see what it has to do with constitutional construction.
> 
> 
> 
> again, the 'will of the people' is 100% irrelevant to what is constitutionally guaranteed. unless you can get past that concept, then you aren't following what the constitution intends. everything in the constitution is geared so that governemtn, whether by legislature, executive, or majority vote or super-majority vote can NEVER infringe on the rights of people.
> 
> in other words... the constitution doesn't care what the majority wants... that's the point. if it did, we wouldn't need a constitution.
> 
> as an aside... under roe v wade, abortion IS a personal decision. the right-to-lifers have workes since roe came down to make that choice be mandated by government. and for the record, i've never heard anyone criticize the result in Griswold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> voice is NOT voice... person has meaning under the first amendment. a dog is not a person. a corporation is not a person. a car is not a person notwithstanding the fact that particular vehicles are individually named as respondent in certain replevin actions.
> 
> here again... you like the result so it doesn't offend you. i think it's the most disgusting decision i've seen come down from the court since i graduated law school.
> 
> 
> 
> so how could you think corrupting the system by flooding it with the money of multinational corporations and not require reporting of where the money comes from is a good thing???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm mixed on it. What it boils down to for me was did Madison as the incoming President have the authority to ignore unfulfilled Court Appointments of the preceding President??? I see merits on both sides of the issue. I am truly undecided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, i understand that from a philosophical pov. but really, no one is ever touching the decision in marbury. so as an intellectual exercise discussing whether it was right or wrong can be fun.
> 
> but realistically, it doesn't really matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally support checks and balances, accountability, disclosure, procedure, and record. I support boundaries too. I know you do too.
> 
> The Court is the last resort for the victim to seek justice. It's that simple. What effect should , whether the should what majority or minority the victim belongs to, or how much the victim own's have on the impartial administration of justice? None.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ah... there's the rub... and here's what you're missing. the majority doesn't NEED the court's protection from the minority. the minority has no ability to impose its will on the many. it;s the MINORITY that is protected from the tyranny of the majority. That is where the court's intervention is required.
> 
> The Court is supposed to be the last protection of individual rights infringed upon by the majority.
> 
> and THAT is where the right misses the boat. the court was never supposed to be conservative in regard to protecting individual rights.
Click to expand...


All victims need justice Jillian, we are all protected. Shit happens, the jails are full of people that are predatory. Civil Right's are a part of the Court, a part of something much more comprehensive, than the rights of a minority. We are all Human Beings first. Failure to recognize that, screwing with the balance of right and wrong, has repercussions and they are not pretty. Unalienable Right, not special privilege covers Civil Right's completely.
It is about the protection of Liberty, not deciding who is subservient to who.


----------



## drsmith1072

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't.  Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. It is legal, but distasteful.
> 2. State issue, vote on it.
> 3. Legal immigration by ANYONE in the world is fine. If you're illegal...well people have differing opinions. Usually a common sense minded individual would prefer those that break the law to be punished in some way though.
> 
> Any other brain busters?
Click to expand...


1. Lot's of things are distasteful but that doesn't mean that it's justification for stopping it from being built even as you proclaim that you are all for the constitution, America and protecting people's rights. They have a right to build and no one should be able to stop them from doing so.

2. How is a person's rights considered a state issue?? 

3. You didn't really answer the question that was asked. according to the constitution if you are born here you are a citizen and that is what was asked about. Why respond with a strawman argument?? 

You are good at providing responses but you really don't ever REALLY answer the question that was actually asked.


----------



## Intense

drsmith1072 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
> How do they feel about gay rights?
> How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. It is legal, but distasteful.
> 2. State issue, vote on it.
> 3. Legal immigration by ANYONE in the world is fine. If you're illegal...well people have differing opinions. Usually a common sense minded individual would prefer those that break the law to be punished in some way though.
> 
> Any other brain busters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Lot's of things are distasteful but that doesn't mean that it's justification for stopping it from being built even as you proclaim that you are all for the constitution, America and protecting people's rights. They have a right to build and no one should be able to stop them from doing so.
> 
> 2. How is a person's rights considered a state issue??
> 
> 3. You didn't really answer the question that was asked. according to the constitution if you are born here you are a citizen and that is what was asked about. Why respond with a strawman argument??
> 
> You are good at providing responses but you really don't ever REALLY answer the question that was actually asked.
Click to expand...





I believe the key here is the distinction between "Force of Argument" and "Force of Law". We all have the right to an opinion, one way or the other. We all have the right to persuade, one way or the other. To deny that or divert the argument is disingenuous.

Different States have different Rules that effect every aspect of your life. You actually have been living under them your whole life. 

Currently, if you are born here, you are a Citizen, I believe that. I also believe that can be changed either through Legislation, which is under the Power of Congress to do, or Constitutional Amendment. Countries around the World are pretty divided on how They handle the issue. The bottom line here, as in all things, is what is the will of the Super Majority, by that I mean 75% of we the people. That is what it will always boil down to.


----------



## drsmith1072

jillian said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)
> 
> but I can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.
> 
> so much for civil debate???
> 
> ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.
Click to expand...


Don't you know, it's only wrong if the left makes generalizations about the right but there is nothing wrong with the right making generalizations about the left. LOL 

Furthermore, that is what the right calls "reality." It is a creation of their own where they ignore facts that counter their predisposed opinions as they based every opinion they have on excerpts even as they ignore the whole. 

Oh and before you righties go nuts I am not attacking the right for making generalizations but the fact that many of you seem so dead set against them even as your side makes them.


----------



## Intense

drsmith1072 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)
> 
> but I can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.
> 
> so much for civil debate???
> 
> ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you know, it's only wrong if the left makes generalizations about the right but there is nothing wrong with the right making generalizations about the left. LOL
> 
> Furthermore, that is what the right calls "reality." It is a creation of their own where they ignore facts that counter their predisposed opinions as they based every opinion they have on excerpts even as they ignore the whole.
> 
> Oh and before you righties go nuts I am not attacking the right for making generalizations but the fact that many of you seem so dead set against them even as your side makes them.
Click to expand...


Could you be more general???


----------



## drsmith1072

Liberty said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls.
> 
> I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?
> 
> Why do you think the amendment process is bad?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what you would call "legally" and "better" is subjective and a matter of OPINION. BTW got any specfiics on that whole circumventing thing you keep spewing out??
> 
> No one is arguing against the amendement process so please drop the strawman BS. The primary point is that the tea party/ringwingers wrap themselves in teh anctity of the constitution claiming that only they can protect it from the evil democrats even as they wish to change what they claim they wish to protect. It reeks of hypocrisy. even you ahve to see that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your question's answer: Health Care "Law"
> Also, you are wrong. Show me one tea party candidate's "issues" page in which they support what you claim. I'll wait.
Click to expand...


Really?? got any SPECIFICS?? Why is it that you think you can just make a statement and that it's beyond question?? Furthermore, is that really ALL that you've got?? Really?? How sad is that? LOL

BTW what is it that you think I am claiming?? Furthermore HOW am i wrong?? You saying it doesn't make it so. 

Oh and how does that address the fact that you continue to present your lame strawman argument that people are complaining about the amendment process when no one is?? Talk about choosing fantasy over reality. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

daveman said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for trolling loser now let's see if you have anything valid to offer or are you here just to attack in the typical hit and run style of the lame and moronic right??
> 
> He presented a baseless OPINION and I called him out for it and all you can do is troll. GJ hack. LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A baseless opinion, huh?
> 
> Can you find where the right to privacy, the basis for Roe v. Wade, is enumerated in the Constitution?
> 
> Kthnxbai.
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with what was said and if you have a point that applies to liberals as a whole, even as the right within this thread seems to be against the whole generalizations tactic, please do proceed. LOL


----------



## drsmith1072

daveman said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contradiction.  No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There IS a contradiction. It was shown in my post and IF you hadn;t edited my poost and removed 90% of it so you could avoid admitting and reposting that contradiction as you pretend it doesn't exist.
> 
> here is my full and complete post.
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> uh in case you missed it there has been evidence in this very thread that the right wishes to change at least some of what rightwinger listed.
> 
> one even tried to claim that
> 
> 
> 
> so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not to stumble over yourself as you run away from it's entire context this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical leftist:  Make up shit and insist it's there.
> 
> There is no contradiction.  Now stamp your feet and pout some more.
Click to expand...


