Dear Liberals: I Want a Divorce!

[The T]

No I'm not. I'm just not going to make this a debate on illegal aliens. I am trying to work out an amicable divorce agreement here.

It doesn't MATTER what exists now before the divorce. Yes there are people, both liberal and conservative, who break the law concerning illegals and who exploit the illegals in various ways for their own purposes.

I am proposing that we correct that situation in our divorce agreement. If we don't HAVE any illegals, it will not be a problem in Conservativeland. And if you guys take the illegals, then you can deal with them however liberals think that should be done.

So deal? You take the illegals?

They may have them since it's obvious they won't follow the law in Conservativeland.

Yes, it's the best of both worlds. We can establish whatever immigration laws are most advantageous for Conservativeland and, short of violating anybody's unalienable rights, we will be free to enforce the law however we need to enforce it without having to endure Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and others hollering "RACISM" or dealing with other political correctness issues. And Al and Jesse and others like them will be happily living in Liberalland and I'm sure will be more than happy to help build a utopian paradise for illegals and all sorts of folks there.

And whatever problems might exist in one country won't be any kind of problem for the other.

Indeed. Law and order brings less toil to those that understand and abide with firm understanding.

 

[Foxfyre]

You keep skirting past the fact that a number of Conservatives rely on illegal labor to keep payroll down.

I'm trying to pose potential downfalls to the "plan" that you have...I think those rose-tinted glasses are too thick.

No I'm not. I'm just not going to make this a debate on illegal aliens. I am trying to work out an amicable divorce agreement here.

It doesn't MATTER what exists now before the divorce. Yes there are people, both liberal and conservative, who break the law concerning illegals and who exploit the illegals in various ways for their own purposes.

I am proposing that we correct that situation in our divorce agreement. If we don't HAVE any illegals, it will not be a problem in Conservativeland. And if you guys take the illegals, then you can deal with them however liberals think that should be done.

So deal? You take the illegals?

It's not really about the illegal aliens as much as it's about the Conservatives that frequently use them for labor, combined with your statements that make it sound like Conservatives have absolutely no use for them, which obviously isn't true.

Please go on about the statement in bold. Why won't that be a problem for the Conservatives that use them for cheap labor?

Sorry but I don't believe you give a damn about Conservatives. But on the theory that I'm wrong and you truly do care, once we are allowed to make and enforce reasonable laws in our own Conservativeland, we won't have enough illegals to be a problem. Once we cut off the free housing, free medical, food stamps and other free food, free education, and protection from deportation, and actually can enforce the law without being accused of being heartless racists, there won't be much incentive to come to Conservativeland. Mexico, Costa Rico, Canada, and other countries who actually enforce their immigration laws don't have the problems with illegals that we have had in the USA.

So any Conservatives who want to continue to do business with illegal aliens will simply have to suck it up and move to Liberalland where presumably, the laws will be more accommodating or at least less enforced.

 

[bobcollum]

No I'm not. I'm just not going to make this a debate on illegal aliens. I am trying to work out an amicable divorce agreement here.

It doesn't MATTER what exists now before the divorce. Yes there are people, both liberal and conservative, who break the law concerning illegals and who exploit the illegals in various ways for their own purposes.

I am proposing that we correct that situation in our divorce agreement. If we don't HAVE any illegals, it will not be a problem in Conservativeland. And if you guys take the illegals, then you can deal with them however liberals think that should be done.

So deal? You take the illegals?

It's not really about the illegal aliens as much as it's about the Conservatives that frequently use them for labor, combined with your statements that make it sound like Conservatives have absolutely no use for them, which obviously isn't true.

Please go on about the statement in bold. Why won't that be a problem for the Conservatives that use them for cheap labor?

Sorry but I don't believe you give a damn about Conservatives. But on the theory that I'm wrong and you truly do care, once we are allowed to make and enforce reasonable laws in our own Conservativeland, we won't have enough illegals to be a problem. Once we cut off the free housing, free medical, food stamps and other free food, free education, and protection from deportation, and actually can enforce the law without being accused of being heartless racists, there won't be much incentive to come to Conservativeland. Mexico, Costa Rico, Canada, and other countries who actually enforce their immigration laws don't have the problems with illegals that we have had in the USA.

I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that I agree with a good deal of this, I'm against all of the perks that illegal aliens recieve except for health-care, I don't think anyone should be denied that. The US has made it as much or more of a priority to help others here and abroad instead of it's own citizens...but I don't believe some vast conspiracy is at hand, I chalk it up to our own success and prosperity, that the pressing need to fix what's here wasn't so pressing when things were generally going well.

