You go back in time and become a delegate at the Constitutional Convention

[Votto]

Perhaps you're too stupid to recognize Leftism as a religion....the one you've subscribed to.

A revealing comparison of the two religions…the Judeo-Christian basis of Western Civilization, and the new one, Leftism.

“Leftism’s guiding principles — notwithstanding the principles of those Christians and Jews who claim to be religious yet hold leftist views — are the antitheses of Judaism and Christianity’s guiding principles.


Judaism and Christianity hold that people are not basically good. Leftism holds that people are basically good. Therefore, Judaism and Christianity believe evil comes from human nature, and leftism believes evil comes from capitalism, religion, the nation-state (i.e. nationalism), corporations, the patriarchy and virtually every other traditional value.



Judaism and Christianity hold that utopia on Earth is impossible — it will only come in God’s good time as a Messianic age or in the afterlife. Leftism holds that utopia is to be created here on Earth — and as soon as possible. That is why leftists find America so contemptible. They do not compare it to other nations but to a utopian ideal — a society with no inequality, no racism, no differences between the sexes (indeed, no sexes) and no greed in which everything important is obtained free.


Judaism and Christianity believe God and the Bible are to instruct us on how to live a good life and how the heart is the last place to look for moral guidance. Leftists have contempt for anyone who is guided by the Bible and its God, and substitute the heart and feelings for divine instruction.


There may be a clash of civilizations between the West and Islam, but the biggest clash of civilizations is between the West and the left.”
Explaining the Left, Part III: Leftism as Secular Religion - The Dennis Prager Show

So what invisible superbeing in another dimension do "leftists" worship?

Must I teach you everything??????


Have you ever read a book, or questioned the orthodoxy????



The abandonment of religion was the ‘gift’ of The Enlightenment, and of the French Revolution.

The Enlightenment gave the view that through science and reason, man could make himself replace God. People seem to have missed the greatest difference: science can tell us what we can do, but not what we should do.

And, people seem not to have noticed that the reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

Three days after the completion of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the mob stormed the Bastille, and marched around with the head of the prison’s commander, Marquis de Launay, on a pike. Shortly, the greatest nation in continental Europe became a human abattoir.


France’s revolution-by-mob has become an inspiration to be imitated in Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Venezuela, in short, for liberals everywhere.

The characteristics of the French Revolution that most clearly identify it as Liberal are that it was spontaneous, impulsive, passionate, emotional, romantic, utopian, resentful, angry, dreamy- anything and everything except disciplined and reasoned and stable.
See Coulter, “Demonic”


And Western Civilization was changed forever.

If leftists don't worship an invisible superbeing in another dimension, then it's not a real religion as we are talking about here.

The concept 'big government' is your god.

So you have nothing as pertaining to the invisible superbeing that leftists worship. Got it. Now shut the fuck up, you fucking zipperhead.

In North Korea, they erect massive status of their glorious leader where people are made to come and bow down and cry. If they do not, bad things happen to them. Then they are all required to put a picture of their glorious leader on the walls of their house. Again, if they do not, bad things will happen to them.

Now in the US, the worship is a little different. In Washington DC we see massive shrines to past political leaders. Men like FDR are revered as one of the greatest Presidents in US history, even though he arguably violated the Constitution worse than any other President in US history by locking up Japanese Americans due to racial prejudice and attempting the Court Packing Scheme to stack the Supreme Court in his favor to get his programs passed, etc. In fact, because of the vision of FDR and his "positive rights", he has become the forefather of the Progressive movement. No doubt, people like yourself worship at his alter every day saying what a great President he was, while saying in the same breath that Trump is by far the worst President. Funny how Trump is the racist while blacks enjoy the lowest levels of unemployment in US history and not once has thrown Americans in concentration camps like FDR did because of their race. Then Trump instituted a travel ban based on whether the people come from terrorist countries and not based upon being Muslim, something that Obama did as well, yet, Trump is the racist one. Funny how that works.

But the bottom line here is, we all are in need of a shepherd. The Bible paints human beings as sheep. Those of faith recognize their God as their shepherd as where those not of faith adopt the state as their shepherd. The attitude of a statist is that without the helping hand of Big Brother, we would all be dying in the streets. From cradle to grave you wish to enact an ever present Big Brother to guide us and help us through life.

Now this shepherd may not be a supernatural being, but men who assume the role are the next best thing. I've noticed that men like Lenin, Mao, Chavez, etc. all mummify themselves to be put on display when they die, as if they have immortalized themselves to be put on display for the sheep who could not possibly live without them, and they are idolized and worshiped as FDR is today. I also notice that the Left builds up their leaders as being the most intellectually gifted of the bunch to assume the role of glorious leader, as where the GOP front runner is always painted as a racist buffoon. And lastly, American politics has shifted power to the Executive Branch so that now we have a President that decides everything from what doctor we see to how our children are educated in the first grade. This has been accomplished by the deterioration of state rights and Congress delegating their job to the Executive Branch by creating a massive body of unelected bureaucrats who pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws, laws Congress was given to pass and not the Executive Branch.

But that is how we are wired. As in the days of ancient Israel as the people stood up and demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, today we do the same. We demand a human king who is flawed and corrupt beyond measure, or soon will be once given next to unbridled power. The Lord of the Rings pretty much nailed it.

 

[Taz]

So what invisible superbeing in another dimension do "leftists" worship?

Must I teach you everything??????


Have you ever read a book, or questioned the orthodoxy????



The abandonment of religion was the ‘gift’ of The Enlightenment, and of the French Revolution.

The Enlightenment gave the view that through science and reason, man could make himself replace God. People seem to have missed the greatest difference: science can tell us what we can do, but not what we should do.

And, people seem not to have noticed that the reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

Three days after the completion of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the mob stormed the Bastille, and marched around with the head of the prison’s commander, Marquis de Launay, on a pike. Shortly, the greatest nation in continental Europe became a human abattoir.


France’s revolution-by-mob has become an inspiration to be imitated in Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Venezuela, in short, for liberals everywhere.