YES there is. The point of this thread was to show how the tea partiers want to change the constitution and since this thread began there have been several from the right who have argued against that premise. Then many righties shifted their argument in a CYA move to try and claim that they want to change it in "the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself." in a desperate attempt to change the subject with a strawman argument. 

The contradiction is there and you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalalala won't make it go away.


----------



## Intense

drsmith1072 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There IS a contradiction. It was shown in my post and IF you hadn;t edited my poost and removed 90% of it so you could avoid admitting and reposting that contradiction as you pretend it doesn't exist.
> 
> here is my full and complete post.
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to stumble over yourself as you run away from it's entire context this time.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical leftist:  Make up shit and insist it's there.
> 
> There is no contradiction.  Now stamp your feet and pout some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES there is. The point of this thread was to show how the tea partiers want to change the constitution and since this thread began there have been several from the right who have argued against that premise. Then many righties shifted their argument in a CYA move to try and claim that they want to change it in "the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself." in a desperate attempt to change the subject with a strawman argument.
> 
> The contradiction is there and you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalalala won't make it go away.
Click to expand...


You are hallucinating. But we all already know that. Bumble on.


----------



## rightwinger

drsmith1072 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There IS a contradiction. It was shown in my post and IF you hadn;t edited my poost and removed 90% of it so you could avoid admitting and reposting that contradiction as you pretend it doesn't exist.
> 
> here is my full and complete post.
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to stumble over yourself as you run away from it's entire context this time.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical leftist:  Make up shit and insist it's there.
> 
> There is no contradiction.  Now stamp your feet and pout some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES there is. The point of this thread was to show how the tea partiers want to change the constitution and since this thread began there have been several from the right who have argued against that premise. Then many righties shifted their argument in a CYA move to try and claim that they want to change it in "the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself." in a desperate attempt to change the subject with a strawman argument.
> 
> The contradiction is there and you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalalala won't make it go away.
Click to expand...


Truth be told...the only part of the Constitution they reall support is the second amendment


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical leftist:  Make up shit and insist it's there.
> 
> There is no contradiction.  Now stamp your feet and pout some more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES there is. The point of this thread was to show how the tea partiers want to change the constitution and since this thread began there have been several from the right who have argued against that premise. Then many righties shifted their argument in a CYA move to try and claim that they want to change it in "the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself." in a desperate attempt to change the subject with a strawman argument.
> 
> The contradiction is there and you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalalala won't make it go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truth be told...the only part of the Constitution they reall support is the second amendment
Click to expand...


Gee Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum tag teaming. Surprise Surprise! A Kodak moment. Stop drooling until after I take this picture. ... A moment to treasure. look the twins are both walking for the first time.    Honey come see this.


----------



## daveman

drsmith1072 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for trolling loser now let's see if you have anything valid to offer or are you here just to attack in the typical hit and run style of the lame and moronic right??
> 
> He presented a baseless OPINION and I called him out for it and all you can do is troll. GJ hack. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> A baseless opinion, huh?
> 
> Can you find where the right to privacy, the basis for Roe v. Wade, is enumerated in the Constitution?
> 
> Kthnxbai.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with what was said and if you have a point that applies to liberals as a whole, even as the right within this thread seems to be against the whole generalizations tactic, please do proceed. LOL
Click to expand...

Go back and read the thread.  I'm not going to spoonfeed you.


----------



## daveman

drsmith1072 said:


> YES there is. The point of this thread was to show how the tea partiers want to change the constitution and since this thread began there have been several from the right who have argued against that premise. Then many righties shifted their argument in a CYA move to try and claim that they want to change it in "the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself." in a desperate attempt to change the subject with a strawman argument.
> 
> The contradiction is there and you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalalala won't make it go away.


There is no contradiction.  The OP claims that Tea Partiers hate the Constitution.  That's a falsehood, a product of leftist stereotypes.

You claiming the sky is pink doesn't make it so.


----------



## Charles_Main

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying the big government statist collectivists of today would have been the small government individuals of the Revolution?
> 
> That's completely irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...


Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES there is. The point of this thread was to show how the tea partiers want to change the constitution and since this thread began there have been several from the right who have argued against that premise. Then many righties shifted their argument in a CYA move to try and claim that they want to change it in "the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself." in a desperate attempt to change the subject with a strawman argument.
> 
> The contradiction is there and you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalalala won't make it go away.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contradiction.  The OP claims that Tea Partiers hate the Constitution.  That's a falsehood, a product of leftist stereotypes.
> 
> You claiming the sky is pink doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...


I never said they hate it

I asked why, if they love the Constitution like they do, why they would want to change it.

I have yet to receive an acceptable answer

Liberals are perfectly happy with the Constitution as it stands


----------



## daveman

Charles_Main said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Revolution was not about small government
> 
> It was about wanting our own government
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.
Click to expand...

And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES there is. The point of this thread was to show how the tea partiers want to change the constitution and since this thread began there have been several from the right who have argued against that premise. Then many righties shifted their argument in a CYA move to try and claim that they want to change it in "the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself." in a desperate attempt to change the subject with a strawman argument.
> 
> The contradiction is there and you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalalala won't make it go away.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contradiction.  The OP claims that Tea Partiers hate the Constitution.  That's a falsehood, a product of leftist stereotypes.
> 
> You claiming the sky is pink doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they hate it
> 
> I asked why, if they love the Constitution like they do, why they would want to change it.
> 
> I have yet to receive an acceptable answer
> 
> Liberals are perfectly happy with the Constitution as it stands
Click to expand...

Horseshit, all of it.


----------



## Charles_Main

daveman said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.
Click to expand...


We've ruined it.


----------



## Richard-H

Holy shit are the TPs ignorant of the founding fathers!

Alexander Hamilton, the greatest proponent of the Constitution, wanted a much stronger federal governement with much greater power to tax. He championed the Constitution because he know that it was the closest thing he could get to the powerful centralized government that he really wanted.

Thomas Paine was a proponent of taxing the wealthy and paying the poor a "Guaranteed minimum income", based on his belief that everyone owned an equal share of all natural resources and therefore owned a stake in everything.

The U.S. Constitution is the basis for the U.S. Government. You can not be against the Government and be for the Constitution. At each and every step, every law and every program that the govenment creates is scrutinized by the courts to verify that it conforms to the Constitution.

You also cannot be for the Constitution yet against the government. Clearly, the TPs are against the Government and therefore against the Constitution. They just like to confuse everyone by saying that they are for the Constitution.

What the TPs are really for is the destruction of the Government and abandonment of the Constitution, for a reversal of the American Revolution and a return to absolute totalitarian rule of the wealthy.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> drsmith1072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES there is. The point of this thread was to show how the tea partiers want to change the constitution and since this thread began there have been several from the right who have argued against that premise. Then many righties shifted their argument in a CYA move to try and claim that they want to change it in "the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself." in a desperate attempt to change the subject with a strawman argument.
> 
> The contradiction is there and you sticking your fingers in your ears and scream lalalalalalalala won't make it go away.
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contradiction.  The OP claims that Tea Partiers hate the Constitution.  That's a falsehood, a product of leftist stereotypes.
> 
> You claiming the sky is pink doesn't make it so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said they hate it
> 
> I asked why, if they love the Constitution like they do, why they would want to change it.
> 
> I have yet to receive an acceptable answer
> 
> Liberals are perfectly happy with the Constitution as it stands
Click to expand...


Circumstance changes, needs change, Technology changes, so does the application of law. Why do you think the Constitution has a built in Amendment Structure????? All Politics aside, wouldn't you generally agree that if 75% of the People had a strong position on any specific concern, that they should have the Right to decide one way or other on the matter? If you don't, you realize that you are going against The Constitution itself. 

Think about it a minute, in relation to controversial Court Decisions, that even if the grievance is legitimate, the court may have indeed been the wrong venue, that legislation or amendment was the more correct path. How much unresolved shit do we fight over every day, when the Court, rather than repair or heal tries to put a band-aid on a festering wound. If there are changes we all must go through, what is the proper venue? I'm not saying the court doesn't have a role, it does, just not the role it sometimes thinks it does.

