Huckleberry takes another state!

Jarod said:
Sorry my mispelling and typo made it read incorrectly. I have no problem with suggestions to change the constitution legally, in general.

I have problems with the proposal he has made substantitivly, I believe those proposals are UNAMERICAN, see above.
Click to expand...

No they are not unamerican. As Americans we have the freedom to choose how we wish our constitution to read. We have the freedom to change it going forward. It is not easily done and thus any changes would have to be widely accepted as Damo has said to you. To suggest a change is not unamerican, no matter how much YOU personally dislike it. The only thing unamerican is your suggesting that they do not have the right to follow the procedure set forth by our founders.
 
Superfreak said:
No they are not unamerican. As Americans we have the freedom to choose how we wish our constitution to read. We have the freedom to change it going forward. It is not easily done and thus any changes would have to be widely accepted as Damo has said to you. To suggest a change is not unamerican, no matter how much YOU personally dislike it. The only thing unamerican is your suggesting that they do not have the right to follow the procedure set forth by our founders.
Click to expand...

Do you believe it would be UnAmerican to suggest a change that would promote the free exersize of religen?
 
Jarod said:
Do you believe it would be UnAmerican to suggest a change that would promote the free exersize of religen?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter WHAT the suggestion is. It is not unamerican to make a suggestion. It is not unamerican to try to amend the constitution. It would however be pretty damn stupid to promote an amendment that has ZERO chance of ever passing. But in America people are entitled to say stupid shit as well.

You instistance that he is being unamerican for proposing a change is a perfect example of a person exercising that freedom.
 
Jarod said:
Do you believe it would be UnAmerican to suggest a change that would promote the free exersize of religen?
Click to expand...

It would not be unAmerican to change the Constitution to reflect Christian ideology, for if that happened it would be the will of the people and therefore of America.

Of course, it would have to be done through the proper legal channels. If America was ever so overwhelming religious that it wanted to become a theocracy, that would be the will of the people.
 
Damocles said:
It would not be. Changing it illegally would be unamerican, changing it following the procedures proscribed in the document itself is still following the constitution.

Again, it wouldn't be something many would like (hence the fact that there is no way 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states are going to agree), but it is very American to follow the constitution, even while doing something unpopular.
Click to expand...
If that sort of day ever comes it will be time to, as Jefferson said, water the tree of liberty. I will not live in a theocracy and if it was possible to get 2/3 and 3/4 I would fight it with deadly force, even if I was the only one. The headlines would read "Crazed Gunmen and Terror Bomber" but it would be a revolution of one.
 
Socrtease said:
If that sort of day ever comes it will be time to, as Jefferson said, water the tree of liberty. I will not live in a theocracy and if it was possible to get 2/3 and 3/4 I would fight it with deadly force, even if I was the only one. The headlines would read "Crazed Gunmen and Terror Bomber" but it would be a revolution of one.
Click to expand...

I would too.
 
Jarod said:
Well, I do not believe suggesting changing the constitution legally (typo corrected) is necessarly unamerican. I do believe suggesting it be changed to reflect "God's" law is!

Some of the founders came here because they wanted religen out of government, and they made sure our founding documents reflected that. Huckleberry wants to change that and I believe such a change would be UNAMERICAN.

The most basic and fundamental element of what it means to be an American is FREEDOM, and if we start allowing laws to be passed, merely because they are consistant with what one group or another believes to be what "God" wants then we loose one of the most basic and elemental aspects of FREEDOM.
Click to expand...

We should legally amend the constitution of America to copy the constitution fo China. Perfectly American.
 
Would it be unAmerican to promote a change in the constitution that would prohibit people from practicing Christanity?
 
Jarod said:
Would it be unAmerican to promote a change in the constitution that would prohibit people from practicing Christanity?
Click to expand...

WTF???? We both know you are not this ignorant. NO MATTER WHAT THE SUGGESTION IS.... IT IS NOT UNAMERICAN TO SUGGEST IT AND TRY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. As long as you follow the procedure set forth, there is NO SUGGESTION that is unAmerican.

It is truly sad that you continue acting as though you do not understand the above.
 
Superfreak said:
WTF???? We both know you are not this ignorant. NO MATTER WHAT THE SUGGESTION IS.... IT IS NOT UNAMERICAN TO SUGGEST IT AND TRY TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. As long as you follow the procedure set forth, there is NO SUGGESTION that is unAmerican.

It is truly sad that you continue acting as though you do not understand the above.
Click to expand...