The characteristics of the French Revolution that most clearly identify it as Liberal are that it was spontaneous, impulsive, passionate, emotional, romantic, utopian, resentful, angry, dreamy- anything and everything except disciplined and reasoned and stable.
See Coulter, “Demonic”


And Western Civilization was changed forever.

If leftists don't worship an invisible superbeing in another dimension, then it's not a real religion as we are talking about here.

The concept 'big government' is your god.

So you have nothing as pertaining to the invisible superbeing that leftists worship. Got it. Now shut the fuck up, you fucking zipperhead.

In North Korea, they erect massive status of their glorious leader where people are made to come and bow down and cry. If they do not, bad things happen to them. Then they are all required to put a picture of their glorious leader on the walls of their house. Again, if they do not, bad things will happen to them.

Now in the US, the worship is a little different. In Washington DC we see massive shrines to past political leaders. Men like FDR are revered as one of the greatest Presidents in US history, even though he arguably violated the Constitution worse than any other President in US history by locking up Japanese Americans due to racial prejudice and attempting the Court Packing Scheme to stack the Supreme Court in his favor to get his programs passed, etc. In fact, because of the vision of FDR and his "positive rights", he has become the forefather of the Progressive movement. No doubt, people like yourself worship at his alter every day saying what a great President he was, while saying in the same breath that Trump is by far the worst President. Funny how Trump is the racist while blacks enjoy the lowest levels of unemployment in US history and not once has thrown Americans in concentration camps like FDR did because of their race. Then Trump instituted a travel ban based on whether the people come from terrorist countries and not based upon being Muslim, something that Obama did as well, yet, Trump is the racist one. Funny how that works.

But the bottom line here is, we all are in need of a shepherd. The Bible paints human beings as sheep. Those of faith recognize their God as their shepherd as where those not of faith adopt the state as their shepherd. The attitude of a statist is that without the helping hand of Big Brother, we would all be dying in the streets. From cradle to grave you wish to enact an ever present Big Brother to guide us and help us through life.

Now this shepherd may not be a supernatural being, but men who assume the role are the next best thing. I've noticed that men like Lenin, Mao, Chavez, etc. all mummify themselves to be put on display when they die, as if they have immortalized themselves to be put on display for the sheep who could not possibly live without them, and they are idolized and worshiped as FDR is today. I also notice that the Left builds up their leaders as being the most intellectually gifted of the bunch to assume the role of glorious leader, as where the GOP front runner is always painted as a racist buffoon. And lastly, American politics has shifted power to the Executive Branch so that now we have a President that decides everything from what doctor we see to how our children are educated in the first grade. This has been accomplished by the deterioration of state rights and Congress delegating their job to the Executive Branch by creating a massive body of unelected bureaucrats who pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws, laws Congress was given to pass.

But that is how we are wired. As in the days of ancient Israel as the people stood up and demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, today we do the same. We demand a human king who is flawed and corrupt beyond measure, or soon will be once given next to unbridled power. The Lord of the Rings pretty much nailed it.

Not relevant to the conversation. Please try again.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.

Define religion.

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Does that include Obama?

 

[Votto]

So if I want religion, in your world, I don’t have the freedom to do what I want.

I didn't say you can't have religion, but religion shouldn't be allowed to dictate anything to us, like creation "science". Or possibly turning over Roe vs Wade for religious reasons. ...

But you believe that creation should not even be mentioned in education as a possibility, isn't that right?

The issue here is, who writes the laws and based upon what? EVERY law written has a moral teaching behind it as to what is "good" or "bad". So who gets to decide what is good or bad?

Creation isn't a possibility unless you can prove it scientifically. Laws define what is good and bad.

Look, if you want freedom OF religion, then you should be allowing sharia law in the US.

There is just as much possibility for abiogenesis as there is for creation.

I would think that to give abiogenesis some credibility, scientists would at least have to create the kind of conditions they think produced life and create a living cell, but they cannot.

Again, the mystery of where matter came from and life came from are two unexplainable problems science faces and there is no evidence as to how these two phenomenon occurred.

There is no possibility for creation, it simply hasn't been proven at all. With abiogenesis, scientists are at least looking and will likely eventually get it to happen in a lab. We can't yet do fusion either, but that doesn't mean that that isn't how the sun works.

There is no possibility of creation? I've never heard a scientist say this. How can you even prove such a a thing?

Again, science is all about hypothesis and observation and putting your ideas to the test. As such, abiogenesis is what has not been proven, just as much as creation.

As for a God being put to the test, this is equally impossible.

 

[Votto]

Must I teach you everything??????


Have you ever read a book, or questioned the orthodoxy????



The abandonment of religion was the ‘gift’ of The Enlightenment, and of the French Revolution.

The Enlightenment gave the view that through science and reason, man could make himself replace God. People seem to have missed the greatest difference: science can tell us what we can do, but not what we should do.

And, people seem not to have noticed that the reason our revolution was so different from the violent, homicidal chaos of the French version was the dominant American culture was Anglo-Saxon and Christian. “52 of the 56 signers of the declaration and 50 to 52 of the 55 signers of the Constitution were orthodox Trinitarian Christians.” http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/mt/archives/2010/02/new_column_libe_4.html

Three days after the completion of The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, the mob stormed the Bastille, and marched around with the head of the prison’s commander, Marquis de Launay, on a pike. Shortly, the greatest nation in continental Europe became a human abattoir.


France’s revolution-by-mob has become an inspiration to be imitated in Germany, Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, North Korea, Venezuela, in short, for liberals everywhere.

The characteristics of the French Revolution that most clearly identify it as Liberal are that it was spontaneous, impulsive, passionate, emotional, romantic, utopian, resentful, angry, dreamy- anything and everything except disciplined and reasoned and stable.
See Coulter, “Demonic”


And Western Civilization was changed forever.

If leftists don't worship an invisible superbeing in another dimension, then it's not a real religion as we are talking about here.

The concept 'big government' is your god.

So you have nothing as pertaining to the invisible superbeing that leftists worship. Got it. Now shut the fuck up, you fucking zipperhead.