I don't buy Liberals being happy with anything the way it is for a second. I have known too many for too long, fascism and dictate are more your style. Control over others, exemptions for you and your friends. Us an Them to the 10th power.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...which the FF built small on purpose.
> 
> You really should stop trying to insist that the Founding Fathers would approve of our current bloated Federal government.  It makes you look foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.
Click to expand...


The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.
> 
> 
> 
> And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
Click to expand...


wow, you must have like 5 masters degrees and 12 Phds to come to that conclusion, professor! thats why there is the amendment process, by the way. I cant believe you stick around just to get your ass beat. Masochist much?


----------



## Liberty

Richard-H said:


> Holy shit are the TPs ignorant of the founding fathers!
> 
> Alexander Hamilton, the greatest proponent of the Constitution, wanted a much stronger federal governement with much greater power to tax. He championed the Constitution because he know that it was the closest thing he could get to the powerful centralized government that he really wanted.
> 
> Thomas Paine was a proponent of taxing the wealthy and paying the poor a "Guaranteed minimum income", based on his belief that everyone owned an equal share of all natural resources and therefore owned a stake in everything.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution is the basis for the U.S. Government. You can not be against the Government and be for the Constitution. At each and every step, every law and every program that the govenment creates is scrutinized by the courts to verify that it conforms to the Constitution.
> 
> You also cannot be for the Constitution yet against the government. Clearly, the TPs are against the Government and therefore against the Constitution. They just like to confuse everyone by saying that they are for the Constitution.
> 
> What the TPs are really for is the destruction of the Government and abandonment of the Constitution, for a reversal of the American Revolution and a return to absolute totalitarian rule of the wealthy.



moveon.org is that way ----->


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.
> 
> 
> 
> And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
Click to expand...


No they didn't. They did understand Self Reliance though, and Interdependence. They understood Federalism, better than we do. They understood Tyranny. We seem to have lost all of that.


----------



## Intense

Richard-H said:


> Holy shit are the TPs ignorant of the founding fathers!
> 
> Alexander Hamilton, the greatest proponent of the Constitution, wanted a much stronger federal governement with much greater power to tax. He championed the Constitution because he know that it was the closest thing he could get to the powerful centralized government that he really wanted.
> 
> Thomas Paine was a proponent of taxing the wealthy and paying the poor a "Guaranteed minimum income", based on his belief that everyone owned an equal share of all natural resources and therefore owned a stake in everything.
> 
> The U.S. Constitution is the basis for the U.S. Government. You can not be against the Government and be for the Constitution. At each and every step, every law and every program that the govenment creates is scrutinized by the courts to verify that it conforms to the Constitution.
> 
> You also cannot be for the Constitution yet against the government. Clearly, the TPs are against the Government and therefore against the Constitution. They just like to confuse everyone by saying that they are for the Constitution.
> 
> What the TPs are really for is the destruction of the Government and abandonment of the Constitution, for a reversal of the American Revolution and a return to absolute totalitarian rule of the wealthy.



Hamilton was a Schemer that abused his trust. He used Federalism as a tool or stepping stone. Madison was more the true Federalist. Enumerated Powers, Decentralized power.


----------



## Intense

The Tea Party is not out to get you of steal your children. 

Calm down, clean yourself up, and get some clean underwear.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no contradiction.  The OP claims that Tea Partiers hate the Constitution.  That's a falsehood, a product of leftist stereotypes.
> 
> You claiming the sky is pink doesn't make it so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they hate it
> 
> I asked why, if they love the Constitution like they do, why they would want to change it.
> 
> I have yet to receive an acceptable answer
> 
> Liberals are perfectly happy with the Constitution as it stands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Circumstance changes, needs change, Technology changes, so does the application of law. Why do you think the Constitution has a built in Amendment Structure????? All Politics aside, wouldn't you generally agree that if 75% of the People had a strong position on any specific concern, that they should have the Right to decide one way or other on the matter? If you don't, you realize that you are going against The Constitution itself.
> 
> Think about it a minute, in relation to controversial Court Decisions, that even if the grievance is legitimate, the court may have indeed been the wrong venue, that legislation or amendment was the more correct path. How much unresolved shit do we fight over every day, when the Court, rather than repair or heal tries to put a band-aid on a festering wound. If there are changes we all must go through, what is the proper venue? I'm not saying the court doesn't have a role, it does, just not the role it sometimes thinks it does.
> 
> I don't buy Liberals being happy with anything the way it is for a second. I have known too many for too long, fascism and dictate are more your style. Control over others, exemptions for you and your friends. Us an Them to the 10th power.
Click to expand...


Imagine the chaos if every time we needed a Constitutional interpretation we needed a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution would be thousands of pages long

The courts are not perfect. Neither was the amendment process with prohibition. But eventually, the courts refine the decision or reverse it entirely. The courts interpreting the constitution has been working for 200 years


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they didn't. They did understand Self Reliance though, and Interdependence. They understood Federalism, better than we do. They understood Tyranny. We seem to have lost all of that.
Click to expand...


Save us from the hyperbole...

To say this country is currently under tyranny is an injustice to the millions of people who actually ARE under tyranny

Just because your political view was defeated in the last election does not equate to tyranny


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow, you must have like 5 masters degrees and 12 Phds to come to that conclusion, professor! thats why there is the amendment process, by the way. I cant believe you stick around just to get your ass beat. Masochist much?
Click to expand...


No junior

That is why we have a Judicial branch


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow, you must have like 5 masters degrees and 12 Phds to come to that conclusion, professor! thats why there is the amendment process, by the way. I cant believe you stick around just to get your ass beat. Masochist much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No junior
> 
> That is why we have a Judicial branch
Click to expand...


The more you think about it, the more lame that line of reasoning seems.


----------



## daveman

Charles_Main said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.
> 
> 
> 
> And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've ruined it.
Click to expand...


Sorry, too many pronouns.

"And now leftists are saying the FF would have blessed how leftists have ruined the vision."


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foolish or Willfully ignorant. What our government has become was exactly what the Founders tried to avoid.
> 
> 
> 
> And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
Click to expand...

Not what I said.  They had a vision of how government should work.

You're fucking that up.  Stop it.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> wow, you must have like 5 masters degrees and 12 Phds to come to that conclusion, professor! thats why there is the amendment process, by the way. I cant believe you stick around just to get your ass beat. Masochist much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No junior
> 
> That is why we have a Judicial branch
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more you think about it, the more lame that line of reasoning seems.
Click to expand...


As lame as "we need to go through the amendment process every time we need a constitutional interpretation"??

I think not


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No junior
> 
> That is why we have a Judicial branch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you think about it, the more lame that line of reasoning seems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As lame as "we need to go through the amendment process every time we need a constitutional interpretation"??
> 
> I think not
Click to expand...


There you go again injecting imaginary things. 

We need an Amendment Process to set course RW, We need the Court to Interpret, clarify, and distinguish when needed and to apply Justice, to resolve dispute. It is for Congress to write the Law, The Court to point out conflict and constitutionality should there be question or challenge. This role is not a substitute for the Amendment process. Stop lying to the population about it.


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now they're saying the FF would have blessed how they've ruined the vision.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what I said.  They had a vision of how government should work.
> 
> You're fucking that up.  Stop it.
Click to expand...


their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.

that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.

equal protection now is not equal protection then.


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.  They had a vision of how government should work.
> 
> You're fucking that up.  Stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and.... both the Amendment Process and The Courts play a role in keeping the playing field in proper order. We learn new things and become more aware every day. We establish justice because of it's own sake, the best we can, be it application and administration or new construction, never forgetting that it is the will of the people by their consent that is served. There is no interpretation that trumps a 75% majority perspective.


----------



## Liberty

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.  They had a vision of how government should work.
> 
> You're fucking that up.  Stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
Click to expand...


sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.  They had a vision of how government should work.
> 
> You're fucking that up.  Stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.
Click to expand...