So any Conservatives who want to continue to do business with illegal aliens will simply have to suck it up and move to Liberalland where presumably, the laws will be more accommodating or at least less enforced.

Good, you finally answered the question...but that would be a problem for you guys.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's not really about the illegal aliens as much as it's about the Conservatives that frequently use them for labor, combined with your statements that make it sound like Conservatives have absolutely no use for them, which obviously isn't true.

Please go on about the statement in bold. Why won't that be a problem for the Conservatives that use them for cheap labor?

Sorry but I don't believe you give a damn about Conservatives. But on the theory that I'm wrong and you truly do care, once we are allowed to make and enforce reasonable laws in our own Conservativeland, we won't have enough illegals to be a problem. Once we cut off the free housing, free medical, food stamps and other free food, free education, and protection from deportation, and actually can enforce the law without being accused of being heartless racists, there won't be much incentive to come to Conservativeland. Mexico, Costa Rico, Canada, and other countries who actually enforce their immigration laws don't have the problems with illegals that we have had in the USA.

I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that I agree with a good deal of this, I'm against all of the perks that illegal aliens recieve except for health-care, I don't think anyone should be denied that. The US has made it as much or more of a priority to help others here and abroad instead of it's own citizens...but I don't believe some vast conspiracy is at hand, I chalk it up to our own success and prosperity, that the pressing need to fix what's here wasn't so pressing when things were generally going well.

So any Conservatives who want to continue to do business with illegal aliens will simply have to suck it up and move to Liberalland where presumably, the laws will be more accommodating or at least less enforced.

Good, you finally answered the question...but that would be a problem for you guys.

It won't be a problem for us if they all go to Liberalland which I presume will be the case as nobody on their side has objected to taking them and nobody on our side wants them. Sure as heck beats trying to round them up and deport them.

And in Conservativeland, illegals won't be denied any humanitarian or emergency healthcare or anything else. We'll feed em, put on a band-ade or whatever treatment they need, and then send them on to Liberalland. They will also be handed a bill. And if they should decide they don't like it over there in Liberalland and try to come back, they will not only be breaking the law and subject to arrest and deportation but they'll be expected to pay the bill. No money? No problem. We'll accept watches, rings, or anything else of value that the folks over there in Liberalland supplied them with.

And then right back across the border they will go.

But that sort of puts you in a dilemma doesn't it Bob? You don't want all the expense that goes with taking care of the illegals, but the liberals have insisted that all that free housing, food, healthcare, education etc. be furnished to them.

So does that mean that Conservativeland would be preferable to you than the situation over in Liberalland? In Conservativeland you can hold any opinions about anything you want, but you will be expected to abide by a conservative social contract. Will that be okay?

 

[occupied]

Sorry but I don't believe you give a damn about Conservatives. But on the theory that I'm wrong and you truly do care, once we are allowed to make and enforce reasonable laws in our own Conservativeland, we won't have enough illegals to be a problem. Once we cut off the free housing, free medical, food stamps and other free food, free education, and protection from deportation, and actually can enforce the law without being accused of being heartless racists, there won't be much incentive to come to Conservativeland. Mexico, Costa Rico, Canada, and other countries who actually enforce their immigration laws don't have the problems with illegals that we have had in the USA.

I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that I agree with a good deal of this, I'm against all of the perks that illegal aliens recieve except for health-care, I don't think anyone should be denied that. The US has made it as much or more of a priority to help others here and abroad instead of it's own citizens...but I don't believe some vast conspiracy is at hand, I chalk it up to our own success and prosperity, that the pressing need to fix what's here wasn't so pressing when things were generally going well.

So any Conservatives who want to continue to do business with illegal aliens will simply have to suck it up and move to Liberalland where presumably, the laws will be more accommodating or at least less enforced.

Good, you finally answered the question...but that would be a problem for you guys.

It won't be a problem for us if they all go to Liberalland which I presume will be the case as nobody on their side has objected to taking them and nobody on our side wants them. Sure as heck beats trying to round them up and deport them.

And in Conservativeland, illegals won't be denied any humanitarian or emergency healthcare or anything else. We'll feed em, put on a band-ade or whatever treatment they need, and then send them on to Liberalland. They will also be handed a bill. And if they should decide they don't like it over there in Liberalland and try to come back, they will not only be breaking the law and subject to arrest and deportation but they'll be expected to pay the bill. No money? No problem. We'll accept watches, rings, or anything else of value that the folks over there in Liberalland supplied them with.