In North Korea, they erect massive status of their glorious leader where people are made to come and bow down and cry. If they do not, bad things happen to them. Then they are all required to put a picture of their glorious leader on the walls of their house. Again, if they do not, bad things will happen to them.

Now in the US, the worship is a little different. In Washington DC we see massive shrines to past political leaders. Men like FDR are revered as one of the greatest Presidents in US history, even though he arguably violated the Constitution worse than any other President in US history by locking up Japanese Americans due to racial prejudice and attempting the Court Packing Scheme to stack the Supreme Court in his favor to get his programs passed, etc. In fact, because of the vision of FDR and his "positive rights", he has become the forefather of the Progressive movement. No doubt, people like yourself worship at his alter every day saying what a great President he was, while saying in the same breath that Trump is by far the worst President. Funny how Trump is the racist while blacks enjoy the lowest levels of unemployment in US history and not once has thrown Americans in concentration camps like FDR did because of their race. Then Trump instituted a travel ban based on whether the people come from terrorist countries and not based upon being Muslim, something that Obama did as well, yet, Trump is the racist one. Funny how that works.

But the bottom line here is, we all are in need of a shepherd. The Bible paints human beings as sheep. Those of faith recognize their God as their shepherd as where those not of faith adopt the state as their shepherd. The attitude of a statist is that without the helping hand of Big Brother, we would all be dying in the streets. From cradle to grave you wish to enact an ever present Big Brother to guide us and help us through life.

Now this shepherd may not be a supernatural being, but men who assume the role are the next best thing. I've noticed that men like Lenin, Mao, Chavez, etc. all mummify themselves to be put on display when they die, as if they have immortalized themselves to be put on display for the sheep who could not possibly live without them, and they are idolized and worshiped as FDR is today. I also notice that the Left builds up their leaders as being the most intellectually gifted of the bunch to assume the role of glorious leader, as where the GOP front runner is always painted as a racist buffoon. And lastly, American politics has shifted power to the Executive Branch so that now we have a President that decides everything from what doctor we see to how our children are educated in the first grade. This has been accomplished by the deterioration of state rights and Congress delegating their job to the Executive Branch by creating a massive body of unelected bureaucrats who pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws, laws Congress was given to pass.

But that is how we are wired. As in the days of ancient Israel as the people stood up and demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, today we do the same. We demand a human king who is flawed and corrupt beyond measure, or soon will be once given next to unbridled power. The Lord of the Rings pretty much nailed it.

Not relevant to the conversation. Please try again.

Wait....wut?

Big old whiff, eh.

Two more and you are OUT!

 

[Taz]

I would make sure that we have freedom FROM religion.

Define religion.

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Does that include Obama?

Not even Trump.

 

[Taz]

I didn't say you can't have religion, but religion shouldn't be allowed to dictate anything to us, like creation "science". Or possibly turning over Roe vs Wade for religious reasons. ...

But you believe that creation should not even be mentioned in education as a possibility, isn't that right?

The issue here is, who writes the laws and based upon what? EVERY law written has a moral teaching behind it as to what is "good" or "bad". So who gets to decide what is good or bad?

Creation isn't a possibility unless you can prove it scientifically. Laws define what is good and bad.

Look, if you want freedom OF religion, then you should be allowing sharia law in the US.

There is just as much possibility for abiogenesis as there is for creation.

I would think that to give abiogenesis some credibility, scientists would at least have to create the kind of conditions they think produced life and create a living cell, but they cannot.

Again, the mystery of where matter came from and life came from are two unexplainable problems science faces and there is no evidence as to how these two phenomenon occurred.

There is no possibility for creation, it simply hasn't been proven at all. With abiogenesis, scientists are at least looking and will likely eventually get it to happen in a lab. We can't yet do fusion either, but that doesn't mean that that isn't how the sun works.

There is no possibility of creation? I've never heard a scientist say this. How can you even prove such a a thing?

Again, science is all about hypothesis and observation and putting your ideas to the test. As such, abiogenesis is what has not been proven, just as much as creation.

As for a God being put to the test, this is equally impossible.

Science has proven that the world was not made in 6 days. Nor was a woman made out of a man's rib. Nor was there a worldwide flood...

 

[Taz]

If leftists don't worship an invisible superbeing in another dimension, then it's not a real religion as we are talking about here.

The concept 'big government' is your god.

So you have nothing as pertaining to the invisible superbeing that leftists worship. Got it. Now shut the fuck up, you fucking zipperhead.

In North Korea, they erect massive status of their glorious leader where people are made to come and bow down and cry. If they do not, bad things happen to them. Then they are all required to put a picture of their glorious leader on the walls of their house. Again, if they do not, bad things will happen to them.

Now in the US, the worship is a little different. In Washington DC we see massive shrines to past political leaders. Men like FDR are revered as one of the greatest Presidents in US history, even though he arguably violated the Constitution worse than any other President in US history by locking up Japanese Americans due to racial prejudice and attempting the Court Packing Scheme to stack the Supreme Court in his favor to get his programs passed, etc. In fact, because of the vision of FDR and his "positive rights", he has become the forefather of the Progressive movement. No doubt, people like yourself worship at his alter every day saying what a great President he was, while saying in the same breath that Trump is by far the worst President. Funny how Trump is the racist while blacks enjoy the lowest levels of unemployment in US history and not once has thrown Americans in concentration camps like FDR did because of their race. Then Trump instituted a travel ban based on whether the people come from terrorist countries and not based upon being Muslim, something that Obama did as well, yet, Trump is the racist one. Funny how that works.

But the bottom line here is, we all are in need of a shepherd. The Bible paints human beings as sheep. Those of faith recognize their God as their shepherd as where those not of faith adopt the state as their shepherd. The attitude of a statist is that without the helping hand of Big Brother, we would all be dying in the streets. From cradle to grave you wish to enact an ever present Big Brother to guide us and help us through life.

