AnotherDem ShowsDisdain for Constitution: "I think the Constitution is wrong" w/Video

[goldcatt]

I agree that the Constitution is not perfect. The founders recognized such the day the document was signed. Sallow made a very poor post.

And we still debate the same arguments they went round about today, just with different details. Did you ever stop to think about whether the inherent tensions in the system are deliberate or simply reflective of the compromises that were forced in order to get a working system at all? Either way maybe it doesn't matter....but I do think the debate, and the willingness to opine that something in the document or system it created is "wrong", is important to keep the whole thing in balance.

Nothing wrong with honest debate about the subject matter. The problems come from those charged with upholding, defending, and protecting the Constitution; "We The People."

The problem IMO is ignorance - and a refusal to engage in civil debate. There are two, actually more than two, legitimate ways to view the COTUS and have been since before it was created. That tension and the ebb and flow between the factions is a big part of why the system it created has lasted so long and with such stability.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution has been wrong..and it's shown dramatically..by the Constitution itself. For example Amendment 18 abolishes liquor..and Amendment 21 repeals 18.

What you just posted does not demonstrate that the Constitution has been wrong. It shows that "We The People", during those specific times, sought reformation, and exercised their rights in a proper manner via the Constitution.

An opinion that the Constitution is wrong on a certain issue is simply an opinion that someone disagrees with the result the Constitution has produced.

Trying to make that into some sort of an attack on the character of the person who said the Constitution is wrong is idiocy.

 

[Charles_Main]

The Constitution has been wrong..and it's shown dramatically..by the Constitution itself. For example Amendment 18 abolishes liquor..and Amendment 21 repeals 18.

What you just posted does not demonstrate that the Constitution has been wrong. It shows that "We The People", during those specific times, sought reformation, and exercised their rights in a proper manner via the Constitution.

An opinion that the Constitution is wrong on a certain issue is simply an opinion that someone disagrees with the result the Constitution has produced.

Trying to make that into some sort of an attack on the character of the person who said the Constitution is wrong is idiocy.

I agree. What I would "attack" is someone who wants to use the courts to change the constitution instead of the Amendment process.

 

[Sallow]

What you just posted does not demonstrate that the Constitution has been wrong. It shows that "We The People", during those specific times, sought reformation, and exercised their rights in a proper manner via the Constitution.

To be fair, some of those Amendments were designed to correct flaws in the original that only showed up through practice. Or in one case, to repeal an Amendment that was shown to be flawed in practice. No human and no compromise is perfect. Some changes are reflective of changing attitudes, but some do indeed address these imperfections.

I agree that the Constitution is not perfect. The founders recognized such the day the document was signed. Sallow made a very poor post.

No. I did not.

No insult to you.

We just disagree.

 

[namvet527]

Sucks for you that the USSC disagrees with you on abortion, doesn't it.

boohoo.

Why do you like killing babies?

Your horrible!

Abortion isn't a foolproof solution. The OP is proof of that.

If I was to abort some endangered animal species I would be jailed.

If I aborted or MURDERED a poor HELPLESS INNOCENT HUMAN BABY I would be PROTECTED.

That is LIBERALISM!!!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Why do you like killing babies?

Your horrible!

I find it hilarious that liberals want to argue that the USSC is the last word on the Constitution when it comes to abortion, BUT NOT WHEN IT COMES to Bush v. Gore, or the Citizens United case.

Like Animal Farm, some USSC decisions are more equal than others.

Oh... you didnt get the memo?

Judges know what is best for you and I

It's soo funny how liberals will tell us that the USSC is the last word on the Constitution UNTIL they make a decision they don't like, as Bush v. Gore, or People's United.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Well that's another way of saying you couldn't debate me, if you tried.

But that's okay. At least you're honest enough to admit your limitiations.

So, you admit, you are a low grade troll. How refreshingly honest. Oh too bad! You already neg repped me. You can't do it now!

poor delusional freak.

the only troll in this post is you.

and you aren't worth my time because you're really, truly, beyond mind-numbingly stupid.

perhaps that simple fact is beyond your comprehension.

Yean, if that were true, you wouldn't be here, sputtering useless diatribes because you know you can't refute anything.

THAT is the definition of a troll.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Well that's another way of saying you couldn't debate me, if you tried.

But that's okay. At least you're honest enough to admit your limitiations.

So, you admit, you are a low grade troll. How refreshingly honest. Oh too bad! You already neg repped me. You can't do it now!

poor delusional freak.

the only troll in this post is you.

and you aren't worth my time because you're really, truly, beyond mind-numbingly stupid.

perhaps that simple fact is beyond your comprehension.

If's she's not worth the time why do you take the time to tell her she's not worth the time? Isn't that time consuming counselor?

Truly the definition of protesting too much.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Somebody explain to me why demonRats are in a snit about corporations donating money but think nothing of unions donating money? SNIT! and fair thee well SNIT. It's most unbecoming.

Because Unions donate to Demorats and Corporations donate to Republicans. THAT is the only problem they have with it.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Funny how you get all confident because someone disappears for a couple of hours. You are aware how fucking hysterically stupid makes you look, right?

I think we see who's stupid, when the most you could add to the debate was the "open honesty" that it's okay to express the Constitution is wrong, but any "open honesty" criticizing that is just more "open honesty" than you can stand.

Your post proves one thing... Ya can't fix stupid.

Only too true. You have that quote of me saying something bigoted about muslims they haven't said about themselves yet?

