How Could You?

[Ava]

How could American voters have been tricked into voting for an individual with the views of Barack Obama?


Not easily...not without one hundred years of preparation for the moment....

It began as a well intended and necessary reform....then Lord Acton's motto took over, and power corrupted the reformers.....





1. Woodrow Wilson, our first Progressive President was elected as a result of Teddy Roosevelt, himself well on the road to anti-constituional views, splitting the vote with Taft.

a. Wilson, inveterate racist Democrat, let it be known how he felt about the Constitution:

"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. … Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]




2. In 1933, another anti-constitutionalist took the presidency. His powers came from the perfect-storm of the Depression, and then the world war. He cowed the judiciary, and co-opted the press. The schools were hardly a problem.
The ascendency of Progressivism led us to today.





3. ' President Obama wrote in his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," that "Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty was a rejection of absolute truth. The infallibility of any idea, or ideology, or theology, or "ism," any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course or drive, both majorities and minorities, into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the Gulag or the jihad."'
Letter: Absolute truth | Deseret News

a. The idea that truth is 'relative' is called 'postmodernism,' which men can guide their thoughts and actions, it denies the existence of a source of truth, morality, and intelligibility distinct from man.

The leading academic postmodernist, the late Richard Rorty, argued that liberals are moral relativists who feel an “aversion to cruelty,” and it's that aversion that makes them liberals.[Postmodernism] affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent on the community in which we participate .
Grenz, S. J., "A Primer on Postmodernism", p. 8.






4. Make sense?
Seem to be...what?....a brilliant analysis? An echo of what so many have heard university?

Indeed, it is.
So very many have been exposed only to Liberal/progressive/socialist rhetoric that they accept such nonsense without thinking about what it means, entails, or how it fits with the founders views.


5. "James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution, and when he suggested in the Federalist Papers that the Constitution receives its authority from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, he was expressing what was then the common view. Here is the famous statement of those principles:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..." http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_12_Imprimis.pdf


a. " Barack Obama beliefs are foreign to what the Declaration of Independence stands for. He believes that in the name of liberty we as a nation must reject absolute truths." Letter: Absolute truth | Deseret News

b. Who among us cannot see absolute truth in the Declaration of Independence? What happened to the ability to think, to judge what is being told to one?

And who are these Republicans who never, in the course of two long presidential campaigns, never in opposition to Barack Obama, thought to point out his
unequivocal disagreement with the principles we celebrate as a nation on the
Fourth of July?
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_12_Imprimis.pdf





Offered James Madison or Barack Obama....and who did you choose?

How could you?

How could they?

Pretty simple. Free stuff for those who want it without earning it.

Yeah, everyone voted for Obama to get free stuff. Man, you are as thick as two boards.

Right! There are other reasons....he was black....and offered hope and change with his great rhetorical skills, and everybody was sick of Bush. Politics is cyclical....next up will be the GOP's turn and they will create jobs in America. More jobs, more tax revenue to sustain those who are living off the backs of existing part time wage earners...

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is worrying about God, PC.

The DOI is a statement of general principles, and about deity, Jefferson's language for God is deistic not Christian.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How does PoliChic contain all of that hate in her little body?

As to the OP, no one was fooled. Caribou Barbie was screaming about all the Fox/rw conspiracies at every campaign stop to no avail. You people were weighed, tested, & found wanting. Same goes for Lyin Ryan (R). No one believed what he said except for his throwing the elderly & poor under the bus.

1. You lie. Please show any hate in that well constructed, scholarly OP.
If you cannot....proceed to the nearest bar of soap and wash out your mouth.

2. "As to the OP, no one was fooled."
Therefore you agree with Obama that there are no absolute truths.....and that " all men are created equal" (in the eyes of the law) is not necessarily true.


That was the essence of the OP....one or the other is factual.

I choose James Madison's as absolute.....you? Whatever the Liberals tell you to believe.



You've embarrassed yourself again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How could American voters have been tricked into voting for an individual with the views of Barack Obama?


Not easily...not without one hundred years of preparation for the moment....

It began as a well intended and necessary reform....then Lord Acton's motto took over, and power corrupted the reformers.....





1. Woodrow Wilson, our first Progressive President was elected as a result of Teddy Roosevelt, himself well on the road to anti-constituional views, splitting the vote with Taft.

a. Wilson, inveterate racist Democrat, let it be known how he felt about the Constitution:

"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. … Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]




2. In 1933, another anti-constitutionalist took the presidency. His powers came from the perfect-storm of the Depression, and then the world war. He cowed the judiciary, and co-opted the press. The schools were hardly a problem.
The ascendency of Progressivism led us to today.