And then right back across the border they will go.

But that sort of puts you in a dilemma doesn't it Bob? You don't want all the expense that goes with taking care of the illegals, but the liberals have insisted that all that free housing, food, healthcare, education etc. be furnished to them.

So does that mean that Conservativeland would be preferable to you than the situation over in Liberalland? In Conservativeland you can hold any opinions about anything you want, but you will be expected to abide by a conservative social contract. Will that be okay?

"Conservative social contract" is the scariest neo-fascist comment you have made yet. Is it where concern for the poor is forbidden and helping them is punishable by deportation to "liberalland"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sorry but I don't believe you give a damn about Conservatives. But on the theory that I'm wrong and you truly do care, once we are allowed to make and enforce reasonable laws in our own Conservativeland, we won't have enough illegals to be a problem. Once we cut off the free housing, free medical, food stamps and other free food, free education, and protection from deportation, and actually can enforce the law without being accused of being heartless racists, there won't be much incentive to come to Conservativeland. Mexico, Costa Rico, Canada, and other countries who actually enforce their immigration laws don't have the problems with illegals that we have had in the USA.

I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that I agree with a good deal of this, I'm against all of the perks that illegal aliens recieve except for health-care, I don't think anyone should be denied that. The US has made it as much or more of a priority to help others here and abroad instead of it's own citizens...but I don't believe some vast conspiracy is at hand, I chalk it up to our own success and prosperity, that the pressing need to fix what's here wasn't so pressing when things were generally going well.

So any Conservatives who want to continue to do business with illegal aliens will simply have to suck it up and move to Liberalland where presumably, the laws will be more accommodating or at least less enforced.

Good, you finally answered the question...but that would be a problem for you guys.

It won't be a problem for us if they all go to Liberalland which I presume will be the case as nobody on their side has objected to taking them and nobody on our side wants them. Sure as heck beats trying to round them up and deport them.

And in Conservativeland, illegals won't be denied any humanitarian or emergency healthcare or anything else. We'll feed em, put on a band-ade or whatever treatment they need, and then send them on to Liberalland. They will also be handed a bill. And if they should decide they don't like it over there in Liberalland and try to come back, they will not only be breaking the law and subject to arrest and deportation but they'll be expected to pay the bill. No money? No problem. We'll accept watches, rings, or anything else of value that the folks over there in Liberalland supplied them with.

And then right back across the border they will go.

But that sort of puts you in a dilemma doesn't it Bob? You don't want all the expense that goes with taking care of the illegals, but the liberals have insisted that all that free housing, food, healthcare, education etc. be furnished to them.

So does that mean that Conservativeland would be preferable to you than the situation over in Liberalland? In Conservativeland you can hold any opinions about anything you want, but you will be expected to abide by a conservative social contract. Will that be okay?

Without due process – obviously.

Rightwingistan will clearly have no Bill of Rights, no rule of law, no consistent application of justice.

In Rightwingistan civil rights can be taken and given by the government, at the capricious whim of politicians.

 

[occupied]

I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that I agree with a good deal of this, I'm against all of the perks that illegal aliens recieve except for health-care, I don't think anyone should be denied that. The US has made it as much or more of a priority to help others here and abroad instead of it's own citizens...but I don't believe some vast conspiracy is at hand, I chalk it up to our own success and prosperity, that the pressing need to fix what's here wasn't so pressing when things were generally going well.



Good, you finally answered the question...but that would be a problem for you guys.

It won't be a problem for us if they all go to Liberalland which I presume will be the case as nobody on their side has objected to taking them and nobody on our side wants them. Sure as heck beats trying to round them up and deport them.

And in Conservativeland, illegals won't be denied any humanitarian or emergency healthcare or anything else. We'll feed em, put on a band-ade or whatever treatment they need, and then send them on to Liberalland. They will also be handed a bill. And if they should decide they don't like it over there in Liberalland and try to come back, they will not only be breaking the law and subject to arrest and deportation but they'll be expected to pay the bill. No money? No problem. We'll accept watches, rings, or anything else of value that the folks over there in Liberalland supplied them with.

And then right back across the border they will go.

But that sort of puts you in a dilemma doesn't it Bob? You don't want all the expense that goes with taking care of the illegals, but the liberals have insisted that all that free housing, food, healthcare, education etc. be furnished to them.

So does that mean that Conservativeland would be preferable to you than the situation over in Liberalland? In Conservativeland you can hold any opinions about anything you want, but you will be expected to abide by a conservative social contract. Will that be okay?

