"Strict Constructionists" EDIT the Constitution before reading it.

[Amused]

Yeah, stick to using someone else's material. :thumbsup:

You're not worth originality.

And for someone who parrots left wing talking points without even thinking critically first has no room to talk.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, "torture, illegal wiretaps, supbversion of the constitution"...

Yet extraordinary rendition, etc have not only been supported but expanded while the Dems have been in power. Are you saying that health care can be rammed through, but the Dems are so afraid of the Republicans that they would do one better?

I don't buy into what many call Conservative today, but then I don't believe in the good will of people who would deprive others of due process.

I'm rather skeptical.

 

[theeedude]

You're not worth originality.

Not like you are capable of it, so it's a moot point.

 

[Amused]

Not like you are capable of it, so it's a moot point.

Kind of like your thread.

 

[theeedude]

Kind of like your thread.

Yet you are posting in it.

 

[nageov3t]

why do you hate black people and alcohol?

you sound like a mormon.

 

[Craig234]

Yet extraordinary rendition, etc have not only been supported but expanded while the Dems have been in power. Are you saying that health care can be rammed through, but the Dems are so afraid of the Republicans that they would do one better?

I don't buy into what many call Conservative today, but then I don't believe in the good will of people who would deprive others of due process.

I'm rather skeptical.

I am sick of people who can't follow a thread for one post.

I'm having to do these "spell it out" followups repeatedly now.

So here's one more.

Someone said liberals don't make sense to them because while they correctly criticize Bush errors like torture, when Democrats do things like healthcare, liberals inexplicably don't understand that the healthcare is equally corrupt to the things like torture. Why don't liberals say they're the same?

I simply pointed out that the poster was equating the two types of things as equally corrupt, applying his Byron quote to both, and implying they're hardly the same.

That should be the end of it. But you had to miss the simple point, changing it to one about the parties more generally. I'd written an extra sentence or two to specifically address that, by saying liberals DO criticize Obama on issue where he has the same problems as Bush on things like some civil rights issues, but figured, why should I make the post longer to address something outside the topic, enlarging it to a broader comparison of the parties.

But you make that very error. For the umpteenth time, yes, Obama has made some of the same errors as Bush. See my posts and links to Glenn Greenwald on the topic.

But learn to follow a topic instead of your reflexive irrational need to do what you did.

 

[BoberFett]

I simply pointed out that the poster was equating the two types of things as equally corrupt, applying his Byron quote to both, and implying they're hardly the same.

Idiot234 making himself look stupid yet again. Nobody said those were the same. Only that the government wealthy and powerful enough to provide everyone with every need is also powerful enough to get away with whatever evil deed they choose. But keep bleating your pathetic ideology, Fail234.

 

[nick1985]

senseamp, we all make threads that backfire because we didn't take the time to read and fully understand an article before posting. It's happened to me, and its happened to many others. There is no shame in admitting you posted a thread prematurely and moving on. Its really not a big deal. Trying to defend yourself and attack others when its clear to everyone what happened here only makes it worse for you.

 

[theeedude]

senseamp, we all make threads that backfire because we didn't take the time to read and fully understand an article before posting. It's happened to me, and its happened to many others. There is no shame in admitting you posted a thread prematurely and moving on. Its really not a big deal. Trying to defend yourself and attack others when its clear to everyone what happened here only makes it worse for you.

You are free to speak for yourself. If you say you made threads that backfired, I will take you at your word. There were a lot of things that are "clear" to conservatives, like Iraq having WMDs, Reaganomics working, Rapture coming, etc. It does not concern me at all what is "clear to everyone" in your opinion.

 

[nonlnear]

You are free to speak for yourself. If you say you made threads that backfired, I will take you at your word. There were a lot of things that are "clear" to conservatives, like Iraq having WMDs, Reaganomics working, Rapture coming, etc. It does not concern me at all what is "clear to everyone" in your opinion.

Apparently it doesn't concern you at all what is "clear to everyone" in everyone's opinion either! Not that there's anything wrong with a little solipsism, but you won't get away with claiming that this thread backfire is a minority opinion. That's taking the backfire to a whole new level of awesome!!!

 

[theeedude]

Apparently it doesn't concern you at all what is "clear to everyone" in everyone's opinion either! Not that there's anything wrong with a little solipsism, but you won't get away with claiming that this thread backfire is a minority opinion. That's taking the backfire to a whole new level of awesome!!!

Iraq having WMD was majority opinion too.

 

[Amused]

Iraq having WMD was majority opinion too.

Yep, and by every major country's intelligence division including those countries most opposed to the invasion: France and Russia.

At any rate, now you're reaching, HARD.

