OK, here's a question...

[Andy]

I was once invested with the KEPRS fund {circa 1988-1998} and during that period of time 3 of our top Kansas Employers Board of Directors were brought up on Embezzlement charges to the tune of $30 million dollars from our KEPRS fund...{I took a hit of an extra 12% when I had to pull my share out, family medical emergency} anyway, I no longer trust no do I participate in any 401K/or retirement fund anywhere

Um... that's why you should never invest in a single fund. That's what I meant when I said "diversification of investments". I'm currently funding a total of 5 different mutual funds for that very reason.

The 401k/health care policies that were guaranteed to these early retirees/recent people being laid off...is no longer an iron clad document that their medical coverage will continue and that the 401K is going to be paid...some corporations have actually put a 'freeze' on the pay outs due to huge losses on the investments side.

Nothing in this world is "guaranteed" ever. You simply have to make do as best you can, and you are far better off handling your own affairs, than hoping someone else will.

As for Freezing 401K payouts being frozen, I have not read that anywhere. FedEx is freezing the matching funds. Citigroup is freezing their pension which of course is logical since a pension comes from their bottom line. But 401Ks are essentially privately owned funds. Neither could freeze your 401K if they wanted to. It's not under their control.

what part of 'NOT' paying attention to the investment groups that got caught up in the recent 'PONZI' schemes haven't you been paying attention too??? There were colleges, stock portfolio's from many municipalities, private investors, mortgage companies, Unions, Police/Fire/Welders etc., etc., etc., and Berny Madoff took them down the toilet with his BILLION DOLLAR SCHEME!!!

Right. Are you going to base everything you do on the possibility of problems? You could die in a car crash this afternoon. Does that mean you never drive again? How many mutual funds exist in the US today? The Investment Company Institute, has more than 10,300 mutual funds alone, and there's thousands more. How many are ponzi schemes?

Well, ya, but don't you think that there should/would/could be caps set on the premiums that they force feed us???

History has shown that when you set price caps, the result is poor service, or no service. It's the same as putting pay caps for doctors. The result is doctor shortages.

As long as there are good people providing a 'free service' there will be the leeches of this world taking advantage of that 'free service' {{shrugs}}

Right. Now apply the pastor freeloading from the food pantry, to people taking advantage of government. Government isn't going to say "That's enough freeloading", because each person is a potential voter, and it's not their money. Politicians are never frugal because the tax payers are paying the bill, not them.

There is over $60 Billion dollars in fraud for medicare alone. That's per year, and doesn't include Medicaid, Social Security, Food stamps, Welfare, S-chip, and the whole list of social programs. Yet Medicare is blowing a whole in the budget according to Obama, and doctors are refusing patients because of low pay. And you want this system for everyone?

Well, he gets passionate about this issue and his family over here in America have had many ongoing problems with 'pre-existing conditions' and the 'portability issue' from their varied insurance providers!!!

Pre-existing condition clauses only apply if you did not have insurance before. Further, it only lasts a year, or two at the most. Portability issues are a concern, and something that needs fixed. Health Insurance should be like any other insurance, in that it isn't tied to your job. That's one of two things that does need fixed in our system.

Well, you can't make a statement like: killing off 'X' amount of humans and not make me think that your 'tongue in cheek post' wasn't sarcastic...especially on the heels of "all poor people have a vehicle"...LOL And that is a 'GIVEN' but this was important enough to make Norway, Canada, Sweden and other countries make it 'happen' for their citizens...we need to quit dragging our collective feet and get something started...NOW!!!

Sweden's health care is in shambles too. Sweden has even been toying with privatization of the entire industry. How ironic that they have tried what you want, and are trying to move towards our system. Canada, we've discussed. It's awful. Thousands of women every year are sent to the US for birth, because their hospitals can't handle them. As I said, there isn't much on Norway, but what little I've seen isn't nearly as good as that one guy claimed.

Given the most recent mortgage crisis/bank failures/trickle down economy crisis...I would beg to differ! It would appear that the GREED DRIVEN CAPITALIST has hurt this country in the worst way!

Perhaps you'd like the $2 a day poverty of communist china? Or maybe the slums of pre-reform India? Or even the ghettos of Cuba?

Besides that, as has been stated before on this forum many times, it was government controls and regulations that caused our current down turn. That's socialism, not capitalism.

Maybe you need to read some current documentation from the financial guru's and how the oversight SEC that G.W.B. had appointed and wanted them to BACK OFF of keeping the taps on the bottom line was one of the driving forces that allowed the Berny Madoff's and others of his ILK to screw the masses in the way that they did!!! Rules/guidelines and regulations were ignored and the wording of those 'bundled mortgages' were twisted around so that the finite details were being overlooked...some think on purpose, some want an investigation so we will know just with whom to place the blame and press charges...others don't want to waste the money to find out...but my $$$$ start with G.W.B. and INC. and move down from there!

