Progressives unable to get out of their own way

[P@triot]

The framers could not have possibly put into the Constitution every situation that might occur in the future

Exactly. That's why they built an amendment process. You are so close to finally getting it. Keeping working. Don't give up.

Where for example does the Constitution authorize the Bank of the United States?

It doesn't. Which is exactly why it shouldn't exist.

 

[P@triot]

Should Marshall have said this? "The Constitution is intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crisis in human affairs. The key word is adapted.

Indeed....the key word is adapted. Through the proper and legal amendment process. You are so close to finally getting it. Keep trying. Don't give up.

 

[koshergrl]

It's not a "fluid" document at all. It is the supreme law of the land and the law cannot be "fluid". A law that change on the whim of someone in power is a law that a citizen cannot obey.

The U.S. Constitution is set in stone until such time as it is properly and legally amend. Then that new version becomes set in stone.

The law changes through custom, usage and judicial interpretation. In fact most law schools teach little of the Constitution only what the courts have decided is the law.

That is why we need to withdraw all federal funding from our schools, eliminate the department of education, and fire communist teachers.

Should Marshall have said this? "The Constitution is intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crisis in human affairs. The key word is adapted.

Nope, it's not.

Or..let's do it this way...find in the constitution where it states this.

You can't, because it doesn't state that. Because that was not and is not the purpose of the Constitution, nor was it the intent of the founders, who were nothing if not verbose. If that was the INTENT then you'd be able to find that written into the Constitution.

The framers could not have possibly put into the Constitution every situation that might occur in the future, and that is why it had to adapted and still is. Where for example does the Constitution authorize the Bank of the United States?

Irrelevant. You said the purpose of the constitution was to push new ideas, and to be a flexible document.

If that was the purpose, it would be in there somewhere. It's not, and you are a liar. You would LIKE it to be *fluid* and *a living document* and *meant to be changed at the drop of a hat*. But you wanting something doesn't make it so. Every crapheaded traitor to the US since the country began has wanted to set aside the constitution, and they think up ingenious ways of bypassing it...but when they do they are breaking the law as the constitution in this country IS the law. You are literally BREAKING THE LAW when you find ways to set aside the constitution.

 

[koshergrl]

The framers could not have possibly put into the Constitution every situation that might occur in the future

Exactly. That's why they built an amendment process. You are so close to finally getting it. Keeping working. Don't give up.

Where for example does the Constitution authorize the Bank of the United States?

It doesn't. Which is exactly why it shouldn't exist.

He isn't going to figure this out, you know that..right?

Their brains have been patterned by communists since birth.

Thomas Sowell - Useful idiots

 

[westwall]

Let's take a look at Webster's definition of both terms.

Progressive: happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Yes....lets do that. Lets take a look at the definition of both terms. You will see that they contradict each other. One is all about proceeding, one is all about holding. Again, just like saying "free market communist".

Now, let's combine both.

Oh sure! Why not? While you're at it, why don't you combine wet and dry.

Being cautious to change doesn't mean that you won't do change. The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

Wrong. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the individual and to limit the power of government.

 

[P@triot]

Being cautious to change doesn't mean that you won't do change. The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

Wrong. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the individual and to limit the power of government.

Is that not one of the most insane comments you have ever heard? The U.S. Constitution was written "to promote new ideas". What?!? It was written to outline the structure of our government, how it functions, how it is limited, and what it is responsible for.

Seriously...you have to wonder how disingenuous one has to be to make such an outrageous statement like that. It's the equivalent of saying that thumb wrestling was created to advance space exploration.

 

[regent]

The framers could not have possibly put into the Constitution every situation that might occur in the future

Exactly. That's why they built an amendment process. You are so close to finally getting it. Keeping working. Don't give up.

Where for example does the Constitution authorize the Bank of the United States?

It doesn't. Which is exactly why it shouldn't exist.

He isn't going to figure this out, you know that..right?

Their brains have been patterned by communists since birth.

Thomas Sowell - Useful idiots

So why hasn't the amendment system worked as compared to Alabama's Constitution which has been amended over 800 times and our national Constitution 27 tmes?
There were two banks of the US. Was the Louisiana Purchase Constitutional?

 

[regent]

Let's take a look at Webster's definition of both terms.

Progressive: happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Yes....lets do that. Lets take a look at the definition of both terms. You will see that they contradict each other. One is all about proceeding, one is all about holding. Again, just like saying "free market communist".

Now, let's combine both.

Oh sure! Why not? While you're at it, why don't you combine wet and dry.

Being cautious to change doesn't mean that you won't do change. The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

Wrong. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the individual and to limit the power of government.

The Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution gave more power to the national government.

 

[westwall]

Let's take a look at Webster's definition of both terms.

Progressive: happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Yes....lets do that. Lets take a look at the definition of both terms. You will see that they contradict each other. One is all about proceeding, one is all about holding. Again, just like saying "free market communist".

Now, let's combine both.

Oh sure! Why not? While you're at it, why don't you combine wet and dry.

