The special insanity of it all

[P@triot]

Both sides of the aisle are creating legislation whose sole purpose is to enforce existing legislation. You get that? We already have a law...but we don't enforce it for some reason. And rather than just enforcing the law, we create new laws which say "hey...you must enforce that previous law". Uh....ok??? And who is going to enforce this new law which forces people to enforce the previous law?

Here is the right side of the aisle engaging in this insanity. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already protects my religious freedoms. But liberals don't care. Well...if they don't care about the freaking Constitution - the highest law in the land - why the frick would they care about or respect the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)? How about instead of wasting time and resources on creating new legislation, you spend time and resources focusing on how to achieve getting America to adhere to existing legislation?!?

Last year the Supreme Court unilaterally redefined marriage all 50 states. Since that time, faith-based charities, individuals and organizations that disagree with the Court’s redefinition have been attacked for standing up for their religious convictions.

How do we protect these organizations? The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) is legislation that does two major things:

• FADA protects religious organizations and charities from choosing between giving up their tax exempt status and compromising on their beliefs (specifically the belief that marriage is between one woman and one man).
• FADA protects religious institutions, like universities from losing their accreditation and from being pushed out of the public sphere.

 

[P@triot]

And here is the left side of the aisle engaging in this insanity. Unfortunately they have edited this article since it originally came out - but here is what it initially said:

"The bill, which would apply to public and private businesses, would enforce anti-discrimination laws".

So they already have “anti-discrimination laws” but apparently, for some inexplicable reason, they don’t enforce them. So now they create a new law stating that the old law must be enforced. Again I ask, who is going to enforce the new law making sure the old law is enforced?

Until we become a nation of laws again, and start instilling character and integrity in our youth (I would have to believe it’s already too late for the adults lacking these traits), you can pass all the legislation you want and it’s not going to matter.

California equal pay bill may be toughest in nation

 

[SuperDemocrat]

We can simply remove the supreme courts appellete jurisdiction in those cases. That will end whatever power the supreme court thinks they have.

 

[candycorn]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

 

[P@triot]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

 

[candycorn]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

 

[P@triot]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

It's cut and dry Candy. Just because you don't like, doesn't mean you get to change. It clearly says the right of the PEOPLE. Not the right of the militias. The framers were giving a WHY as to the necessity (i.e. why it was necessary). But that is not the WHAT. The what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry, there is simply no denying that. You're being very disingenuous and you know it.

As far as the rest, again, I largely agree with you. But if you look in this millennium, who was the one who really started the obstructionism? Harry Reid. As Senate Majority Leader, he started blocking voting on bills even though he had the majority (obviously, as Senate leader) whenever there was indication that some Democrats might "cross over" on legislation. Which is really the worst form of tyranny. If other Democrats were willing to cross over, then most likely the legislation was something really good. But Harry Reid, being a radicalized ideologue and an authoritarian, refused to even allow voting on it.

The bottom line is, the further we have moved away from the U.S. Constitution, the more we have seen this country fail. We need to return to a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. And anyone who feels that the document no longer meets the needs of the 21st century, needs to have an honest conversation about that and then convince people to get the votes needed to legally amend the Constitution. If one can't get the votes they need, then they need to accept that it is the will of the American people.

 

[candycorn]

This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.

Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?

I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:

The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.

Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".

And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….

Anyway...

We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.

This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.

In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.

It's cut and dry Candy. Just because you don't like, doesn't mean you get to change. It clearly says the right of the PEOPLE. Not the right of the militias. The framers were giving a WHY as to the necessity (i.e. why it was necessary). But that is not the WHAT. The what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry, there is simply no denying that. You're being very disingenuous and you know it.

It says militia for a reason. Want a gun? Join a militia. Simple. But you prefer we ignore that part of the amendment…right? You’re the only being disingenuous….and you know it.

As far as the rest, again, I largely agree with you. But if you look in this millennium, who was the one who really started the obstructionism? Harry Reid. As Senate Majority Leader, he started blocking voting on bills even though he had the majority (obviously, as Senate leader) whenever there was indication that some Democrats might "cross over" on legislation. Which is really the worst form of tyranny. If other Democrats were willing to cross over, then most likely the legislation was something really good. But Harry Reid, being a radicalized ideologue and an authoritarian, refused to even allow voting on it.

Again, disingenuous to the core….

As if John Boehner didn’t do the same thing in the House.

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

The bottom line is, the further we have moved away from the U.S. Constitution, the more we have seen this country fail. We need to return to a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. And anyone who feels that the document no longer meets the needs of the 21st century, needs to have an honest conversation about that and then convince people to get the votes needed to legally amend the Constitution. If one can't get the votes they need, then they need to accept that it is the will of the American people.

