Not knowing the "full force of the Constitution" which would have left "Nothing over for me"
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 02:37:20 PM
I had to answer your post before Boo's because in answering Boo's I intend to throw the full force of the Constitution at him, and there'd be noting leftover for you. :wink:
I Feel cheated. Trip sounded so tough. So Confident. So sure of himself. I thought he was awesome. The James Dean of the CPF. Unfortunately he is more like Neville Chamberlain....
The full force of the constitution? The constitution knows the force, or has a force? Much too late to contemplate. Night, Boo.
And to y'all. It was all Solar's fault. Everybody remember that later at the grand jury.
Boo is evidently unable to contain himself, even after my having previously answered him once (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg140966/#msg140966), he couldn't wait for me to answer a second time, and had to actually start another thread, imagining this is a suitable new topic.
Here is my second response to him. (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg141261/#msg141261)
Article V, which details the amendment process, is the only way to legitimately alter the Constitution, and thus alter the limits on government... with "the vote" in no way playing a part in this.
Boo really should have just slunk off and licked his wounds (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg141117/#msg141117), but evidently he's not only immune to learning, but also up for the Darwin Award.
(And, yes, the Constitution does have a "force" about it, the force of law, the law of the land. Meanwhile voting has no real 'force' about it at all, much less being any sort of positive "right". )
Quote from: Trip on August 12, 2013, 11:58:10 PM
Boo is evidently unable to contain himself, even after my having previously answered him once (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg140966/#msg140966), he couldn't wait for me to answer a second time, and had to actually start another thread, imagining this is a suitable new topic.
Here is my second response to him. (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg141261/#msg141261)
Article V, which details the amendment process, is the only way to legitimately alter the Constitution, and thus alter the limits on government... with "the vote" in no way playing a part in this.
Boo really should have just slunk off and licked his wounds (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg141117/#msg141117), but evidently he's not only immune to learning, but also up for the Darwin Award.
(And, yes, the Constitution does have a "force" about it, the force of law, the law of the land. Meanwhile voting has no real 'force' about it at all, much less being any sort of positive "right". )
I hear a beaten little boy whimpering because nobody believes he didn't run away.
Go ahead, sonny. Cut and paste the Brittanica to prove me wrong.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 12, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
Not knowing the "full force of the Constitution" which would have left "Nothing over for me"
I Feel cheated. Trip sounded so tough. So Confident. So sure of himself. I thought he was awesome. The James Dean of the CPF. Unfortunately he is more like Neville Chamberlain....
Yeah, Johnny Combat sure do love himself a mess of dead other people, taking back a country he's too young to understand.
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 08:13:22 AM
I hear a beaten little boy whimpering because nobody believes he didn't run away.
Go ahead, sonny. Cut and paste the Brittanica to prove me wrong.
I'd already answered him on page 6 of the thread, and then the comment he quoted was me responding to Mountainshield (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg141132/#msg141132), where I gave him the answer to his question another time. so it really was an third time he got his answer.
Him being resistant to knowledge isn't me running.
But "go ahead", if you want to try and argue the idiotic idea that an election is actually the "attempt to enforce the Constitution" (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/chris-matthews-predicts-good-things-for-the-country/msg140933/#msg140933). You certainly can have your ass handed to you too.
Or maybe you'd like to try your hand at another question.
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution itself, there was no sort of popular election, yet it still has the description, "We, the people" and expresses our government as being "of the people, by the people, and for the people".
How do you imagine it might be that they ignored the populist vote if populist elections are somehow sacred?
Or, if you like, you can keep an playing girlie personality games, and trying desperately to be a crutch for Boo, when nothing can hold up his position. Your choice
Neville Chamberlain....or Neville Longbottom ?
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 08:32:52 AM
bullshit
You know-nothing pimplepopping punk, you sashshay in here declaring YOU ALONE KNOW THE TRUTH. You malign others because to YOU they sound like communists. You lash out at anyone disagreeing with you.
The only drooler in this exchange is you, sonny.
Quote from: quiller on August 13, 2013, 09:05:02 AM
You know-nothing pimplepopping punk, you sashshay in here declaring YOU ALONE KNOW THE TRUTH. You malign others because to YOU they sound like communists. You lash out at anyone disagreeing with you.
The only drooler in this exchange is you, sonny.
