The opinion:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article...10381.html

The article it references (which I haven't had a chance to fully finish):
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...-3,00.html

I know a lot of people who prescribe to the, "when they wrote the constitution they didn't have this or that" argument. I just have to come back and say that they were aware that there would be advancements that they could never imagine as technology was coming a long way even in those days. Their goal was to set up a system where one doesn't have to worry about the collective aristocracy having any say on what any one individual can do or have.

(06-28-2011 06:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I know a lot of people who prescribe to the, "when they wrote the constitution they didn't have this or that" argument. I just have to come back and say that they were aware that there would be advancements that they could never imagine as technology was coming a long way even in those days. Their goal was to set up a system where one doesn't have to worry about the collective aristocracy having any say on what any one individual can do or have.

(06-28-2011 06:07 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I know a lot of people who prescribe to the, "when they wrote the constitution they didn't have this or that" argument. I just have to come back and say that they were aware that there would be advancements that they could never imagine as technology was coming a long way even in those days. Their goal was to set up a system where one doesn't have to worry about the collective aristocracy having any say on what any one individual can do or have.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me which of these things that we didn't have back then invalidates any part of the constitution, which part or parts it invalidates, and how and why it does so.

"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson

(06-28-2011 09:10 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  "Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods.

REVISION fool, there's an amendment process for that.

You idiot libs don't seem to care too damn much about that because you are always trying to find ways to silence your opposition. Want to change it? Grow some fuken balls and go through the amendment process. There's a REASON it was made so damned hard to amend.

Okay, the guy posts a completely relevant quote from Thomas Jefferson and immediately gets called a fool and labeled an idiot lib who doesn't care.

And he is the one trying to silence his opposition???

C'mon Rebel. Can't you discuss anything rationally without going into a tirade?

(06-29-2011 07:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Okay, the guy posts a completely relevant quote from Thomas Jefferson and immediately gets called a fool and labeled an idiot lib who doesn't care.

And he is the one trying to silence his opposition???

C'mon Rebel. Can't you discuss anything rationally without going into a tirade?

It would be very relevant, if he used it in the proper context.

(06-29-2011 07:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And he is the one trying to silence his opposition???

Reb does have the ability to silence him so, FAIL!

(06-29-2011 07:42 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-29-2011 07:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And he is the one trying to silence his opposition???

Reb does have the ability to silence him so, FAIL!

I don't silence liberal opposing points of view. I'm a conservative who wants them to speak out and speak loudly. It only helps our side. The left is the one boycotting and trying to get right-wingers off the air. Boortz actually donated to Air America. When your icons are Che, Mao, Hugo, Castro, etc., you do tend to hold the opinion that all others must be silenced. We on the right revere Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. Quite a contrast.

(06-29-2011 08:45 AM)Rebel Wrote:  I don't silence liberal opposing points of view. I'm a conservative who wants them to speak out and speak loudly. It only helps our side. The left is the one boycotting and trying to get right-wingers off the air. Boortz actually donated to Air America. When your icons are Che, Mao, Hugo, Castro, etc., you do tend to hold the opinion that all others must be silenced. We on the right revere Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. Quite a contrast.

YEP

Who is this left you speak of?

It's rather easy to group everyone into one nice package.

Personally, I never said Boortz (or Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, et. al.) should be silenced or off the air. And as you say about liberals...these guys on the air only helps our cause.

And personally, I hold neither Che, Mao, Hugo nor Castro as any sort of icon.

But yeah. I despise that Washington fella...and that Jefferson guy was really grating. And DON'T EVEN get me started on that Madison scumbag!

(06-29-2011 10:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Who is this left you speak of?

It's rather easy to group everyone into one nice package.

Personally, I never said Boortz (or Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, et. al.) should be silenced or off the air. And as you say about liberals...these guys on the air only helps our cause.

And personally, I hold neither Che, Mao, Hugo nor Castro as any sort of icon.

But yeah. I despise that Washington fella...and that Jefferson guy was really grating. And DON'T EVEN get me started on that Madison scumbag!

It's rather easy for you lefters to group people as raciest, bigots and those vile and much hated Tea Partyers, then decry "who is the left? All the while asking what the definition of "is" is. And least we forget them using ambiguous language like "created or saved", to cover blatant lying.

We know you are in lockstep with the professional left. parrot.

(06-29-2011 07:42 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-29-2011 07:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And he is the one trying to silence his opposition???

Reb does have the ability to silence him so, FAIL!

Yes, we all know about is stash of guns for "silencing" people.

(06-29-2011 08:45 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-29-2011 07:42 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-29-2011 07:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And he is the one trying to silence his opposition???

Reb does have the ability to silence him so, FAIL!

I don't silence liberal opposing points of view. I'm a conservative who wants them to speak out and speak loudly. It only helps our side. The left is the one boycotting and trying to get right-wingers off the air. Boortz actually donated to Air America. When your icons are Che, Mao, Hugo, Castro, etc., you do tend to hold the opinion that all others must be silenced. We on the right revere Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. Quite a contrast.

Yep Rebs, those are definately my icons. Do you really believe the things you are saying? Do you REALLY believe those are my icons?

(06-29-2011 07:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Okay, the guy posts a completely relevant quote from Thomas Jefferson and immediately gets called a fool and labeled an idiot lib who doesn't care.

And he is the one trying to silence his opposition???

C'mon Rebel. Can't you discuss anything rationally without going into a tirade?

Lay off Rebel. He was dropped on his head as a baby, shaken too much, and fed a regular diet of lead paint chips. He can't help that he's a complete idiot.

(06-29-2011 11:37 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-29-2011 08:45 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(06-29-2011 07:42 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(06-29-2011 07:08 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And he is the one trying to silence his opposition???

Reb does have the ability to silence him so, FAIL!

I don't silence liberal opposing points of view. I'm a conservative who wants them to speak out and speak loudly. It only helps our side. The left is the one boycotting and trying to get right-wingers off the air. Boortz actually donated to Air America. When your icons are Che, Mao, Hugo, Castro, etc., you do tend to hold the opinion that all others must be silenced. We on the right revere Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. Quite a contrast.

Yep Rebs, those are definately my icons. Do you really believe the things you are saying? Do you REALLY believe those are my icons?

What is the definition of icons? Do you worship at their alter, then yes your icons.

Good to see those on the right revere the father of the Democratic party. We love TJ too.

Good to see those on the right revere the father of the Democratic party. We love TJ too.

(06-29-2011 11:58 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Good to see those on the right revere the father of the Democratic party. We love TJ too.

Jefferson was a Democratic Republican. "Democratic" was an adjective, fool.