Total shit.

The only failure is you. If you think the US has “failed” why haven’t you left yet for a more “successful” place? Hmmm? Oh yeah, there aren’t any.

 

[P@triot]

It says militia for a reason. Want a gun? Join a militia. Simple. But you prefer we ignore that part of the amendment…right? You’re the only being disingenuous….and you know it.

Again - you know you're being disingenuous and playing games here. I've quoted the Constitution word-for-word. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

No matter how long you play this game, you're still losing. You keep thinking if you play long enough, you'll be able to catch up and win somehow. But the facts are the facts. The militia was the why. The right of the people was the what. The why is just the reasoning behind the what.

I'm sorry that it bothers you that people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I really am. But it doesn't change the reality and no twist you attempt to put on it changes the reality.

 

[P@triot]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

 

[P@triot]

The only failure is you. If you think the US has “failed” why haven’t you left yet for a more “successful” place? Hmmm? Oh yeah, there aren’t any.

The U.S. is the greatest place on earth. But we've failed recently here because liberals like you have fucked the American people over with your criminal activities. We're $19 trillion in debt. The worst in the entire world. In fact, more than double the next closest. You don't consider that failure? Really? And it was $10 trillion when Obama took over. He's added nearly as much to the U.S. debt in a mere 7 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. So don't even attempt to blame conservatives on that one.

We've had our Constitutional rights stripped from us. Liberals force people of faith to go against God and the Bible and take part in gay weddings (much likes muslim maniacs force people to partake in all parts of their ideology). Obamacare forces people to purchase a good or service where no such power exists in the U.S. Constitution. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Now your side believes that man should be able to walk into the locker rooms and restrooms of women and smack little girls in the face with their penis. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Man....you are the undisputed queen of disingenuous.

 

[candycorn]

The only failure is you. If you think the US has “failed” why haven’t you left yet for a more “successful” place? Hmmm? Oh yeah, there aren’t any.

The U.S. is the greatest place on earth. But we've failed recently here because liberals like you have fucked the American people over with your criminal activities. We're $19 trillion in debt. The worst in the entire world. In fact, more than double the next closest. You don't consider that failure? Really? And it was $10 trillion when Obama took over. He's added nearly as much to the U.S. debt in a mere 7 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. So don't even attempt to blame conservatives on that one.

Congress has been the hands of different parties during Obama’s administration. He spends only what Congress allows. True story bro.

We've had our Constitutional rights stripped from us. Liberals force people of faith to go against God and the Bible and take part in gay weddings (much likes muslim maniacs force people to partake in all parts of their ideology). Obamacare forces people to purchase a good or service where no such power exists in the U.S. Constitution. You don't consider that failure? Really?

yawn…anything else?

Now your side believes that man should be able to walk into the locker rooms and restrooms of women and smack little girls in the face with their penis. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Man....you are the undisputed queen of disingenuous.

Liberalism run amuck; I agree with you on that. Of course nobody cared until someone started passing laws about it.

 

[candycorn]

The point is to get the politics out of it by updating the source code—the Constitution. Then it wouldn’t matter what Scumbag Reid or Scumbag Boehner or what future scumbags want….votes take place, the voters (the people) get to see where every member of congress stands on bills that are brought up.

I don't disagree with you on that at all. Again, so long as it is amended legally. 3/4's of the states, 2/3's of the House, and 2/3's of the Senate.

By the way - for all of your apparent love of Constitutional government (aside from your clear contempt for the 2nd Amendment and your obvious disingenuous attempt to misinterpret), why have I see no outrage by you for Obama's gross violations of the Constitution? Obamacare - 100% illegal. His "presidential memo" on the "Dream Act" - 100% illegal.

Something tells me your sudden love of the U.S. Constitution is linked only to the fact that Republican's now control the House and Senate.

No; it needs to be scheduled every 50 years or so. When you leave it to administrators and legislators to do X, Y or Z, you will have politics involved and getting re-elected will mean more than any necessary changes.

As for my love of the Constitution…go fuck yourself. I was calling Reid a “scumbag” back when the Dems had the Senate. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

 

[candycorn]

It says militia for a reason. Want a gun? Join a militia. Simple. But you prefer we ignore that part of the amendment…right? You’re the only being disingenuous….and you know it.

Again - you know you're being disingenuous and playing games here. I've quoted the Constitution word-for-word. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

No matter how long you play this game, you're still losing. You keep thinking if you play long enough, you'll be able to catch up and win somehow. But the facts are the facts. The militia was the why. The right of the people was the what. The why is just the reasoning behind the what.