Slaves had no voting power....not even 3/5ths of a vote

The 3/5 ths came into play in apportioning the House of Representatives


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.  They had a vision of how government should work.
> 
> You're fucking that up.  Stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and.... both the Amendment Process and The Courts play a role in keeping the playing field in proper order. We learn new things and become more aware every day. We establish justice because of it's own sake, the best we can, be it application and administration or new construction, never forgetting that it is the will of the people by their consent that is served. There is no interpretation that trumps a 75% majority perspective.
Click to expand...


once again... and as much as i like you, i'm starting to think you're intentionally ignoring a very salient fact... 

no one cares about a 75% majority.

if segregation were put to a vote today, it would pass.

that's irrelevant.


----------



## Intense

Liberty said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.  They had a vision of how government should work.
> 
> You're fucking that up.  Stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.
Click to expand...


Exactly. the 3/5th's count value was protective.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slaves had no voting power....not even 3/5ths of a vote
> 
> The 3/5 ths came into play in apportioning the House of Representatives
Click to expand...


Right, and the 3/5th's being less than a whole weakened the South's representation.


----------



## Intense

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and.... both the Amendment Process and The Courts play a role in keeping the playing field in proper order. We learn new things and become more aware every day. We establish justice because of it's own sake, the best we can, be it application and administration or new construction, never forgetting that it is the will of the people by their consent that is served. There is no interpretation that trumps a 75% majority perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> once again... and as much as i like you, i'm starting to think you're intentionally ignoring a very salient fact...
> 
> no one cares about a 75% majority.
> 
> if segregation were put to a vote today, it would pass.
> 
> that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...


The will of the people always matters. I guarantee you that the Court itself fears for the irreparable damage it would cause going against that kind of a Super Majority like that. It takes a 2/3 majority, either by Congress or the States, to bring a Constitutional Amendment to debate, 3/4 to ratify it. Slam Dunk. Game over. What side of the equation do you really think the court wants to be? The Constitution has alway's been about the will of the People, It is more inclusive now than it was then.


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founding Fathers never had a vision of what 21st century America would be like....nor should we expect them to
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said.  They had a vision of how government should work.
> 
> You're fucking that up.  Stop it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
Click to expand...

No one's saying we should return to those times.  We should return to limited Federal government.


----------



## The T

daveman said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said. They had a vision of how government should work.
> 
> You're fucking that up. Stop it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one's saying we should return to those times. *We should return to limited Federal government*.
Click to expand...

 
Tell you what? If CAP and Trade passes? Jillian may just be correct. We will return to just that.

They really need to be careful what they wish for and what they truly support and stop being so mindless.

Thought is cheap and easy actually. The consequences of what these Statists actually want however, _are NOT._


----------



## daveman

The T said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
> 
> 
> 
> No one's saying we should return to those times. *We should return to limited Federal government*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what? If CAP and Trade passes? Jillian may just be correct. We will return to just that.
> 
> They really need to be careful what they wish for and what they truly support and stop being so mindless.
> 
> Thought is cheap and easy actually. The consequences of what these Statists actually want however, _are NOT._
Click to expand...

Statists don't do consequences.  They just blame everything on the GOP and hope people buy their bullshit.


----------



## The T

daveman said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's saying we should return to those times. *We should return to limited Federal government*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what? If CAP and Trade passes? Jillian may just be correct. We will return to just that.
> 
> They really need to be careful what they wish for and what they truly support and stop being so mindless.
> 
> Thought is cheap and easy actually. The consequences of what these Statists actually want however, _are NOT._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Statists don't do consequences. They just blame everything on the GOP and hope people buy their bullshit.
Click to expand...

 

And that the GOP is just as _culpable_ to date for making deals with the Statists. The GOP doesn't know it yet? But they are about to be subjegated to the Tea Party Constitutionalists...

They had better go along...or the GOP will DIE as the Democrats are in the throws of after being subjegated by the Socialists/Marxists/Statists/Progressive Leftists.

The people have quite a mess to untangle...


----------



## Sallow

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and.... both the Amendment Process and The Courts play a role in keeping the playing field in proper order. We learn new things and become more aware every day. We establish justice because of it's own sake, the best we can, be it application and administration or new construction, never forgetting that it is the will of the people by their consent that is served. There is no interpretation that trumps a 75% majority perspective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> once again... and as much as i like you, i'm starting to think you're intentionally ignoring a very salient fact...
> 
> no one cares about a 75% majority.
> 
> if segregation were put to a vote today, it would pass.
> 
> that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Well yeah..and be fully endorsed by today's tea party..but I digress.

What the mopes and lunatics on the right continue to ignore was that the Constitution, had built into it, an inate spirit against "populism" and "fashionable" rule.

Which is something they love.

Along with rule by the monied class.

To bad children. The Constitution disagrees with ya.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> sigh. if african american slaves had full voting power, the south would have had majority in congress because the slave owners would FORCE the slaves to vote a certain way. that is why they were 3/5ths so the south could not achieve majority in congress. Come on Jilly-bean. The founders wanted to abolish slavery, all of them did. The thing is, the climate of 1776-1797 was so fragile being a new country and all that to go about trying to get rid of it then would divide the country. John Adams by the way was the first one to amend a state constitution to emancipate (Massachusetts 1800). Your delusion that the founders were all racist slave owners is a lie and a fallacy in itself. Yes, some had slaves, but they all recognized their own hypocrisy but the time to fully emancipate was not right, it would have caused immediate civil discourse, war, and distention. You make yourself look so dumb...read some frederick douglass autobiography. learn how the constitution was a document built to free slaves, from douglass himself...i am sorry the education system failed you so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves had no voting power....not even 3/5ths of a vote
> 
> The 3/5 ths came into play in apportioning the House of Representatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and the 3/5th's being less than a whole weakened the South's representation.
Click to expand...


Yea....I guess they were getting hosed. I feel so sorry for them

But I guess if they wanted the blacks to count for 5/5ths they could have always freed them


Naaaaaaaaaa!


----------



## daveman

The T said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what? If CAP and Trade passes? Jillian may just be correct. We will return to just that.
> 
> They really need to be careful what they wish for and what they truly support and stop being so mindless.
> 
> Thought is cheap and easy actually. The consequences of what these Statists actually want however, _are NOT._
> 
> 
> 
> Statists don't do consequences. They just blame everything on the GOP and hope people buy their bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that the GOP is just as _culpable_ to date for making deals with the Statists. The GOP doesn't know it yet? But they are about to be subjegated to the Tea Party Constitutionalists...
> 
> They had better go along...or the GOP will DIE as the Democrats are in the throws of after being subjegated by the Socialists/Marxists/Statists/Progressive Leftists.
> 
> The people have quite a mess to untangle...
Click to expand...

Yup.  The Tea Party can be thanked for turning the GOP back towards the right.  Let's just hope they go far enough.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> Well yeah..and be fully endorsed by today's tea party..but I digress.
> 
> What the mopes and lunatics on the right continue to ignore was that the Constitution, had built into it, an inate spirit against "populism" and "fashionable" rule.
> 
> Which is something they love.
> 
> Along with rule by the monied class.
> 
> To bad children. The Constitution disagrees with ya.


Populism is bad?

I guess it is when you think the people need someone to do their thinking for them.  Is this the part where you tell me what my best interests are, and it's just coincidence that it's my best interests to keep liberals in power?


----------



## Intense

The T said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> their vision of how government should work was that rich WHITE men ran things... no one else voted... blacks weren't even full people and women had no vote.
> 
> that was their vision... based in an 18th century agrarian society. that's why the document they left isn't intended to remain interpreted the same way it was then.
> 
> equal protection now is not equal protection then.
> 
> 
> 
> No one's saying we should return to those times. *We should return to limited Federal government*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what? If CAP and Trade passes? Jillian may just be correct. We will return to just that.
> 
> They really need to be careful what they wish for and what they truly support and stop being so mindless.
> 
> Thought is cheap and easy actually. The consequences of what these Statists actually want however, _are NOT._
Click to expand...


If they crash the system, I'm thinking Feudal, after everything is done burning.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slaves had no voting power....not even 3/5ths of a vote
> 
> The 3/5 ths came into play in apportioning the House of Representatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and the 3/5th's being less than a whole weakened the South's representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea....I guess they were getting hosed. I feel so sorry for them
> 
> But I guess if they wanted the blacks to count for 5/5 ths they could have always freed them
> 
> 
> Naaaaaaaaaa!
Click to expand...


