A Complete Waste of Space

callmeslick wrote:

There is a story of a Bolshevik revolutionary who was standing on a soapbox
speaking to a small crowd in Times Square. After describing the glories of socialism and
communism, he said: “Come the revolution, everyone will eat peaches and cream.” A little
old man at the back of the crown yelled out: “I don’t like peaches and cream.” The
Bolshevik thought about that for a moment and then replied: “Come the revolution,
comrade, you will like peaches and cream.”
This, then, is the fourth difference between collectivism and individualism, and it is
perhaps the most fundamental of them all: collectivists believe in coercion; individualists
believe in freedom.

Wullie wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

callmeslick wrote:well, carry on, in this thread. 5 pages and Dawg still doesn't grow a pair and answer a question. Typical.

Dawg wrote: Ah, you're sounding more and more like a progressive than the last time I, we were all on a forum together. Before I rant off, politically I'm a Constitutionalist. not a R or a D or whatever- bush did that to me, and obama cemented that clarity.
I occasionally encounter those, such as yourself who claim The Constitution to be; "brief, vague, encourage its change and adaptation", what you really seek is justification for its violation.
And when someone calls you on it, you're insulted, you name call, you create threads in forum defying someone to explain why they are so simple minded as to think the Constitution is some thing that lives, breaths and is just sort of some idea to work with...you rally other like minded to make changes, just a wee little itty bitty change here and there. Social engineering is the scary word, progressive is the New York Times softer word.

How insulting to think the very men who put it all on the line when it was created thought "they intended it to be flexible should be obvious from the process they took"
slick the way you, and your kind- like obama, pelosi recently, of thinking is serious threat to its very intended purpose.
It was precisely THAT THOUGHT PROCESS THEY TOOK that they sought NOT to have it changed, EVER. Good Lord slick, point out one thing in its creation that does not apply, universally, in its entirety today.
bill of rights will no doubt be your next argument. But you said the Constitution.
Take for instance The 17th Amen. fucking removed an important check against federal government growth.
The Constitution is a written contract between We The People and government. To remain lawful a contract must maintain its original intent.


Quote:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Quote:
The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation. In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (taxes) only indirectly through the states. Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.

and there in lies the methodology of chipping away at our rights.

here, watch this, i make my child watch it, and I was blown away this year when, at 9, the scouts had representatives from the armed forces talking about Veterns day and the fourth of july- A Navy officer asked "any one know what freedom is" and my kid spouted out a couple of sentences that stunned all those Vets, the guy said after about 5 seconds "who's your dad", fekker pointed me out, they guy looked at me and did a thumbs up.
EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH THIS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muHg86Mys7I

Its simple slick- it is NOT a flexible document. Amendments exist to further clarify that, NOT fucking change it!
i.e.:
Quote:
Ratified in 1791, the Tenth Amendment: The Constitution specifies the parameters of authority that may be exercised by the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states all powers that are not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, except for those powers that states are constitutionally forbidden from exercising.
For example, nowhere in the federal Constitution is Congress given authority to regulate local matters concerning the health, safety, and morality of state residents

Many federalists, such as JAMES MADISON, argued that the Tenth Amendment was unnecessary because the powers of the federal government are carefully enumerated and limited in the Constitution. Because the Constitution does not give Congress, the president, or the federal judiciary the prerogative to regulate wholly local matters, Madison concluded that no such power existed and no such power would ever be exercised. However, British oppression had made the Founding Fathers fearful of unchecked centralized power. The Tenth Amendment was enacted to limit federal power. Although it appears clear on its face, the Tenth Amendment has not been consistently applied.
And yet, better re-state the obvious in an amendment in case some fuckstick doesn't understand the original contract.


I really dont have the patience to go on, i know it will not affect your thinking, I and those who think like me, will simply continue to fight to prevent the modern day threats from getting more power and shifting away from the premise that government must be limited-as set forth in that document. Many have finally realized that when "their" party gets into power and makes permanent changes the very real threat that when "their" party loses, the newly elected can use those laws to fuck the very people that cheered it on.
Quote:
When they came for the gypsies, we didn't care.
What, that cant happen here? Why not? How many examples of erosion of all the amendments do you want before you stop and think. What if next election the nation swings so far to the right, that its suddenly a crime to express differing opinions.
Want you tube links of Obama (the very first president to call out, by name- citizens and news agency's who disagree with him) or you tube links of our leaders in the last year saying (essentially) screw the law, we're going to do "this".

callmeslick wrote:kind of funny.....I ask for a clarification from Dawg, and got one.

callmeslick wrote:well, carry on, in this thread. 5 pages and Dawg still doesn't grow a pair and answer a question. Typical.