Stupid or subversive?

ib1yysguy said:
*projection*

It's retarded to pretend any of the things listed on those posters came about as the result of anything other than liberals pushing for them against people like you.

The historical record bares this out. The burden of proof is upon you to counter what I'm sure everyone on this board thought until now was common knowledge history.


HINT: It can't be done.
Click to expand...

I have tried to tell him to get permission from his guardian to use the computer!
Using vile references makes him feel like a competent adult.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
modern liberals today must continue to preach to the masses that the constitution should be ignored, that it was written for another time and we have 'evolved' to a higher status now. This is because at it's written word, the constitution is way too restrictive and doesn't just let modern liberals regulate the whole of society to generate orwells utopian world.
Click to expand...

Ahahahaha, yes, please document all these liberals that preach ignoring the Constitution, I think most of them were yelling pretty loudly while the Bush administration was shredding it?
 
flaja said:
I haven't said that you are a liberal, but your disregard for the Constitution (and a general inability to acknowledge the views of other that borders on arrogance) clearly makes you a libertarian.
Click to expand...

you're a fantastic idiot for even thinking that libertarians have a disregard for the constitution. did you go to school in disney land?
 
froggie said:
Ahahahaha, yes, please document all these liberals that preach ignoring the Constitution, I think most of them were yelling pretty loudly while the Bush administration was shredding it?
Click to expand...

'reasonable regulation' are the only two words you need to know to understand that I accuse liberals AND conservatives for subversion of the constitution.
 
Southern Man said:
Which means that the folks who owned the big farms, who happened to be of English ancestry, had the political power. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Provide the documentation showing how many big farms in the South were owned by people with English ancestry, and then document that only this group of people had political power.

Ever heard of Judah P. Benjamin? This man was Jewish, not English, but he managed to hold several offices in the Confederate cabinet (David Levy Yulee, a U.S. Senator from Florida was also Jewish). And then Jefferson Davis’ paternal ancestry is (at least in part) were Welsh, not English. CSA secretary of the treasury, Christopher Gustavus Memminger was a native of Wuertenberg, Germany; he wasn’t English. The next CSA secretary of the treasure was named Trenholm- doesn’t sound like an English name and the one after him had the Irish name of Reagan. Jams Seddon, CSA secretary of war was a Scots.

So you see, people with English ancestry didn’t have the political power in the South that you think they did.
 
Southern Man said:
I'm not a libertarian either, and my clear annunciation of the intent of the Constitution through the Federalist shows my respect for it.
Click to expand...

Except that you keep harping on original intent, which has never existed. You are arguing against letting the Constitution be what it was designed to be- something that could be adapted to the times and thus be useable without a wholesale revolutionary revision.
 
Southern Man said:
How many times have I stated here that the Federal government should stick to its mandate of Constitutionally enumerated powers? Only an idiot would think that position is subversive.
Click to expand...

The simple fact is that 2009 is not 1787. The country today is not the same as it was when the Constitution was written. Suppose there were a constitutional convention that proposed amendments that would give the federal government all of the powers you say it now has even though they were not granted by the original Constitution of 1787, and then suppose that all of the amendments were ratified so the that the federal government ends up doing exactly what you now complain about it doing. What would you do?
 
flaja said:
Except that you keep harping on original intent, which has never existed. You are arguing against letting the Constitution be what it was designed to be- something that could be adapted to the times and thus be useable without a wholesale revolutionary revision.
Click to expand...

a load of unadulterated horseshit. The constitution is a legal binding unchanging document with the sole exception of the citizen initiated process for amending the constitution. It's not 'adapted' to the times, not even for a fucking instant.
 
flaja said:
The simple fact is that 2009 is not 1787. The country today is not the same as it was when the Constitution was written. Suppose there were a constitutional convention that proposed amendments that would give the federal government all of the powers you say it now has even though they were not granted by the original Constitution of 1787, and then suppose that all of the amendments were ratified so the that the federal government ends up doing exactly what you now complain about it doing. What would you do?
Click to expand...

call a con-con now, whatever is written will take 15 to 20 years to ratify. If the American People, who are the authors of the constitution, choose to ratify that accepted constitution, then so be it.
 
froggie said:
I bow, I am not superior in my knowledge of history. I like to bake, it is my forte and I sing. Thanks, I have refreshed my knowledge here!
Click to expand...

I’m in the same boat that you are. I have studied the Civil War since grade school and took 2 college courses on southern/Civil War history (along with 32 credit hours in other history courses that came with my biology degree), but I didn’t learn about Texas v. Miller until about a month ago.
 
froggie said:
So, you conservatives where responsible for the civil rights movement? Let's just pick one to discuss, since liberals are such bad people and all.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Republican Party made a point of supporting civil rights for blacks during Reconstruction because empowering former slaves helped the Republicans gain control over the southern state governments. Unfortunately, as Republicans are wont to do, they abandoned the Freedmen and ended Reconstruction as part of the deal in 1876 that keep them in the White House.
 
froggie said:
I believe all we would have to do is pull up the vote for these issues and the states that helped fortify these changes.
Click to expand...

You would first have to define conservative and liberal, and if we cannot decide on mutually acceptable definitions you would have license to say that no conservative supported any of these things because by definition anyone who supported these things could not be a conservative.

For me there are issues that are not about left and right but rather right and wrong. As a conservative I cannot be everybody’s nanny, but this does not mean that I think it is OK for someone to take advantage of someone else simply because socio-economic-political conditions make it possible.

As a conservative my goal is to establish and maintain a stable, functional and self-sustaining society, and I have no qualms about letting the government do anything that needs to be done when the private sector either cannot or will not do it when the alternative is societal upheaval. Libertarians thrive on upheaval- they long for the dog-eat-dog state of nature. But the last time humans lived in a state of nature, Cain killed his brother.
 
Southern Man said:
Thank you for verifying what I have contended before, that liberals would prefer to flush the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Especially since I am a woman, I believe I have the right to vote, the Founding Fathers didn't think so, so change is necessary!

The Constitution was not a perfect document.
 
froggie said:
Absolutely! Especially since I am a woman, I believe I have the right to vote, the Founding Fathers didn't think so, so change is necessary!

The Constitution was not a perfect document.
Click to expand...

no shit, which was why they wrote in a detailed description of how it could be amended, which didn't include a panel of black robed tyrants deciding that two words written in 1787 mean something different in the 1900s
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no shit, which was why they wrote in a detailed description of how it could be amended, which didn't include a panel of black robed tyrants deciding that two words written in 1787 mean something different in the 1900s
Click to expand...

Really, then what is the purpose of the third branch of government, I missed something in my civics classes!?
 
I thought the Supremes were the ultimate interpreters of the constitution, not a bunch of politicians and their hacks.
This was defined in the constitution itself. So denying this is to deny the constitution yourself.

Or am I wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top