Now this shepherd may not be a supernatural being, but men who assume the role are the next best thing. I've noticed that men like Lenin, Mao, Chavez, etc. all mummify themselves to be put on display when they die, as if they have immortalized themselves to be put on display for the sheep who could not possibly live without them, and they are idolized and worshiped as FDR is today. I also notice that the Left builds up their leaders as being the most intellectually gifted of the bunch to assume the role of glorious leader, as where the GOP front runner is always painted as a racist buffoon. And lastly, American politics has shifted power to the Executive Branch so that now we have a President that decides everything from what doctor we see to how our children are educated in the first grade. This has been accomplished by the deterioration of state rights and Congress delegating their job to the Executive Branch by creating a massive body of unelected bureaucrats who pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws, laws Congress was given to pass.

But that is how we are wired. As in the days of ancient Israel as the people stood up and demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, today we do the same. We demand a human king who is flawed and corrupt beyond measure, or soon will be once given next to unbridled power. The Lord of the Rings pretty much nailed it.

Not relevant to the conversation. Please try again.

Wait....wut?

Big old whiff, eh.

Two more and you are OUT!

We are talking about giving proof that the leftists, as she calls them, worship an invisible superbeing god, and are therefore a religion. The only whiff around me is the whiff of weed.

 

[Votto]

But you believe that creation should not even be mentioned in education as a possibility, isn't that right?

The issue here is, who writes the laws and based upon what? EVERY law written has a moral teaching behind it as to what is "good" or "bad". So who gets to decide what is good or bad?

Creation isn't a possibility unless you can prove it scientifically. Laws define what is good and bad.

Look, if you want freedom OF religion, then you should be allowing sharia law in the US.

There is just as much possibility for abiogenesis as there is for creation.

I would think that to give abiogenesis some credibility, scientists would at least have to create the kind of conditions they think produced life and create a living cell, but they cannot.

Again, the mystery of where matter came from and life came from are two unexplainable problems science faces and there is no evidence as to how these two phenomenon occurred.

There is no possibility for creation, it simply hasn't been proven at all. With abiogenesis, scientists are at least looking and will likely eventually get it to happen in a lab. We can't yet do fusion either, but that doesn't mean that that isn't how the sun works.

There is no possibility of creation? I've never heard a scientist say this. How can you even prove such a a thing?

Again, science is all about hypothesis and observation and putting your ideas to the test. As such, abiogenesis is what has not been proven, just as much as creation.

As for a God being put to the test, this is equally impossible.

Science has proven that the world was not made in 6 days. Nor was a woman made out of a man's rib. Nor was there a worldwide flood...

You said that science has disproved creation, but apparently you meant that science has disproved the Bible instead. Is this right?

As for creation being in only 6 days, you are correct, science says that this is BS. However, not all those who believe in the Bible think so either. There are two camps on the issue, there are old earth creationists and there are those who think that the story is only allegory.

For example, you could take the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth, or you could take it as allegory. If taken as allegory, the story is about two people being told not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Does it strike you as odd that the forbidden tree was named "Knowledge"? Well looking at society today, knowledge is what is destroying us. WMD's, global warming, plastics that will not degrade, genetically altered plants that cannot reproduce, and soon to be AI that is so terrifying that it's creator stopped and washed his hands of it.

For you see, knowledge without wisdom brings death.

As for Genesis being taken literally from an Old Creationist point of view, Dr. Gerald Schroeder is the only one I know who has attempted to bring science and the Bible into agreement on this issue. His book Genesis and the Big Bang did a pretty good job in bridging the two. Here is a video if interested.



Also understand that the person who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest, someone Einstein discarded because he had a reputation to protect, but was later shown to be correct.

As for what was meant by the "rib", that is more or less a mystery whether being taken literally or as an allegory. Suffice it to say, it signified that man and woman were from the same origins.

I have heard scientists say that there was no global flood, but I have also heard them say that there was not enough water on earth to flood the entire world. The later has changed, however, after discovering oceans of water below the earth. Also, there are other ancient accounts of a massive flood in that region from other ancient cultures, all of them varying to some degree. Looking at this from such a position, it is impossible to refute that there was a massive flood in the region, albeit speculative that it engulfed the entire world.

Scientists discover an ocean 400 miles beneath our feet that could fill our oceans three times over - ExtremeTech

 

[Votto]

The concept 'big government' is your god.

So you have nothing as pertaining to the invisible superbeing that leftists worship. Got it. Now shut the fuck up, you fucking zipperhead.

In North Korea, they erect massive status of their glorious leader where people are made to come and bow down and cry. If they do not, bad things happen to them. Then they are all required to put a picture of their glorious leader on the walls of their house. Again, if they do not, bad things will happen to them.

Now in the US, the worship is a little different. In Washington DC we see massive shrines to past political leaders. Men like FDR are revered as one of the greatest Presidents in US history, even though he arguably violated the Constitution worse than any other President in US history by locking up Japanese Americans due to racial prejudice and attempting the Court Packing Scheme to stack the Supreme Court in his favor to get his programs passed, etc. In fact, because of the vision of FDR and his "positive rights", he has become the forefather of the Progressive movement. No doubt, people like yourself worship at his alter every day saying what a great President he was, while saying in the same breath that Trump is by far the worst President. Funny how Trump is the racist while blacks enjoy the lowest levels of unemployment in US history and not once has thrown Americans in concentration camps like FDR did because of their race. Then Trump instituted a travel ban based on whether the people come from terrorist countries and not based upon being Muslim, something that Obama did as well, yet, Trump is the racist one. Funny how that works.

But the bottom line here is, we all are in need of a shepherd. The Bible paints human beings as sheep. Those of faith recognize their God as their shepherd as where those not of faith adopt the state as their shepherd. The attitude of a statist is that without the helping hand of Big Brother, we would all be dying in the streets. From cradle to grave you wish to enact an ever present Big Brother to guide us and help us through life.

