What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Stuff I Disagree with Tea Partiers, Libertarians and Liberals On

IndependntLogic

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
2,997
Reaction score
399
Points
48
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

* Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

* Libs: We have too much entitlement. We have families that are 3rd generation on welfare. That's at least 2 too many. To say that these programs are never abused is ridiculous.

* Conservs: I love what some of you have taught me about the duplication of state and fed agencies. Thank you for that. I would agree with much of what you say in this regard. But I would never let go of the CIA, SEC, FAA, EPA and so on.

* LIbs: So waht if a candidate is a Christian? Obama is. I don't care if Rick Perry prays for rain, prosperity or a Super Bowl win for the Houstan Texans (He better pray friggin hard for that one!). While you have all this rhetoric about Christians oppressing you or whatever, what exactly are you doing when you villify someone for their faith alone. Now if Perry says he wants prayer to mandatory in schools, show me and I will b1tch slap him.

* Conservs: You will never convince me that the CRA of '64 is not absolutely necessary and completely Constitutional. Sorry - that definitely falls into my view of "All men created equal" and "General Welfare".

* ObamaCare sucks. It's just plain stupid. But guess what? I've had government health care when I served in the military (Not one person bought private insurance during my time in uniform) and when I lived in Mexico, Canada and The Ukraine. I've also received it in other countries. I would happily give up $300B of our military spending for a Public Option.

* IT IS NOT ALL STILL BUSH'S FRIGGIN FAULT!!!! Enough said on that one.

* Libs: I am for enhanced interrogation on rare occasion. Conservs: This does not mean water-boarding. Nothing about Git-Mo or what Cheney / Bush did was about gaining actionable intel. Because of my background, I am uniquely qualified to prove this. It is not hard to do.

Okay, enough of the late night ramblings after the post-tennis glasses of Merlot.

I'm sure this will spark debate on issues, facts, passion replies and well reasoned arguments from some of you. And of course, the usual insults and labels from the whackjobs...
 

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,667
Points
48
Location
Maine
You're taking on so many issues at once that responding to them all will inevitably lead to thread topic overload.
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
77,614
Reaction score
12,478
Points
2,180
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

* Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

* Libs: We have too much entitlement. We have families that are 3rd generation on welfare. That's at least 2 too many. To say that these programs are never abused is ridiculous.

* Conservs: I love what some of you have taught me about the duplication of state and fed agencies. Thank you for that. I would agree with much of what you say in this regard. But I would never let go of the CIA, SEC, FAA, EPA and so on.

* LIbs: So waht if a candidate is a Christian? Obama is. I don't care if Rick Perry prays for rain, prosperity or a Super Bowl win for the Houstan Texans (He better pray friggin hard for that one!). While you have all this rhetoric about Christians oppressing you or whatever, what exactly are you doing when you villify someone for their faith alone. Now if Perry says he wants prayer to mandatory in schools, show me and I will b1tch slap him.

* Conservs: You will never convince me that the CRA of '64 is not absolutely necessary and completely Constitutional. Sorry - that definitely falls into my view of "All men created equal" and "General Welfare".

* ObamaCare sucks. It's just plain stupid. But guess what? I've had government health care when I served in the military (Not one person bought private insurance during my time in uniform) and when I lived in Mexico, Canada and The Ukraine. I've also received it in other countries. I would happily give up $300B of our military spending for a Public Option.

* IT IS NOT ALL STILL BUSH'S FRIGGIN FAULT!!!! Enough said on that one.

* Libs: I am for enhanced interrogation on rare occasion. Conservs: This does not mean water-boarding. Nothing about Git-Mo or what Cheney / Bush did was about gaining actionable intel. Because of my background, I am uniquely qualified to prove this. It is not hard to do.

Okay, enough of the late night ramblings after the post-tennis glasses of Merlot.

I'm sure this will spark debate on issues, facts, passion replies and well reasoned arguments from some of you. And of course, the usual insults and labels from the whackjobs...

:clap2:

All this is is sanity, really. This post speaks to the *true* non partisans. Everyone else is fucking our Country up, knowingly or unknowingly.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

Funny, you assert that no one can speak to the dead, then assert that you can. How does that work? Why should we listen to you instead of making our own informed decisions? Have you actually studied the writings of the Founders and all the debate that surrounded the Constitution in order to actually be qualified to have an opinion, or do you simply pick the one that is closest to your arbitrary beliefs?

By the way, that belief in a "Living Constitution" is what made the PATRIOT ACT possible. It would have been struck down automatically if we stuck to a original interpretation of the Constitution. Thanks for proving you have no idea about the actual issues.

* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

No they aren't. I think unions are outdated, and they do contribute to higher labor costs, but they are not the reason jobs are being shipped overseas, which is not happening anyway.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

So, again, everyone is wrong but you.

Remarkable.

* Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

The fact that taxes do not play into your hiring decisions just proves you are not making informed decisions, you are simply reacting to demand. Not sure why you hold that up as an accomplishment, but feel free to do so if you want.

* Libs: We have too much entitlement. We have families that are 3rd generation on welfare. That's at least 2 too many. To say that these programs are never abused is ridiculous.

To say that the fact that families are on them for generations is somehow proof that they are abused is even more ridiculous.

* Conservs: I love what some of you have taught me about the duplication of state and fed agencies. Thank you for that. I would agree with much of what you say in this regard. But I would never let go of the CIA, SEC, FAA, EPA and so on.

Why not?

* LIbs: So waht if a candidate is a Christian? Obama is. I don't care if Rick Perry prays for rain, prosperity or a Super Bowl win for the Houstan Texans (He better pray friggin hard for that one!). While you have all this rhetoric about Christians oppressing you or whatever, what exactly are you doing when you villify someone for their faith alone. Now if Perry says he wants prayer to mandatory in schools, show me and I will b1tch slap him.

That was almost sensible.

* Conservs: You will never convince me that the CRA of '64 is not absolutely necessary and completely Constitutional. Sorry - that definitely falls into my view of "All men created equal" and "General Welfare".

First, the CRA was passed in 1977.

Second, it isn't the law that most people see as the problem, it was the regulations that were written to enforce the law.

Third, all men might be created equal, but they do not all have good credit ratings.

* ObamaCare sucks. It's just plain stupid. But guess what? I've had government health care when I served in the military (Not one person bought private insurance during my time in uniform) and when I lived in Mexico, Canada and The Ukraine. I've also received it in other countries. I would happily give up $300B of our military spending for a Public Option.

Define public option in a way that actually makes sense.

* IT IS NOT ALL STILL BUSH'S FRIGGIN FAULT!!!! Enough said on that one.

Even a broken clock.

* Libs: I am for enhanced interrogation on rare occasion. Conservs: This does not mean water-boarding. Nothing about Git-Mo or what Cheney / Bush did was about gaining actionable intel. Because of my background, I am uniquely qualified to prove this. It is not hard to do.

The state should never, repeat never, break the rules. Whenever it does it will eventually break them all the time. Anyone that does not understand that should be locked in a barrel and fed through the bunghole for the rest of their lives. They are way to stupid to be allowed to walk the streets and vote.

Okay, enough of the late night ramblings after the post-tennis glasses of Merlot.

I'm sure this will spark debate on issues, facts, passion replies and well reasoned arguments from some of you. And of course, the usual insults and labels from the whackjobs...

Why would it spark anything other than contempt?
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

* I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

* Conservs: Taxes do not affect my decision to hire people. I have run large divisions for major companies, medium sized firms and my own, for the last 20 years. Taxes or the mere scent of the possibility of taxes has never affected my hiring decisions. If I needed someone I hired them. It is stupid business not to. If I didn't need someone, I didn't hire anyone. This is just common sense.

* Libs: We have too much entitlement. We have families that are 3rd generation on welfare. That's at least 2 too many. To say that these programs are never abused is ridiculous.

* Conservs: I love what some of you have taught me about the duplication of state and fed agencies. Thank you for that. I would agree with much of what you say in this regard. But I would never let go of the CIA, SEC, FAA, EPA and so on.

* LIbs: So waht if a candidate is a Christian? Obama is. I don't care if Rick Perry prays for rain, prosperity or a Super Bowl win for the Houstan Texans (He better pray friggin hard for that one!). While you have all this rhetoric about Christians oppressing you or whatever, what exactly are you doing when you villify someone for their faith alone. Now if Perry says he wants prayer to mandatory in schools, show me and I will b1tch slap him.

* Conservs: You will never convince me that the CRA of '64 is not absolutely necessary and completely Constitutional. Sorry - that definitely falls into my view of "All men created equal" and "General Welfare".

* ObamaCare sucks. It's just plain stupid. But guess what? I've had government health care when I served in the military (Not one person bought private insurance during my time in uniform) and when I lived in Mexico, Canada and The Ukraine. I've also received it in other countries. I would happily give up $300B of our military spending for a Public Option.