Without due process – obviously.

Rightwingistan will clearly have no Bill of Rights, no rule of law, no consistent application of justice.

In Rightwingistan civil rights can be taken and given by the government, at the capricious whim of politicians.

Yes, the real separation between liberals and conservatives is the level of devotion to equal protection under the law, it's the real curse this person is so eager to lock up on the other side the rockies.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that I agree with a good deal of this, I'm against all of the perks that illegal aliens recieve except for health-care, I don't think anyone should be denied that. The US has made it as much or more of a priority to help others here and abroad instead of it's own citizens...but I don't believe some vast conspiracy is at hand, I chalk it up to our own success and prosperity, that the pressing need to fix what's here wasn't so pressing when things were generally going well.



Good, you finally answered the question...but that would be a problem for you guys.

It won't be a problem for us if they all go to Liberalland which I presume will be the case as nobody on their side has objected to taking them and nobody on our side wants them. Sure as heck beats trying to round them up and deport them.

And in Conservativeland, illegals won't be denied any humanitarian or emergency healthcare or anything else. We'll feed em, put on a band-ade or whatever treatment they need, and then send them on to Liberalland. They will also be handed a bill. And if they should decide they don't like it over there in Liberalland and try to come back, they will not only be breaking the law and subject to arrest and deportation but they'll be expected to pay the bill. No money? No problem. We'll accept watches, rings, or anything else of value that the folks over there in Liberalland supplied them with.

And then right back across the border they will go.

But that sort of puts you in a dilemma doesn't it Bob? You don't want all the expense that goes with taking care of the illegals, but the liberals have insisted that all that free housing, food, healthcare, education etc. be furnished to them.

So does that mean that Conservativeland would be preferable to you than the situation over in Liberalland? In Conservativeland you can hold any opinions about anything you want, but you will be expected to abide by a conservative social contract. Will that be okay?

Without due process – obviously.

Rightwingistan will clearly have no Bill of Rights, no rule of law, no consistent application of justice.

In Rightwingistan civil rights can be taken and given by the government, at the capricious whim of politicians.

Oh but we will because we're taking the Constitution with us, remember? We like it. You guys have too often said that you don't. I'm sure you will quickly come up with one that is perfect for Liberalland though.

But the illegals will be happy to go to Liberalland where they'll be assured that they will never be questioned or denied any goodies that are doled out to the less fortunate over there. There would be no need for any process, due or otherwise.

All we need to do is to get your side to agree to take the illegals, and then you won't have to worry your pretty little head about what goes on in Conservativeland.

So far nobody on your side has refused that proposal, except it appears Bob is pondering which side of the border he wants to be on now.

So it's a deal? You'll go along with this particular provision? Once it is a done deal we can move on to the next one.

 

[bobcollum]

It won't be a problem for us if they all go to Liberalland which I presume will be the case as nobody on their side has objected to taking them and nobody on our side wants them. Sure as heck beats trying to round them up and deport them.

And in Conservativeland, illegals won't be denied any humanitarian or emergency healthcare or anything else. We'll feed em, put on a band-ade or whatever treatment they need, and then send them on to Liberalland. They will also be handed a bill. And if they should decide they don't like it over there in Liberalland and try to come back, they will not only be breaking the law and subject to arrest and deportation but they'll be expected to pay the bill. No money? No problem. We'll accept watches, rings, or anything else of value that the folks over there in Liberalland supplied them with.

And then right back across the border they will go.

But that sort of puts you in a dilemma doesn't it Bob? You don't want all the expense that goes with taking care of the illegals, but the liberals have insisted that all that free housing, food, healthcare, education etc. be furnished to them.

So does that mean that Conservativeland would be preferable to you than the situation over in Liberalland? In Conservativeland you can hold any opinions about anything you want, but you will be expected to abide by a conservative social contract. Will that be okay?

Without due process – obviously.

Rightwingistan will clearly have no Bill of Rights, no rule of law, no consistent application of justice.

In Rightwingistan civil rights can be taken and given by the government, at the capricious whim of politicians.

Oh but we will because we're taking the Constitution with us, remember? We like it. You guys have too often said that you don't. I'm sure you will quickly come up with one that is perfect for Liberalland though.

You still haven't realized that statements like this draw automatic ire from liberals that don't fit the general stereotypes?

I make it a point to not say stuff like "Conservitard" and other things of that partisan nature because I don't want people to think I'm some kind of political bot-tard.

