Scrap the constitution - Page 5 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

ViPER · #61 (**permalink**) 09-28-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

There's nothing wrong with the Constitution though I'm sure many left wing extremists would love to see it scrapped just to get rid of the right to bear arms.

Just as the right wacks who worked so hard to crush it for an American Alliance.

John Drake · #62 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahmota

Yeha its called having a real life.

And the UDHR would do the exact same thing. A more effective and fair document than the current constitution would do the exact same thing.

No we should not burn them but they must be kept as far away from government as possible by any means necessary. As well as anyone who seriously takes tham as a blueprint for any government at all. Religion has utterly no place in any government. And yes Matt I would kill to protect the seperation of church and state. Keep all relgion out of government by any means necessary, as well as the flipside of that keep all government out of any relgion. And funny you mention the bible I was reading here recently that they have updated the translation of the bible to make it more current and understandable to people.WBIR.com | Knoxville, TN | New NIV Bible in works, will review 'gender-related' language

Actually no they havent as most of the basic human rights the UDHR enumerates are opposed or ignored by the US Constitution. And besides which Federal statues are seperate from and derived from the Constitution. As manyn people around here point out the Constitution is the highest law in the land but it is not the only law though and should never be the ONLY law as some people would liek to see happen. As if that became the case then the class protectionism for wealthy white landowners would set human rights , civil rights and fairness and equality on its head.

No I will not. I am going to stay and fight to help improve this country. To help save it for my children and grandchildren from the failures of the republicans, capitalism and excessive religion. And Just FYI I am as big a redneck as anyone else around here. I am armed and know how to use them quite well. I am just as dedicated to my beliefs and have just as much right to be here as you do. This is my country too and I want to see it protected from the abuses and evils of the right wing nutjobs and capitalist scumbags who are raping and pilalging our future.

And to those who say the UDHR is not a basis for governing. A government is supposed to be there to protect, defend and recognize basic human rights. It is there to be a tool and framework that a civilization and culture has as a basis for their continued growth and protection. This document is the basis for all good and fair and humane governments. The Constitution is not. It is a codification of white wealthy landowners ideals ignoring what they just said in the declaration of independence about "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL". The UDHR recognizes that and if we replaced the constitution with the UDHR and actually lived by those values then this country would be a truely magnificent place to live.

And Matt when have I ever said I admire Cuba? There are flaws in Cuba that I disagree with. Most of that as a result of the heinous actions taken by the US to try and oust the legal ruler of Cuba Fidel Castro and to destroy Communism. Communism is one of the best ways for peopel to protect their personal liberties while controlling businesses and ensuring the adequate and fair distribution of wealth and resources for the survival of the entire community not just the wealthy and the elite. From a long term survival of the species viewpoint Communism makes a better sense than preying on each other and everythign that Capitalism does. So yes I admire Communism. I abhor Capitalism.

But some more of the failures of the constitution: It did not place a strong enough barrier between religon and government letting christian moral based laws be placed on the books such as regulating whom a consenting adult may marry, what sexual position consenting adults may use, heck even if a consenting adult may use a sex toy on themselves or another consenting adult.

It placed too much power on the president as to be able to conduct war. It should restrict our military to those actions required to directly enforce our immediate security and defense. We are not the world's policemen and should never be. We should be restricted from imperialistic aggression and opression and occupation like we have been doing in Iraq.

Federal statutes are to the Constitution as are tools to a workman, they exist functionally only insofar as they are applied by him and are as inseparable as the fingers from the hand when their overall use and effect is considered.

Please give me some examples of where the US Constitution contradicts the UDHR

Not that it matters, as the UDHR is superseded by Article 2, paragraph 7 of he UN charter :

Quote:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

The UN has ALWAYS been punctilious in respecting the sovereignity of it's signatories, this was considered a major failing of the old League of Nations and not one they were anxious to repeat.

You play right into the hands of Konspriacy nuts with this bullshit.