Um... those bundled mortgages were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by the direction of HUD. They did this to help increase minority home ownership as per the Community Reinvestment act. That's socialism. You keep pointing at things that government did, and claiming it's capitalism. No, government is inherently socialism.

 

[Pandora]

Um... that's why you should never invest in a single fund. That's what I meant when I said "diversification of investments". I'm currently funding a total of 5 different mutual funds for that very reason.



Nothing in this world is "guaranteed" ever. You simply have to make do as best you can, and you are far better off handling your own affairs, than hoping someone else will.

As for Freezing 401K payouts being frozen, I have not read that anywhere. FedEx is freezing the matching funds. Citigroup is freezing their pension which of course is logical since a pension comes from their bottom line. But 401Ks are essentially privately owned funds. Neither could freeze your 401K if they wanted to. It's not under their control.



Right. Are you going to base everything you do on the possibility of problems? You could die in a car crash this afternoon. Does that mean you never drive again? How many mutual funds exist in the US today? The Investment Company Institute, has more than 10,300 mutual funds alone, and there's thousands more. How many are ponzi schemes?



History has shown that when you set price caps, the result is poor service, or no service. It's the same as putting pay caps for doctors. The result is doctor shortages.



Right. Now apply the pastor freeloading from the food pantry, to people taking advantage of government. Government isn't going to say "That's enough freeloading", because each person is a potential voter, and it's not their money. Politicians are never frugal because the tax payers are paying the bill, not them.

There is over $60 Billion dollars in fraud for medicare alone. That's per year, and doesn't include Medicaid, Social Security, Food stamps, Welfare, S-chip, and the whole list of social programs. Yet Medicare is blowing a whole in the budget according to Obama, and doctors are refusing patients because of low pay. And you want this system for everyone?



Pre-existing condition clauses only apply if you did not have insurance before. Further, it only lasts a year, or two at the most. Portability issues are a concern, and something that needs fixed. Health Insurance should be like any other insurance, in that it isn't tied to your job. That's one of two things that does need fixed in our system.



Sweden's health care is in shambles too. Sweden has even been toying with privatization of the entire industry. How ironic that they have tried what you want, and are trying to move towards our system. Canada, we've discussed. It's awful. Thousands of women every year are sent to the US for birth, because their hospitals can't handle them. As I said, there isn't much on Norway, but what little I've seen isn't nearly as good as that one guy claimed.



Perhaps you'd like the $2 a day poverty of communist china? Or maybe the slums of pre-reform India? Or even the ghettos of Cuba?

Besides that, as has been stated before on this forum many times, it was government controls and regulations that caused our current down turn. That's socialism, not capitalism.



Um... those bundled mortgages were purchased by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, by the direction of HUD. They did this to help increase minority home ownership as per the Community Reinvestment act. That's socialism. You keep pointing at things that government did, and claiming it's capitalism. No, government is inherently socialism.

I really like reading your posts Andy; they are very well written and thought out. And you always make excellent points!

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I really like reading your posts Andy; they are very well written and thought out. And you always make excellent points!

As usual nothing to add but you are leaving a 'trail of pom-pom' debris...LMAO

 

[Andy]

I really like reading your posts Andy; they are very well written and thought out. And you always make excellent points!

Aw shucks Pandora.... you're making me blush, and making ASP jealous!

 

[top gun]

There is no question that there are problems, just as there is no question that those problems need to be addressed, so we are in agreement thus far, but that's about to change below.

OK...

You can't be THAT incredibly ignorant can you? The Constitution quite clearly addresses the fact that the founders clearly understood that things would change, and therefore intentionally included Article 5, whereby the Constitution could be AMENDED to address those changes, just like was done with the 13th Amendment, so your assertion that the "original documents were quite obviously flawed" is highly specious ON IT'S FACE.

Personal insults are the desperation weapons of those lacking true insight... if this is the path you'd like to pursue I can join in as a simple rebuttal... but I'd suggest let's take it slow here & not start out kicking the dog. There's plenty of time for people to get bit further down this road.

The fact that the Constitution can be changed does not in any way excuse or remove the GLARING highlight that the founders themselves made some huge mistakes of judgment at the time and obviously lacked the ability to see what would be best for today.

It's a decent outline but it is obviously a document that will have to evolve as times & situations change.