Being cautious to change doesn't mean that you won't do change. The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

Wrong. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the individual and to limit the power of government.

The Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution gave more power to the national government.

Wrong. It CREATED a national government. It was contentious and the compromise that led to the creation of the United States ONLY happened when the Bill of Rights was written. The Bill of Rights PREVENTS the Federal Government from enacting laws that abrogate the rights of the individual.

Nice try but nowhere near factual.

 

[regent]

Let's take a look at Webster's definition of both terms.

Progressive: happening or developing gradually or in stages; proceeding step by step.

conservative: holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

Yes....lets do that. Lets take a look at the definition of both terms. You will see that they contradict each other. One is all about proceeding, one is all about holding. Again, just like saying "free market communist".

Now, let's combine both.

Oh sure! Why not? While you're at it, why don't you combine wet and dry.

Being cautious to change doesn't mean that you won't do change. The Consitution was written to promote new ideas. It's a fluid document.

Wrong. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of the individual and to limit the power of government.

The Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation, The Constitution gave more power to the national government.

Wrong. It CREATED a national government. It was contentious and the compromise that led to the creation of the United States ONLY happened when the Bill of Rights was written. The Bill of Rights PREVENTS the Federal Government from enacting laws that abrogate the rights of the individual.

Nice try but nowhere near factual.

Yep the Antifederalists, the liberals of that period. insisted on a Bill of Rights and the Federalists agreed to tack on one after ratification and the Federalists kept their promise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It really is unfortunate that progressives have so much contempt for history. Instead of trying to re-write it 24x7, they should be studying it and learning from it. But try as we might, we just can't get them to understand that (it's the old "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" problem).

The U.S. Constitution was the greatest document ever written and the government it established was the most flawless form of government ever created. When we adhere to the constitution, we essentially have no problems. None. Unfortunately, because of their contempt for history and education, progressives have unilaterally rejected the constitution. In doing so, they not only continue to create more problems than we could possibly address, but they continue to plague themselves with self-inflicted wounds.

This is a perfect example. Instead of studying history and understanding why the founders put in the Senate, progressives looked for a way to leverage it for their agenda. In doing so, they invoked the "Nuclear Option" under idiot Harry Reid. Conservatives warned that they would regret that once Republican's were in control again (which, of course, was inevitable). Progressives, in their infinite stupidity, scoffed and forged ahead anyway. Now they are completley powerless to stop the Donald Trump agenda.

Our founders lived under tyranny. They experienced the dangers of power first-hand. As such, they designed a government with a deliberate focus on limited power, separation of power, and a slow process to ensure something detrimental (such as Obamacare) didn't get rammed through at warp speed. If only progressives had studied history and learned all of this - they wouldn't be experiencing the "terrors" and "anxiety" of a monster that they created and unleashed on mankind.

Senate Dems, powerless to stop Trump nominees, regret 'nuclear option' power play - CNNPolitics.com

Just remember, when the Democrats do use the filibuster,

you support the use of the filibuster.

 

[regent]

One of the conservative arguments is that historians are liberals, and those liberal historians are destroying the minds of American students.

 

[P@triot]

It really is unfortunate that progressives have so much contempt for history. Instead of trying to re-write it 24x7, they should be studying it and learning from it. But try as we might, we just can't get them to understand that (it's the old "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" problem).

The U.S. Constitution was the greatest document ever written and the government it established was the most flawless form of government ever created. When we adhere to the constitution, we essentially have no problems. None. Unfortunately, because of their contempt for history and education, progressives have unilaterally rejected the constitution. In doing so, they not only continue to create more problems than we could possibly address, but they continue to plague themselves with self-inflicted wounds.

This is a perfect example. Instead of studying history and understanding why the founders put in the Senate, progressives looked for a way to leverage it for their agenda. In doing so, they invoked the "Nuclear Option" under idiot Harry Reid. Conservatives warned that they would regret that once Republican's were in control again (which, of course, was inevitable). Progressives, in their infinite stupidity, scoffed and forged ahead anyway. Now they are completley powerless to stop the Donald Trump agenda.

Our founders lived under tyranny. They experienced the dangers of power first-hand. As such, they designed a government with a deliberate focus on limited power, separation of power, and a slow process to ensure something detrimental (such as Obamacare) didn't get rammed through at warp speed. If only progressives had studied history and learned all of this - they wouldn't be experiencing the "terrors" and "anxiety" of a monster that they created and unleashed on mankind.

Senate Dems, powerless to stop Trump nominees, regret 'nuclear option' power play - CNNPolitics.com

Just remember, when the Democrats do use the filibuster,

you support the use of the filibuster.

Just remember when you can't use the filibuster under Donald Trump while he's jamming through his policies and people that mortify you because you wanted absolute power when your people were in office.

 

[P@triot]

One of the conservative arguments is that historians are liberals, and those liberal historians are destroying the minds of American students.