Do you truly believe all the over-spun generalizations?

 

[Foxfyre]

Without due process – obviously.

Rightwingistan will clearly have no Bill of Rights, no rule of law, no consistent application of justice.

In Rightwingistan civil rights can be taken and given by the government, at the capricious whim of politicians.

Oh but we will because we're taking the Constitution with us, remember? We like it. You guys have too often said that you don't. I'm sure you will quickly come up with one that is perfect for Liberalland though.

You still haven't realized that statements like this draw automatic ire from liberals that don't fit the general stereotypes?

I make it a point to not say stuff like "Conservitard" and other things of that partisan nature because I don't want people to think I'm some kind of political bot-tard.

Do you truly believe all the over-spun generalizations?

You'll have to go back to my explanation to Luissa last night for the rationale for the Consitution.

You see I have NEVER heard a liberal speak of it as a noble document like no ohter.
I have NEVER heard a liberal promote original interpretation of the Constitution.
I HAVE heard numerous liberals denigrate or blow off the Founders and their comments as irrelevent for our times.
I HAVE seen numerous post from liberals pointing out that the original Constitutional did not eliminate slavery or allow for women's suffrage, etc. etc. and that means that those who wrote the Constitution were evil, mysogynist, racist men.

In other words, I have never heard a liberal praise the Constitution or give it credit for much of anything. Certainly no liberal has ever articulated how the Constitutionis a document of American exceptionalism.

So you'll have to make a case for why Liberalland would want the Constitution. We have made a very strong argument for why we consider it our Constitution.

 

[occupied]

Oh but we will because we're taking the Constitution with us, remember? We like it. You guys have too often said that you don't. I'm sure you will quickly come up with one that is perfect for Liberalland though.

You still haven't realized that statements like this draw automatic ire from liberals that don't fit the general stereotypes?

I make it a point to not say stuff like "Conservitard" and other things of that partisan nature because I don't want people to think I'm some kind of political bot-tard.

Do you truly believe all the over-spun generalizations?

You'll have to go back to my explanation to Luissa last night for the rationale for the Consitution.

You see I have NEVER heard a liberal speak of it as a noble document like no ohter.
I have NEVER heard a liberal promote original interpretation of the Constitution.
I HAVE heard numerous liberals denigrate or blow off the Founders and their comments as irrelevent for our times.
I HAVE seen numerous post from liberals pointing out that the original Constitutional did not eliminate slavery or allow for women's suffrage, etc. etc. and that means that those who wrote the Constitution were evil, mysogynist, racist men.

In other words, I have never heard a liberal praise the Constitution or give it credit for much of anything. Certainly no liberal has ever articulated how the Constitutionis a document of American exceptionalism.

So you'll have to make a case for why Liberalland would want the Constitution. We have made a very strong argument for why we consider it our Constitution.

How about the King Solomon approach? Split it in half and conservative land takes the parts that legitimize the power to rule the people and liberal land take the parts to make them half-way accountable.

 

[Foxfyre]

You still haven't realized that statements like this draw automatic ire from liberals that don't fit the general stereotypes?

I make it a point to not say stuff like "Conservitard" and other things of that partisan nature because I don't want people to think I'm some kind of political bot-tard.

Do you truly believe all the over-spun generalizations?

You'll have to go back to my explanation to Luissa last night for the rationale for the Consitution.

You see I have NEVER heard a liberal speak of it as a noble document like no ohter.
I have NEVER heard a liberal promote original interpretation of the Constitution.
I HAVE heard numerous liberals denigrate or blow off the Founders and their comments as irrelevent for our times.
I HAVE seen numerous post from liberals pointing out that the original Constitutional did not eliminate slavery or allow for women's suffrage, etc. etc. and that means that those who wrote the Constitution were evil, mysogynist, racist men.

In other words, I have never heard a liberal praise the Constitution or give it credit for much of anything. Certainly no liberal has ever articulated how the Constitutionis a document of American exceptionalism.

So you'll have to make a case for why Liberalland would want the Constitution. We have made a very strong argument for why we consider it our Constitution.

How about the King Solomon approach? Split it in half and conservative land takes the parts that legitimize the power to rule the people and liberal land take the parts to make them half-way accountable.

Conservatives believe in the people governing themselves. The Constitution rejects any concept of a monarch or other authoritarian authority that rules over anybody. The entire Constitution is geared to affirm that. The Constitution is intended to limit the power, size, scope, and authority of a central government. We can't split it since the whole is necessary to accomplish the intent.

Conservatives will restore it to that principle.

