Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I explained at the bottom why your argument was fallacious. Go ahead and address it if you can.

On which post? Quote it.

West Africans are better off in America today. Argue against that point.

The constitution was specifically designed to united the independent states for defense and common currency, and was intended to be VERY limited in scope, preserving all other rights NOT enumerated to the States or People. Refute that.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Dems get around that by appointing lib judges who just make up crap as they along

If there are any judges that are totally and blatantly wrong, it's the Conservatives judges that decided that corporations have the same rights as people.

There is no way in hell that the founding Fathers intended the rights of the declaration of Independence and the Constitution to be applied to corporations.

If they did that Constitution would have started with "We the People and Corporations...do ordain"

Those judges should be disbarred!!!

 

[Hum Dinger]

So an employee now is a slave? Just quit your job
wow

Homeless and starving is not a valid option.

Besides I didn't say that employees were slaves...learn to read dimbo!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Homeless and starving is not a valid option.

Besides I didn't say that employees were slaves...learn to read dimbo!!!

Take society back to cave men. How did one survive?

Learn to think.

 

[Meister]

Homeless and starving is not a valid option.

Besides I didn't say that employees were slaves...learn to read dimbo!!!

Instead of making people guess what the **** your point is, just say it.
There is only one dimbo, and that is you dick-h

 

[Hum Dinger]

Take society back to cave men. How did one survive?

Learn to think.

Sure, I'll run around clubbing animals for food and dragging women by the hair to my box under the bridge.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Instead of making people guess what the **** your point is, just say it.
There is only one dimbo, and that is you dick-h

O.K., since your unable to understand my point from context:

Since most Americans are heavily in debt, they are effectively slaves.

This is stated only for your education. Since you failed to understand the original statement, you are far too dumb for me to waste my time debating you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Sure, I'll run around clubbing animals for food and dragging women by the hair to my box under the bridge.

You mean, you'll actually work for your own survival?

Good.

Point received.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

O.K., since your unable to understand my point from context:

Since most Americans are heavily in debt, they are effectively slaves.

This is stated only for your education. Since you failed to understand the original statement, you are far too dumb for me to waste my time debating you.

That sounds more like a willful vow of poverty than enslavement.

 

[Meister]

O.K., since your unable to understand my point from context:

Since most Americans are heavily in debt, they are effectively slaves.

This is stated only for your education. Since you failed to understand the original statement, you are far too dumb for me to waste my time debating you.

So, you are saying you're a slave. I was right, and you could quit your job.
Sad that you don't understand what you post. must be a liberal disease.

 

[Curried Goats]

The bill of rights was adopted WITH the ratification of the constitution, you ignorant half-wit. They were SPECIFCALLY addressed in the Federalist Papers BEFORE ratification.

The arguments for them might of been in the federalist papers but they weren't actually ratified until two years after the Constitution was.

The biggest issue threatening the adoption of the new constitution was GIVING UP STATE RIGHTS, which was tangentially related to slavery, but get over your black self. It wasn't about you.

No, it was mostly about slavery. The state right the South was first and foremost concerned with was protecting their right to slavery. When Northern states used their rights to protect runaway slaves the Southern states vehemently disagreed.

Correct. The problem is that nobody really gave too much of a shit about slavery at the time. They were more concerned about tyranny, which they had recently thrown off with a costly war.

They weren't concerned about all tyranny, just the tyranny that affected them. They codified their tyranny of others into law.

that is LITERALLY how you framed it, dip shit. Look at your own words:

You stated it EXACTLY that way.

Quote them and let's see.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's too bad that the amendment process requires LOTS of mutual consent. Otherwise we would get THIS shoved through and you lefties would have a epic, pants-shitting meltdowns:

A Bill Of Federalism

A detailed proposal to redress the imbalance between state and federal power.

www.forbes.com

Look at these first two amendments Professor Barnett proposes:

Article [of Amendment 1] -- [Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress]

Section 1. Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services.