* IT IS NOT ALL STILL BUSH'S FRIGGIN FAULT!!!! Enough said on that one.

* Libs: I am for enhanced interrogation on rare occasion. Conservs: This does not mean water-boarding. Nothing about Git-Mo or what Cheney / Bush did was about gaining actionable intel. Because of my background, I am uniquely qualified to prove this. It is not hard to do.

Okay, enough of the late night ramblings after the post-tennis glasses of Merlot.

I'm sure this will spark debate on issues, facts, passion replies and well reasoned arguments from some of you. And of course, the usual insults and labels from the whackjobs...

:clap2:

All this is is sanity, really. This post speaks to the *true* non partisans. Everyone else is fucking our Country up, knowingly or unknowingly.

Which is why no one pays any attention to self described non partisans.
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

Here's the thing, if it wasn't to be taken literally then there's no reason to have it at all. If it's not to be taken literally then why not have 4 branches of government, or maybe we get rid of one and just have 2? As for it being a living document because it can be amended, then why not amend it? If you want to do something that isn't in the Constitution then amend it so that it is. That's how we know it was meant to be taken literally. Otherwise there'd be no reason to amend it at all.
 

Sactowndog

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
810
Reaction score
74
Points
63
* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

No they aren't. I think unions are outdated, and they do contribute to higher labor costs, but they are not the reason jobs are being shipped overseas, which is not happening anyway.

So Windbag. What data are you using to make this assertion?

In my experience, our company which is very sizeable is aggressively outsourcing jobs overseas. In fact, every division VP is responsible for creating a plan to show the savings they are generating via off-shoring. I know because I sat in those meetings.

Our company has never been unionized so you can't blame the unions.

Lastly I sincerely doubt our business is so cutting edge that we are the only ones. If the situation in my company is an outlier I would love to see the data point since I have based a share of my investment strategy on this macro trend so I am not asking to be belligerent.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,785
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Pretty much sounds like G.W. F'in Bush himself... Except for that part about Gitmo.. A big govt country club Republican with a tennis racket in one hand, and the wine in the other. And the Constitution somewhere on the shelf in the Library.. Oh' Charles -- could you fetch me some Grey Poupon and my copy of the Living Constitution? Just funning with you and your manservant of course..

Let's have a beer and talk about the HARD STUFF.. Like why there is a Dept of Ed if NCLB is such a crappy bomb. OR HOW Washington got away with the theft of $3Bill in Soc Sec funds and how you salvage that. But this laundry list of likes and dislikes doesn't get us far enough to help you find out which of the TWO PISS POOR choices you're likely to be. Certainly all those "non-pedigreed" parties wouldn't look good at "buddy night" at the country club..

Seriously ---- have you ever been worried about energy policy, tax policy, health policy, foreign policy, monetary policy ALL at the SAME TIME? It's the combo of all those things that are holding the economy hostage for 2 years now. If your business spyglass isn't clouded over -- you're looking in the wrong end..
 
Last edited:

Sactowndog

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
810
Reaction score
74
Points
63
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

Here's the thing, if it wasn't to be taken literally then there's no reason to have it at all. If it's not to be taken literally then why not have 4 branches of government, or maybe we get rid of one and just have 2? As for it being a living document because it can be amended, then why not amend it? If you want to do something that isn't in the Constitution then amend it so that it is. That's how we know it was meant to be taken literally. Otherwise there'd be no reason to amend it at all.

Because everything requires context and intrepretation. You can't right a literal document that can stand the test of time because the context changes too much. Have you read the Federalist Papers?
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

Here's the thing, if it wasn't to be taken literally then there's no reason to have it at all. If it's not to be taken literally then why not have 4 branches of government, or maybe we get rid of one and just have 2? As for it being a living document because it can be amended, then why not amend it? If you want to do something that isn't in the Constitution then amend it so that it is. That's how we know it was meant to be taken literally. Otherwise there'd be no reason to amend it at all.

Because everything requires context and intrepretation. You can't right a literal document that can stand the test of time because the context changes too much. Have you read the Federalist Papers?

Sure have. Along with the Anti-Federalist papers.

However, as I said, if we find the Constitution lacking then we have the ability to amend it. That's the way the Constitution was meant to change with the times, through the amendment process not through the government simply doing whatever it wants regardless of the Constitution.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
88,601
Reaction score
74,556
Points
3,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.
Don't have to speak to the dead...We have the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers -which are quite detailed and succinct- to tell us what the framers meant, in their own words....And Bubba, I'm here to tell you that passages like "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" have been contorted and transmogified to create the same conditions that caused the revolution.