Uh....no. Not even close. The conservative argument is that progressives push propaganda and attempt to re-write history. I've never heard anyone call a progressive a "historian" and I've never actually seen a progressive "historian". Remember, that side of the aisle loathes history. They don't study it, they don't learn from it, they have no interest in it. All they want to do is rewrite it.

 

[regent]

One of the conservative arguments is that historians are liberals, and those liberal historians are destroying the minds of American students.

Uh....no. Not even close. The conservative argument is that progressives push propaganda and attempt to re-write history. I've never heard anyone call a progressive a "historian" and I've never actually seen a progressive "historian". Remember, that side of the aisle loathes history. They don't study it, they don't learn from it, they have no interest in it. All they want to do is rewrite it.

No, the charge is not that liberals are historians but that historians are liberals, It would seem difficult to study history and remain conservative, but I guess it can be done.
Then again as we go through American history perhaps it is our history that is liberal and not the historian, Since our nation was founded during the Age of Enlightenment and most of the founders were products of that age, could they even have considered a conservative plan of government?

 

[P@triot]

The framers could not have possibly put into the Constitution every situation that might occur in the future

Exactly. That's why they built an amendment process. You are so close to finally getting it. Keeping working. Don't give up.

Where for example does the Constitution authorize the Bank of the United States?

It doesn't. Which is exactly why it shouldn't exist.

He isn't going to figure this out, you know that..right?

Their brains have been patterned by communists since birth.

Thomas Sowell - Useful idiots

I don't know - I might be wrong - but I have some faith in my buddy regent. He seems to think at least occasionally (which is exponentially more than your average progressive) which means there is always a chance of a breakthrough. I'm holding out hope that he'll eventually get it. That the U.S. Constitution is the law. As such, it says exactly what it says, means exactly what it means, and is set in stone until such time that it is legally altered through the amendment process.

 

[BlackSand]

It really is unfortunate that progressives have so much contempt for history. Instead of trying to re-write it 24x7, they should be studying it and learning from it. But try as we might, we just can't get them to understand that (it's the old "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" problem).

The U.S. Constitution was the greatest document ever written and the government it established was the most flawless form of government ever created. When we adhere to the constitution, we essentially have no problems. None. Unfortunately, because of their contempt for history and education, progressives have unilaterally rejected the constitution. In doing so, they not only continue to create more problems than we could possibly address, but they continue to plague themselves with self-inflicted wounds.

This is a perfect example. Instead of studying history and understanding why the founders put in the Senate, progressives looked for a way to leverage it for their agenda. In doing so, they invoked the "Nuclear Option" under idiot Harry Reid. Conservatives warned that they would regret that once Republican's were in control again (which, of course, was inevitable). Progressives, in their infinite stupidity, scoffed and forged ahead anyway. Now they are completley powerless to stop the Donald Trump agenda.

Our founders lived under tyranny. They experienced the dangers of power first-hand. As such, they designed a government with a deliberate focus on limited power, separation of power, and a slow process to ensure something detrimental (such as Obamacare) didn't get rammed through at warp speed. If only progressives had studied history and learned all of this - they wouldn't be experiencing the "terrors" and "anxiety" of a monster that they created and unleashed on mankind.

Senate Dems, powerless to stop Trump nominees, regret 'nuclear option' power play - CNNPolitics.com

So you don't buy the conservative's belief that most historians are Democratic and liberal,
And that's why historians pick FDR as America's greatest president. Teddy Roosevelt was given the number five best president slot.

So what ... President Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize ... He didn't/doesn't deserve that either ...

.

 

[P@triot]

Since our nation was founded during the Age of Enlightenment and most of the founders were products of that age, could they even have considered a conservative plan of government?

Well they did. Having lived under oppression, they understood the dangers of power. Therefore they wanted small, limited government with many checks and balances.

This here is a prime example of what I am talking about. Here we have a progressive attempting to rewrite history to a narrative that suits his ideological. Our founders were the ultimate conservatives. Anyone who takes the time to read their original writings will see a group of people terrified of power. They did not want a "strong" and "powerful" federal government as liars like regent here would like everyone to believe.

 

[regent]

Or as a conservative said about the framers:
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter the produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." Douglas MacArthur

 

[P@triot]

Or as a conservative said about the framers:
"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter the produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." Douglas MacArthur

Yeah...liberal in the true sense (ie founded in liberty). Not in the hijacked left-wing communist sense of today.

By the way - citing Douglas freaking McArthur is fall down hilarious. Not really a "founder" chief.

I'll take Thomas Jefferson any day - an actual founder who personally penned the Declaration of Independence. He was there in the beginning when the nation was founded. Unlike Douglas McArthur whose impact occurred in the 1930's

“lt is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all” - Thomas Jefferson (1795)

Does that sound "liberal" to you? Sounds like the ultimate conservative to me. Essentially he says - we wouldnt even assemble a government if it weren't for the need to secure our rights.

Government exists only to secure your rights - and not one damn thing more. It should be small, limited, and and nearly powerless. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and the rest of the great men who built this nation were quite clear on that. It doesn't matter how bad you want to erase history and rewrite it to fit your ideology.