Section 2. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three-fifths of the House of Representatives and three-fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.

Section 3. This article shall be effective five years from the date of its ratification, at which time the 16th Article of amendment is repealed.

Article [of Amendment 2] -- [Limits of Commerce Power]

The power of Congress to make all laws which are necessary and proper to regulate commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall not be construed to include the power to regulate or prohibit any activity that is confined within a single state regardless of its effects outside the state, whether it employs instrumentalities therefrom, or whether its regulation or prohibition is part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme; but Congress shall have power to regulate harmful emissions between one state and another, and to define and provide for punishment of offenses constituting acts of war or violent insurrection against the United States.

 

[Curried Goats]

On which post? Quote it.

West Africans are better off in America today. Argue against that point.

My point is that if they are it isn't because of the slavers but because slavers and slavery was over thrown. Argue against that.

The constitution was specifically designed to united the independent states for defense and common currency, and was intended to be VERY limited in scope, preserving all other rights NOT enumerated to the States or People. Refute that.

In order to make it harder for a federal government to abolish slavery. Refute that.

 

[AMart]

So we're forever stuck in 1784?

Genius take Richard.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My point is that if they are it isn't because of the slavers but because slavers and slavery was over thrown. Argue against that.

...by white people....

In order to make it harder for a federal government to abolish slavery. Refute that.

Already did 10x over. I'll refer you to the Federalist Papers, of which you have never heard, likely.

Look at the proposed Bill of Federalism. That should make you REALLY excited about making the amendment process easy.

 

[Curried Goats]

...by white people....

And black people. Note though, those white people were fighting against slavers as well. The argument that black people should be grateful to slavers is a ridiculous one.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And black people. Note though, those white people were fighting against slavers as well. The argument that black people should be grateful to slavers is a ridiculous one.

...slavers who were also black people...

But, it is ridiculous to expect decedents of slaves to be grateful for slavery. I agree on that point.

It is also A FACT that, but for slavery, West Africans would have largely stayed in West Africa. 13% of the U.S. population would not be black folks.

 

[Curried Goats]

...slavers who were also black people...

But, it is ridiculous to expect decedents of slaves to be grateful for slavery. I agree on that point.

It is also A FACT that, but for slavery, West Africans would have largely stayed in West Africa. 13% of the U.S. population would not be black folks.

No that's not a fact. Without the benefits of slavery America may not have survived. Without slavery who knows what would of become of the people who inhabited West Africa. Any predictions about what America or West Africa would be sans slavery is mere sophistry.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Without the benefits of slavery America may not have survived.

The North was WAY more powerful than the South. You're saying that without slavery, the North would not have become the powerhouse it had become leading up to the war?

Without slavery who knows what would of become of the people who inhabited West Africa. Any predictions about what America or West Africa would be sans slavery is mere sophistry.

And therefore, to undo what has already been done without anything resembling an acceptable alternative is ludicrous.

Again, look at the Bill of Federalism. Tell me you want that easily rammed through. I sure do. That would be GREAT.

 

[Curried Goats]

The North was WAY more powerful than the South. You're saying that without slavery, the North would not have become the powerhouse it had become leading up to the war?

No, I'm saying without the benefit of slave labor America's economy might not have survived let alone become the powerhouse it became. All of America's most prosperous industries relied on slave labor and the products produced by that slave labor. I'm also saying arguing that black people would be worse off today without slavery because they wouldn't of come to America is trying to argue you know how things would of played out without slavery, and you don't and to suggest you do is an irrational argument.

And therefore, to undo what has already been done without anything resembling an acceptable alternative is ludicrous.

I'm not a magician. I'm not suggesting we reverse time and circumstance. I'm saying, very clearly, that the notion black Americans owe slavers gratitude is stupid.

Again, look at the Bill of Federalism. Tell me you want that easily rammed through. I sure do. That would be GREAT.

I don't know what you think this has to do with any of my arguments. I don't give a shit about things you'd like rammed through and really didn't ask.