On that you only sputtered how you were sooooooooooooooooo schmart, you couldn't refute.

Yes, you can't fix stupid!

 

[Sallow]

What you just posted does not demonstrate that the Constitution has been wrong. It shows that "We The People", during those specific times, sought reformation, and exercised their rights in a proper manner via the Constitution.

To be fair, some of those Amendments were designed to correct flaws in the original that only showed up through practice. Or in one case, to repeal an Amendment that was shown to be flawed in practice. No human and no compromise is perfect. Some changes are reflective of changing attitudes, but some do indeed address these imperfections.

I agree that the Constitution is not perfect. The founders recognized such the day the document was signed. Sallow made a very poor post.

With all due respect old friend. No I didn't. There are still flaws in the Constitution that I firmly believe need to be addressed. Like the right to privacy. It's implicit but not explicit in the Constitution. I think there needs to be an amendment that settles that once and for all. And I seriously have a problem with the electoral college. And the Constitution should address exactly when it is appropriate to declare war. We use our military far to much..and sometimes for very terrible reasons.

That's my opinion.

 

[teapartysamurai]

And Jillian with her sharp and steel debating skills graces us with her presence. Oh no, what will we do.

We better run conservatives. We have no chance of winning now!!!!!!

Why do I have so many smilies at the end? Dealing with posters like YOU!

I can't help but laugh!

i keep telling you, hon... i don't 'debate' idiots like you. i laugh at you.

you know, that whole 'you can't teach a pig to talk thing'.

if cali and i agree about someone unequivocally, i figure that says it all.

It really does, doesn't it.

One thing that both Jillian and I have in common.... neither of us are very good at suffering the stupid.

Yes, you two are sooooooooooooooooooo schmart, you can't even discuss the op, whether to refute or support.

Man, I wish I was as schmart as you two!








































































NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They sure have nothing to fear from my sig.

 

[teapartysamurai]

i keep telling you, hon... i don't 'debate' idiots like you. i laugh at you.

you know, that whole 'you can't teach a pig to talk thing'.

if cali and i agree about someone unequivocally, i figure that says it all.

It really does, doesn't it.

One thing that both Jillian and I have in common.... neither of us are very good at suffering the stupid.

oh the fucking irony.

You expect them to see it?

 

[teapartysamurai]

It really does, doesn't it.

One thing that both Jillian and I have in common.... neither of us are very good at suffering the stupid.

oh the fucking irony.

Ah, C'mon you two. They are feeling all schmart and all. Don't ruin it for them.

 

[teapartysamurai]

That's an extrapolation with no basis in the Constitution..or in the very definition of speech. And, it's a logical fallacy.

And considering many corporate entities are using messages as a smoke screen for their true agenda..its a very dangerous fallacy.

Sucks to be you that the USSC disagrees.

Celebrating activist judges that legislate from the Bench? Especially since they've conflated this particular case to reverse nearly a century of precedence.

Okay..but that sort of throws out that old conservative chestnut that they do don't do such things.

I find it pretty funny for a liberal to be whining about activists judges.

If you can find where in the First Amendment it limits what kind of people can practice free speech, let me know.

Funny, liberals don't think UNIONS should be limited in free speech. ONLY Corporations.

Hypocrisy at it's finest!

 

[teapartysamurai]

I think we see the stupidity here.

yes...*we* do.... yours.



yes. you are.

why do you laugh at the end of every post? it makes you sound like you need meds.

Because she can't seriously debate.

Does anyone find it funny that the losers are always telling me I can't debate.

Too funny!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Sucks for you that the USSC disagrees with you on abortion, doesn't it.

boohoo.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where in the Constitution it allows abortion?

Roe v. Wade.

Unless of course you think the Constitution is wrong to allow the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.

No sorry. That is a USSC decision.

If the USSC is always right about the Constituton then Dredd Scott was right. Separate but equal was right. Bush v. Gore was right. Citizens United was right and so on.

I'm saying WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, not in a USSC decision.

Unless you can show me the language IN THE CONSTITUTION, you lose.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Sucks for you that the USSC disagrees with you on abortion, doesn't it.

boohoo.

Why do you like killing babies?

Your horrible!

Abortion isn't a foolproof solution. The OP is proof of that.

OH! Give a liberal enough time and they will tell you exactly what they think.

That's pretty violent coming from someone who is sooooooo for rights and free speech.

Apparently, he wants me killed, to keep me quiet.

You heard it here first.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Can't you answer the question.

I say, yes, the Constitution was wrong when it didn't protect the right of women to vote.

What's your opinion?

I told you Carbiner, you're right, the Constitution is wrong.

Now how do you want to change it in the Citizens United Case?

I'm waiting!

Amend the Constitution or overturn the ruling or legislate an alternative limitation on campaign financing that passes constitutional muster. Those, I think, are your only choices.

Campaign finance is in the Constitution?????????

And NO they aren't your only choices.

HOW ABOUT FULL DISCLOSURE. Stop this phony crap about getting the money out of politics and let free speech mean free speech. Let anyone in the country donate to politicians, in whatever amount they wish, BUT ALLOW FULL DISCLOUSRE of the monies.

It sure would have limited what Obama could have collected.

 

[teapartysamurai]

It really does, doesn't it.

One thing that both Jillian and I have in common.... neither of us are very good at suffering the stupid.

oh the fucking irony.

You wouldn't know irony if it handed you its business card.

Yeah, you are sooooooooooo schmart you can't even discuss the op. You just troll and spew.