Nice try.
 

Sactowndog

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
810
Reaction score
74
Points
63
* Libs: I am for enhanced interrogation on rare occasion. Conservs: This does not mean water-boarding. Nothing about Git-Mo or what Cheney / Bush did was about gaining actionable intel. Because of my background, I am uniquely qualified to prove this. It is not hard to do.

The state should never, repeat never, break the rules. Whenever it does it will eventually break them all the time. Anyone that does not understand that should be locked in a barrel and fed through the bunghole for the rest of their lives. They are way to stupid to be allowed to walk the streets and vote.

Yep what exactly is enhanced interrogation in your mind. I completely agree with Quantum on this topic. We are a nation of laws not of kings. That means President's don't get to make their own set of rules. Of the many things I don't like about Bush, this was by far the worst especially since he hung out the Abu Gharib guards to take the fall.
 

Sactowndog

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
810
Reaction score
74
Points
63
Sure have. Along with the Anti-Federalist papers.

However, as I said, if we find the Constitution lacking then we have the ability to amend it. That's the way the Constitution was meant to change with the times, through the amendment process not through the government simply doing whatever it wants regardless of the Constitution.

Your better than many. However, you still have to apply the intent to changing circumstances. I agree with you however about changing intent but I would argue it has been abused by both sides in different ways.
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,365
Reaction score
1,724
Points
205
Sure have. Along with the Anti-Federalist papers.

However, as I said, if we find the Constitution lacking then we have the ability to amend it. That's the way the Constitution was meant to change with the times, through the amendment process not through the government simply doing whatever it wants regardless of the Constitution.

Your better than many. However, you still have to apply the intent to changing circumstances. I agree with you however about changing intent but I would argue it has been abused by both sides in different ways.

Well I appreciate that you think I'm better than some, but I don't see how the intent of a document can simply change "with the times." And who gets to decide when the intent changes, and how it changes? That makes the Constitution essentially pointless in my mind. If the intent has to change with the times, then it has to be done through the amendment process.
 

ShackledNation

Libertarian
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
209
Points
130
Location
California
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.
The meaning of the Constitution do not change unless it is amended. When people refer to a living Constitution, they are referring to the idea that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time without amendments. This is simply not true, and is not true of any law. If the entire meaning of the Constitution can be changed without an amendment, then there is literally no purpose to having a Constitution. The Constitution is to be taken literally because law is taken literally. Popular intent may change with the times, but intent of the Constitution does not. When the states ratified the Constitution, there was a general understanding of the intent of the document. Changing the meaning of words and the intent of a contract after it is signed and still expecting everyone to abide by it is fraud.

The fact that there is an amendment process outlined in the Constitution alone disproves any claim that the meaning of the document can be changed at will. It can only be changed if the method outlined is followed. Would you ever sign a contract that could mean something totally different the next morning? Of course not. Such a document could not even be called a contract. The term "living constitution" is in itself a contradiction.
 
Last edited:

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
67,506
Reaction score
22,785
Points
2,250
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

No they aren't. I think unions are outdated, and they do contribute to higher labor costs, but they are not the reason jobs are being shipped overseas, which is not happening anyway.

So Windbag. What data are you using to make this assertion?

In my experience, our company which is very sizeable is aggressively outsourcing jobs overseas. In fact, every division VP is responsible for creating a plan to show the savings they are generating via off-shoring. I know because I sat in those meetings.

Our company has never been unionized so you can't blame the unions.

Lastly I sincerely doubt our business is so cutting edge that we are the only ones. If the situation in my company is an outlier I would love to see the data point since I have based a share of my investment strategy on this macro trend so I am not asking to be belligerent.

I certainly support the CHOICE to bargain collectively, but the reason that unions are ossified endangered species is in their simplistic view of what a "job" is.. You can no longer micromanage the scope of what a worker is responsible for contributing. There is no big bank of "turn the screw" jobs available anymore. You only need to look at the "self-checkout" lanes of retail stores to see how endangered the union view of a "job" is.. I think they could redefine themselves to be more supportive of CAREERS rather than jobs and that would serve their membership much better.. If we had a 21st century manufacturing paradigm -- "cheap labor" would be irrelevent and that overseas advantage would quickly fade..
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
* LIbs: Many unions have driven the price of labor up so high, they have every bit as much responsibility for jobs being shipped overseas as CEOs. They are not all noble and protecting the workers of America. Examples: UAW, Teamsters, Longshoremen.