MattLarson · #63 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahmota

And Matt when have I ever said I admire Cuba? There are flaws in Cuba that I disagree with. Most of that as a result of the heinous actions taken by the US to try and oust the legal ruler of Cuba Fidel Castro and to destroy Communism. Communism is one of the best ways for peopel to protect their personal liberties while controlling businesses and ensuring the adequate and fair distribution of wealth and resources for the survival of the entire community not just the wealthy and the elite. From a long term survival of the species viewpoint Communism makes a better sense than preying on each other and everythign that Capitalism does. So yes I admire Communism. I abhor Capitalism.

What you still can't figure out is that Cuba is what Communism always ends up as in real life.

So when you fawn over Communism, you're admiring places like Cuba and China and Russia.

As far as Communism being one of "the best ways for peopel to protect their personal liberties", that's just completely ignorant of reality. How much personal liberty was there in Communist Russia? Cuba? China? North Vietnam?

And you're still avoiding the fact that every Communist revolution on the planet has involved a mass murder of "undesirable" members of society.

Fortunately for the rest of us, this Communism fetish you have is not something that will ever be popular here. The rest of us have seen a history book, and we know what Communism actually is.

You might do a bit of research and join the thinking world on the topic.

Matt

Steve · #64 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahmota

No I will not. I am going to stay and fight to help improve this country.

You've made this comment before.

What are you doing to "save" it?

Posting on an internet forum?

Quote:

So yes I admire Communism. I abhor Capitalism.

That should tell anyone everything about you they need to know...

jviehe · #65 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I thought it was 'our' country, you know 'we the people' and all that. But I'm old fashioned like that. The first amendment also protects stupid speech, like the case of someone who doesn't understand how flexible the constitution really is.

In English, the pronoun Our, implies the pronoun Me. You cant say something is Ours, without implying that is is Mine and Yours. Call me old fashioned, but if you are going to attack someone based on their grammar usage, you should understand grammar usage.

Swoop187 · #66 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Jagger

Dude, on the conservative side, guys like you will working in factories owned by guys like me. You'll be working sixteen hours a day for just enough in wages to buy bread and water.

It makes absolutely ZERO sense to purposely pay employees badly.

Its your 'average Joe' working at the factory who fuels the economy and the more money they have equals more business and more profits. Of course the republican side would treat businesses fairly and not tax them to death which would allow better pay for the employees.

You see the republicans wont tax the fuck out of business and people just so they can spend money on pork and social programs... Thats a liberal problem not a conservative problem. That's why states like California are pretty much bankrupt - too much spending.

The whole conservative/republican economic idea is to put as much money in peoples pockets as possible so they will spend that money.

Tanngrisnir3 · #67 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

It makes absolutely ZERO sense to purposely pay employees badly.

Its your 'average Joe' working at the factory who fuels the economy and the more money they have equals more business and more profits. Of course the republican side would treat businesses fairly and not tax them to death which would allow better pay for the employees.

You see the republicans wont tax the fuck out of business and people just so they can spend money on pork and social programs... Thats a liberal problem not a conservative problem. That's why states like California are pretty much bankrupt - too much spending.

The whole conservative/republican economic idea is to put as much money in peoples pockets as possible so they will spend that money.

And yet the republicans and conservatives have never done that. Just like they've never shrunk the size/scope of the gov't, never supported individual responisibility, etc....

Nice sucker's propaganda you've bought into there.

Disillusioned_1 · #68 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jviehe

In English, the pronoun Our, implies the pronoun Me. You cant say something is Ours, without implying that is is Mine and Yours. Call me old fashioned, but if you are going to attack someone based on their grammar usage, you should understand grammar usage.

Call me old fashioned, but "our" and "my" imply different ownership. What is "ours" is a subset of what is "mine". Thus, there are things that are mine which are not ours. Stating something is "mine" has no implication that it is actually "yours" as well. I was keeping Steve from running off with our country and hiding it in a hole in the swamp outside of his shack.