One of my main Super Heroes is Thoreau. He was big on that, and so were many others throughout both the North and the South. How else would the underground railroad have worked. It was wrong, it was a struggle to change the way things were, but look how far it's come. As weird as this sounds, if I was born a Black baby today, there is no other Continent or Country I would want to be born in than right here. What ever it was that brought us here today, the price is paid, American Black Culture among the most advanced in the world.


Again the influence of John Locke.
Thoreau - Civil Disobedience
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - with annotated text


----------



## Intense

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yeah..and be fully endorsed by today's tea party..but I digress.
> 
> What the mopes and lunatics on the right continue to ignore was that the Constitution, had built into it, an inate spirit against "populism" and "fashionable" rule.
> 
> Which is something they love.
> 
> Along with rule by the monied class.
> 
> To bad children. The Constitution disagrees with ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Populism is bad?
> 
> I guess it is when you think the people need someone to do their thinking for them.  Is this the part where you tell me what my best interests are, and it's just coincidence that it's my best interests to keep liberals in power?
Click to expand...


There is another twist on that , and it would be "Who best controls or manipulates the Angry Mob? One of the reasons we need the Courts to play a role and slow the process down, while defending the innocent, or defending principle, at least until cooler heads prevail.


----------



## Cal

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.


----------



## Liberty

YoungLefty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.
Click to expand...


ever hear of a breaking point? It didn't quite snap. The disdain was always there, though. America hit the tipping point of having to vote for "the lesser of two evils". We want people who share our views, enter: tea party constitutionalists  (which are imo just libertarians, but no one really gave us libertarians a shot. oh well  ) the majority of Americans are conservative, most understand that the leftists simply want to transform our free society into a socialist oligarchy. It is blatantly obvious, and contrary to popular leftist ideology...Americans are NOT dumb. You are about to feel it, brace yourself.


----------



## Intense

Sallow said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and.... both the Amendment Process and The Courts play a role in keeping the playing field in proper order. We learn new things and become more aware every day. We establish justice because of it's own sake, the best we can, be it application and administration or new construction, never forgetting that it is the will of the people by their consent that is served. There is no interpretation that trumps a 75% majority perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> once again... and as much as i like you, i'm starting to think you're intentionally ignoring a very salient fact...
> 
> no one cares about a 75% majority.
> 
> if segregation were put to a vote today, it would pass.
> 
> that's irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yeah..and be fully endorsed by today's tea party..but I digress.
> 
> What the mopes and lunatics on the right continue to ignore was that the Constitution, had built into it, an inate spirit against "populism" and "fashionable" rule.
> 
> Which is something they love.
> 
> Along with rule by the monied class.
> 
> To bad children. The Constitution disagrees with ya.
Click to expand...


From a different perspective, the Super majority, like in the Senate being 60 votes, or for Constitutional Amendment 75%, sets a very high bar that is very hard to reach without legitimacy, popular just doesn't make it there by itself. The Constitution was intended to establish a foundation from which Justice could prevail, whether in the majority or minority opinion, was secondary to what was just. American Federalism is about shared responsibility between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of Government, both State and Federal, each with defined roles, powers, and jurisdictions. When we change that delicate balance it effects the whole. A decentralized advantage of Federalism is that policies could be tested small scale at first the local, then the State, then the Federal level. The idea is to tailor and adjust small scale rather than mass implementation of policies with kinks that have not been thought out. We stopped doing that. Imagine a factory producing 10,000,000 microwave ovens and distributing them only to have to recall them because not enough attention was placed on a flaw in the prototype.  Say the cost of the part was $1.95, now because of the quality control failure that's $1.95 X 10,000,000 + packaging, handling, shipping, and labor. This is the compound effect of one size fits all centralized government when it makes a mistake. It is devastating. You argue that strong Centralized one size fits all government is an improvement. I see the growth of mismanagement and incompetence, and the instinct of government to run cover for it and protect itself at the expense of our quality of life. Yes I believe completely that Unalienable Rights (which include Civil Rights) should be uniformly recognized at the Federal Level and insured. The States themselves have responsibilities of their own, and outside of the Enumerated jurisdiction of the Federal Government, left alone and be allowed to function interdependently within their own rights. We have tons of unnecessary compounded bullshit that we are paying the price for every day. Simplify.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



what freaking reality are you living in?

My gosh at least back it up with some proof instead of spouting off bullshit.


----------



## Justin Buell

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



First Amendment: This is a fair point. Conservatives tend to want to have their cake and eat it too.
Second Amendment: I agree with Tea Partiers here.
Fourth Amendment: Agreed. The infringements on privacy don't seem to come up much in their lists of grievances.
14th Amendment: They want to end birthright citizenship. Not an issue I agree with, but they're hardly targeting it towards a specific group.
16th Amendment: Much like the 18th Amendment, some things should be reconsidered.
17th Amendment: The House of Representatives were supposed to represent the people, the Senate was supposed to represent the states.

You should also be aware that not all tea partiers see eye to eye on every issue.


----------



## daveman

Intense said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well yeah..and be fully endorsed by today's tea party..but I digress.
> 
> What the mopes and lunatics on the right continue to ignore was that the Constitution, had built into it, an inate spirit against "populism" and "fashionable" rule.
> 
> Which is something they love.
> 
> Along with rule by the monied class.
> 
> To bad children. The Constitution disagrees with ya.
> 
> 
> 
> Populism is bad?
> 
> I guess it is when you think the people need someone to do their thinking for them.  Is this the part where you tell me what my best interests are, and it's just coincidence that it's my best interests to keep liberals in power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is another twist on that , and it would be "Who best controls or manipulates the Angry Mob? One of the reasons we need the Courts to play a role and slow the process down, while defending the innocent, or defending principle, at least until cooler heads prevail.
Click to expand...

Indeed.  The problem is when the courts rule in a fashionable manner, rubber-stamping the cause _du jour_.


----------



## rightwinger

YoungLefty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.
Click to expand...


The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government


----------



## rightwinger

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what freaking reality are you living in?
> 
> My gosh at least back it up with some proof instead of spouting off bullshit.
Click to expand...


Welcome to the USMB Message Board!

It is obvious that you may have posted here in the past but never found the time to read any of the threads. If you had, you would have seen dozens of threads generated by right wing conservatives on each of these topics. These are the same conservative posters who claim to be members of the Tea Party

I hope you enjoy your time on the board


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government
Click to expand...


Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
Click to expand...


Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??
Click to expand...


One constant in this world is change. Cause and effect can be a bitch,  huh? We are all Human Beings first RW, now and then, all with independent thought to one degree or another. The complete world perspective does not exist, it never has, it is too incomprehensible. Why try to make things fit where they don't belong?


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??
Click to expand...


I don't know. Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a classical liberal and a modern social liberal now and in the 1930s?"

Can't have it both ways, dipshit.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??
Click to expand...

Dunno.  Do we need to go through the whole "What's the difference between a classical and a modern liberal" again?


----------



## daveman

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a classical liberal and a modern social liberal now and in the 1930s?"
> 
> Can't have it both ways, dipshit.
Click to expand...

  Beat me to it!


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know. Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a classical liberal and a modern social liberal now and in the 1930s?"
> 
> Can't have it both ways, dipshit.
Click to expand...


I don't know...

Do we need to go through the difference between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative?

Tea Baggers claim to be the one but push the agenda of both


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a Republican and a Conservative now and in the 1950s"??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a classical liberal and a modern social liberal now and in the 1930s?"
> 
> Can't have it both ways, dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know...
> 
> Do we need to go through the difference between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative?
> 
> Tea Baggers claim to be the one but push the agenda of both
Click to expand...


What is a "Tea Bagger" ?


----------



## Intense

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Do we need to go through the whole "Whats the difference between a classical liberal and a modern social liberal now and in the 1930s?"
> 
> Can't have it both ways, dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know...
> 
> Do we need to go through the difference between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative?
> 
> Tea Baggers claim to be the one but push the agenda of both
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is a "Tea Bagger" ?
Click to expand...


A derogatory term generally used by the great unwashed, to label their superiors. That is one way of identifying them. The other way is to stand down wind or share an elevator.