3. ' President Obama wrote in his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," that "Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty was a rejection of absolute truth. The infallibility of any idea, or ideology, or theology, or "ism," any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course or drive, both majorities and minorities, into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the Gulag or the jihad."'
Letter: Absolute truth | Deseret News

a. The idea that truth is 'relative' is called 'postmodernism,' which men can guide their thoughts and actions, it denies the existence of a source of truth, morality, and intelligibility distinct from man.

The leading academic postmodernist, the late Richard Rorty, argued that liberals are moral relativists who feel an “aversion to cruelty,” and it's that aversion that makes them liberals.[Postmodernism] affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent on the community in which we participate .
Grenz, S. J., "A Primer on Postmodernism", p. 8.






4. Make sense?
Seem to be...what?....a brilliant analysis? An echo of what so many have heard university?

Indeed, it is.
So very many have been exposed only to Liberal/progressive/socialist rhetoric that they accept such nonsense without thinking about what it means, entails, or how it fits with the founders views.


5. "James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution, and when he suggested in the Federalist Papers that the Constitution receives its authority from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, he was expressing what was then the common view. Here is the famous statement of those principles:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..." http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_12_Imprimis.pdf


a. " Barack Obama beliefs are foreign to what the Declaration of Independence stands for. He believes that in the name of liberty we as a nation must reject absolute truths." Letter: Absolute truth | Deseret News

b. Who among us cannot see absolute truth in the Declaration of Independence? What happened to the ability to think, to judge what is being told to one?

And who are these Republicans who never, in the course of two long presidential campaigns, never in opposition to Barack Obama, thought to point out his
unequivocal disagreement with the principles we celebrate as a nation on the
Fourth of July?
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_12_Imprimis.pdf





Offered James Madison or Barack Obama....and who did you choose?

How could you?

How could they?

Pretty simple. Free stuff for those who want it without earning it.

Yeah, everyone voted for Obama to get free stuff. Man, you are as thick as two boards.

Time to make Swiss cheese of you once again....


1. ". In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. ... Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.
Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient..."
Scribd


2. "….the dramatically larger increase also suggests that part
of the program’s growth is due to conscious
policy choices by this administration to ease
eligibility rules and expand caseloads….income limits for eligibility have
risen twice as fast as inflation since 2007
and are now roughly 10 percent higher than
they were when Obama took office."
Casey Mulligan, “The Sharp Increase in
the Food Stamps Program,” Economix,
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/the-sharp-increase-in-the-food-stamps-program/
Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected | CNS News




So.....that makes you,...what......three boards?

 

[hunarcy]

Yeah, everyone voted for Obama to get free stuff. Man, you are as thick as two boards.

That's not a rebuttal. That's a waste of time...just so you know.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I doubt most liberals even know what the Declaration of Independence is.

OMG! Seems you are right!


"Obama makes mistake about the Declaration of Independence

This seems like a fairly obvious mistake and one would have hoped that a speech writer would have picked this up. The full speech is available from the White House website:

all in defense of those God-given rights that were first put to paper 236 years ago: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . .

Of course, Thomas Jefferson didn't think that this was the first time that these ideas were "put to paper." The Declaration reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Jefferson wrote in a letter to Henry Lee on May 8, 1825. "Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take.
"Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, ...."
John Lott's Website: Obama makes mistake about the Declaration of Independence

Yes and most the founders violated that principle, rather profoundly, by being slave owners. Jefferson may have even raped his slaves.

Gotta love you guys.

And your "principles".

You have been taught this lesson before....but, being a Liberal, real learning doesn't stick.
Instead, you have been trained in government schools to slander the Founders.

Being the eternal optimist, I'll provide the truth once again.



1. Usually, the ‘Founders’ refers to these six: Madison, Jefferson and Washington, Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin.

a. The three non-Southerners worked tirelessly against slavery.

b. While reading Ron Chernow’s book Alexander Hamilton, though, I found out that Hamilton was a strong advocate for the abolition of slavery. During the 1780s, Hamilton was one of the founders of the New York Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, which was instrumental in the abolition of slavery in the state of New York. Hamiltonhttp://angelolopez.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/alexander-hamilton-and-the-new-york-manumission-society/



c. Many of the other Founding Fathers were activists like Alexander Hamilton. In 1787 Benjamin Franklin agree to serve as president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, which set out to abolish slavery and set up programs to help freed slaves to become good citizens and improve the conditions of free African Americans. On February 12, 1790, Benjamin Franklin and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society presented a petition to the House of Representatives calling for the federal government to take steps for the gradual abolition of slavery and end the slave trade.

