Superficial Constitution Fellators.....

NiftyNiblick said:
...only want to talk about "rights" and "freedoms."

The MAIN PURPOSE of our constitution was to provide for us a form of government.

It provided what is now the most stupid and inefficient form of government in the free world [while and if we're still considered part of that.]

Rights and freedoms are one thing, although I'm not sure that providing them to deficient mutants like trumpanzees is a good idea.

Our form of government itself is catastrophic.

Illiterate rural reactionaries are wildly over-represented, and we can see the catastrophic result.

The most egregious constitution fellators don't even understand what the constitution's primary purpose was.
If they're too hopelessly stupid to understand that, they're also too pathetically stupid to reasonably evaluate what the constitution did, or more accurately didn't, accomplish.
Click to expand...

The Constitution was not designed to be efficient or effective. It was designed to prevent any group from imposing its policies on others. The checks and balances, separation of powers, different terms of office, and different method of selection were all to make it difficult to pass legislation.

All those rights in the Bill of Rights were not included in the Constitution. They were all added later against the wishes of the founders as a condition for states supporting ratification.
 
evince said:
You tried that with Obama remember idiot


That lie didn’t stick
Click to expand...

I didn't do anything with Obama bin laden you stupid fuck. It doesn't matter where the fuck he was spawned he was an evil prick that fucked america up the ass and you loved it. Go fuck yourself
 
Yakuda said:
I didn't do anything with Obama bin laden you stupid fuck. It doesn't matter where the fuck he was spawned he was an evil prick that fucked america up the ass and you loved it. Go fuck yourself
Click to expand...

Did you shit your pants while you typed that

You better check your huge very wrinkly pants
 
Flash said:
The Constitution was not designed to be efficient or effective. It was designed to prevent any group from imposing its policies on others. The checks and balances, separation of powers, different terms of office, and different method of selection were all to make it difficult to pass legislation.

All those rights in the Bill of Rights were not included in the Constitution. They were all added later against the wishes of the founders as a condition for states supporting ratification.
Click to expand...

So your claim is the constitution was designed to be inefficient and ineffective?


The stupid is strong in this one
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the MAIN PURPOSE of that government being to protect our rights.
Click to expand...

The main purpose was to fix the problems with the Articles of Confederation by creating a central government with more power than that under the Articles--direct taxes, power to raise an army, enforce contracts, coin money, regulate interstate commerce.
 
evince said:
So your claim is the constitution was designed to be inefficient and ineffective?


The stupid is strong in this one
Click to expand...


Well, try reading Federalist #10 where Madison explained the purpose of government and how he sought to accomplish that goal. It was designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority (or minority) that allowed any group to impose its policies on others. Only the House was chosen by popular vote. That is why he specifically rejected democracy in favor of a republic, because in a democracy the majority always wins.

He wanted a government to do what was in the best interest of everyone (obviously an idealistic goal).
 
Flash said:
The main purpose was to fix the problems with the Articles of Confederation by creating a central government with more power than that under the Articles--direct taxes, power to raise an army, enforce contracts, coin money, regulate interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

wrong, statist idiot. The Constitution was written to LIMIT the federal government to the few powers prescribed, that purpose being to protect the rights of the people.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
wrong, statist idiot. The Constitution was written to LIMIT the federal government to the few powers prescribed, that purpose being to protect the rights of the people.
Click to expand...

You don't know your history. The Constitution does contain many limitations on central government power, but it also increased the powers of those under the existing governing document. If they wanted a very weak central government they would have retained the Articles.

The constitutional convention was held to fix the problems with the Articles. They didn't even have the authority to create a new constitution and the Articles required unanimous consent for any changes leading many to accuse the founders of acting without authority. Basic history.

You are obviously the "statist" if you think the Constitution created a weaker central government than the Articles.
 
Flash said:
You don't know your history. The Constitution does contain many limitations on central government power, but it also increased the powers of those under the existing governing document. If they wanted a very weak central government they would have retained the Articles.

The constitutional convention was held to fix the problems with the Articles. They didn't even have the authority to create a new constitution and the Articles required unanimous consent for any changes leading many to accuse the founders of acting without authority. Basic history.

You are obviously the "statist" if you think the Constitution created a weaker central government than the Articles.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing your specific reasoning of the articles being inadequate. I'm saying that the governments primary role in the Constitution is to protect the rights of the people.
 
Flash said:
The Constitution was not designed to be efficient or effective.
Click to expand...

That couldn't be more obvious, which thus makes fools of those who revere it as if it were scripture from a divine being [itself a stupid idea].

When you're charged with the responsibility of forming a government,
and you form one as stumbling and inefficient as ours,
you FUCKED UP.

How can any reasonable person not see this immediately?

Our founders FUCKED UP.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
That couldn't be more obvious, which thus makes fools of those who revere it as if it were scripture from a divine being [itself a stupid idea].

When you're charged with the responsibility of forming a government,
and you form one as stumbling and inefficient as ours,
you FUCKED UP.

How can any reasonable person not see this immediately?

Our founders FUCKED UP.
Click to expand...

they were brilliant, actually. an inefficient government can't infringe on the rights of the people. the problem is the corrupt and power hungry fuckers that you idiots elect to office thinking that they work for you
 
SmarterthanYou said:
they were brilliant, actually. an inefficient government can't infringe on the rights of the people. the problem is the corrupt and power hungry fuckers that you idiots elect to office thinking that they work for you
Click to expand...

We obviously want completely different things, right?
What I call incompetent, you call brilliant.
What you call freedom, I call anarchy.

The whole point of partition is making everybody happy.
Almost everybody.

The Republicans live in Handmaid's Tale.
The Democrats live in civilization.
The Libertarians end up in re-education camps in BOTH places.
There isn't enough wilderness left to accommodate them.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
We obviously want completely different things, right?
What I call incompetent, you call brilliant.
What you call freedom, I call anarchy.

The whole point of partition is making everybody happy.
Almost everybody.

The Republicans live in Handmaid's Tale.
The Democrats live in civilization.
The Libertarians end up in re-education camps in BOTH places.
There isn't enough wilderness left to accommodate them.
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that you believe Democrats are actually about civilization.......is that how you define slavery?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top