----------



## Liberty

Intense said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know...
> 
> Do we need to go through the difference between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative?
> 
> Tea Baggers claim to be the one but push the agenda of both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "Tea Bagger" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A derogatory term generally used by the great unwashed, to label their superiors. That is one way of identifying them. The other way is to stand down wind or share an elevator.
Click to expand...


oh.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YoungLefty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is just something for them to use as a crutch. If they genuinely cared about it, the Tea Party woulda been started way back during the Bush years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
Click to expand...


Um.

Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?

Ask for a refund. They failed.


----------



## Sallow

Intense said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know...
> 
> Do we need to go through the difference between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative?
> 
> Tea Baggers claim to be the one but push the agenda of both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "Tea Bagger" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A derogatory term generally used by the great unwashed, to label their superiors. That is one way of identifying them. The other way is to stand down wind or share an elevator.
Click to expand...


Why are you calling FOX News.."the unwashed?". I thought you guys got your marching orders from them.

And they coined the term..


----------



## Intense

Sallow said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "Tea Bagger" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A derogatory term generally used by the great unwashed, to label their superiors. That is one way of identifying them. The other way is to stand down wind or share an elevator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you calling FOX News.."the unwashed?". I thought you guys got your marching orders from them.
> 
> And they coined the term..
Click to expand...


The first two people I heard say it were Anderson Cooper and Chris Matthews. Anderson blushed, I think. Matthews has his Barry blow up doll so he is always good. 

You guys?
Marching Orders? 
Fox?
What are you babbling about?

What are the DNC talking points of the week besides Jim Crow?


----------



## Sallow

Intense said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> A derogatory term generally used by the great unwashed, to label their superiors. That is one way of identifying them. The other way is to stand down wind or share an elevator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you calling FOX News.."the unwashed?". I thought you guys got your marching orders from them.
> 
> And they coined the term..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first two people I heard say it were Anderson Cooper and Chris Matthews. Anderson blushed, I think. Matthews has his Barry blow up doll so he is always good.
> 
> You guys?
> Marching Orders?
> Fox?
> What are you babbling about?
> 
> What are the DNC talking points of the week besides Jim Crow?
Click to expand...


FOX News coined the term..chief. You don't like it..fine.

And Jim Crow got crushed despite the resistance of Dixecrats and Goldwater (Though I still like the guy.)

And..it's brooks that babble.

Babble on and on mon.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know...
> 
> Do we need to go through the difference between a fiscal conservative and a social conservative?
> 
> Tea Baggers claim to be the one but push the agenda of both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "Tea Bagger" ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A derogatory term generally used by the great unwashed, to label their superiors. That is one way of identifying them. The other way is to stand down wind or share an elevator.
Click to expand...


I am not part of an organization that chose a tea bag as it symbol

Worst political name since the Know Nothings


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "Tea Bagger" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A derogatory term generally used by the great unwashed, to label their superiors. That is one way of identifying them. The other way is to stand down wind or share an elevator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not part of an organization that chose a tea bag as it symbol
> 
> Worst political name since the Know Nothings
Click to expand...


I sure as hell didn't choose it,  though I've been saving hundreds of those little string tags. Twinning's Earl Grey and English Breakfast for contrast. I've seen funny stuff over time.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XMr3QO2Sbc[/ame]


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "Tea Bagger" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A derogatory term generally used by the great unwashed, to label their superiors. That is one way of identifying them. The other way is to stand down wind or share an elevator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you calling FOX News.."the unwashed?". I thought you guys got your marching orders from them.
> 
> And they coined the term..
Click to expand...


Why is it impossible for you to believe that maybe we do our own personal scholarship to discover truth on our own about history and such? Get a grip.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
Click to expand...


FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.
Click to expand...


Can you show me a Republican or Conservative who opposed the internment camps in 1942???


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.
Click to expand...


What exactly did you major in?

Stupidity?

Cherrypickin' doesn't exactly count for scholarship..ace.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me a Republican or Conservative who opposed the internment camps in 1942???
Click to expand...


I would bet that there are people that did, on both sides of the Aisle. People that were effected personally.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time they were so upset about the Constitution was during the Civil Rights era. Same arguments about states rights, abuse of power by the courts, evil federal government
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
Click to expand...


John Willis Menard. Republican. 1868.
Arthur W. Mitchell. Democrat 1935.

Now go suck a lemon, idiot.


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me a Republican or Conservative who opposed the internment camps in 1942???
Click to expand...


it was FDR's executive decision, dumbass, not a vote. take a civics class.


----------



## Sallow

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you show me a Republican or Conservative who opposed the internment camps in 1942???
Click to expand...


What I love about posts like this is it happily takes things completely out of context..like the fact we were actually attacked by the Japanese in Hawaii.

Put heck..its fun.


----------



## Intense

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly did you major in?
> 
> Stupidity?
> 
> Cherrypickin' doesn't exactly count for scholarship..ace.
Click to expand...


I don't thing he grew up here. Lighten up, shouldn't you be scratching flee's or sniffing body cavities or something dog breath. Down Spot, Sit, Roll Over. Look a squirrel right by that fire hydrant! Right on the other side of that high speed six line highway! Fetch!!!


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What exactly did you major in?
> 
> Stupidity?
> 
> Cherrypickin' doesn't exactly count for scholarship..ace.
Click to expand...


Hey, retard, you haven't proved anything I have said wrong. As a matter of fact, I have shown evidence of everything I have said. What have you done besides bitch and moan like a little girl? Say something intelligent, for your own sake.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans had black represenatives since 1860. Democrats...what was it...1920? MLK was a republican, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Willis Menard. Republican. 1868.
> Arthur W. Mitchell. Democrat 1935.
> 
> Now go suck a lemon, idiot.
Click to expand...


Naw.

Get the refund.

Thanks me later.

And please..get out of the basement. There is more to life then just asking people if they want fries with their burger.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me a Republican or Conservative who opposed the internment camps in 1942???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I love about posts like this is it happily takes things completely out of context..like the fact we were actually attacked by the Japanese in Hawaii.
> 
> Put heck..its fun.
Click to expand...


FDR was a democrat. FDR gave the executive order to have internment camps.

Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy?


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR started japanese internment camps. FDR was a democrat. I could go on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did you major in?
> 
> Stupidity?
> 
> Cherrypickin' doesn't exactly count for scholarship..ace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, retard, you haven't proved anything I have said wrong. As a matter of fact, I have shown evidence of everything I have said. What have you done besides bitch and moan like a little girl? Say something intelligent, for your own sake.
Click to expand...


Bitch?



I love internet tough guys.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um.
> 
> Your ability to completely screw up history is amazing. Did you really go to college? Did they charge you?
> 
> Ask for a refund. They failed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Willis Menard. Republican. 1868.
> Arthur W. Mitchell. Democrat 1935.
> 
> Now go suck a lemon, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> Get the refund.
> 
> Thanks me later.
> 
> And please..get out of the basement. There is more to life then just asking people if they want fries with their burger.
Click to expand...


So basically, for you, you only accept history when it backs up your ideology. That is why you and your ilk will never take hold, it is based in self chosen ignorance of facts. And that is also why you embarrass yourself, and deserve nothing more than pity.


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly did you major in?
> 
> Stupidity?
> 
> Cherrypickin' doesn't exactly count for scholarship..ace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, retard, you haven't proved anything I have said wrong. As a matter of fact, I have shown evidence of everything I have said. What have you done besides bitch and moan like a little girl? Say something intelligent, for your own sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> I love internet tough guys.
Click to expand...


Please, quote one intelligent thing you have said in this entire thread.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me a Republican or Conservative who opposed the internment camps in 1942???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I love about posts like this is it happily takes things completely out of context..like the fact we were actually attacked by the Japanese in Hawaii.
> 
> Put heck..its fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was a democrat. FDR gave the executive order to have internment camps.
> 
> Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy?
Click to expand...


Naw.

George Bush's poppa pardoned Orlando Bosch.

A known terrorist.

Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy? Blah blah blah..


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you show me a Republican or Conservative who opposed the internment camps in 1942???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I love about posts like this is it happily takes things completely out of context..like the fact we were actually attacked by the Japanese in Hawaii.
> 
> Put heck..its fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was a democrat. FDR gave the executive order to have internment camps.
> 
> Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy?
Click to expand...


I would actually think you had a legitimate point if you could direct me to an article starting "Republicans outraged at FDR internment camps....."