Liberals tend to want much more government than Conservatives will tolerate. But certainly you can take a photo copy to use as a guide to write a Consitituion suitable for Liberalland. It would be fascinating to watch the process and see what you would leave out and what new provisions you would put in.

 

[bobcollum]

Oh but we will because we're taking the Constitution with us, remember? We like it. You guys have too often said that you don't. I'm sure you will quickly come up with one that is perfect for Liberalland though.

You still haven't realized that statements like this draw automatic ire from liberals that don't fit the general stereotypes?

I make it a point to not say stuff like "Conservitard" and other things of that partisan nature because I don't want people to think I'm some kind of political bot-tard.

Do you truly believe all the over-spun generalizations?

You'll have to go back to my explanation to Luissa last night for the rationale for the Consitution.

You see I have NEVER heard a liberal speak of it as a noble document like no ohter.
I have NEVER heard a liberal promote original interpretation of the Constitution.
I HAVE heard numerous liberals denigrate or blow off the Founders and their comments as irrelevent for our times.
I HAVE seen numerous post from liberals pointing out that the original Constitutional did not eliminate slavery or allow for women's suffrage, etc. etc. and that means that those who wrote the Constitution were evil, mysogynist, racist men.

In other words, I have never heard a liberal praise the Constitution or give it credit for much of anything. Certainly no liberal has ever articulated how the Constitutionis a document of American exceptionalism.

So you'll have to make a case for why Liberalland would want the Constitution. We have made a very strong argument for why we consider it our Constitution.

That's shocking to hear these days with all the access to information and to each other...almost to the point of not being believable.

I haven't met many of the upstanding, intellectually honest Conservatives that I know exist, but I'm not so bold to conclude that because of this fact they aren't real.

Your statement in bold was highlighted for it's absurdity.

 

[occupied]

You'll have to go back to my explanation to Luissa last night for the rationale for the Consitution.

You see I have NEVER heard a liberal speak of it as a noble document like no ohter.
I have NEVER heard a liberal promote original interpretation of the Constitution.
I HAVE heard numerous liberals denigrate or blow off the Founders and their comments as irrelevent for our times.
I HAVE seen numerous post from liberals pointing out that the original Constitutional did not eliminate slavery or allow for women's suffrage, etc. etc. and that means that those who wrote the Constitution were evil, mysogynist, racist men.

In other words, I have never heard a liberal praise the Constitution or give it credit for much of anything. Certainly no liberal has ever articulated how the Constitutionis a document of American exceptionalism.

So you'll have to make a case for why Liberalland would want the Constitution. We have made a very strong argument for why we consider it our Constitution.

How about the King Solomon approach? Split it in half and conservative land takes the parts that legitimize the power to rule the people and liberal land take the parts to make them half-way accountable.

Conservatives believe in the people governing themselves. The Constitution rejects any concept of a monarch or other authoritarian authority that rules over anybody. The entire Constitution is geared to affirm that. The Constitution is intended to limit the power, size, scope, and authority of a central government. We can't split it since the whole is necessary to accomplish the intent.

Conservatives will restore it to that principle.

Liberals tend to want much more government than Conservatives will tolerate. But certainly you can take a photo copy to use as a guide to write a Consitituion suitable for Liberalland. It would be fascinating to watch the process and see what you would leave out and what new provisions you would put in.

I have finally found a historical parallel of a time when conservatives and liberals were separated: Let's cast our minds back to the stone age, when Neanderthals were the only form of man. They survived a period of 100,000 years where culture, technology and language were unbelievably static and unchanged over an incredibly long span of time, they were conservative on a level modern man can only dream. Then along comes an upstart race capable of extreme adaptation and novel thought and before you know it things change too fast for our conservative ancestors to keep up with and in a geologic blink of an eye they are extinct, their genes absorbed into our own. Since then we have struggled with this taint to our gene pool that keeps us frozen in the face of an ever increasing pace of change.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about the King Solomon approach? Split it in half and conservative land takes the parts that legitimize the power to rule the people and liberal land take the parts to make them half-way accountable.

Conservatives believe in the people governing themselves. The Constitution rejects any concept of a monarch or other authoritarian authority that rules over anybody. The entire Constitution is geared to affirm that. The Constitution is intended to limit the power, size, scope, and authority of a central government. We can't split it since the whole is necessary to accomplish the intent.

Conservatives will restore it to that principle.

Liberals tend to want much more government than Conservatives will tolerate. But certainly you can take a photo copy to use as a guide to write a Consitituion suitable for Liberalland. It would be fascinating to watch the process and see what you would leave out and what new provisions you would put in.

