Democrats - can we finally come together now?

[eflatminor]

I think Democrats have a fantastic opportunity right now, though there's little evidence they'll take it.

I argue if the Dem platform moved even a little bit towards libertarian ideals, they would flourish. In other words, keep the social liberalism, drop the progressive meddling.

Another way to think of it, combine JFK's social outlook with Grover Cleveland's economics.

It's theirs to lose.

 

[P@triot]

I think Democrats have a fantastic opportunity right now, though there's little evidence they'll take it.

I argue if the Dem platform moved even a little bit towards libertarian ideals, they would flourish. In other words, keep the social liberalism, drop the progressive meddling.

Another way to think of it, combine JFK's social outlook with Grover Cleveland's economics.

It's theirs to lose.

I think the left has been too radicalized. They've shown no indication that they even understand the problem, much less that they are willing to shift their ideology.

 

[francoHFW]

Just pushing his boundaries

A person who takes an oath to respect and defend the U.S. Constitution is not supposed to "push boundaries" to see how far they can go past it.

But thank you for your rare moment of honesty that Barack Obama has intentionally violated the Constitution he took an oath to defend and acted like an oppressive dictator.

Of course you are...that is why we have courts

You have to love RW "logic".

Me: You're not supposed to break the law and rape women.

RW: Of course you are....that's why we have courts. To interpret whether or not the woman is raped.

Yes folks...he really does make arguments like this out of desperation. He's unable to logically and rationally support his position.

Terminally misinformed dupe of the greedy idiot lying GOP...^^ I'll go with the US Justice system. And no, it's not a conspiracy, dingbat.

 

[francoHFW]

I think Democrats have a fantastic opportunity right now, though there's little evidence they'll take it.

I argue if the Dem platform moved even a little bit towards libertarian ideals, they would flourish. In other words, keep the social liberalism, drop the progressive meddling.

Another way to think of it, combine JFK's social outlook with Grover Cleveland's economics.

It's theirs to lose.

I think the left has been too radicalized. They've shown no indication that they even understand the problem, much less that they are willing to shift their ideology.

You have no clue about the actual issues, just BS propaganda and hate...

 

[candycorn]

Which proves that the Constitution is a living document.

Neither a piece of paper or a law can be "living" by any definition of the term.

That is the dumbest thing you've ever said. Of course laws are "living." They can be modified and they can be revoked. The Constitution, by design, is also living and can amended at any time.

He means that there is no pulse rate or respirations….

 

[candycorn]

Then you can quote me saying as such. But you can't so that makes you a liar.

I did quote you. You conveniently edited out that part when you responded. Typical.

Another lie. I never said what you stated I did.

Sure you did. That's why you conveniently edited it out. If you respect the U.S. Constitution, you would advocate adhering to it. If you feel it is "irrelevant", then let's shred them. You can't have it both ways. You're my playing a silly game where you believe it should be violated but you want to pretend like you respect the rule of law.

Again, quote me where I said the Constitution is “irrelevant”. Feel free.

When you said that you prefer it to be ignored for the 2016 American rather than be hemmed in by some old document.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either you respect the document and the rule of law or you don't. You've made it very clear that you don't. You can update that "old" document but you advocate ignoring it.

At no point does what I said render the document irrelevant. You’re simply making things up.

 

[P@triot]

When you said that you prefer it to be ignored for the 2016 American rather than be hemmed in by some old document.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either you respect the document and the rule of law or you don't. You've made it very clear that you don't. You can update that "old" document but you advocate ignoring it.

At no point does what I said render the document irrelevant. You’re simply making things up.

How many times can I repeat this? You said you would take the "2016 version of America - warts and all" rather than having a constitutional America. Then you want to pretend like you respect the U.S. Constitution and want it upheld. You can't have it both ways.

 

[candycorn]

When you said that you prefer it to be ignored for the 2016 American rather than be hemmed in by some old document.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either you respect the document and the rule of law or you don't. You've made it very clear that you don't. You can update that "old" document but you advocate ignoring it.

At no point does what I said render the document irrelevant. You’re simply making things up.

How many times can I repeat this? You said you would take the "2016 version of America - warts and all" rather than having a constitutional America. Then you want to pretend like you respect the U.S. Constitution and want it upheld. You can't have it both ways.

Repeat it until you’re blue in the face. It won’t make you any more honest or me any less correct.
Merry Christmas.