No they aren't. I think unions are outdated, and they do contribute to higher labor costs, but they are not the reason jobs are being shipped overseas, which is not happening anyway.

So Windbag. What data are you using to make this assertion?

In my experience, our company which is very sizeable is aggressively outsourcing jobs overseas. In fact, every division VP is responsible for creating a plan to show the savings they are generating via off-shoring. I know because I sat in those meetings.

Our company has never been unionized so you can't blame the unions.

Lastly I sincerely doubt our business is so cutting edge that we are the only ones. If the situation in my company is an outlier I would love to see the data point since I have based a share of my investment strategy on this macro trend so I am not asking to be belligerent.

Wow, personal anecdotes to trump the fact that job growth has been going up for decades. You are absolutely right, you have proven me, the BLS, and the entire world economy, wrong. Thanks for correcting me.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
* TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

Here's the thing, if it wasn't to be taken literally then there's no reason to have it at all. If it's not to be taken literally then why not have 4 branches of government, or maybe we get rid of one and just have 2? As for it being a living document because it can be amended, then why not amend it? If you want to do something that isn't in the Constitution then amend it so that it is. That's how we know it was meant to be taken literally. Otherwise there'd be no reason to amend it at all.

Because everything requires context and intrepretation. You can't right a literal document that can stand the test of time because the context changes too much. Have you read the Federalist Papers?

Be specific. Tell me exactly what about the Constitution is outdated. (By the way, I actually know the answer to that question, and can back it up. I am also willing to bet that, whatever you think is outdated, it is not what is actually outdated.)
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
71,030
Reaction score
28,753
Points
2,290
Location
In a Republic, actually
TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

Here's the thing, if it wasn't to be taken literally then there's no reason to have it at all.

However, as I said, if we find the Constitution lacking then we have the ability to amend it. That's the way the Constitution was meant to change with the times, through the amendment process not through the government simply doing whatever it wants regardless of the Constitution.

The meaning of the Constitution do not change unless it is amended. When people refer to a living Constitution, they are referring to the idea that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time without amendments. This is simply not true, and is not true of any law. If the entire meaning of the Constitution can be changed without an amendment, then there is literally no purpose to having a Constitution. The Constitution is to be taken literally because law is taken literally. Popular intent may change with the times, but intent of the Constitution does not. When the states ratified the Constitution, there was a general understanding of the intent of the document. Changing the meaning of words and the intent of a contract after it is signed and still expecting everyone to abide by it is fraud.

The fact that there is an amendment process outlined in the Constitution alone disproves any claim that the meaning of the document can be changed at will. It can only be changed if the method outlined is followed. Would you ever sign a contract that could mean something totally different the next morning? Of course not. Such a document could not even be called a contract. The term "living constitution" is in itself a contradiction.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence dating back to Runnymede predicated on the rule of law, due process, and a presumption of innocence.

Justice Kennedy expressed it best, I think, in his majority opinion from Lawrence v Texas (2003):

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

They did not presume to have this insight.

Indeed – the Framers never intended the Constitution to be sacrosanct, nor their intent or judgment perceived infallible. The law changes as intended and as it needs to, but the principles of the Constitution endure, vital guideposts to ensure the rule of law remains preeminent.

As Kennedy notes the law changes to accommodate the needs of later generations; the Constitution, the centerpiece of American law, inspires us it live up to its potential. So it is not the Constitution that changes per se, but our understanding of it as we apply it to our everyday lives and as interpreted by the courts.

In Lawrence, therefore, the Court struck down as un-Constitutional the Texas law singling out homosexuals for discriminatory treatment – to wit: criminalizing their ‘behavior.’ Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, et al would argue the people of Texas have the ‘right’ to discriminate against gays if they wish to do so.

This is where the TPM, libertarians, conservatives, and others on the right have it wrong: the 14th Amendment ensures each American is guaranteed his civil rights regardless of jurisdiction. That a majority of the people of a given state or jurisdiction wish to ban ‘gay marriage’ or abortion is irrelevant, per the rule of law the majority are not authorized to decide whether or not the minority may enjoy its rights. (See: West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943).

Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, all of whom running for president and all of whom extreme rightist, are clearly ignorant of – or maintain contempt for – the fundamental Constitutional principle of the rule of law.

With regard to Perry, for example, and his advocacy of the fallacy of ‘states’ rights,’ over 50 years ago the Court made clear the original intent of the Supremacy Clause as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment:

The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.