Also, like most liberals, you fail to honestly address the fact that slavery in America was a direct result of BRITISH insistence that they be brought here in the first place, so when we declared our independence, we inherited an existing institution that was responsible for nearly 40% of our entire GDP, but I suppose that a block of instruction for you on this particular topic will have to wait for another thread.

If you are trying to twist history into the false reality that America HAD to enslave people whether it was a crime against humanity or not for "economic" reasons then that in itself clearly documents the problem with being a Conservative. The end justifies the means no matter how horrendously bad the means are.

Many people gave up slavery voluntarily at the time or never took it up in the first place. Furthermore as evidenced by the fact we haven't had slavery for a long long time now and the country did not economically collapse shows it was more of a "want" than a life or death of a country need.

But I'd expect a Conservative to speak up for slavery. I believe the very Right Wing organization the KKK would like to see it to this day for various reasons.

I am in objection.

Another totally specious statement by someone who obviously hasn't bothered to study their history. Both Thomas Jefferson (you know, the author of the Declaration of Independence, one of the primary founding fathers, a staunch anti-federalist, and the 3rd President of the United States among other things) and James Madison (you know, the father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States, and author of nearly half of the Federalist Papers) both (among the vast majority of the other founders) agreed that the phrase "the general welfare" meant only those things specifically granted to the government by We The People, and "health care" AIN'T AMONG THEM!

It doesn't say it is not. Some... Libertarians for one group... think that even our military cannot be used "Constitutionally" in any Nation Building type of effort or even in supporting our allies. Only repelling an invader is what they see as our military's "Constitutional" function.

So it can be open to interpretation as to just what is necessary for the government to do the promote the general welfare. I have no doubt for instance that if there were a great plague and it took government resource's to stomp it out before a large part of our country perished from it that would be a medical... to promote the common welfare.

Yeah, nothing like an honest, dispassionate, non-partisan, and critical fourth estate to watch out for We The People....NOT!

We have a very good man and an intelligent President of the United States that is working hard to not just look the other way at difficult issues facing American families. Someone actually trying to find some type of agreement & a coming together of many different perspectives such as the AMA, the drug companies, the private insurance companies etc. all searching together for a better solution.

It's your choice to simply bash the attempt by all these groups to look for a better way. That's your choice to make.

I'm in favor of exploring the options.

 

[PLC1]

The fact that the Constitution can be changed does not in any way excuse or remove the GLARING highlight that the founders themselves made some huge mistakes of judgment at the time and obviously lacked the ability to see what would be best for today.

It's a decent outline but it is obviously a document that will have to evolve as times & situations change.

The founders made some huge mistakes of judgment in writing the Constitution???

Contrary to popular belief, the US is not a democracy, but is, in fact, a constitutional republic. As such, the Constitution, not the will of the majority, is the supreme law of the land.

Now, just what huge mistakes of judgment did our FF make in writing the Constitution? Was it perhaps the balance of powers? How about the separation of church and state? Maybe ten of the mistakes are those pesky first ten amendments that are making it so hard to turn this nation into a verifiable police state, along with the last one, limiting the federal government?

Just which parts of the Constitution are you ready to throw out?

The difference between a constitutional republic and a dictatorship is the constitution. If I had my way, every elected official would swear an oath with his/her hand not on the Bible, but on the Constitution.

Not only that, but it would be well if every elected official were to be required to pass a test, at least equivalent to what high school students have to pass, on the Constitution of the United States.

High school students do still have to pass such a test, don't they?

 

[Bob the Builder]

Personal insults are the desperation weapons of those lacking true insight... if this is the path you'd like to pursue I can join in as a simple rebuttal... but I'd suggest let's take it slow here & not start out kicking the dog. There's plenty of time for people to get bit further down this road.

What "insult"? I asked you a question because I find it to be highly unlikely that any rational adult would ever seriously posit such an patently specious argument!

The fact that the Constitution can be changed does not in any way excuse or remove the GLARING highlight that the founders themselves made some huge mistakes of judgment at the time and obviously lacked the ability to see what would be best for today.

The Constitution is, and was, a compromise between the various factions, but that hardly constitutes any mistake of judgement! To suggest that because "that peculiar institution" was allowed to continue, when the fruits of it accounted for the single largest source of income to the nation at that time is utterly intellectually dishonest at best, and a patent fallicy at worst, and shows a complete lack of scholarly research in ones own history.

It's a decent outline but it is obviously a document that will have to evolve as times & situations change.

Which again brings us back to Article 5, which clearly demonstrates the impecible vision of the founders.

If you are trying to twist history into the false reality that America HAD to enslave people whether it was a crime against humanity or not for "economic" reasons then that in itself clearly documents the problem with being a Conservative. The end justifies the means no matter how horrendously bad the means are.

So now merely stating an historically accurate fact is "trying to twist history", and then asserting that it has something to do with a political ideology is an utterly disingenuous.

Many people gave up slavery voluntarily at the time or never took it up in the first place. Furthermore as evidenced by the fact we haven't had slavery for a long long time now and the country did not economically collapse shows it was more of a "want" than a life or death of a country need.

You possess some serious holes in your knowledge of your own nations history t.g., so allow me to help you. Firstly, you cannot equate the acceptance of an existing institution at the time of the founding of our nation to the fact that we eventually outlawed it some 80 years, and a million lives lost in a bloody war later, or to today, some 140 years later.

But I'd expect a Conservative to speak up for slavery. I believe the very Right Wing organization the KKK would like to see it to this day for various reasons.

I certainly hope that your comment wasn't in any way directed at me, because I would consider ANY such allegation to be a personal attack, and would be compelled to request that the board Administration take appropriate actions.

It doesn't say it is not. Some... Libertarians for one group... think that even our military cannot be used "Constitutionally" in any Nation Building type of effort or even in supporting our allies. Only repelling an invader is what they see as our military's "Constitutional" function.

Again, I suggest that you consult the founders directly. As I stated earlier, both Jefferson and Madison, as well as many of the founders, spoke repeatedly about the meaning of "the general welfare" and they all consistantly stated that "the general welfare" means only those things specifically listed in the Constitution.

So it can be open to interpretation as to just what is necessary for the government to do the promote the general welfare. I have no doubt for instance that if there were a great plague and it took government resource's to stomp it out before a large part of our country perished from it that would be a medical... to promote the common welfare.

No it is not open to interpretation, at least to those who have seriously studied their history. And no, it is not the federal governments place to deal with a plague, that duty woulld fall to the States.

We have a very good man and an intelligent President of the United States that is working hard to not just look the other way at difficult issues facing American families. Someone actually trying to find some type of agreement & a coming together of many different perspectives such as the AMA, the drug companies, the private insurance companies etc. all searching together for a better solution.

The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is neither a good man, nor an intelligent man, but more importantly, he's not even a UNITED STATES CITIZEN, and therefore ineligible to be there. The only thing he is doing is violating his oath of office (as if it meant anything since he's not eligible) every day. He's the Pied Piper, and you are apparantly one of the rats.

It's your choice to simply bash the attempt by all these groups to look for a better way. That's your choice to make.

I'm in favor of exploring the options.

I'm all about exploring the constitutional options, like amending the constitution to authorize universal medical care, but to do so extraconstitutionally is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

 

[Pandora]

As usual nothing to add but you are leaving a 'trail of pom-pom' debris...LMAO

There was nothing to add. Andy corrected you with a very polite and factual post. No ranting or insults of any kind, also no LMAO or other childish comments. . He just took each of your ideas and explained to you in a most excellent way why you were 100 percent wrong. It was a nice read

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

There was nothing to add. Andy corrected you with a very polite and factual post. No ranting or insults of any kind, also no LMAO or other childish comments. . He just took each of your ideas and explained to you in a most excellent way why you were 100 percent wrong. It was a nice read

ROTFLMAO...you 'MIGHT' make a ½ arsed cheerleader...but stay away from the poor attempt to keep score...PLEASE. LMAO

But then again in your 'HYPOTHETICAL' world that did probably all add up to 100%...OMG...PLEASE STOP THE INSANITY!!!

 

[top gun]

The founders made some huge mistakes of judgment in writing the Constitution???

Contrary to popular belief, the US is not a democracy, but is, in fact, a constitutional republic. As such, the Constitution, not the will of the majority, is the supreme law of the land.

Now, just what huge mistakes of judgment did our FF make in writing the Constitution? Was it perhaps the balance of powers? How about the separation of church and state? Maybe ten of the mistakes are those pesky first ten amendments that are making it so hard to turn this nation into a verifiable police state, along with the last one, limiting the federal government?

Just which parts of the Constitution are you ready to throw out?

The difference between a constitutional republic and a dictatorship is the constitution. If I had my way, every elected official would swear an oath with his/her hand not on the Bible, but on the Constitution.

Not only that, but it would be well if every elected official were to be required to pass a test, at least equivalent to what high school students have to pass, on the Constitution of the United States.

High school students do still have to pass such a test, don't they?

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.

Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.

Fascinating Fact: The rhetoric in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence about liberty, freedom, being created equal, and so on, was seldom considered applicable to blacks, slave or free. Seen a subservient race, they were excluded from consideration as members of society and had few rights.

 

[Saxon]

Heck, I pay taxes for schools when I don't have children, for the military when I don't believe we should be in other countries and for the drug war when I believe drugs should be legal....you don't hear me sniveling over it, at least not from a personal financial viewpoint.

You must be a Republican...greed is usually one of the first indicators.

This is America, there's no reason affordable health care shouldn't be available to everyone.

Greed? It is HIS money. How is that greed? He is stating that he is more than willing to pay for his own healthcare. I would suggest the 'greed' stems from those who would do nothing in order to pay for their own healthcare, and decide perhaps someone else should pay for it. Remember, they are using money that is not theirs. *ROTFLMAO @ 'greed' meaning one who is willing to use one's own money* Gotta love the socialist libtards. 'It's his money, and I have every right to it!!' *ROTFLMAO*

 

[top gun]

What "insult"? I asked you a question because I find it to be highly unlikely that any rational adult would ever seriously posit such an patently specious argument!
The Constitution is, and was, a compromise between the various factions, but that hardly constitutes any mistake of judgement! To suggest that because "that peculiar institution" was allowed to continue, when the fruits of it accounted for the single largest source of income to the nation at that time is utterly intellectually dishonest at best, and a patent fallicy at worst, and shows a complete lack of scholarly research in ones own history.
Which again brings us back to Article 5, which clearly demonstrates the impecible vision of the founders.
So now merely stating an historically accurate fact is "trying to twist history", and then asserting that it has something to do with a political ideology is an utterly disingenuous.
You possess some serious holes in your knowledge of your own nations history t.g., so allow me to help you. Firstly, you cannot equate the acceptance of an existing institution at the time of the founding of our nation to the fact that we eventually outlawed it some 80 years, and a million lives lost in a bloody war later, or to today, some 140 years later.
I certainly hope that your comment wasn't in any way directed at me, because I would consider ANY such allegation to be a personal attack, and would be compelled to request that the board Administration take appropriate actions.
Again, I suggest that you consult the founders directly. As I stated earlier, both Jefferson and Madison, as well as many of the founders, spoke repeatedly about the meaning of "the general welfare" and they all consistantly stated that "the general welfare" means only those things specifically listed in the Constitution.
No it is not open to interpretation, at least to those who have seriously studied their history. And no, it is not the federal governments place to deal with a plague, that duty woulld fall to the States.
The current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is neither a good man, nor an intelligent man, but more importantly, he's not even a UNITED STATES CITIZEN, and therefore ineligible to be there. The only thing he is doing is violating his oath of office (as if it meant anything since he's not eligible) every day. He's the Pied Piper, and you are apparantly one of the rats.
I'm all about exploring the constitutional options, like amending the constitution to authorize universal medical care, but to do so extraconstitutionally is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

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

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

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

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


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.

 

[PLC1]

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.

Whether slavery was to be permitted and continued under the new Constitution was a matter of conflict between the North and South, with several Southern states refusing to join the Union if slavery were disallowed. Thus, in spite of a warning from Virginian George Mason that slaves "bring the judgment of Heaven on a country," the continuance of slavery was clearly sanctioned in the U.S. Constitution, although the words slave and slavery are not found anywhere in the document. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Slaves were property, and slaveholders had an absolute right to take their property with them, even into free states or territories.

Fascinating Fact: The rhetoric in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence about liberty, freedom, being created equal, and so on, was seldom considered applicable to blacks, slave or free. Seen a subservient race, they were excluded from consideration as members of society and had few rights.

Are you seriously basing your contempt of the Constitution on slavery?

Slavery ended long ago, but the principle that no one is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process is under siege even today. It is only through a strict adherence to the Bill of Rights that we retain that liberty, and many others.

It is by relegating the Constitution to the past that we allow the government the power to take property without due process via the so called "asset forfeiture" laws. Unless the populace wakes up, we're likely to find that the Bill of Rights has been so trampled underfoot that we no longer have any rights, and do, in fact, live in a police state.

 

[Saxon]

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

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

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

Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.

ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


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.

So, when 'God' was entrenched in your feeble Constitution, the authors of the same surely meant a God other than the Christian God, yes? Perhaps they meant Allah?

 

[top gun]

Are you seriously basing your contempt of the Constitution on slavery?

Slavery ended long ago, but the principle that no one is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process is under siege even today. It is only through a strict adherence to the Bill of Rights that we retain that liberty, and many others.

It is by relegating the Constitution to the past that we allow the government the power to take property without due process via the so called "asset forfeiture" laws. Unless the populace wakes up, we're likely to find that the Bill of Rights has been so trampled underfoot that we no longer have any rights, and do, in fact, live in a police state.

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.