Naw, I never claimed I alone knew the truth. I claimed that the founders knew the truth of how to maintain freedom, and that is what I presented. What has happened since is some have shown they don't know the truth of those founders, which I've easily backed up with those founder's own words.
In the meantime, those arguing with me have used the words and arguments of the Progressive Socialist left -- which should highlight a problem to those viewing the discussions objectively.
And some rant about there being "RINOs"...
If you want to challenge me specifically about anything I've said regarding the Constitution, please do so. So far I don't recall you having done so.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 02:36:21 PM
Naw, I never claimed I alone knew the truth. I claimed that the founders knew the truth of how to maintain freedom, and that is what I presented. What has happened since is some have shown they don't know the truth of those founders, which I've easily backed up with those founder's own words.
In the meantime, those arguing with me have used the words and arguments of the Progressive Socialist left -- which should highlight a problem to those viewing the discussions objectively.
And some rant about there being "RINOs"...
And what words and arguments would those be?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 02:39:39 PM
And what words and arguments would those be?
"Change"
"You want it so Blacks cant vote!"
"You want it so Women can't vote!"
"You want to take us back 200 years!"
"You want no government at all!"
applying the constitution is extremist.
elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution".
elections determine what our government can do.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 02:53:04 PM
"Change"
"You want it so Blacks cant vote!"
"You want it so Women can't vote!"
"You want to take us back 200 years!"
"You want no government at all!"
applying the constitution is extremist.
elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution".
elections determine what our government can do.
Ah you mean the truth....
Got it...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 02:57:10 PM
Ah you mean the truth....
Got it...
That may be the "Truthiness that the Democrats present to the public about Conservatives, but it's not the truth of the Conservatives, nor me.
Do you actually believe that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution", and when we lose elections, then it means that the Constitution can be disregarded?
You do grasp that what is being done now by the federal government is unconstitutional, illegitimate, and in no way made otherwise by any populist vote, right?
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 03:01:27 PM
That may be the "Truthiness that the Democrats present to the public about Conservatives, but it's not the truth of the Conservatives, nor me.
Do you actually believe that elections are an "attempt to enforce the Constitution", and when we lose elections, then it means that the Constitution can be disregarded?
You do grasp that what is being done now by the federal government is unconstitutional, illegitimate, and in no way made otherwise by any populist vote, right?
Who upholds the Constitution?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 03:02:57 PM
Who upholds the Constitution?
'
You have never, ever been given a choice on the ballot to uphold the constitution or not.
Nowhere does the Constitution provide any alteration or caveat to its application based on a political vote.
Who upholds the Constitution is a bogus question, and believing that the vote upholds the constitution is pure nonsense, because the application of the Constitution is never on the ballot.
The relevant consideration is what is the purpose of elections, and that purpose is not about whether or not to apply the Constitution. The vote does not provide license to disregard the Constitution any more so than it provides command to upholding it.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 03:36:01 PM
'
You have never, ever been given a choice on the ballot to uphold the constitution or not.
Nowhere does the Constitution provide any alteration or caveat to its application based on a political vote.
Who upholds the Constitution is a bogus question, and believing that the vote upholds the constitution is pure nonsense, because the application of the Constitution is never on the ballot.
The relevant consideration is what is the purpose of elections, and that purpose is not about whether or not to apply the Constitution. The vote does not provide license to disregard the Constitution any more so than it provides command to upholding it.
Here is your chance to prove me wrong. Go put on your hat and coat. get in the car and drive to DC. Park your car in the Congressional parking garage and walk into the Senate. Once there write a bill have have it brought to the floor.
Let me know how it works out for you.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 03:36:01 PM
The vote does not provide license to disregard the Constitution any more so than it provides command to upholding it.
Nobody said it does. But we currently have a president that doesn't think he needs a Congress and the People haven't rebelled or even done much screaming about it. So a president, unless he is stopped by SOMEONE is able to rule outside the law. And yes, our leaders are stewards of the Constitution. If they will not adhere to it, the responsibility falls on the People at the next election cycle. If the People don't care, out leaders will rule over us as they see fit. A large percentage of the People really don't care until THEIR rights are being trampled. I'm not sure how you wake them up.
Quote from: AndyJackson on August 13, 2013, 08:39:35 AM
Neville Chamberlain....or Neville Longbottom ?
Neville Longbottom ended up showing more balls than Chamberlain ever demonstrated he might have had.