I'm sorry that it bothers you that people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I really am. But it doesn't change the reality and no twist you attempt to put on it changes the reality.

If the words are still valid, so is the reasoning. Hence you want a gun, join a militia. It’s as clear as can be.

 

[candycorn]

The only failure is you. If you think the US has “failed” why haven’t you left yet for a more “successful” place? Hmmm? Oh yeah, there aren’t any.

The U.S. is the greatest place on earth. But we've failed recently here because liberals like you have fucked the American people over with your criminal activities. We're $19 trillion in debt. The worst in the entire world. In fact, more than double the next closest. You don't consider that failure? Really? And it was $10 trillion when Obama took over. He's added nearly as much to the U.S. debt in a mere 7 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. So don't even attempt to blame conservatives on that one.

We've had our Constitutional rights stripped from us. Liberals force people of faith to go against God and the Bible and take part in gay weddings (much likes muslim maniacs force people to partake in all parts of their ideology). Obamacare forces people to purchase a good or service where no such power exists in the U.S. Constitution. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Now your side believes that man should be able to walk into the locker rooms and restrooms of women and smack little girls in the face with their penis. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Man....you are the undisputed queen of disingenuous.

Feel free to leave anytime you want.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Immigration.banking healthcare......all areas in turmoil courtesy of national govt not just not enforcing the law but actively breaking it themselves......

 

[P@triot]

It says militia for a reason. Want a gun? Join a militia. Simple. But you prefer we ignore that part of the amendment…right? You’re the only being disingenuous….and you know it.

Again - you know you're being disingenuous and playing games here. I've quoted the Constitution word-for-word. It does not say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

No matter how long you play this game, you're still losing. You keep thinking if you play long enough, you'll be able to catch up and win somehow. But the facts are the facts. The militia was the why. The right of the people was the what. The why is just the reasoning behind the what.

I'm sorry that it bothers you that people have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I really am. But it doesn't change the reality and no twist you attempt to put on it changes the reality.

If the words are still valid, so is the reasoning. Hence you want a gun, join a militia. It’s as clear as can be.

It is as clear as can be: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Black and white sweetie. Indisputable. And lets be honest, we both know you know it. This is just some frivolous game you feel you have to play because you have an irrational fear of arms.

Here's the thing - we're talking about rights...right? Well it clearly states that the right is with the people. You can't go back 18 paragraphs in the Constitution and declare something null and void because it's not stated 18 paragraphs earlier

 

[P@triot]

As for my love of the Constitution…go fuck yourself. I was calling Reid a “scumbag” back when the Dems had the Senate. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

Classy

 

[P@triot]

The only failure is you. If you think the US has “failed” why haven’t you left yet for a more “successful” place? Hmmm? Oh yeah, there aren’t any.

The U.S. is the greatest place on earth. But we've failed recently here because liberals like you have fucked the American people over with your criminal activities. We're $19 trillion in debt. The worst in the entire world. In fact, more than double the next closest. You don't consider that failure? Really? And it was $10 trillion when Obama took over. He's added nearly as much to the U.S. debt in a mere 7 years as all presidents in U.S. history combined did in 235 years. So don't even attempt to blame conservatives on that one.

We've had our Constitutional rights stripped from us. Liberals force people of faith to go against God and the Bible and take part in gay weddings (much likes muslim maniacs force people to partake in all parts of their ideology). Obamacare forces people to purchase a good or service where no such power exists in the U.S. Constitution. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Now your side believes that man should be able to walk into the locker rooms and restrooms of women and smack little girls in the face with their penis. You don't consider that failure? Really?

Man....you are the undisputed queen of disingenuous.

Feel free to leave anytime you want.

You're the one who hates the Constitution and the U.S. way of life - you leave. Anyone who disingenuously claims "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't give the people a right to keep and bear arms should most certainly find another country to live in.

And anyone who thinks that the U.S. Constitution should automatically be altered every 50 years by her instead of going through the legal amendment process should also find another country to live in.

 

[P@triot]

No; it needs to be scheduled every 50 years or so. When you leave it to administrators and legislators to do X, Y or Z, you will have politics involved and getting re-elected will mean more than any necessary changes

Well here is some brilliant liberal "logic" at its finest. Ok...I'll play along just for fun here. An automatic "review" of the U.S. Constitution is made law - required every 50 years. It still requires 3/4 of the states, 2/3 of the House, and 2/3 of the Senate to amend.

Or do you just decide for all of America what the Constitution should say every 50 years? No matter how this plays out genius, short of a dictator, it will still be "administrators" and "legislators" doing "X, Y, and Z". Or did that not occur to you in all of your infinite wisdom?