The historic phrase `a government of laws and not of men' epitomizes the distinguishing character of our political society. When John Adams put that phrase into the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights he was not indulging in a rhetorical flourish. He was expressing the aim of those who, with him, framed the Declaration of Independence and founded the Republic. `A government of laws and not of men' was the rejection in positive terms of rule by fiat, whether by the fiat of governmental or private power. Every act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law, as finally pronounced by this Court.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

One can only infer, therefore, that Perry, the TPM, and others on the right either are ignorant of Cooper or reject it and over 200 years of Constitutional case law altogether.
 

ShackledNation

Libertarian
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
1,885
Reaction score
209
Points
130
Location
California
TPs and Libertarians: I don't believe that you speak to the dead and "know" what the Founding Fathers meant in the USC. No it is not to be taken literally and yes it is a living document - or else there would be no ability to amend it. I know all your reasons why you think you're right. I love the fact that you've done so much work and research on the two guys who really support your interpretation. They were big players but they weren't the only ones.

Here's the thing, if it wasn't to be taken literally then there's no reason to have it at all.

However, as I said, if we find the Constitution lacking then we have the ability to amend it. That's the way the Constitution was meant to change with the times, through the amendment process not through the government simply doing whatever it wants regardless of the Constitution.

The meaning of the Constitution do not change unless it is amended. When people refer to a living Constitution, they are referring to the idea that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time without amendments. This is simply not true, and is not true of any law. If the entire meaning of the Constitution can be changed without an amendment, then there is literally no purpose to having a Constitution. The Constitution is to be taken literally because law is taken literally. Popular intent may change with the times, but intent of the Constitution does not. When the states ratified the Constitution, there was a general understanding of the intent of the document. Changing the meaning of words and the intent of a contract after it is signed and still expecting everyone to abide by it is fraud.

The fact that there is an amendment process outlined in the Constitution alone disproves any claim that the meaning of the document can be changed at will. It can only be changed if the method outlined is followed. Would you ever sign a contract that could mean something totally different the next morning? Of course not. Such a document could not even be called a contract. The term "living constitution" is in itself a contradiction.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American jurisprudence dating back to Runnymede predicated on the rule of law, due process, and a presumption of innocence.

Justice Kennedy expressed it best, I think, in his majority opinion from Lawrence v Texas (2003):

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

They did not presume to have this insight.

Indeed – the Framers never intended the Constitution to be sacrosanct, nor their intent or judgment perceived infallible. The law changes as intended and as it needs to, but the principles of the Constitution endure, vital guideposts to ensure the rule of law remains preeminent.

As Kennedy notes the law changes to accommodate the needs of later generations; the Constitution, the centerpiece of American law, inspires us it live up to its potential. So it is not the Constitution that changes per se, but our understanding of it as we apply it to our everyday lives and as interpreted by the courts.

In Lawrence, therefore, the Court struck down as un-Constitutional the Texas law singling out homosexuals for discriminatory treatment – to wit: criminalizing their ‘behavior.’ Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, et al would argue the people of Texas have the ‘right’ to discriminate against gays if they wish to do so.

This is where the TPM, libertarians, conservatives, and others on the right have it wrong: the 14th Amendment ensures each American is guaranteed his civil rights regardless of jurisdiction. That a majority of the people of a given state or jurisdiction wish to ban ‘gay marriage’ or abortion is irrelevant, per the rule of law the majority are not authorized to decide whether or not the minority may enjoy its rights. (See: West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943).

Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry, all of whom running for president and all of whom extreme rightist, are clearly ignorant of – or maintain contempt for – the fundamental Constitutional principle of the rule of law.

With regard to Perry, for example, and his advocacy of the fallacy of ‘states’ rights,’ over 50 years ago the Court made clear the original intent of the Supremacy Clause as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment:

The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.

The historic phrase `a government of laws and not of men' epitomizes the distinguishing character of our political society. When John Adams put that phrase into the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights he was not indulging in a rhetorical flourish. He was expressing the aim of those who, with him, framed the Declaration of Independence and founded the Republic. `A government of laws and not of men' was the rejection in positive terms of rule by fiat, whether by the fiat of governmental or private power. Every act of government may be challenged by an appeal to law, as finally pronounced by this Court.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

One can only infer, therefore, that Perry, the TPM, and others on the right either are ignorant of Cooper or reject it and over 200 years of Constitutional case law altogether.
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land. The courts are not infallible and can rule incorrectly. The federal courts are no more likely to follow the Constitution than the US Congress.

If the courts misinterpreted the Constitution, yes, they are wrong.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top