I have finally found a historical parallel of a time when conservatives and liberals were separated: Let's cast our minds back to the stone age, when Neanderthals were the only form of man. They survived a period of 100,000 years where culture, technology and language were unbelievably static and unchanged over an incredibly long span of time, they were conservative on a level modern man can only dream. Then along comes an upstart race capable of extreme adaptation and novel thought and before you know it things change too fast for our conservative ancestors to keep up with and in a geologic blink of an eye they are extinct, their genes absorbed into our own. Since then we have struggled with this taint to our gene pool that keeps us frozen in the face of an ever increasing pace of change.

Nah. We don't have to go back to the Stone Age. We only have to go back as far as Teddy Roosevelt. That was when the seeds of modern day Liberalism were sown. Those seeds were put on steroids in the 1960's and have snowballed since.

 

[Foxfyre]

You still haven't realized that statements like this draw automatic ire from liberals that don't fit the general stereotypes?

I make it a point to not say stuff like "Conservitard" and other things of that partisan nature because I don't want people to think I'm some kind of political bot-tard.

Do you truly believe all the over-spun generalizations?

You'll have to go back to my explanation to Luissa last night for the rationale for the Consitution.

You see I have NEVER heard a liberal speak of it as a noble document like no ohter.
I have NEVER heard a liberal promote original interpretation of the Constitution.
I HAVE heard numerous liberals denigrate or blow off the Founders and their comments as irrelevent for our times.
I HAVE seen numerous post from liberals pointing out that the original Constitutional did not eliminate slavery or allow for women's suffrage, etc. etc. and that means that those who wrote the Constitution were evil, mysogynist, racist men.

In other words, I have never heard a liberal praise the Constitution or give it credit for much of anything. Certainly no liberal has ever articulated how the Constitutionis a document of American exceptionalism.

So you'll have to make a case for why Liberalland would want the Constitution. We have made a very strong argument for why we consider it our Constitution.

That's shocking to hear these days with all the access to information and to each other...almost to the point of not being believable.

I haven't met many of the upstanding, intellectually honest Conservatives that I know exist, but I'm not so bold to conclude that because of this fact they aren't real.

Your statement in bold was highlighted for it's absurdity.

Not absurd in the least. Nor do you have to believe what I tell you I have seen with my own eyes. I am fairly certain that several of the conservatives reading along would vouch for the truth of the statement since we've all probably been subjected to such comments from time to time.

But it isn't important what you think of me. It has already been agreed that liberals and conservatives don't like each other much, don't trust each other much, don't agree with each other much, etc. Such irreconcilable differences are why we are divorcing after all.

So if you can make a better argument for how liberals revere, respect, and admire the Constitution including its origins, and therefore Liberalland wants the Constitution as is, go for it. I've made my case. Make yours.

 

[occupied]

Conservatives believe in the people governing themselves. The Constitution rejects any concept of a monarch or other authoritarian authority that rules over anybody. The entire Constitution is geared to affirm that. The Constitution is intended to limit the power, size, scope, and authority of a central government. We can't split it since the whole is necessary to accomplish the intent.

Conservatives will restore it to that principle.

Liberals tend to want much more government than Conservatives will tolerate. But certainly you can take a photo copy to use as a guide to write a Consitituion suitable for Liberalland. It would be fascinating to watch the process and see what you would leave out and what new provisions you would put in.

I have finally found a historical parallel of a time when conservatives and liberals were separated: Let's cast our minds back to the stone age, when Neanderthals were the only form of man. They survived a period of 100,000 years where culture, technology and language were unbelievably static and unchanged over an incredibly long span of time, they were conservative on a level modern man can only dream. Then along comes an upstart race capable of extreme adaptation and novel thought and before you know it things change too fast for our conservative ancestors to keep up with and in a geologic blink of an eye they are extinct, their genes absorbed into our own. Since then we have struggled with this taint to our gene pool that keeps us frozen in the face of an ever increasing pace of change.

Nah. We don't have to go back to the Stone Age. We only have to go back as far as Teddy Roosevelt. That was when the seeds of modern day Liberalism were sown. Those seeds were put on steroids in the 1960's and have snowballed since.

There are no do-overs in this game, only set-backs.

 

[bobcollum]

You'll have to go back to my explanation to Luissa last night for the rationale for the Consitution.

You see I have NEVER heard a liberal speak of it as a noble document like no ohter.
I have NEVER heard a liberal promote original interpretation of the Constitution.
I HAVE heard numerous liberals denigrate or blow off the Founders and their comments as irrelevent for our times.
I HAVE seen numerous post from liberals pointing out that the original Constitutional did not eliminate slavery or allow for women's suffrage, etc. etc. and that means that those who wrote the Constitution were evil, mysogynist, racist men.

In other words, I have never heard a liberal praise the Constitution or give it credit for much of anything. Certainly no liberal has ever articulated how the Constitutionis a document of American exceptionalism.

So you'll have to make a case for why Liberalland would want the Constitution. We have made a very strong argument for why we consider it our Constitution.

That's shocking to hear these days with all the access to information and to each other...almost to the point of not being believable.

I haven't met many of the upstanding, intellectually honest Conservatives that I know exist, but I'm not so bold to conclude that because of this fact they aren't real.

Your statement in bold was highlighted for it's absurdity.

Not absurd in the least. Nor do you have to believe what I tell you I have seen with my own eyes. I am fairly certain that several of the conservatives reading along would vouch for the truth of the statement since we've all probably been subjected to such comments from time to time.

But it isn't important what you think of me. It has already been agreed that liberals and conservatives don't like each other much, don't trust each other much, don't agree with each other much, etc. Such irreconcilable differences are why we are divorcing after all.

So if you can make a better argument for how liberals revere, respect, and admire the Constitution including its origins, and therefore Liberalland wants the Constitution as is, go for it. I've made my case. Make yours.

You think all you see is all there is, if that isn't ignorant than I've been reading the wrong definition.

The strawman hasn't gone unnoticed. Conservatives have plenty of blood on their hands with regards to unconstitutionality.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's shocking to hear these days with all the access to information and to each other...almost to the point of not being believable.

I haven't met many of the upstanding, intellectually honest Conservatives that I know exist, but I'm not so bold to conclude that because of this fact they aren't real.

Your statement in bold was highlighted for it's absurdity.

Not absurd in the least. Nor do you have to believe what I tell you I have seen with my own eyes. I am fairly certain that several of the conservatives reading along would vouch for the truth of the statement since we've all probably been subjected to such comments from time to time.

But it isn't important what you think of me. It has already been agreed that liberals and conservatives don't like each other much, don't trust each other much, don't agree with each other much, etc. Such irreconcilable differences are why we are divorcing after all.

So if you can make a better argument for how liberals revere, respect, and admire the Constitution including its origins, and therefore Liberalland wants the Constitution as is, go for it. I've made my case. Make yours.

You think all you see is all there is, if that isn't ignorant than I've been reading the wrong definition.

The strawman hasn't gone unnoticed. Conservatives have plenty of blood on their hands with regards to unconstitutionality.

All the more reason you should relish the divorce and help us reach an agreement to get it accomplished. We accept that you think Conservatives have blood on their hands for many many sins. So again, make your case for how liberals respect, admire, and revere all the Constitution was intended to be, was, and is. I've made mine. If you want the Constitution as is for Liberalland, you should be able to articulate a good argument for that.

And if you don't appreciate the origins, purpose, intent, and execution of the Constitution as the Founders delivered it to us, why in the world would you want it? Why wouldn't you jump at the chance to write a Constitution that embodies all the ideals of liberalism?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have finally found a historical parallel of a time when conservatives and liberals were separated: Let's cast our minds back to the stone age, when Neanderthals were the only form of man. They survived a period of 100,000 years where culture, technology and language were unbelievably static and unchanged over an incredibly long span of time, they were conservative on a level modern man can only dream. Then along comes an upstart race capable of extreme adaptation and novel thought and before you know it things change too fast for our conservative ancestors to keep up with and in a geologic blink of an eye they are extinct, their genes absorbed into our own. Since then we have struggled with this taint to our gene pool that keeps us frozen in the face of an ever increasing pace of change.

Nah. We don't have to go back to the Stone Age. We only have to go back as far as Teddy Roosevelt. That was when the seeds of modern day Liberalism were sown. Those seeds were put on steroids in the 1960's and have snowballed since.

There are no do-overs in this game, only set-backs.

I don't see what I said has anything to do with do-overs, but of course we can have do-overs. That's the whole purpose of a divorce. A new start for both sides.

No fair however in rejecting something but not wanting the other side to have it either. That's just mean.

So far we've only accomplished one decision. The illegals go to Liberalland where they will be properly respected, nurtured, and cared for.

Now we're working on who gets the Constitution as is, with original intent.