Now this shepherd may not be a supernatural being, but men who assume the role are the next best thing. I've noticed that men like Lenin, Mao, Chavez, etc. all mummify themselves to be put on display when they die, as if they have immortalized themselves to be put on display for the sheep who could not possibly live without them, and they are idolized and worshiped as FDR is today. I also notice that the Left builds up their leaders as being the most intellectually gifted of the bunch to assume the role of glorious leader, as where the GOP front runner is always painted as a racist buffoon. And lastly, American politics has shifted power to the Executive Branch so that now we have a President that decides everything from what doctor we see to how our children are educated in the first grade. This has been accomplished by the deterioration of state rights and Congress delegating their job to the Executive Branch by creating a massive body of unelected bureaucrats who pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws, laws Congress was given to pass.

But that is how we are wired. As in the days of ancient Israel as the people stood up and demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, today we do the same. We demand a human king who is flawed and corrupt beyond measure, or soon will be once given next to unbridled power. The Lord of the Rings pretty much nailed it.

Not relevant to the conversation. Please try again.

Wait....wut?

Big old whiff, eh.

Two more and you are OUT!

We are talking about giving proof that the leftists, as she calls them, worship an invisible superbeing god, and are therefore a religion. The only whiff around me is the whiff of weed.

Whiffing the weed is perhaps one of the impediments to talking to you about these things.

No wonder Dims are all about legalizing it.

 

[Taz]

Creation isn't a possibility unless you can prove it scientifically. Laws define what is good and bad.

Look, if you want freedom OF religion, then you should be allowing sharia law in the US.

There is just as much possibility for abiogenesis as there is for creation.

I would think that to give abiogenesis some credibility, scientists would at least have to create the kind of conditions they think produced life and create a living cell, but they cannot.

Again, the mystery of where matter came from and life came from are two unexplainable problems science faces and there is no evidence as to how these two phenomenon occurred.

There is no possibility for creation, it simply hasn't been proven at all. With abiogenesis, scientists are at least looking and will likely eventually get it to happen in a lab. We can't yet do fusion either, but that doesn't mean that that isn't how the sun works.

There is no possibility of creation? I've never heard a scientist say this. How can you even prove such a a thing?

Again, science is all about hypothesis and observation and putting your ideas to the test. As such, abiogenesis is what has not been proven, just as much as creation.

As for a God being put to the test, this is equally impossible.

Science has proven that the world was not made in 6 days. Nor was a woman made out of a man's rib. Nor was there a worldwide flood...

You said that science has disproved creation, but apparently you meant that science has disproved the Bible instead. Is this right?

As for creation being in only 6 days, you are correct, science says that this is BS. However, not all those who believe in the Bible think so either. There are two camps on the issue, there are old earth creationists and there are those who think that the story is only allegory.

For example, you could take the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth, or you could take it as allegory. If taken as allegory, the story is about two people being told not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Does it strike you as odd that the forbidden tree was named "Knowledge"? Well looking at society today, knowledge is what is destroying us. WMD's, global warming, plastics that will not degrade, genetically altered plants that cannot reproduce, and soon to be AI that is so terrifying that it's creator stopped and washed his hands of it.

For you see, knowledge without wisdom brings death.

As for Genesis being taken literally from an Old Creationist point of view, Dr. Gerald Schroeder is the only one I know who has attempted to bring science and the Bible into agreement on this issue. His book Genesis and the Big Bang did a pretty good job in bridging the two. Here is a video if interested.



Also understand that the person who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest, someone Einstein discarded because he had a reputation to protect, but was later shown to be correct.

As for what was meant by the "rib", that is more or less a mystery whether being taken literally or as an allegory. Suffice it to say, it signified that man and woman were from the same origins.

I have heard scientists say that there was no global flood, but I have also heard them say that there was not enough water on earth to flood the entire world. The later has changed, however, after discovering oceans of water below the earth. Also, there are other ancient accounts of a massive flood in that region from other ancient cultures, all of them varying to some degree. Looking at this from such a position, it is impossible to refute that there was a massive flood in the region, albeit speculative that it engulfed the entire world.

So you don't believe the bible is true either, and that's where the story of creation comes from. I'm listening to the video now, but it doesn't seem relevant, everyone needs to attribute a different meaning to what is written, so basically, NOBODY believes that the bible is true.

 

[Taz]

So you have nothing as pertaining to the invisible superbeing that leftists worship. Got it. Now shut the fuck up, you fucking zipperhead.

In North Korea, they erect massive status of their glorious leader where people are made to come and bow down and cry. If they do not, bad things happen to them. Then they are all required to put a picture of their glorious leader on the walls of their house. Again, if they do not, bad things will happen to them.

Now in the US, the worship is a little different. In Washington DC we see massive shrines to past political leaders. Men like FDR are revered as one of the greatest Presidents in US history, even though he arguably violated the Constitution worse than any other President in US history by locking up Japanese Americans due to racial prejudice and attempting the Court Packing Scheme to stack the Supreme Court in his favor to get his programs passed, etc. In fact, because of the vision of FDR and his "positive rights", he has become the forefather of the Progressive movement. No doubt, people like yourself worship at his alter every day saying what a great President he was, while saying in the same breath that Trump is by far the worst President. Funny how Trump is the racist while blacks enjoy the lowest levels of unemployment in US history and not once has thrown Americans in concentration camps like FDR did because of their race. Then Trump instituted a travel ban based on whether the people come from terrorist countries and not based upon being Muslim, something that Obama did as well, yet, Trump is the racist one. Funny how that works.

But the bottom line here is, we all are in need of a shepherd. The Bible paints human beings as sheep. Those of faith recognize their God as their shepherd as where those not of faith adopt the state as their shepherd. The attitude of a statist is that without the helping hand of Big Brother, we would all be dying in the streets. From cradle to grave you wish to enact an ever present Big Brother to guide us and help us through life.

Now this shepherd may not be a supernatural being, but men who assume the role are the next best thing. I've noticed that men like Lenin, Mao, Chavez, etc. all mummify themselves to be put on display when they die, as if they have immortalized themselves to be put on display for the sheep who could not possibly live without them, and they are idolized and worshiped as FDR is today. I also notice that the Left builds up their leaders as being the most intellectually gifted of the bunch to assume the role of glorious leader, as where the GOP front runner is always painted as a racist buffoon. And lastly, American politics has shifted power to the Executive Branch so that now we have a President that decides everything from what doctor we see to how our children are educated in the first grade. This has been accomplished by the deterioration of state rights and Congress delegating their job to the Executive Branch by creating a massive body of unelected bureaucrats who pass regulations that are just as powerful as laws, laws Congress was given to pass.

