Why are conservatives clueless about our Constitution?

[Listening]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

 

[Dad2three]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

The same guy who wanted veto power over states?

James Madison "Godfather of the Constitution", the writing you mention was nothing but propaganda to get the strong fed Gov't Constitution through you know that right?



James Madison Godfather of the Constitution - The Early America Review Summer 1997

 

[rightwinger]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

I already have

My assertion is that our Constitution will not function without compromise. The last five years have show that

Your quote has nothing to do with the concept that our government requires a government that can compromise. Why don't you try again?

 

[Listening]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

I already have

My assertion is that our Constitution will not function without compromise. The last five years have show that

Your quote has nothing to do with the concept that our government requires a government that can compromise. Why don't you try again?

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

 

[rightwinger]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

I already have

My assertion is that our Constitution will not function without compromise. The last five years have show that

Your quote has nothing to do with the concept that our government requires a government that can compromise. Why don't you try again?

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

A basis?

How about creating both a House and a Senate to create legislation?
It assumes there will be compromise in each house and then further compromise between both houses to reach a consensus

How about checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branch?
Nothing is absolute and compromise is required between the two branches to prevent a veto

That is the way it has worked for 225 years

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Conservatives have initiated a mandate that if they don't get to call the shots....then nobody will

They have fractured their own party where even Republicans cannot agree or compromise
They have raised the stakes to the Government as a whole that they prefer nothing be done at all than something that may help the other side

Not exactly, they have listened to their electing base and held the line against changes deemed "unacceptable" to the majority. More and more of America is signaling this is a failed administration run by a party with failing ideas. The refusal togo forward with these other insane ideas is in reality the situation you speak of without the spin .......

Now I'm not dizzy but apparently the spin has made you ...............

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

I already have

My assertion is that our Constitution will not function without compromise. The last five years have show that

Your quote has nothing to do with the concept that our government requires a government that can compromise. Why don't you try again?

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

A basis?

How about creating both a House and a Senate to create legislation?
It assumes there will be compromise in each house and then further compromise between both houses to reach a consensus

How about checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branch?
Nothing is absolute and compromise is required between the two branches to prevent a veto

That is the way it has worked for 225 years

No there was a separation of powers for a reason, basic government 101, checks and balances ..........

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

I believe the 2nd amendment is crystal clear, don't **** with my guns, no if ands or buts ................

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

There was no :intent of compromise" you ******* moron ................

 

[rightwinger]

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

I already have

My assertion is that our Constitution will not function without compromise. The last five years have show that

Your quote has nothing to do with the concept that our government requires a government that can compromise. Why don't you try again?

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

A basis?

How about creating both a House and a Senate to create legislation?
It assumes there will be compromise in each house and then further compromise between both houses to reach a consensus

How about checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branch?
Nothing is absolute and compromise is required between the two branches to prevent a veto

That is the way it has worked for 225 years

No there was a separation of powers for a reason, basic government 101, checks and balances ..........

What does that have to do with not needing to compromise between branches of government?

Government 201

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

I already have

My assertion is that our Constitution will not function without compromise. The last five years have show that

Your quote has nothing to do with the concept that our government requires a government that can compromise. Why don't you try again?

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

A basis?

How about creating both a House and a Senate to create legislation?
It assumes there will be compromise in each house and then further compromise between both houses to reach a consensus

How about checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branch?
Nothing is absolute and compromise is required between the two branches to prevent a veto

That is the way it has worked for 225 years

No there was a separation of powers for a reason, basic government 101, checks and balances ..........

What does that have to do with not needing to compromise between branches of government?

Government 201

Please point out where this compromise you speak of is guaranteed, in any official documents .... you assume there must be compromise to go forward, when the majority dissents then there does not have to be compromise ..... remember obamacare??

 

[rightwinger]

I already have

My assertion is that our Constitution will not function without compromise. The last five years have show that

Your quote has nothing to do with the concept that our government requires a government that can compromise. Why don't you try again?

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

A basis?

How about creating both a House and a Senate to create legislation?
It assumes there will be compromise in each house and then further compromise between both houses to reach a consensus

How about checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branch?
Nothing is absolute and compromise is required between the two branches to prevent a veto

That is the way it has worked for 225 years

No there was a separation of powers for a reason, basic government 101, checks and balances ..........

What does that have to do with not needing to compromise between branches of government?

Government 201

Please point out where this compromise you speak of is guaranteed, in any official documents .... you assume there must be compromise to go forward, when the majority dissents then there does not have to be compromise ..... remember obamacare??

Outside of a Dictatorship, can you point to any form of Government that does not require compromise?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

What you are failing to realize is that government and politics is like chess, you need the right pieces in the right places and failure to look 10 moves ahead of where you are and where you will be for your actions will usually result in a game terminating unfavorably for you ...................

Just when you think you have the game won, your opponent takes your Queen off the board and shazzzzzzzzzammm, Checkmate .........

I know this all way above your pay grade, but ..............

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

A basis?

How about creating both a House and a Senate to create legislation?
It assumes there will be compromise in each house and then further compromise between both houses to reach a consensus

How about checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branch?
Nothing is absolute and compromise is required between the two branches to prevent a veto

That is the way it has worked for 225 years

No there was a separation of powers for a reason, basic government 101, checks and balances ..........

What does that have to do with not needing to compromise between branches of government?