Show me a single Republican or Conservative who opposed the camps


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I love about posts like this is it happily takes things completely out of context..like the fact we were actually attacked by the Japanese in Hawaii.
> 
> Put heck..its fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a democrat. FDR gave the executive order to have internment camps.
> 
> Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> George Bush's poppa pardoned Orlando Bosch.
> 
> A known terrorist.
> 
> Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy? Blah blah blah..
Click to expand...



Gotcha. you are a troll like RW. Well played, sir. You got me. I was silly to take the words you said as serious. Afterall, no one can be THAT dumb, right?


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I love about posts like this is it happily takes things completely out of context..like the fact we were actually attacked by the Japanese in Hawaii.
> 
> Put heck..its fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a democrat. FDR gave the executive order to have internment camps.
> 
> Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would actually think you had a legitimate point if you could direct me to an article starting "Republicans outraged at FDR internment camps....."
> 
> Show me a single Republican or Conservative who opposed the camps
Click to expand...


Ralph Lawrence Carr

Suck it.


----------



## Sallow

Liberty said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was a democrat. FDR gave the executive order to have internment camps.
> 
> Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> George Bush's poppa pardoned Orlando Bosch.
> 
> A known terrorist.
> 
> Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy? Blah blah blah..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. you are a troll like RW. Well played, sir. You got me. I was silly to take the words you said as serious. Afterall, no one can be THAT dumb, right?
Click to expand...


When you cherry pick..and your whole knowledge of history comes from wiki and google..yeah..you get got.

Insults and dogma don't count as real discussion. And never moves anything forward. Quite the contrary..you get to walk backwards.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is a "Tea Bagger" ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A derogatory term generally used by the great unwashed, to label their superiors. That is one way of identifying them. The other way is to stand down wind or share an elevator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you calling FOX News.."the unwashed?". I thought you guys got your marching orders from them.
> 
> And they coined the term..
Click to expand...

Gosh, you're stupid.


> The Great Unwashed : Phrases
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning:
> 
> The common, lower classes; the hoi-polloi.
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> Origin:
> 
> *This rather disparaging term was coined by the Victorian novelist and playwright Edward Bulwer-Lytton. He used it in his 1830 novel Paul Clifford:*
> 
> "He is certainly a man who bathes and lives cleanly, (two especial charges preferred against him by Messrs. the Great Unwashed)."


----------



## Sallow

Don't even try to "tea-bag" me..

Keith Olbermann Reminds the Teabaggers that They Coined Their Own NamePoliticususa


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> George Bush's poppa pardoned Orlando Bosch.
> 
> A known terrorist.
> 
> Is this correct or wrong in relation to historical accuracy? Blah blah blah..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. you are a troll like RW. Well played, sir. You got me. I was silly to take the words you said as serious. Afterall, no one can be THAT dumb, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you cherry pick..and your whole knowledge of history comes from wiki and google..yeah..you get got.
> 
> Insults and dogma don't count as real discussion. And never moves anything forward. Quite the contrary..you get to walk backwards.
Click to expand...


ok, so add to it. where am i wrong?


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> Don't even try to "tea-bag" me..
> 
> Keith Olbermann Reminds the Teabaggers that They Coined Their Own NamePoliticususa



Are you going to claim that Edward Bulwer-Lytton was Fox News' Victorian correspondent?


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even try to "tea-bag" me..
> 
> Keith Olbermann Reminds the Teabaggers that They Coined Their Own NamePoliticususa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim that Edward Bulwer-Lytton was Fox News' Victorian correspondent?
Click to expand...


So cute.

Conservative acquiescence.

Love it!


----------



## Liberty

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even try to "tea-bag" me..
> 
> Keith Olbermann Reminds the Teabaggers that They Coined Their Own NamePoliticususa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim that Edward Bulwer-Lytton was Fox News' Victorian correspondent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So cute.
> 
> Conservative acquiescence.
> 
> Love it!
Click to expand...


What is it like being mentally inadequate for any occasion that requires a minute amount of intellectual capability?


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't even try to "tea-bag" me..
> 
> Keith Olbermann Reminds the Teabaggers that They Coined Their Own NamePoliticususa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to claim that Edward Bulwer-Lytton was Fox News' Victorian correspondent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So cute.
> 
> Conservative acquiescence.
> 
> Love it!
Click to expand...

Yes.  I admit it:

You're wrong about the origin of the term "unwashed".  

Dumbass.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

rightwinger said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what freaking reality are you living in?
> 
> My gosh at least back it up with some proof instead of spouting off bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome to the USMB Message Board!
> 
> It is obvious that you may have posted here in the past but never found the time to read any of the threads. If you had, you would have seen dozens of threads generated by right wing conservatives on each of these topics. These are the same conservative posters who claim to be members of the Tea Party
> 
> I hope you enjoy your time on the board
Click to expand...


so your sample population of only the people who post on this forum is enough proof for you.   Kudos to your intelligence.


----------



## AllieBaba

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



Lol...I notice you have provided no links, or names, or any other even remotely credible sources.

Links please. Or we'll just assume you're making this shit up. Per usual.


----------



## rightwinger

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> what freaking reality are you living in?
> 
> My gosh at least back it up with some proof instead of spouting off bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the USMB Message Board!
> 
> It is obvious that you may have posted here in the past but never found the time to read any of the threads. If you had, you would have seen dozens of threads generated by right wing conservatives on each of these topics. These are the same conservative posters who claim to be members of the Tea Party
> 
> I hope you enjoy your time on the board
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so your sample population of only the people who post on this forum is enough proof for you.   Kudos to your intelligence.
Click to expand...


Actually.......yes

The rightwing conservative  posters who post regularly on this forum get their positions from Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and the Fox Noise posse......just like the Tea Party


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the USMB Message Board!
> 
> It is obvious that you may have posted here in the past but never found the time to read any of the threads. If you had, you would have seen dozens of threads generated by right wing conservatives on each of these topics. These are the same conservative posters who claim to be members of the Tea Party
> 
> I hope you enjoy your time on the board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so your sample population of only the people who post on this forum is enough proof for you.   Kudos to your intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually.......yes
> 
> The rightwing conservative  posters who post regularly on this forum get their positions from Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and the Fox Noise posse......just like the Tea Party
Click to expand...


Ralph Lawrence Carr
Ralph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence Carr


----------



## rightwinger

Liberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> so your sample population of only the people who post on this forum is enough proof for you.   Kudos to your intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually.......yes
> 
> The rightwing conservative  posters who post regularly on this forum get their positions from Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and the Fox Noise posse......just like the Tea Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ralph Lawrence Carr
> Ralph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence Carr
Click to expand...



I finally got around to looking him up.  Impressive story. An anti- new dealer from Colorado who opposed the internment of the Japanese.


_If you harm them, you must harm me. I was brought up in a small town where I knew the shame and dishonor of race hatred. I grew to despise it because it threatened the happiness of you and you and you._

In the post Pearl Harbor hysteria, there were very few Americans willing to stand up against racial hatred. Carr was a good example. Thanks for pointing it out


----------



## Liberty

rightwinger said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually.......yes
> 
> The rightwing conservative  posters who post regularly on this forum get their positions from Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and the Fox Noise posse......just like the Tea Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ralph Lawrence Carr
> Ralph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence CarrRalph Lawrence Carr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I finally got around to looking him up.  Impressive story. An anti- new dealer from Colorado who opposed the internment of the Japanese.
> 
> 
> _If you harm them, you must harm me. I was brought up in a small town where I knew the shame and dishonor of race hatred. I grew to despise it because it threatened the happiness of you and you and you._
> 
> In the post Pearl Harbor hysteria, there were very few Americans willing to stand up against racial hatred. Carr was a good example. Thanks for pointing it out
Click to expand...


Unfortunately thats all I got.


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to the USMB Message Board!
> 
> It is obvious that you may have posted here in the past but never found the time to read any of the threads. If you had, you would have seen dozens of threads generated by right wing conservatives on each of these topics. These are the same conservative posters who claim to be members of the Tea Party
> 
> I hope you enjoy your time on the board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so your sample population of only the people who post on this forum is enough proof for you.   Kudos to your intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually.......yes
> 
> The rightwing conservative  posters who post regularly on this forum get their positions from Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and the Fox Noise posse......just like the Tea Party
Click to expand...


Actually, we are pretty diverse, as opposed to the lock step of the Left.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> so your sample population of only the people who post on this forum is enough proof for you.   Kudos to your intelligence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually.......yes
> 
> The rightwing conservative  posters who post regularly on this forum get their positions from Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and the Fox Noise posse......just like the Tea Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, we are pretty diverse, as opposed to the lock step of the Left.
Click to expand...


Diverse?

Ever hear the term RINO?


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually.......yes
> 
> The rightwing conservative  posters who post regularly on this forum get their positions from Glenn Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and the Fox Noise posse......just like the Tea Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are pretty diverse, as opposed to the lock step of the Left.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diverse?
> 
> Ever hear the term RINO?
Click to expand...


Republican
In 
Name
Only

Yeah, they both undermine movement and momentum,
And vote like Democrat's giving you the excuse to say that we spend and lie just like you, and that there is no difference between the Parties. Who does that serve besides you?????

Nice Smoke Screen.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are pretty diverse, as opposed to the lock step of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diverse?
> 
> Ever hear the term RINO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republican
> In
> Name
> Only
> 
> Yeah, they both undermine movement and momentum,
> And vote like Democrat's giving you the excuse to say that we spend and lie just like you, and that there is no difference between the Parties. Who does that serve besides you?????
> 
> Nice Smoke Screen.
Click to expand...


RINOs are the diverse sector of the Republican Party and are being driven out by the lockstep right. While most supposed RINOs support the majority of the Republican agenda they outrage the mainliners by engaging in independent thought

Now where again is the diversity in the Republican party?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we are pretty diverse, as opposed to the lock step of the Left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diverse?
> 
> Ever hear the term RINO?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republican
> In
> Name
> Only
> 
> Yeah, they both undermine movement and momentum,
> And vote like Democrat's giving you the excuse to say that we spend and lie just like you, and that there is no difference between the Parties. Who does that serve besides you?????
> 
> Nice Smoke Screen.
Click to expand...


I think you mean, my friend, that you want Republicans to the center to march in lock step with the far right wing, which wants no diversity.


----------



## Jack Fate

JakeStarkey said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diverse?
> 
> Ever hear the term RINO?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican
> In
> Name
> Only
> 
> Yeah, they both undermine movement and momentum,
> And vote like Democrat's giving you the excuse to say that we spend and lie just like you, and that there is no difference between the Parties. Who does that serve besides you?????
> 
> Nice Smoke Screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you mean, my friend, that you want Republicans to the center to march in lock step with the far right wing, which wants no diversity.
Click to expand...


Look who's talking about "diversity".  A closed minded racist liberal talking about diversity.  Funny stuff.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Diverse?
> 
> Ever hear the term RINO?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican
> In
> Name
> Only
> 
> Yeah, they both undermine movement and momentum,
> And vote like Democrat's giving you the excuse to say that we spend and lie just like you, and that there is no difference between the Parties. Who does that serve besides you?????
> 
> Nice Smoke Screen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you mean, my friend, that you want Republicans to the center to march in lock step with the far right wing, which wants no diversity.
Click to expand...


No, I prefer Honesty. If the Profile matches one Party more than the other, be honest with yourself. I don't have a problem with people of the minority opinion in either Party. Voice and counter balances are always important. My problem is when the minority obstructs or tries to hi-jack an issue. Make your point and move out of the way, generally speaking.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican
> In
> Name
> Only
> 
> Yeah, they both undermine movement and momentum,
> And vote like Democrat's giving you the excuse to say that we spend and lie just like you, and that there is no difference between the Parties. Who does that serve besides you?????
> 
> Nice Smoke Screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean, my friend, that you want Republicans to the center to march in lock step with the far right wing, which wants no diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I prefer Honesty. If the Profile matches one Party more than the other, be honest with yourself. I don't have a problem with people of the minority opinion in either Party. Voice and counter balances are always important. My problem is when the minority obstructs or tries to hi-jack an issue. Make your point and move out of the way, generally speaking.
Click to expand...



It goes beyond that..

There are many Republicans who are strong  fiscal conservatives but vary from the party line on social issues. Why is someone who supports gay marriage or healthcare reform not a Republican?


----------



## Intense

rightwinger said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean, my friend, that you want Republicans to the center to march in lock step with the far right wing, which wants no diversity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I prefer Honesty. If the Profile matches one Party more than the other, be honest with yourself. I don't have a problem with people of the minority opinion in either Party. Voice and counter balances are always important. My problem is when the minority obstructs or tries to hi-jack an issue. Make your point and move out of the way, generally speaking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It goes beyond that..
> 
> There are many Republicans who are strong  fiscal conservatives but vary from the party line on social issues. Why is someone who supports gay marriage or healthcare reform not a Republican?
Click to expand...


Why do you presume that to be my meaning? Your presumption is wrong. Do I presume that all Democrats reject the concept of living within your means? No. Why inject stuff like that? Do you honestly believe that to be true? It's a label., that someone spent allot of money to perpetuate. Why do you think that is? Tho divert focus?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jack Fate said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican
> In
> Name
> Only
> 
> Yeah, they both undermine movement and momentum,
> And vote like Democrat's giving you the excuse to say that we spend and lie just like you, and that there is no difference between the Parties. Who does that serve besides you?????
> 
> Nice Smoke Screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean, my friend, that you want Republicans to the center to march in lock step with the far right wing, which wants no diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look who's talking about "diversity".  A closed minded racist liberal talking about diversity.  Funny stuff.
Click to expand...


Me, a liberal?  Nope.  You, a conservative?  Nope.  I am a solid centrist moderate of the Republican Party who calls out racist and religionist loons like you here on daily basis.  I have no trouble demonstrating your attacks are nothing more than weak projections of your failing image.

Hope you are having a nice day.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican
> In
> Name
> Only
> 
> Yeah, they both undermine movement and momentum,
> And vote like Democrat's giving you the excuse to say that we spend and lie just like you, and that there is no difference between the Parties. Who does that serve besides you?????
> 
> Nice Smoke Screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean, my friend, that you want Republicans to the center to march in lock step with the far right wing, which wants no diversity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I prefer Honesty. If the Profile matches one Party more than the other, be honest with yourself. I don't have a problem with people of the minority opinion in either Party. Voice and counter balances are always important. My problem is when the minority obstructs or tries to hi-jack an issue. Make your point and move out of the way, generally speaking.
Click to expand...


Unlike the Republican congress members for the last twenty odd months.  Excellent point.


----------



## Intense

I generally prefer those that play fairly with an open hand over those that say one thing and do another, or play it safe by voting "Present". Integrity should not be restricted by Party Boundaries.


----------



## rightwinger

Intense said:


> I generally prefer those that play fairly with an open hand over those that say one thing and do another, or play it safe by voting "Present". Integrity should not be restricted by Party Boundaries.



When did Obama ever vote "Present"?   America needs to know


----------



## Cain

rightwinger said:


> Then why do they constantly want to change it?
> 
> First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
> Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
> Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
> 14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
> 16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
> 17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people
> 
> The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much



Hmm, from what I gathered at the meeting I attended here is what I heard on the subjects:

1st: Burning Flag=Yes, Muslim Block=Never heard that before.
2nd: Simply more allowance of freedom amongst the people, which I understand to a limit, I mean, I want to be able to carry a concealed firearm license at 18, because I am defending my nation at 18.
4th: Wow, that is nearly the opposite of what I heard, most of them wanted less government action against the average citizen. 
14th: For Illegal immigrants I assume they would not want them to gain citizenship by simply gaining access to the country illegally. Gays, I never heard that before either.
16th: Hmm, Not what I heard. I heard they wanted a simple tax brought in.
17th: That is something they approached, but I do not remember exactly what is said, I believe it was something along the lines of allowing the people to choose more for the higher up government, including all branches.

Well, I would not say anyone doesn't appreciate the Constitution unless I had proof from them they said something to insinuate it. I appreciate it, and I hope it is upheld forever in this nation, although nothing lasts forever. I think their biggest thing is to change amendments that they feel have changed the approach to the Constitution from what the fore-fathers intended it to be, not change the Constitution itself.


----------