But that is how we are wired. As in the days of ancient Israel as the people stood up and demanded a king in 1 Samuel 8, today we do the same. We demand a human king who is flawed and corrupt beyond measure, or soon will be once given next to unbridled power. The Lord of the Rings pretty much nailed it.

Not relevant to the conversation. Please try again.

Wait....wut?

Big old whiff, eh.

Two more and you are OUT!

We are talking about giving proof that the leftists, as she calls them, worship an invisible superbeing god, and are therefore a religion. The only whiff around me is the whiff of weed.

Whiffing the weed is perhaps one of the impediments to talking to you about these things.

No wonder Dims are all about legalizing it.

Maybe you should try some, it might help you stay on topic.

 

[Votto]

There is just as much possibility for abiogenesis as there is for creation.

I would think that to give abiogenesis some credibility, scientists would at least have to create the kind of conditions they think produced life and create a living cell, but they cannot.

Again, the mystery of where matter came from and life came from are two unexplainable problems science faces and there is no evidence as to how these two phenomenon occurred.

There is no possibility for creation, it simply hasn't been proven at all. With abiogenesis, scientists are at least looking and will likely eventually get it to happen in a lab. We can't yet do fusion either, but that doesn't mean that that isn't how the sun works.

There is no possibility of creation? I've never heard a scientist say this. How can you even prove such a a thing?

Again, science is all about hypothesis and observation and putting your ideas to the test. As such, abiogenesis is what has not been proven, just as much as creation.

As for a God being put to the test, this is equally impossible.

Science has proven that the world was not made in 6 days. Nor was a woman made out of a man's rib. Nor was there a worldwide flood...

You said that science has disproved creation, but apparently you meant that science has disproved the Bible instead. Is this right?

As for creation being in only 6 days, you are correct, science says that this is BS. However, not all those who believe in the Bible think so either. There are two camps on the issue, there are old earth creationists and there are those who think that the story is only allegory.

For example, you could take the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth, or you could take it as allegory. If taken as allegory, the story is about two people being told not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Does it strike you as odd that the forbidden tree was named "Knowledge"? Well looking at society today, knowledge is what is destroying us. WMD's, global warming, plastics that will not degrade, genetically altered plants that cannot reproduce, and soon to be AI that is so terrifying that it's creator stopped and washed his hands of it.

For you see, knowledge without wisdom brings death.

As for Genesis being taken literally from an Old Creationist point of view, Dr. Gerald Schroeder is the only one I know who has attempted to bring science and the Bible into agreement on this issue. His book Genesis and the Big Bang did a pretty good job in bridging the two. Here is a video if interested.



Also understand that the person who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest, someone Einstein discarded because he had a reputation to protect, but was later shown to be correct.

As for what was meant by the "rib", that is more or less a mystery whether being taken literally or as an allegory. Suffice it to say, it signified that man and woman were from the same origins.

I have heard scientists say that there was no global flood, but I have also heard them say that there was not enough water on earth to flood the entire world. The later has changed, however, after discovering oceans of water below the earth. Also, there are other ancient accounts of a massive flood in that region from other ancient cultures, all of them varying to some degree. Looking at this from such a position, it is impossible to refute that there was a massive flood in the region, albeit speculative that it engulfed the entire world.

So you don't believe the bible is true either, and that's where the story of creation comes from. I'm listening to the video now, but it doesn't seem relevant, everyone needs to attribute a different meaning to what is written, so basically, NOBODY believes that the bible is true.

You are listening to the video now?

You nave not watched the video, in other words. FYI, there are 5 of them and should come one after the other.

Of course, if you don't have the time I can just summarize it for you.

Schroeder looked at ancient rabbinical writings on Genesis and discovered that the consensus was that the Earth was not made in only 6 days.

If you look at the Hebrew terms for the days in Genesis, what you will discover is that the terms "morning" and "evening" can be translated "chaos" and "order".

Then when man is made, the terms used to denote the passage of time changes as we are given a second clock to measure time. The generations from Adam measure about 6000 years.

Now as for Adam's creation, these same rabbis came to the startling conclusion that there may have been other humanoids around. In essence, Adam became man only when God breathed his spirit into him.

Schroeder points to these rabbinical writings to show that he is not just pulling his theories out of thin air to match modern science because these same conclusions were reached by rabbis pre-modern science.

Then he comes up with his own clock from the beginning of creation. Using his scientific knowledge, he hypothesized that with each day time halves. This means that the first day was 8 billion years, the second day was 4 billion years, and the third day was 2 billion years, etc. If you use his clock then the scientific calendar matches the Bible calendar.

As he points out, time is relative and is manipulated by such things as speed and gravity. Time is different all throughout the universe.

 

[Hiryuu]

Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.

So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the bloodshed could be avoided.

Do you think you could sell the delegates on that?

Any chance if you found yourself a delegate you wouldn't even try?

I would not try to argue with the good delegate from the State of What If regarding his concerns for portions of the country I would be attempting to unite, to deicide they could dissolve such a Union. For all particle purposes if would defeat the purpose of having a Union in the first place and cause conflict along designated borders. None of which should really matter if the Federal Government adheres to the 10th Amendment and allows the States and/or People more powers than the Federal Government to start with.

I would however suggest we include Balanced Budget requirements on Congress when we get to Article 1, Sections 8 and 9.

 

[Taz]

There is no possibility for creation, it simply hasn't been proven at all. With abiogenesis, scientists are at least looking and will likely eventually get it to happen in a lab. We can't yet do fusion either, but that doesn't mean that that isn't how the sun works.

There is no possibility of creation? I've never heard a scientist say this. How can you even prove such a a thing?