As a young lawyer, Thomas Jefferson represented a slave in court attempting to be set free and during the 1770s and 1780s, Jefferson had many several attempts to pass legislation to gradually abolish slavery and end the slave trade.

John Jay was the first president of the New York Manumission Society and was active in Society’s efforts to abolish slavery.
Ibid.




2. An excellent read on the matter is a brilliant book called "Miracle in Philadelphia," by Catherine Drinker Bowen, which recounts the actual history and debates around the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

Slavery was a huge issue during that convention, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted it outlawed, but ran into an impasse after many hours of debate with the southern colonies whose agricultural productivity depended on it.

The Founders who wanted to set the stage for the abolition of slavery came up with a compromise involving the issue of apportionment.

The southern colonies that favored slavery wanted all residents of their states, slave and free, counted equally when it came to deciding how many seats they were going to receive in Congress. Some of the northern colonies, who mostly had few slaves and thus nothing to lose didn’t want slave residents counted at all.

The Founder’s compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a man for the purposes of apportionment, and when that passed after a great deal more debate and lobbying, legislators from the slave states were permanently limited to a minority. With that one stroke, the state was set for slavery’s eventual demise, and the proof of how effective it was came in 1804, when the slave states were powerless to stop Congress from outlawing the importation of slaves to the new nation.
The stage was set, even if it took 70 years and a bloody war.
Breitbart News: Big Journalism




3. "Jefferson may have even raped his slaves."
I'm pleased that you said 'may' as there is no proof that Thomas Jefferson had children by Sally Hemings.



Do start the new year with an attempt to get over your hatred of America.

 

[regent]

A question for the historians: was the purpose of the Declaration to declare independence or a form of propaganda?

 

[boedicca]

How could voters be duped by Obama. It took decades of effort by Progressives to brain wash generations via public education and to turn enough people into Big Government dependents...and then the right timing (financial crisis of 2008)...and voila! Hopenchange!

 

[JakeStarkey]

PC, you have it wrong. The Founders (and there are some 60 or 70 counted as such in the first generation) compromised on slavery, fair and square, kicking the bucket down the road.

They had to in order to get a country.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you have it wrong. The Founders (and there are some 60 or 70 counted as such in the first generation) compromised on slavery, fair and square, kicking the bucket down the road.

They had to in order to get a country.

I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

All you did in your post was summarize what I posted.

I can't begin to tell you what an asset you have been......

...but as soon as that becomes evident, you can count on my reporting same.

 

[Mojo2]

How could American voters have been tricked into voting for an individual with the views of Barack Obama?


Not easily...not without one hundred years of preparation for the moment....

It began as a well intended and necessary reform....then Lord Acton's motto took over, and power corrupted the reformers.....





1. Woodrow Wilson, our first Progressive President was elected as a result of Teddy Roosevelt, himself well on the road to anti-constituional views, splitting the vote with Taft.

a. Wilson, inveterate racist Democrat, let it be known how he felt about the Constitution:

"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws. … Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]




2. In 1933, another anti-constitutionalist took the presidency. His powers came from the perfect-storm of the Depression, and then the world war. He cowed the judiciary, and co-opted the press. The schools were hardly a problem.
The ascendency of Progressivism led us to today.





3. ' President Obama wrote in his 2006 book, "The Audacity of Hope," that "Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty was a rejection of absolute truth. The infallibility of any idea, or ideology, or theology, or "ism," any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course or drive, both majorities and minorities, into the cruelties of the Inquisition, the pogrom, the Gulag or the jihad."'
Letter: Absolute truth | Deseret News

a. The idea that truth is 'relative' is called 'postmodernism,' which men can guide their thoughts and actions, it denies the existence of a source of truth, morality, and intelligibility distinct from man.

The leading academic postmodernist, the late Richard Rorty, argued that liberals are moral relativists who feel an “aversion to cruelty,” and it's that aversion that makes them liberals.[Postmodernism] affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent on the community in which we participate .
Grenz, S. J., "A Primer on Postmodernism", p. 8.






4. Make sense?
Seem to be...what?....a brilliant analysis? An echo of what so many have heard university?

Indeed, it is.
So very many have been exposed only to Liberal/progressive/socialist rhetoric that they accept such nonsense without thinking about what it means, entails, or how it fits with the founders views.


5. "James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution, and when he suggested in the Federalist Papers that the Constitution receives its authority from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, he was expressing what was then the common view. Here is the famous statement of those principles:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..." http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_12_Imprimis.pdf


a. " Barack Obama beliefs are foreign to what the Declaration of Independence stands for. He believes that in the name of liberty we as a nation must reject absolute truths." Letter: Absolute truth | Deseret News

b. Who among us cannot see absolute truth in the Declaration of Independence? What happened to the ability to think, to judge what is being told to one?

And who are these Republicans who never, in the course of two long presidential campaigns, never in opposition to Barack Obama, thought to point out his
unequivocal disagreement with the principles we celebrate as a nation on the
Fourth of July?
http://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/file/archives/pdf/2013_12_Imprimis.pdf





Offered James Madison or Barack Obama....and who did you choose?

How could you?

How could they?

Pretty simple. Free stuff for those who want it without earning it.

Yeah, everyone voted for Obama to get free stuff. Man, you are as thick as two boards.

You are the one with the wooden head if you think that Obama would have won the 2012 election without getting the pivotal Entitlement Voters vote.

With those ballots he's in for a second term.

Without them he's back in Chi Town getting kick backs from Labor bosses or whatever duplicitous skunks from Chicago do when they are no longer permitted to butt fukk America from the Oval Office.

 

[regent]

At times the founders were thought to be the people connected with the entire scenario of founding a new nation and new government while the "framers" were those involved in writing of the Constitution. A few arguments have ensued as to Jefferson being a framer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At times the founders were thought to be the people connected with the entire scenario of founding a new nation and new government while the "framers" were those involved in writing of the Constitution. A few arguments have ensued as to Jefferson being a framer.

reggie.....is there even the slightest chance that....perhaps by accident.....you might touch on the question posed by the OP.....as to whether or not you agree with Barack Obama, that "Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty was a rejection of absolute truth,..."

The example chosen as an absolute truth is that all men are to be treated as equal in the eyes of the law?


Care to take a bite?



If you find that one too.....onerous....how about this truth suggested by the Constitution: men, by their nature are not 'good,' and their natural tendency is to lean toward self-aggrandizement, so checks and balances must be built into the law of the land.

The absolute truth about human beings: they are not angels (Federalist #51).




Aren't you even a little tempted to condemn Obama?
A little?

 

[Dot Com]

No one is worrying about God, PC.

The DOI is a statement of general principles, and about deity, Jefferson's language for God is deistic not Christian.

yep



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature's_God

"...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

is a direct reference to deism from The enlightenment MEANING a retreat from established/gov't-endorsed, sky pixies of yore PC.

Sorry PoliChic

Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jefferson's letters and included in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. American Founding Fathers, or Framers of the Constitution, who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence.

Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[50] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout the USA and Europe).

 

[Jroc]

I doubt most liberals even know what the Declaration of Independence is.

OMG! Seems you are right!


"Obama makes mistake about the Declaration of Independence

This seems like a fairly obvious mistake and one would have hoped that a speech writer would have picked this up. The full speech is available from the White House website:

all in defense of those God-given rights that were first put to paper 236 years ago: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . . .

Of course, Thomas Jefferson didn't think that this was the first time that these ideas were "put to paper." The Declaration reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Jefferson wrote in a letter to Henry Lee on May 8, 1825. "Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take.
"Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, ...."
John Lott's Website: Obama makes mistake about the Declaration of Independence

Yes and most the founders violated that principle, rather profoundly, by being slave owners. Jefferson may have even raped his slaves.

Gotta love you guys.

And your "principles".

You liberals have a definite problem with comprehension. The declaration and Constitution go hand In hand. One could not exist without the other. Our founding principles are in the Declaration of independence. In the long run those principles would not allow slavery to continue. They couldn't eliminate slavery at the time of the founding. but Lincoln used those principles, the principles laid out in the declaration to ultimately free the salves...Do you understand?

 

[Jroc]

PC, you have it wrong. The Founders (and there are some 60 or 70 counted as such in the first generation) compromised on slavery, fair and square, kicking the bucket down the road.

They had to in order to get a country.

I'm never wrong. I once thought I was wrong, turns out, I was mistaken.

All you did in your post was summarize what I posted.