 

[theeedude]

Yep, and by every major country's intelligence division including those countries most opposed to the invasion: France and Russia.

At any rate, now you're reaching, HARD.

You are entitled to your subjective opinion.

 

[Amused]

You are entitled to your subjective opinion.

Like I said. REEEEEEACHING.

 

[theeedude]

Like I said. REEEEEEACHING.

I heard your opinion the first time. :whiste:

 

[exdeath]

Yes, "torture, illegal wiretaps, supbversion of the constitution" is equally corrupt as the providing of people's wants by stealing from other people.

FTFY

 

[sportage]

I think the whole point, said by Maddow and others, was the US Constitution has some pretty weird things in it. Things that made sense maybe once, but not now. Thus the US Constitution IS NOT the bible! It is flawed and things that no longer apply or make sense SHOULD BE amended. These tea baggers want to follow the constitution word by word, but it is proven some of those words should not apply in today’s world where we have things like same sex marriage making its way, equal rights for classes that were not thought to have equal rights back then, like women and Americans of color, and several other sections that do not or should not apply in today’s world. As Maddow said.... the US Constitution IS NOT the bible! It WAS NOT brought down from some mountain on high by congressmen wearing white robes and glowing halo's. If they want to follow the constitution word by word.... then they should follow every word as originally written. And as we know, they only read the parts they liked and ignored the parts they did not like. This is not the bible, and some parts they did read still might not apply in today’s world, just as was the case with some parts they did not read. The constitution was constructed to be changed and amended, as needed. But naturally, the tea party and most republicans conveniently ignore that fact...

 

[exdeath]

Thus the US Constitution IS NOT the bible! It is flawed and things that no longer apply or make sense

 

[bfdd]

I think the whole point, said by Maddow and others, was the US Constitution has some pretty weird things in it. Things that made sense maybe once, but not now. Thus the US Constitution IS NOT the bible! It is flawed and things that no longer apply or make sense SHOULD BE amended. These tea baggers want to follow the constitution word by word, but it is proven some of those words should not apply in today’s world where we have things like same sex marriage making its way, equal rights for classes that were not thought to have equal rights back then, like women and Americans of color, and several other sections that do not or should not apply in today’s world. As Maddow said.... the US Constitution IS NOT the bible! It WAS NOT brought down from some mountain on high by congressmen wearing white robes and glowing halo's. If they want to follow the constitution word by word.... then they should follow every word as originally written. And as we know, they only read the parts they liked and ignored the parts they did not like. This is not the bible, and some parts they did read still might not apply in today’s world, just as was the case with some parts they did not read. The constitution was constructed to be changed and amended, as needed. But naturally, the tea party and most republicans conveniently ignore that fact...

not sure if serious?
We read what is there as the time it was written. If we don't like what they wrote, we amend it. You realize that is part of "original intent" right? How do you guys not understand that?

 

[UberNeuman]

not sure if serious?
We read what is there as the time it was written. If we don't like what they wrote, we amend it. You realize that is part of "original intent" right? How do you guys not understand that?

Everything or nothing.

 

[bfdd]

Everything or nothing.

not sure if serious?

Amendments can be supercede new amendments, making old amendments or parts of them and the constitution no longer valid, until possible further amendments repeal parts of the newer amendments to restore parts of the older amendments.

 

[exdeath]

I understand why they did it that way and weren't intentionally trying to hide or ignore anything, but I think they should have read it exactly from start to finish to avoid these very hypocrisy and conspiracy accusations. They said they were going to read the whole thing, and should have done just that.

 

[UberNeuman]

not sure if serious?

Amendments can be supercede new amendments, making old amendments or parts of them and the constitution no longer valid, until possible further amendments repeal parts of the newer amendments to restore parts of the older amendments.

I am quite serious. You want to explore what made our Constitution what it is today - then you face everything that went into it...

 

[drebo]

So Original intent of the Constitution is irrelevant? NICE

Yes, it is. Because there is a process called the AMENDMENT PROCESS which dictates a way to change the Constitution.

Original meaning can be changed by amendments. This is perfectly legal and acceptable.

What is NOT perfectly legal and acceptable are overly broad interpretations of parts of the document used to justify passing any law desired. What is also NOT perfectly legal and acceptable is interpreting parts of the constitution in a manner that is not consistent with what is written.

The Second Amendment, for instance. You cannot pass a law banning guns just because you think that the Second Amendment is outdated. In order to do that, you must pass an amendment repealing the second amendment. Once you do that, the Second Amendment becomes irrelevant to current law and interpretation.

Not sure why this is hard for you to grasp. There is no doublespeak involved. (Although I am sure that most politicians don't give a shit what the Constitution actually says or means.)