davjohns 1 #26 February 16, 2013 QuoteQuotebut they were faced with the realities of the past. Huh...? lol...the whole 'revolution' thing? They knew the depths government could sink to.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #27 February 16, 2013 Quote I'm tellin ya', there's something in the water that is making people in this country crazier and crazier by the day. Not another fluoride conspiracy nut!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #28 February 17, 2013 Quotelol...the whole 'revolution' thing? They knew the depths government could sink to. Still not seeing how that makes sense... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #29 February 18, 2013 QuoteIt's an opinion piece, by a nationally known constitutional scholar. It's meant to be provocative. This is not, provocative, nor is it intelligent... This is disingenuous, manipulative, and insulting. Here too: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57566014/professor-take-our-country-back-from-the-constitution/ And here... he argues for politics (policy), over principles (labeling it as a test to the adherence of some foundational document written by some old guys who died over 200 years ago and know nothing of our country today). What a joke... And our "right to have the country we want", is called the Amendment Process, ya douche; Totally Meant to be Slow, and Difficult. Calling this man a constitutional scholar is a joke. He and Obama both have great disdain for the US Constitution, they praise their guiding Progressives (Teddy, Wilson and FDR), and wish for a Constitution structured like that of South Africa... which is basically the 2nd Bill of Rights; that FDR proposed (Also to which Cass Sunstein wrote a book about; who also co-wrote a book with the douche bag in which this thread is about). Fuck this guy! This is beyond insulting. The Federalist Papers kill every argument he tries to make (and his guiding direction of disobedience being a reason to subvert the law is moronic); and just as Publius called much of the populace who criticized the Constitution ridiculous (given that many of the things they bitched about were taken word for word from the Articles of Confederation and the New York State Constitution), would be calling this guy a moron, and HE, is exactly a case and point reason why we were given a (Federally) Limited Constitutional Republic. Go back to original sources... read the direct words of the Men of the Convention. Stop listening to "scholars." QuoteAS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. No... it's not broke. It's non existent. His entire argument of Constitutional Disobedience is nonsensical. "When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states." No sir, that is a Revolution... And this is one of the stupidest pieces of shit I have ever read. Quote“originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) Insulting to both G-d and the Men of the Convention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #30 February 18, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuotebut they were faced with the realities of the past. Huh...? lol...the whole 'revolution' thing? They knew the depths government could sink to. So again... Huh...? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yourmomma 0 #31 February 18, 2013 You do realize there were ant-federalist papers written, the "men of the convention" had heated arguments and openly opposed all sorts of bits of the preamble and constitution itself. Waving the federalist papers as" the" means of context is simple at best and a David Barton all out lie at worst. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #32 February 18, 2013 Don't forget about the Communist-papers... them mo fo's were all up in Washington's shitzle. I don't even know how to reply to this... I'm surprised you didn't throw in something about the Tea Party. I'm gonna go bang my head against the wall, and then finish watching Rick be a crazy person, freaking out by seeing Lori's ghost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #33 February 18, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotebut they were faced with the realities of the past. Huh...? lol...the whole 'revolution' thing? They knew the depths government could sink to. So again... Huh...? Sorry. I didn't realize I wasn't clear. When I wrote, "I think the men who wrote the US Constitution were optimistic of a great new nation, but they were faced with the realities of the past.", I mean that they had just fought an eight year war with an oppressive government. They had (most of them) studied governments of the past to see that any form of government can become oppressive. They created the constitution to limit the power of the federal government, keep power closer to the governed, and ultimately in the hands of the people. The realities of their past were that government that was not tightly constrained had to be overthrown with blood and violence. They were optimistic for the future of our country and its government, but they also had the realities of the past to contend with. Better?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 4 #34 February 18, 2013 You are so a Communist! Yeah, that's better. Not only were all governments of the past studied... Human Nature, was studied. The Constitution binds the hands of power, with its limits and checks/balances, preventing as much possible, those natural human flaws from destroying liberty; resulting in the need, for Revolution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #35 February 18, 2013 I don't have a problem with communism as a form of government. It has pros and cons like any other form. The problem is that it does not contend with human nature once you leave he extreme local level. There are communes in Israel that work very well. But everyone knows everyone and can exert peer pressure to keep people from being useless. And they know who genuinely needs help and who is a slug. Once you lose the ability to know everyone's situation, communism starts having problems.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