Disillusioned_1 · #69 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

It makes absolutely ZERO sense to purposely pay employees badly.

Not always true. It makes zero sense to purposely pay employees badly in a market with limited qualified workers. This generally means companies won't pay their highly trained workers poorly. However there is no reason not to pay ditch diggers the absolute bottom, because you can always find another poor slob to be a ditch digger. Also, if you're the only game around, you can also screw even your highly trained workers because where else are they going to go?

Quote:

Its your 'average Joe' working at the factory who fuels the economy and the more money they have equals more business and more profits. Of course the republican side would treat businesses fairly and not tax them to death which would allow better pay for the employees.

You're a "cut taxes for everyone, especially the rich" type of person arguing that demand-side (aka bottom-up) economics runs the show. Very strange.

Quote:

You see the republicans wont tax the fuck out of business and people just so they can spend money on pork and social programs... Thats a liberal problem not a conservative problem. That's why states like California are pretty much bankrupt - too much spending.

Conservatives think that by making the rich richer, the money will trickle down into the hands of the working class and working poor. They think the economy is fundamentally run by the wealthy, because they are the ones who create jobs. Essentially, they believe in Top-down economics.

Unfortunately what we saw under 8 years of bush and also under Reagan was the large disparity between the working poor and the rich turn into a HUGE disparity. Money wasn't trickling down, money was trickling UP.

Quote:

The whole conservative/republican economic idea is to put as much money in peoples pockets as possible so they will spend that money.

That might be your idea, but the conventional conservative/republican economic idea is that the rich are the ones creating jobs, so cutting taxes for the rich ends up creating jobs, thus making the working poor better off. In other words, the way to get money into poor peoples pockets is to cut taxes for the rich.

Swoop187 · #70 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

And yet the republicans and conservatives have never done that. Just like they've never shrunk the size/scope of the gov't, never supported individual responisibility, etc....

Nice sucker's propaganda you've bought into there.

They have several times only to be met with liberal opposition.

Why the fuck do you think liberals cry and say republicans are in the tank for corporate America? They want to give corporate America as much of a break as possible so they can employ more people HENCE creating more jobs. Liberals want none of that though. No they want to siphon money out of big business through big taxes and have it distributed to the people via big government social programs.

The right always have objected to excessive taxes but liberals don't give a fuck.

The truth is its actually your liberal papers who don't point this out. Even when they do point it out its presented as "those evil republicans" are racists because they hate the poor and we need high taxes to support them.

Tanngrisnir3 · #71 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swoop187

They have several times only to be met with liberal opposition.

Except, of course, that they haven't.

Quote:

Why the fuck do you think liberals cry and say republicans are in the tank for corporate America? They want to give corporate America as much of a break as possible so they can employ more people HENCE creating more jobs. Liberals want none of that though. No they want to siphon money out of big business through big taxes and have it distributed to the people via big government social programs.

Have you actually ever read anything about politics, political parties and/or economics?

Quote:

The right always have objected to excessive taxes but liberals don't give a fuck.

And you don't even get that the who thing is about who considers what to be excessive.

The truth is its actually your liberal papers who don't point this out. Even when they do point it out its presented as "those evil republicans" are racists because they hate the poor and we need high taxes to support them.[/QUOTE]

Swoop187 · #72 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Not always true. It makes zero sense to purposely pay employees badly in a market with limited qualified workers. This generally means companies won't pay their highly trained workers poorly. However there is no reason not to pay ditch diggers the absolute bottom, because you can always find another poor slob to be a ditch digger. Also, if you're the only game around, you can also screw even your highly trained workers because where else are they going to go?

Ditch diggers still shop no? Of course the unskilled laborers will not be paid as much because anyone can do their jobs but they still spend money and that's the whole premise of a capitalist economy...