Quote from: Yawn on August 13, 2013, 03:49:03 PM
Nobody said it does. But we currently have a president that doesn't think he needs a Congress and the People haven't rebelled or even done much screaming about it. So a president, unless he is stopped by SOMEONE is able to rule outside the law. And yes, our leaders are stewards of the Constitution. If they will not adhere to it, the responsibility falls on the People at the next election cycle. If the People don't care, out leaders will rule over us as they see fit. A large percentage of the People really don't care until THEIR rights are being trampled. I'm not sure how you wake them up.
Actually Boo Man did say that it does. That elections are all about whether or not to "enforce" the Constitution.
No matter how much the people might care, they can only remove, at best, a fraction of the representatives from office in any given election. Those people voting cannot change entrenched practice by Congress, cannot change the Court's corrupt and inherently invalid decisions, and cannot even force those most recently elected to adhere to the Constitution.
You're correct about a large percentage of the people not caring until their rights are trampled, which is why I brought up the Martin Neimoller poem about "first they came for the Socialists" in the Chris Matthews thread.
However the only way to establish that everyone's interests are equally maintained, is to restore the equal and full application of the Constitution. And that cannot be accomplished by voting, particularly not from the level of corruption we're at now.
What is most disturbing is sitting here knowing that those actually running our government are waiting for the opportune moment to collapse the economy, and institute Martial Law. And if that opportune moment does not come from civil unrest due to the overall degradation, then they will create that opportunity themselves.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 04:21:16 PM
Actually Boo Man did say that it does. That elections are all about whether or not to "enforce" the Constitution.
No matter how much the people might care, they can only remove, at best, a fraction of the representatives from office in any given election. Those people voting cannot change entrenched practice by Congress, cannot change the Court's corrupt and inherently invalid decisions, and cannot even force those most recently elected to adhere to the Constitution.
You're correct about a large percentage of the people not caring until their rights are trampled, which is why I brought up the Martin Neimoller poem about "first they came for the Socialists" in the Chris Matthews thread.
However the only way to establish that everyone's interests are equally maintained, is to restore the equal and full application of the Constitution. And that cannot be accomplished by voting, particularly not from the level of corruption we're at now.
What is most disturbing is sitting here knowing that those actually running our government are waiting for the opportune moment to collapse the economy, and institute Martial Law. And if that opportune moment does not come from civil unrest due to the overall degradation, then they will create that opportunity themselves.
No. No I didn't...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 13, 2013, 04:25:18 PM
No. No I didn't...
Quote from: The Boo Man... on August 10, 2013, 08:38:06 PM
We the people attempt to enforce the constitution by electing political figures...
First off, enforcement of the Constitution cannot be done by political figures, certainly not one at a time, by those newly elected.
Secondly, the implication of your statement is that if we do not elect the correct political figures, then not enforcing the constitution is somehow a legitimate outcome.
Third, it is a further implication that we operate by a populist vote, and that legitimacy of government might be determined by that vote.
The truth is that the applicability of the Constitution is nowhere involved in the voting process.
And the people are not to blame for what government does in disregard of the Constitution, but I believe they are to blame if they actually believe that what government might legitimately do is established by elections.
We repeatedly heard this from the Left, and Obama himself, in 2009 with the phrase "You lost, elections have consequences". Sure, elections have some consequences, but serving as license to violate the Constitution is not one of them.
Sure, I understand that you were trying to say that the people are responsible for keeping the government in agreement with the Constitution, but elections really don't have that sort of power. Furthermore, the belief that elections might have that sort of power, also involves those elections being able to overthrow the Constitution, which is undeniably why the founders kept popular elections from having more importance.
Quote from: Trip on August 13, 2013, 04:51:04 PM
First off, enforcement of the Constitution cannot be done by political figures, certainly not one at a time, by those newly elected.
Secondly, the implication of your statement is that if we do not elect the correct political figures, then not enforcing the constitution is somehow a legitimate outcome.
Third, it is a further implication that we operate by a populist vote, and that legitimacy of government might be determined by that vote.
The truth is that the applicability of the Constitution is nowhere involved in the voting process.
And the people are not to blame for what government does in disregard of the Constitution, but I believe they are to blame if they actually believe that what government might legitimately do is established by elections.
We repeatedly heard this from the Left, and Obama himself, in 2009 with the phrase "You lost, elections have consequences". Sure, elections have some consequences, but serving as license to violate the Constitution is not one of them.
What is the point of Congress and the President?