We aren't talking about whether to suggest is unamerican, we are talking about whether or not the proposed suggestion itself is unamerican.

For instance, "We should kill all Joos" is a suggestion. It is not unAmerican to suggest. That is known to the most braindead zombies amongst us, and it is ridiculously ignorant to try to point it out in the middle of a conversation. However, killing people for possessing a certain religion, which is the result of the suggestion being carried out, is quite unAmerican.

Do you understand, Superbaby? Or do I need to explain more?
 
Watermark said:
We aren't talking about whether to suggest is unamerican, we are talking about whether or not the proposed suggestion itself is unamerican.

For instance, "We should kill all Joos" is a suggestion. It is not unAmerican to suggest. That is known to the most braindead zombies amongst us, and it is ridiculously ignorant to try to point it out in the middle of a conversation. However, killing people for possessing a certain religion, which is the result of the suggestion being carried out, is quite unAmerican.

Do you understand, Superbaby? Or do I need to explain more?
Click to expand...

Do us all a favor.... go grab your binky and your blanky and leave the discussion to the grown ups if you refuse to pay attention to what the conversation is about.

Jarods last post:

"Would it be unAmerican to promote a change in the constitution that would prohibit people from practicing Christanity? "

Another of Jarods posts:

"Do you believe it would be UnAmerican to suggest a change that would promote the free exersize of religen?"

He specifically asks in both cases if it is unamerican to "suggest a change".

It is NEVER unAmerican to suggest a change and to try to get the majority to do so.

That does not mean that every suggestion is a good idea or that it has a snow balls chance in hell of being approved by the required majorities.

So no matter how many wacked out suggestions you come up with, NONE are unAmerican to suggest.
 
Superfreak said:
Do us all a favor.... go grab your binky and your blanky and leave the discussion to the grown ups if you refuse to pay attention to what the conversation is about.

Jarods last post:

"Would it be unAmerican to promote a change in the constitution that would prohibit people from practicing Christanity? "

Another of Jarods posts:

"Do you believe it would be UnAmerican to suggest a change that would promote the free exersize of religen?"

He specifically asks in both cases if it is unamerican to "suggest a change".

It is NEVER unAmerican to suggest a change and to try to get the majority to do so.

That does not mean that every suggestion is a good idea or that it has a snow balls chance in hell of being approved by the required majorities.

So no matter how many wacked out suggestions you come up with, NONE are unAmerican to suggest.
Click to expand...

SF, I think you should be a founding member of my literary movement "Uber-literalism". In "Uber-literalism", we never try to get what a person is actually saying, we just try to be ridiculously literal about it.

For instance, I was describing a girls beautiful brown eyes, and I came up with this poem:

She has eyes like
Lenses hinged on muscles
Colored with brown pigments

Brilliant, eh? I thought you'd get it.
 
Jarod said:
Would it be unAmerican to promote a change in the constitution that would prohibit people from practicing Christanity?
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't get passed, and if it were forced upon the people it would be illegal and therefore un-American. But if enough of a majority wanted Christianity banned from America, I think it would be safe to say that America made the decision.
 
gonzojournals said:
No, it wouldn't. It wouldn't get passed, and if it were forced upon the people it would be illegal and therefore un-American. But if enough of a majority wanted Christianity banned from America, I think it would be safe to say that America made the decision.
Click to expand...

"American" as a concept means more than merely what a majority or supermajority at any one moment in time living in America believes.
 
Watermark said:
"American" as a concept means more than merely what a majority or supermajority at any one moment in time living in America believes.
Click to expand...

You are right-- it is the belief that government should be a tool of the people rather than the people a tool of the government. Which means that anything done within the limits of the law in America will have the support of the people (in which case it will be American) or will be swiftly reversed by the collective will.
 
Watermark said:
SF, I think you should be a founding member of my literary movement "Uber-literalism". In "Uber-literalism", we never try to get what a person is actually saying, we just try to be ridiculously literal about it.

For instance, I was describing a girls beautiful brown eyes, and I came up with this poem:

She has eyes like
Lenses hinged on muscles
Colored with brown pigments

Brilliant, eh? I thought you'd get it.
Click to expand...

:crybaby: <--- Waterbaby
 
gonzojournals said:
You are right-- it is the belief that government should be a tool of the people rather than the people a tool of the government. Which means that anything done within the limits of the law in America will have the support of the people (in which case it will be American) or will be swiftly reversed by the collective will.
Click to expand...

That was actually well stated. :hand:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top