Again, science is all about hypothesis and observation and putting your ideas to the test. As such, abiogenesis is what has not been proven, just as much as creation.

As for a God being put to the test, this is equally impossible.

Science has proven that the world was not made in 6 days. Nor was a woman made out of a man's rib. Nor was there a worldwide flood...

You said that science has disproved creation, but apparently you meant that science has disproved the Bible instead. Is this right?

As for creation being in only 6 days, you are correct, science says that this is BS. However, not all those who believe in the Bible think so either. There are two camps on the issue, there are old earth creationists and there are those who think that the story is only allegory.

For example, you could take the story of Adam and Eve as literal truth, or you could take it as allegory. If taken as allegory, the story is about two people being told not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Does it strike you as odd that the forbidden tree was named "Knowledge"? Well looking at society today, knowledge is what is destroying us. WMD's, global warming, plastics that will not degrade, genetically altered plants that cannot reproduce, and soon to be AI that is so terrifying that it's creator stopped and washed his hands of it.

For you see, knowledge without wisdom brings death.

As for Genesis being taken literally from an Old Creationist point of view, Dr. Gerald Schroeder is the only one I know who has attempted to bring science and the Bible into agreement on this issue. His book Genesis and the Big Bang did a pretty good job in bridging the two. Here is a video if interested.



Also understand that the person who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest, someone Einstein discarded because he had a reputation to protect, but was later shown to be correct.

As for what was meant by the "rib", that is more or less a mystery whether being taken literally or as an allegory. Suffice it to say, it signified that man and woman were from the same origins.

I have heard scientists say that there was no global flood, but I have also heard them say that there was not enough water on earth to flood the entire world. The later has changed, however, after discovering oceans of water below the earth. Also, there are other ancient accounts of a massive flood in that region from other ancient cultures, all of them varying to some degree. Looking at this from such a position, it is impossible to refute that there was a massive flood in the region, albeit speculative that it engulfed the entire world.

So you don't believe the bible is true either, and that's where the story of creation comes from. I'm listening to the video now, but it doesn't seem relevant, everyone needs to attribute a different meaning to what is written, so basically, NOBODY believes that the bible is true.

You are listening to the video now?

You nave not watched the video, in other words. FYI, there are 5 of them and should come one after the other.

Of course, if you don't have the time I can just summarize it for you.

Schroeder looked at ancient rabbinical writings on Genesis and discovered that the consensus was that the Earth was not made in only 6 days.

If you look at the Hebrew terms for the days in Genesis, what you will discover is that the terms "morning" and "evening" can be translated "chaos" and "order".

Then when man is made, the terms used to denote the passage of time changes as we are given a second clock to measure time. The generations from Adam measure about 6000 years.

Now as for Adam's creation, these same rabbis came to the startling conclusion that there may have been other humanoids around. In essence, Adam became man only when God breathed his spirit into him.

Schroeder points to these rabbinical writings to show that he is not just pulling his theories out of thin air to match modern science because these same conclusions were reached by rabbis pre-modern science.

Then he comes up with his own clock from the beginning of creation. Using his scientific knowledge, he hypothesized that with each day time halves. This means that the first day was 8 billion years, the second day was 4 billion years, and the third day was 2 billion years, etc. If you use his clock then the scientific calendar matches the Bible calendar.

As he points out, time is relative and is manipulated by such things as speed and gravity. Time is different all throughout the universe.

Humans were dumb ape-like beings for millions of years until around 100,000 years ago or so when we became an "intelligent" species. To me, it sounds like alien intervention, but not of the supernatural kind, just regular aliens. But that aside, basically, everyone needs to make up an alternate meaning to the Torah/bible because they agree that it makes no sense as written. The guy makes up his own calendar to fit with science with his first day was 8 billion years long... Totally made up nonsense.

 

[candycorn]

Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.

So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the bloodshed could be avoided.

Do you think you could sell the delegates on that?

Any chance if you found yourself a delegate you wouldn't even try?

Well, I don't see in Article I where it says anything about a bill having to get a majority to pass into law. In other words, it seems to me that if the House or Senate leadership was keen on the idea and could get their members to go along...they could make it to where if a bill gets one vote, it passes. Meaning a 1-99 vote would mean the bill passes the chamber. Or, they could implement a rule that says bills must be unanimous meaning that a 99-1 vote fails. I stand to be corrected on this...can anyone quote the Constitution or the amendments that ensure a 51-49 or 218-217 margin is needed?

Given that we also recently seen where the Senate refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court justice--a pretty visible figure--based on nothing more than political interests...if I'm around at the time of the framing; I'm telling my members that we need to put some rules in the constitution to prevent such things.

 

[Hiryuu]

Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.

So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the bloodshed could be avoided.

Do you think you could sell the delegates on that?

Any chance if you found yourself a delegate you wouldn't even try?

Well, I don't see in Article I where it says anything about a bill having to get a majority to pass into law. In other words, it seems to me that if the House or Senate leadership was keen on the idea and could get their members to go along...they could make it to where if a bill gets one vote, it passes. Meaning a 1-99 vote would mean the bill passes the chamber. Or, they could implement a rule that says bills must be unanimous meaning that a 99-1 vote fails. I stand to be corrected on this...can anyone quote the Constitution or the amendments that ensure a 51-49 or 218-217 margin is needed?

Given that we also recently seen where the Senate refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court justice--a pretty visible figure--based on nothing more than political interests...if I'm around at the time of the framing; I'm telling my members that we need to put some rules in the constitution to prevent such things.

The delegates agreed to use Parliamentarian Procedures in conducting the Constitutional Convention, and in writing the Constitutional requirements. That requires a simple majority in most cases (although I could see where it may have been a good idea to identify the actual requirement for goofballs that may choose to pretend it should be conducted any other way without specification). They went further to specify any time when a simple majority vote would not be the requirement. Article 1, Sections 3, 5 and 7 - Article 2, Section 2 – Article 5 [which covers a Constitutional Convention] , and the 12th, 14th and 25th Amendment all require super majority votes (and were identified as such).

Furthermore, Article 1, Section 5 does allow both Houses of Congress to set their own rules.

