OK, here's a question...

[PLC1]

Who's bashing???????

I'd say our founding documents are probably the best ever written.

To you does that mean we should intentionally look away from any part that was obviously lacking or wrong?

I think not my friend. It is a citizens responsibility to respect the good and not be afraid to challenge the bad in things. Only in this way can things continue to move forward and in a positive direction.

I agree that they are the best ever written.

If there is a "bad part", then by all means, let's amend the Constitution.

But, let's not allow the people we elect to office to ignore it, not ever. If we do that, then our liberty is in serious jeopardy.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Constitution on Slavery "Clearly Sanctioned"

Black African slavery had existed in the North American English colonies for 168 years before the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787. It had existed all across colonial America, but by 1804 most Northern states, finding that slavery was not profitable for them, had effectively abolished the institution. In the South, however, especially after the 1793 invention of the cotton gin, the institution grew, becoming an inextricable part of the economy and way of life.

Well, well, well, it would appear that tg has finally done some research, and wonder of wonders, confirmed EXACTLY what I said! Now, given that we all know that you aren't smart enough, or well read enough to have actually written that yourself, I would highly recommend that you provide a source for it, giving the original author due credit for his/her work, or face a charge of a copywrite violation, and that could be very bad thing!

 

[Bob the Builder]

I just blocked your whole rant together because it was a combination of nonsense & talking in circles.

Nonsense? Well I can remember when I thought that Calculus was nonsense too, but then I actually bothered to learn it, perhaps you should do the same thing where it relates to the constitution.

1) The documents did have obvious flaws, are subject to some interpretation and will continue to evolve in various ways, amendments and SCOTUS rulings.

YOU say they were "obvious flaws", but as is normal for liberals who seek to trash the constitution because it's "inconvenient" to their Socialist aims, you fail to view it through the lens of the time when it was originally crafted, as well as refusing to give the authors credit for having the vision to understand that it would need to be changed over time, thereby including Article 5 which provides the means by which is could be changed, which has been done 17 times since.

2) Don't forget when you go into your religious rants about "Christian American Founders" that may of the founders were actually Deists. Noticed by the fact that in our founding documents while the word God or Creator is written the word Jesus never ever is. And this is exemplified in legal government documents such as the... Treaty of Tripoli

Very few of the founders were what you call "Deists", at least in the modern sense of the word. The fact is that of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 32 were Episcopalian/Anglican, 13 were Congregationalists, 12 were Presbyterians, 2 were Quakers, 2 were Unitarians, and there was 1 Catholic. Of the 48 signers of the Articles of Confederation, 14 were Episcopalian/Anglican, 9 were Congregationalists, 4 were Presbyterians, 18 were 'Protestants' (specific affiliation unknown), and there were 1 each Catholic, Quaker, Lutheran, and Huguenot. Among the 55 members of the Constitutional Convention there were 31 Episcopalian/Anglicans, 16 Presbyterians, 8 Congregationalists, 3 Quakers, and 2 each Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, and Dutch Reformed.

The reason that the name of Jesus was not specifically listed in any of the official documents was because, as was later included in the First Amendment, the founders had no wish to create a Theocracy where ANY specific religion would be given precedent over any other. Don't forget, one of the reasons that many of the founders left England in the first place was because of the Church of England, which exercised entirely too much control over the government.

3) And pleeeease don't be a complete moron. President Obama was a United States Senator with NATIONAL SECURITY CLEARANCE long before he was our President. That requires a full background check by the FBI, CIA and other federal agencies. Hint: They check for citizenship before granting anyone elevated National Security Clearance.

Apparently you don't know dick about how members of Congress acquire their security clearances. Since only a very select few are ever allowed to participate on Committees where "real" classified material is discussed, a member of Congress getting a security clearance is perfunctory. Only those members of those select committees that do hear the "real" classified information go through the same background checks that the military/FBI/CIA require, and the illegal Kenyan immigrant wasn't on any of those committees, so he was NOT fully vetted, much less granted an "elevated security clearance". At the most, he was cleared for "FOUO" and "Classified" information, possibly low level "Secret" information, but he was NEVER cleared for "Top Secret" intel.

All of that aside for a moment, you still haven't answered the most salient question; WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? Why are you so afraid to have the court issue a Writ of Mandamus and require the hospital in Hawaii to present a vault copy of his Certificate of Live Birth (as opposed to that joke of a Certification of Live Birth, which the AG of Hawaii has already ruled isn't good enough to get a kid registered for T-Ball) and other pertinent medical and billing records as PROOF POSITIVE that he was in fact born in Hawaii? The fact that you liberals were screaming for John McCain to have his record cleared, and especially to the degree that you were demanding that it be proved (I remember some trying to say that the US military hospital he was born in didn't qualify as sovereign US territory ), why are you being so hypocritical now when it concerns Obama? Is it the possibility that Biden would become President?

 

[BigRob]

3) And pleeeease don't be a complete moron. President Obama was a United States Senator with NATIONAL SECURITY CLEARANCE long before he was our President. That requires a full background check by the FBI, CIA and other federal agencies. Hint: They check for citizenship before granting anyone elevated National Security Clearance. [/COLOR]

Just to point out quickly, the process by which an elected official receives a clearance and the process by which a normal person receive a clearance is quite different. For an elected official, simply being elected is basically your clearance and as Bob pointed out only certain committees deal with intelligence like that on a regular basis.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Just to point out quickly, the process by which an elected official receives a clearance and the process by which a normal person receive a clearance is quite different. For an elected official, simply being elected is basically your clearance and as Bob pointed out only certain committees deal with intelligence like that on a regular basis.

Big Rob please dont stoop the level of this crap, let the retards play in the mud. Even if its just to bring up a point , just don't get dragged into it.

 

[Phoenix68]

Maybe someone can help me understand what all the hubub is all about, but exactly why do you think that the government should pay for anyone's health care?

For that matter, by what right does the government take a huge chunk out of my meager paycheck to pay for healthcare (or anything else for that matter) for people who are too lazy to get up and go to work every day like I have to when I don't have any health insurance and "make too much money" to qualify for any assistance?

.

.​

Back, before there was an explosion of self-centered pricks in the U.S. .....​

.
.

 

[Phoenix68]

Maybe someone can help me understand what all the hubub is all about, but exactly why do you think that the government should pay for anyone's health care?

For that matter, by what right does the government take a huge chunk out of my meager paycheck to pay for healthcare (or anything else for that matter) for people who are too lazy to get up and go to work every day like I have to when I don't have any health insurance and "make too much money" to qualify for any assistance?

.
1949

.
2023
Biden-Harris Administration Announces Record-Breaking 16.3 Million People Signed Up for Health Care Coverage in ACA Marketplaces During 2022-2023 Open Enrollment Season
.
............
.​

 

[the annoying thing]

Maybe someone can help me understand what all the hubub is all about, but exactly why do you think that the government should pay for anyone's health care?

For that matter, by what right does the government take a huge chunk out of my meager paycheck to pay for healthcare (or anything else for that matter) for people who are too lazy to get up and go to work every day like I have to when I don't have any health insurance and "make too much money" to qualify for any assistance?

Sounds like your upset

 

[Phoenix68]

..........

.

.​