Of course the ditch digger can go to college and get a degree in something or even go to a trade school to learn something that will pay better then digging ditches.

Quote:

You're a "cut taxes for everyone, especially the rich" type of person arguing that demand-side (aka bottom-up) economics runs the show. Very strange.

The more money people have in their pockets the more they will spend which fuels the economy... Not that hard to really understand. The more taxes people have to pay (like in liberal governments) the more they will cut back on spending.

People spending money creates jobs, when people don't spend that money jobs will be cut.

Quote:

Conservatives think that by making the rich richer, the money will trickle down into the hands of the working class and working poor. They think the economy is fundamentally run by the wealthy, because they are the ones who create jobs. Essentially, they believe in Top-down economics.

Unfortunately what we saw under 8 years of bush and also under Reagan was the large disparity between the working poor and the rich turn into a HUGE disparity. Money wasn't trickling down, money was trickling UP.

After the liberals took power in 2006 shit got really fucked up. Why? higher taxes, expansion of government and more social programs.

The government stole money from people, the people stopped spending and jobs were lost.

Clintons no questions asked credit policy didn't help much either, that was starting to take its toll on the economy as well but with the liberals higher taxes and debts not being paid off it turned into a double whammy.

Quote:

That might be your idea, but the conventional conservative/republican economic idea is that the rich are the ones creating jobs, so cutting taxes for the rich ends up creating jobs, thus making the working poor better off. In other words, the way to get money into poor peoples pockets is to cut taxes for the rich.

The only thing you got right about republican economic ideology there is that the rich do in fact create jobs...

The trickle down theory is FACT... Any break a company gets will be invested back into the company... That's how you grow a company. The more people they hire the more successful the company will be, the economy as well.

Capitalism wouldn't work without people spending money. Fucking people over is a capitalist economy is like shooting ones self in the foot.

Why the fuck would I alienate people who make my business possible?

I provide them with a job and livelihood and they provide me with a service. The employees depend on the corporation and the corporation depends on the employees..

That's why capitalism is self sufficient and well balanced. Now, its liberal government that throws capitalism off balance. These fucks come in like the fucking mafia wanting their cut of the action and use bleeding heart liberal morons to do just that by turning them against the capitalist system by playing them a song about victim hood.

Cut taxes for EVERYONE not just the rich.

Swoop187 · #73 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Except, of course, that they haven't.

Actually they have cut taxes and made numerous attempts to cut taxes even more but liberals love those taxes.

Quote:

Have you actually ever read anything about politics, political parties and/or economics?

And you don't even get that the who thing is about who considers what to be excessive.

The truth is its actually your liberal papers who don't point this out. Even when they do point it out its presented as "those evil republicans" are racists because they hate the poor and we need high taxes to support them.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

You're indoctrinated and blind to reality.

Swoop187 · #74 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Here is the liberal argument.

Making profits is evil, poor people are entitled to money wealth people make and the government should enforce this via legislation.

^ Liberals call this "rational thinking" and intelligent.

They don't have any logical basis for this ideology yet they call it intelligent.

The whole idea that people are entitled to more then what they can create them selves.

Of course these are the same motherfuckers that wouldn't drop a dime in a charity box.

jviehe · #75 (**permalink**) 09-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Call me old fashioned, but "our" and "my" imply different ownership. What is "ours" is a subset of what is "mine". Thus, there are things that are mine which are not ours. Stating something is "mine" has no implication that it is actually "yours" as well. I was keeping Steve from running off with our country and hiding it in a hole in the swamp outside of his shack.

You assumed saying something was mine implied that it was his only. Its common sense that saying "my country is the USA" doesnt indicate that it is no one elses. Or that telling a Canadian to "leave my country alone" doesnt imply you think its no one elses but yours. Or if I say, dont scratch MY car, the car may be MY car, and also MY wifes. ANyway, you were obviously just trying to get a dig in. Address the topic.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode