Leftist Nightmare: Black Conservatives Running for Office

[owebo]

Why do you hate the Constitution.

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

Founding document, Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

It also says life....so what say you baby killers about that?

Anyway, the Decleration is not the constitution....we were securing rights from a oppressive regime, like the Obama reich.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Why do you hate the Constitution.

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

The states were taking away the rights of blacks. Goldwater wanted them to retain that power.

 

[owebo]

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

 

[Conservative65]

Why do you hate the Constitution.

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

Founding document, Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

You missed the first part about you already having those rights endowed upon you simply by being born. The part you highlighted proves what I said that the purpose of things like the Constitution are to protect you from government abuse of something you already have.

Do you truly believe the government grants you rights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

Founding document, Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

It also says life....so what say you baby killers about that?

Anyway, the Decleration is not the constitution....we were securing rights from a oppressive regime, like the Obama reich.....

I said specifically 'founding documents' in hopes some idiot wouldn't play the 'that's not the Constitution' card.

 

[owebo]

Why do you hate the Constitution.

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

The states were taking away the rights of blacks. Goldwater wanted them to retain that power.

Democrats were never not evil.....

 

[Conservative65]

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

NYCarbineer thinks government grants you rights. He believes the purpose of the Constitution was to give them to you.

 

[owebo]

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

Founding document, Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

It also says life....so what say you baby killers about that?

Anyway, the Decleration is not the constitution....we were securing rights from a oppressive regime, like the Obama reich.....

I said specifically 'founding documents' in hopes some idiot wouldn't play the 'that's not the Constitution' card.

Idiot liberals often confuse many things with the Constitution...like muskets, marriage, and abortion....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

The federal GOVERNMENT enforces that. If you think your gun rights are violated, where do you go? You go to the federal government, specifically the Supreme Court,

because the Court has been given the POWER to secure your gun rights.

 

[owebo]

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

NYCarbineer thinks government grants you rights. He believes the purpose of the Constitution was to give them to you.

Which is why he views Obama as a hitleresque God......

 

[Conservative65]

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

Founding document, Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

It also says life....so what say you baby killers about that?

Anyway, the Decleration is not the constitution....we were securing rights from a oppressive regime, like the Obama reich.....

I said specifically 'founding documents' in hopes some idiot wouldn't play the 'that's not the Constitution' card.

Actually said "document", no plural then name one specifically.

While the Declaration is an important document and served an important purpose, it has no authority to enforce a thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

NYCarbineer thinks government grants you rights. He believes the purpose of the Constitution was to give them to you.

I quoted the founders saying that the government is formed to secure your rights, BUT, a government cannot secure your rights until some authority decides what are or are not your rights.

 

[owebo]

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

The federal GOVERNMENT enforces that. If you think your gun rights are violated, where do you go? You go to the federal government, specifically the Supreme Court,

because the Court has been given the POWER to secure your gun rights.

No, the .gov merely maintains the apparatus of we the people's SCOTUS... They have no power but our Constitution...unless it's RBG of course.....

 

[owebo]

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

NYCarbineer thinks government grants you rights. He believes the purpose of the Constitution was to give them to you.

I quoted the founders saying that the government is formed to secure your rights, BUT, a government cannot secure your rights until some authority decides what are or are not your rights.

Can you link us to that in the constitution?

 

[rightwinger]

You have no understanding of affirmative action and its impact. Prior to AA, most women were delegated to being secretaries, nurses, teachers and cashiers

I have a complete understanding of it. It uses characteristics of certain groups to benefit them that if used to deny something to them, people like you would whine like bitches.

Are you saying that secretaries, nurses, teachers, and cashiers aren't honorable jobs?

They are not honorable if those are the only options available to you

They weren't the only options available. Saying so is an excuse. The fact that certain fields tended to have more men or more women wasn't because women couldn't. Social factors played a big role.

Affirmative action forced their hand to offer opportunities not previously open to females

You make it out as if a female that wanted to be a doctor, lawyer, etc. was told no you can't do that because you're female. Didn't happen and you know it.

Affirmative action is nothing more than a government program that tells people who can't do it own their own we'll make people do it on your behalf.

Of course a woman could do it, that is why I said "most"
However, most law schools and med schools offered limited opportunities to women. Women graduated college and were offered jobs as secretaries

Affirmative action said you had to give qualified applicants a chance. If you did not have minorities or women in advanced positions, you had to show why

Affirmative Action only applied to government jobs and those seeking government contracts

 

[rightwinger]

Save it....name a single bill Republicans have passed which helped drop the employment rate

Name a single reason why Minorities should vote for republicans

So you do believe Obama did it all by himself? What did he do specifically to make it drop?

Republicans don't expect blacks to stay on the plantation. Democrats do. Maybe blacks want to be "slaves" to the Democrat massas.

You have yet to offer a reason minorities should vote for Republucans

Calling blacks slaves is not one of those reasons

It will keep them from being slaves to the Democrats

Conservatives always wonder why blacks are too stupid to know why they should be voting Republican.

And so unaware that explains the reason why blacks don't vote Republican.

I wonder why the 95% that do continue to do so with all the good results Democrats have been able to do on their behalf.

Good point.....why can't Republicans offer a single reason minorities should vote Republican?

Simply explain that you are going to take away social programs, education and health programs, jobs training programs and that you are going to replace them with something better

 

[NYcarbineer]

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

Founding document, Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

It also says life....so what say you baby killers about that?

Anyway, the Decleration is not the constitution....we were securing rights from a oppressive regime, like the Obama reich.....

I said specifically 'founding documents' in hopes some idiot wouldn't play the 'that's not the Constitution' card.

Actually said "document", no plural then name one specifically.

While the Declaration is an important document and served an important purpose, it has no authority to enforce a thing.

Actually I said 'founding principles' and showed you where it was said.

Just for the record are you

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

NYCarbineer thinks government grants you rights. He believes the purpose of the Constitution was to give them to you.

I quoted the founders saying that the government is formed to secure your rights, BUT, a government cannot secure your rights until some authority decides what are or are not your rights.

Can you link us to that in the constitution?

Sure. Conservatives like to claim that abortion rights should not be constitutionally protected. There is an example of individuals telling you what are or are not your rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

The federal GOVERNMENT enforces that. If you think your gun rights are violated, where do you go? You go to the federal government, specifically the Supreme Court,

because the Court has been given the POWER to secure your gun rights.

No, the .gov merely maintains the apparatus of we the people's SCOTUS... They have no power but our Constitution...unless it's RBG of course.....

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.

That's a Constitutional Power granted to the government.

 

[rightwinger]

Righty nightmare. A black president followed by a women president. What could be worse for the party of hate? A gay president?

We already have a gay president. He's black too. Well, half black, anyway. We don't need a lesbian to follow.

Amazing that would still count as the ultimate insult to Conservatives

 

[owebo]

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.

No, the constitution is what the .gov cannot do....

The federal GOVERNMENT enforces that. If you think your gun rights are violated, where do you go? You go to the federal government, specifically the Supreme Court,

because the Court has been given the POWER to secure your gun rights.

No, the .gov merely maintains the apparatus of we the people's SCOTUS... They have no power but our Constitution...unless it's RBG of course.....

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the power to strike down unconstitutional laws.

That's a Constitutional Power granted to the government.

No, it tells the .gov they can.....