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

 

[candycorn]

Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.

So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the bloodshed could be avoided.

Do you think you could sell the delegates on that?

Any chance if you found yourself a delegate you wouldn't even try?

Well, I don't see in Article I where it says anything about a bill having to get a majority to pass into law. In other words, it seems to me that if the House or Senate leadership was keen on the idea and could get their members to go along...they could make it to where if a bill gets one vote, it passes. Meaning a 1-99 vote would mean the bill passes the chamber. Or, they could implement a rule that says bills must be unanimous meaning that a 99-1 vote fails. I stand to be corrected on this...can anyone quote the Constitution or the amendments that ensure a 51-49 or 218-217 margin is needed?

Given that we also recently seen where the Senate refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court justice--a pretty visible figure--based on nothing more than political interests...if I'm around at the time of the framing; I'm telling my members that we need to put some rules in the constitution to prevent such things.

The delegates agreed to use Parliamentarian Procedures in conducting the Constitutional Convention, and in writing the Constitutional requirements. That requires a simple majority in most cases (although I could see where it may have been a good idea to identify the actual requirement for goofballs that may choose to pretend it should be conducted any other way without specification). They went further to specify any time when a simple majority vote would not be the requirement. Article 1, Sections 3, 5 and 7 - Article 2, Section 2 – Article 5 [which covers a Constitutional Convention] , and the 12th, 14th and 25th Amendment all require super majority votes (and were identified as such).

"The delegates agreed to use Parliamentarian Procedures in conducting the Constitutional Convention, and in writing the Constitutional requirements. That requires a simple majority in most cases (although I could see where it may have been a good idea to identify the actual requirement for goofballs that may choose to pretend it should be conducted any other way without specification)"


Are the Parlimentary Procedures written in the Constitution...when it comes to bill consideration?

 

[Hiryuu]

Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.

So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the bloodshed could be avoided.

Do you think you could sell the delegates on that?

Any chance if you found yourself a delegate you wouldn't even try?

Well, I don't see in Article I where it says anything about a bill having to get a majority to pass into law. In other words, it seems to me that if the House or Senate leadership was keen on the idea and could get their members to go along...they could make it to where if a bill gets one vote, it passes. Meaning a 1-99 vote would mean the bill passes the chamber. Or, they could implement a rule that says bills must be unanimous meaning that a 99-1 vote fails. I stand to be corrected on this...can anyone quote the Constitution or the amendments that ensure a 51-49 or 218-217 margin is needed?

Given that we also recently seen where the Senate refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court justice--a pretty visible figure--based on nothing more than political interests...if I'm around at the time of the framing; I'm telling my members that we need to put some rules in the constitution to prevent such things.

The delegates agreed to use Parliamentarian Procedures in conducting the Constitutional Convention, and in writing the Constitutional requirements. That requires a simple majority in most cases (although I could see where it may have been a good idea to identify the actual requirement for goofballs that may choose to pretend it should be conducted any other way without specification). They went further to specify any time when a simple majority vote would not be the requirement. Article 1, Sections 3, 5 and 7 - Article 2, Section 2 – Article 5 [which covers a Constitutional Convention] , and the 12th, 14th and 25th Amendment all require super majority votes (and were identified as such).

"The delegates agreed to use Parliamentarian Procedures in conducting the Constitutional Convention, and in writing the Constitutional requirements. That requires a simple majority in most cases (although I could see where it may have been a good idea to identify the actual requirement for goofballs that may choose to pretend it should be conducted any other way without specification)"


Are the Parlimentary Procedures written in the Constitution...when it comes to bill consideration?

No, but this is ... "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." Which would pretty much negate the idea that it isn't covered who gets to make the rules.

 

[candycorn]

Suppose you do so and in a speech you say that maybe in 75 to 100 years in the future we will have many more states. Some of the states will want to leave the Union. The others won't want to let them. A horrible civil war will start where hundreds of thousands of men will die.

So you think we should put in the Constitution that either states should or should not have the right to secede because if neither way was explicitly stated each side would claim the constitution would back them up, whereas if the constitution did take a position many people would hesitate to violate it and much if not all the bloodshed could be avoided.

Do you think you could sell the delegates on that?

Any chance if you found yourself a delegate you wouldn't even try?

Well, I don't see in Article I where it says anything about a bill having to get a majority to pass into law. In other words, it seems to me that if the House or Senate leadership was keen on the idea and could get their members to go along...they could make it to where if a bill gets one vote, it passes. Meaning a 1-99 vote would mean the bill passes the chamber. Or, they could implement a rule that says bills must be unanimous meaning that a 99-1 vote fails. I stand to be corrected on this...can anyone quote the Constitution or the amendments that ensure a 51-49 or 218-217 margin is needed?

Given that we also recently seen where the Senate refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court justice--a pretty visible figure--based on nothing more than political interests...if I'm around at the time of the framing; I'm telling my members that we need to put some rules in the constitution to prevent such things.

The delegates agreed to use Parliamentarian Procedures in conducting the Constitutional Convention, and in writing the Constitutional requirements. That requires a simple majority in most cases (although I could see where it may have been a good idea to identify the actual requirement for goofballs that may choose to pretend it should be conducted any other way without specification). They went further to specify any time when a simple majority vote would not be the requirement. Article 1, Sections 3, 5 and 7 - Article 2, Section 2 – Article 5 [which covers a Constitutional Convention] , and the 12th, 14th and 25th Amendment all require super majority votes (and were identified as such).

"The delegates agreed to use Parliamentarian Procedures in conducting the Constitutional Convention, and in writing the Constitutional requirements. That requires a simple majority in most cases (although I could see where it may have been a good idea to identify the actual requirement for goofballs that may choose to pretend it should be conducted any other way without specification)"


Are the Parlimentary Procedures written in the Constitution...when it comes to bill consideration?

No, but this is ... "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member." Which would pretty much negate the idea that it isn't covered who gets to make the rules.

So...such a 1-99 pass or 99-1 failure is possible; it's just extremely unlikely.