 

[P@triot]

When you said that you prefer it to be ignored for the 2016 American rather than be hemmed in by some old document.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either you respect the document and the rule of law or you don't. You've made it very clear that you don't. You can update that "old" document but you advocate ignoring it.

At no point does what I said render the document irrelevant. You’re simply making things up.

How many times can I repeat this? You said you would take the "2016 version of America - warts and all" rather than having a constitutional America. Then you want to pretend like you respect the U.S. Constitution and want it upheld. You can't have it both ways.

Repeat it until you’re blue in the face. It won’t make you any more honest or me any less correct.
Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you as well! I hope you have a wonderful day with your family.

And I'd love for you to explain how I'm wrong. It would appear that you can't since you refuse to give any type of answer as to how you believe that you could support the 2016 America which rejects the U.S. Constitution while simultaneously proclaiming that you support the U.S. Constitution.

 

[candycorn]

When you said that you prefer it to be ignored for the 2016 American rather than be hemmed in by some old document.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either you respect the document and the rule of law or you don't. You've made it very clear that you don't. You can update that "old" document but you advocate ignoring it.

At no point does what I said render the document irrelevant. You’re simply making things up.

How many times can I repeat this? You said you would take the "2016 version of America - warts and all" rather than having a constitutional America. Then you want to pretend like you respect the U.S. Constitution and want it upheld. You can't have it both ways.

Repeat it until you’re blue in the face. It won’t make you any more honest or me any less correct.
Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you as well! I hope you have a wonderful day with your family.

And I'd love for you to explain how I'm wrong. It would appear that you can't since you refuse to give any type of answer as to how you believe that you could support the 2016 America which rejects the U.S. Constitution while simultaneously proclaiming that you support the U.S. Constitution.

I’ll put it to you this way.

Allowing the government to field FEMA, NASA, or the Air Force doesn’t do away with any other part of the document.

 

[P@triot]

When you said that you prefer it to be ignored for the 2016 American rather than be hemmed in by some old document.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either you respect the document and the rule of law or you don't. You've made it very clear that you don't. You can update that "old" document but you advocate ignoring it.

At no point does what I said render the document irrelevant. You’re simply making things up.

How is what you said not an indication that you consider it irrelevant? You openly admitted that 2016 America is unconstitutional as you agreed that it is not (and I quote) "hemmed in" by an "old" document. And you said you prefer the 2016 America. It's pretty cut & dry my friend.

 

[P@triot]

When you said that you prefer it to be ignored for the 2016 American rather than be hemmed in by some old document.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either you respect the document and the rule of law or you don't. You've made it very clear that you don't. You can update that "old" document but you advocate ignoring it.

At no point does what I said render the document irrelevant. You’re simply making things up.

How many times can I repeat this? You said you would take the "2016 version of America - warts and all" rather than having a constitutional America. Then you want to pretend like you respect the U.S. Constitution and want it upheld. You can't have it both ways.

Repeat it until you’re blue in the face. It won’t make you any more honest or me any less correct.
Merry Christmas.

Merry Christmas to you as well! I hope you have a wonderful day with your family.

And I'd love for you to explain how I'm wrong. It would appear that you can't since you refuse to give any type of answer as to how you believe that you could support the 2016 America which rejects the U.S. Constitution while simultaneously proclaiming that you support the U.S. Constitution.

I’ll put it to you this way.

Allowing the government to field FEMA, NASA, or the Air Force doesn’t do away with any other part of the document.

But picking and choosing parts of the document rejects the entire document. If you truly respect the U.S. Constitution, you would respect all of it. And the document does make it permissible to make FEMA and NASA constitutional. The Air Force already is constitutional as the federal government is charged with defense and may create an Air Force as a part of those powers.

 

[candycorn]

For his sake, I hope I'm wrong. But I think it will probably end for him like it ended for Howard Cosell. Famous but not exactly popular.

Looks more and more like that is going to take place.

 

[iceberg]

SORRY I'd like your republicans to get the same shit you dealt out for 8 years ,back in your face

Lord you are so fucking monolithic.

 

[iceberg]

What didn't bush get?? His war ?? His taxcuts for billionaires?? How many fillabusters did your pub friends rain down on Obama??

The filibuster is there to limit power.

Period. Your side always wants it gone when I power but uses the shit out of it when not.

 

[rightwinger]

The filibuster is there to limit power.

Period. Your side always wants it gone when I power but uses the shit out of it when not.

I am willing to give it up
We don’t need additional checks and balances