Government 201

Please point out where this compromise you speak of is guaranteed, in any official documents .... you assume there must be compromise to go forward, when the majority dissents then there does not have to be compromise ..... remember obamacare??

Outside of a Dictatorship, can you point to any form of Government that does not require compromise?

We have compromise ,where there is room for compromise, but I think the message we have been sending back is "**** you it;s not YOUR WAY or NO WAY", now you are the pot calling the kettle black, get a clue in life .............

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Have you looked at any real and true statistics or polls lately??
you are beating a dead and stinking horse in this case ...........

My next call is to the SPCA1

 

[TooTall]

I don't think you understand what the word compromise means. Here's a hint: it doesn't mean telling the other side what their opinions are and then agreeing with them.

They were Republican ideas until they were supported by Obama

Republicans have taken a position that anything Obama supports, they will oppose out of principle. Even their own ideas
Bush proposes TARP....Republicans AND Democrats supported it for the good of the country
Obama proposes additional TARP and EVERY Republican votes against it

That is what constitutes compromise for Republicans

TARP didn't include a Keynesian stimulus and the American Recovery Act did

TARP did not include stimulus
The stimulus bill did

Two seperate bills....both with 100% Republican opposition

Answer the question: Why did Republicans vote for TARP when Bush needs it and be 100% opposed when Obama needs it?

Maybe the Republicans had a crystal ball and knew that Obama would piss away taxpayers money on green companies owned by his donors that would go bankrupt. Or maybe they knew there were no 'shovel ready jobs'

Maybe they were more interested in partisan politics than helping the country

How would throwing millions of taxpayers dollars away on companies that go bankrupt and on non-existent shovel ready jobs help the country?

 

[bripat9643]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

I already have

My assertion is that our Constitution will not function without compromise. The last five years have show that

Your quote has nothing to do with the concept that our government requires a government that can compromise. Why don't you try again?

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

A basis?

How about creating both a House and a Senate to create legislation?
It assumes there will be compromise in each house and then further compromise between both houses to reach a consensus

How about checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branch?
Nothing is absolute and compromise is required between the two branches to prevent a veto

That is the way it has worked for 225 years

It assumes nothing of the sort. Your theory is that the Founders wanted a Congress that would pump out as much legislation as possible. That's a theory that the brains of statist trolls like you have pickled their brains with. The reality is that Congress was designed to prevent a lot of legislation from being passed. It was meant to be a stringent filter. Most legislation is garbage, and the record of the last 100 years proves it.

 

[bripat9643]

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

A basis?

How about creating both a House and a Senate to create legislation?
It assumes there will be compromise in each house and then further compromise between both houses to reach a consensus

How about checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branch?
Nothing is absolute and compromise is required between the two branches to prevent a veto

That is the way it has worked for 225 years

No there was a separation of powers for a reason, basic government 101, checks and balances ..........

What does that have to do with not needing to compromise between branches of government?

Government 201

Please point out where this compromise you speak of is guaranteed, in any official documents .... you assume there must be compromise to go forward, when the majority dissents then there does not have to be compromise ..... remember obamacare??

Outside of a Dictatorship, can you point to any form of Government that does not require compromise?

Anarchy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I believe the thread title is misleading. There are conservatives and liberals who are committed to the Constitution. There are also extremists on both sides who are only committed to the parts of the Constitution THEY are fixated on, and they don't give a crap about the rest of it.

 

[Listening]

I guess I had to stop ROTFLMAO when I saw RightWinger talking about others being clueless on the USC.

Man that was funny.

I'm game

Go for it....dazzle me

To start...why don't you back up your assertions around compromise.

Next, why don't you tell us what they were going to compromise on.

The father of our constitution penned this little diddy in support of his creation......

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

*******************

Which you counter by saying that "the courts don't agree with you"...which they did for a long time.

Please point out where the Founders said the courts would shape it.

Dazzle ?

Hardly......but it quite clear your high school civics teacher wasted his or her time with you.

I already have

My assertion is that our Constitution will not function without compromise. The last five years have show that

Your quote has nothing to do with the concept that our government requires a government that can compromise. Why don't you try again?

Here is from your OP

The key component of our Constitution that Conservatives have declared war on is the idea of compromise. Our founders created a form of governent that was built on the assumption that there would be compromise.

Why don't you provide the basis for your assertion that somebody assumed there would be compromise.

If they were so high on compromise, why didn't they stay with the crown ?

A basis?

How about creating both a House and a Senate to create legislation?
It assumes there will be compromise in each house and then further compromise between both houses to reach a consensus

How about checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative Branch?
Nothing is absolute and compromise is required between the two branches to prevent a veto

That is the way it has worked for 225 years

Yes, a basis......

The House and Senate were created to keep an eye on each other. The Senate was specifically set up to protect the interests of the state.

But more to the point....

You only compromise when you disagree.

The federal house and senate had a very limited scope of duties as spelled out in the USC (and you can shove your general welfare argument....everyone knows it is bullcrap...Madison explained it all to well).

My quote talks about how they were not going to do much and they likely would agree on most of what needed to be done.

The states would then take care of themselves, exercising those numerous and indefinite powers Madison described.

Oh...wait...you were talking about states ? My mistake.

Somehow I thought you were in love with the federal government and somehow thought they had to do things like compromise on crap they shouldn't be touching.....like healthcare.