I can't begin to tell you what an asset you have been......

...but as soon as that becomes evident, you can count on my reporting same.

 

[regent]

At times the founders were thought to be the people connected with the entire scenario of founding a new nation and new government while the "framers" were those involved in writing of the Constitution. A few arguments have ensued as to Jefferson being a framer.

reggie.....is there even the slightest chance that....perhaps by accident.....you might touch on the question posed by the OP.....as to whether or not you agree with Barack Obama, that "Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty was a rejection of absolute truth,..."

The example chosen as an absolute truth is that all men are to be treated as equal in the eyes of the law?


Care to take a bite?



If you find that one too.....onerous....how about this truth suggested by the Constitution: men, by their nature are not 'good,' and their natural tendency is to lean toward self-aggrandizement, so checks and balances must be built into the law of the land.

The absolute truth about human beings: they are not angels (Federalist #51).




Aren't you even a little tempted to condemn Obama?
A little?

This search for absolute truth thing has no end or we haven't reached the end yet. Marx thought he had reached the end of government truths with his dialectical materialism, but so far he erred; it seems other truths emerged. If the framers thought they had reached the absolute truth with the Constitution why put in amendment clauses? Allen Bloom might have been both right and wrong, but the framers were under no illusions.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At times the founders were thought to be the people connected with the entire scenario of founding a new nation and new government while the "framers" were those involved in writing of the Constitution. A few arguments have ensued as to Jefferson being a framer.

reggie.....is there even the slightest chance that....perhaps by accident.....you might touch on the question posed by the OP.....as to whether or not you agree with Barack Obama, that "Implicit in [the Constitution's] structure, in the very idea of ordered liberty was a rejection of absolute truth,..."

The example chosen as an absolute truth is that all men are to be treated as equal in the eyes of the law?


Care to take a bite?



If you find that one too.....onerous....how about this truth suggested by the Constitution: men, by their nature are not 'good,' and their natural tendency is to lean toward self-aggrandizement, so checks and balances must be built into the law of the land.

The absolute truth about human beings: they are not angels (Federalist #51).




Aren't you even a little tempted to condemn Obama?
A little?

This search for absolute truth thing has no end or we haven't reached the end yet. Marx thought he had reached the end of government truths with his dialectical materialism, but so far he erred; it seems other truths emerged. If the framers thought they had reached the absolute truth with the Constitution why put in amendment clauses? Allen Bloom might have been both right and wrong, but the framers were under no illusions.

1. I just provided two examples of absolutes....yet you ignored them.


By doing so, you have inadvertently admitted that they are such, and that they eviscerate your (Obama's) argument.



2. " If the framers thought they had reached the absolute truth with the Constitution why put in amendment clauses?"

You're brighter than that, reggie...which makes your statement dishonest.
Pointing to a principle on which the rules of our government was based as an absolute is not the same as your pretension, i.e., that I claimed that the entire Constitution is an absolute truth.


In fact, providing an amendment process is more proof that the Founders believed that men are fallible. An absolute truth.




a. The contrary view is found in those who believe in giving all power to big government, suggesting that it will lead to perfection of mankind, and Utopia on earth.

Even more so when Leftists assign all power to an FDR, or an Obama, both of whom behaved as though there were no checks on their power.

 

[Spoonman]

Obama came along to the right place at the right time. people were frustrated with the bush administration. what people were really frustrated with, but didn't realize it, was government in general. government no longer represents the people or the best interests of the people. Obama spoke of hope and change. he campaigned on every issue the people were frustrated with and promised to make change. But what has changed? nothing. how are were any different or better off? have jobs come back? has the economy improved? has the gap between the rich and poor improved? are the poor really better off, or are they still poor? there sure are a heck of a lot more of them. 47% of the people on some type of entitlement. Elderly can't afford to retire. Health care is now a burden that falls squarely on the shoulders of the middle class to fun. Healthcare is now controlled by insurance companies and corporations. Congress is more partisan than ever. The public is more partisan than ever. the debt has grown by over $7 trillion. manufacturing jobs are leaving china at a massive rate. but they aren't coming back here. Obama blamed bush for outsourcing jobs to China. now that costs in china are making them non competitive and jobs are leaving, why is he doing nothing to bring them back here? because 1/6th of the GDP is tied up in his massive entitlement program, obamacare. Obama can't afford to do what is necessary to bring the country out of a recession because he has squandered all resources on his personal agenda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The function of the Democrat Party is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and see that the chaff gets elected.