U.S. Constitution

“The argument KEEPS coming up that the founding fathers had slaves, and were therefore hypocrites. To some extent, that is true. There is even more evidence that they worked to rid the country of slaves, and wrote the Constitution to do so. I have presented evidence to that in the past, and will not revisit that here.

This thread is to ask the people who continually discount what the founders have written in our Constitution a simple question.

If, as you have declared, the founding fathers words are meaningless to follow because of their "bigoted" and out-dated history of slave ownership, then why is ANY of the constitution valid?

Or to put it another way, why even acknowledge this country at all? Why make any legal or constitutional reference to anything to make your case about anything in this country? By doing so, aren't you validating what the founding fathers have created?

Declare here and now that you renounce this country, that you don't recognize this country - or forever abstain from declaring that what the founding fathers have intended and established, these free United States of America, is invalid.”

“What country is this again? (I don't want to renounce the wrong one.)”

“�Damn the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States again!�”

“Can I renounce Crash Bang?”

“the founding fathers had slaves, and were therefore hypocrites.

Who the hell has been saying that??? I mean besides Tilt of course.”

“Somebody said that this week. Anybody remember the thread?”

“��Damn the United States! I wish I may never hear of the United States again!��
crash bang
6:08:56 AM
10/30/09

Here is a reach...Thank you Philip Nolan.”

“I hereby renounce imitation cheese. I will go so far as to say that anyone who supports imitation cheese is nothing more than an anti-dairy douche whistle.”

“So it was the failed lawyer who said it. I hadn't read that far in that thread earlier.”

“I think it may have been alluded to by pepsi as well......and a host of other TTers over the years.”

“Nigal I hereby renounce imitation vinyl. YES we are talking Naugahyde. Does ANYONE here know how many cute baby naugahs it takes to cover just one couch?”

“To give some context, HPD was weeping about how far we've deviated from the founding father's words - and how all he really wants is for us to go back to doing things the way the founding fathers intended. Aside from being 100% incorrect in his point regarding the separation of church and state not being the founding fathers' intent, I pointed out that the founding father worship is incredibly flawed.

I never said they were hypocrites - I said
pretending that the ideas of the founding fathers was infallible is just plain ridiculous, since they were wrong about several things (slavery being the most high-profile example). They weren't political savants - they were slaveowners. Even if they weren't, it's ridiculous to take what a small group of white males wrote over 200 years ago as "the one true way" to run the country now.”

“Yeah, pepsiformosa, sorry to bust your bubble, but I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote this thread. It's not about you. Sorry.”

“aww, my bubble! noncon brought it up on this thread, not you.”

“just trying to protect you”

“don't worry, I'm surrounded”

“sorry, it's from CNN, but i think the content is valid.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/30/judge-dismisses-suit-about-obamas-eligibility-to-be-president-2/

(CNN) - President Barack Obama may have one less problem to worry about.

A federal judge on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed Obama is ineligible to be president because he isn't a bona fide U.S. citizen.

The lawsuit represented the claim by the so-called "birthers" movement that Obama was not born in Hawaii - despite a birth certificate to the contrary - or that if he was, his citizenship was invalidated by living overseas as a child.

In a 30-page ruling, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter of California said his court lacked the jurisdiction to rule on a case intended to unseat a sitting president.

Carter's ruling said the plaintiffs were trying to persuade him to "disregard the constitutional procedures in place for the removal of a sitting president."

"The process for removal of a sitting president - removal for any reason - is within the province of Congress, not the courts," the ruling said.

Carter's ruling also noted that the plaintiffs "have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution."

"Respecting the constitutional role and jurisdiction of this court is not unpatriotic," the ruling said. "Quite the contrary, this court considers commitment to that constitutional role to be the ultimate reflection of patriotism."”

“Maybe this shuts them up...then we can go back to the shrill peeps of the "Bush lied about 9/11 crap...LOL”

“The Marxist, socialists, and communists currently in charge are attempting to dismantle the constitution that they swore to uphold and defend, brick by brick. They hate free market capitalism, free speach, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and love immorral redistributive economic policies. They have spent us into an insurmountable hole that ensures the demise of the dollar, the NAtion and our childrens futures....


WHY?”

“"The Marxist, socialists, and communists currently in charge........"

”

“and they kick puppies and punch babies, too!”

“"They hate free market capitalism, free speach, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and love immorral redistributive economic policies."

”

“Marko, why do you choose to overlook the truth? I'm being serious. Why? I understand that you're a liberal. But at what point do you place your ideology for dignity? How much corruption are you willing to condone in order to "win"? Is there anything that would be too much?

Try not to attack me personally and answer a serious question. Just this once, let's have a discussion.”

“LOL!”

“I don't remember the thread. Someone had made a strong statement about the founders and hypocrisy and someone else had said that was ridiculous.

I argued that there definitely was some hypocrisy among those who wrote the constitution. Jefferson owned slaves and did not even free them in his will although he did move to abolish the slave trade.
There was clear opposition to the abolition of slavery at the constitutional convention and the constitution represented a significant compromise with the pro-slave founders. The constitution protected slavery and (for a limmited time) the slave trade. It required all states to respect the ownership of slaves and, at least according to the Supreme Court, allowed States to deny all rights to freed slaves. After the constitution was ratified, only free male property owners had the right to vote.

Patrick Henry declined to attend the contstitutional convention because he thought there would be a sellout.

Just because the Constitution was a political document written by flawed human beings doesn't mean I have no respect for it. There was a lot of brilliance and wisdom that went into it as well and it has worked incredibly well as a framework for governing this country - thanks in part to the amendment process.

If you want to say the founders were an extraodinary group and produced a great document, I am all "amen." But if you want to say the founders were free of hypocrisy and the constitution was without flaws, then I think you are practicing some weird superstitious and mystical variety of patriotism.”

“Meanwhile, you can't pick and choose.”

“Amazing...I love it when libbies get "judgemental" about ancient history. But in present history they are as mute as the "Black Leadership" on Moslem Slavery in the third world.”

““The Marxist, socialists, and communists currently in charge

dOOd, that line is pure bull#&%!$ and you deserve derision for buying into that McCarthyism nonsense.

By handing out those false labels you are outing yourself as a right-wing kook.

You can't have a "serious discussion" with your mind poisoned to reality.”

“Let's make up a new word that means the want big government and to redistribute wealth and to do away with capitalism.

Let's call it ... commarxialists.

There, now you can't disagree.

"The commarxialists currently in charge are attempting to dismantle the constitution that they swore to uphold and defend, brick by brick. They hate free market capitalism, free speech, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, and love immoral redistributive economic policies. They have spent us into an insurmountable hole that ensures the demise of the dollar, the Nation and our childrens' futures....


WHY?””

“Only a real 'Gawdstriker' could come up with that lame ass replacement for 'Silly Libby'.”

“salebored, defending commarxialists everywhere.”

““Let's make up a new word that means the want big government and to redistribute wealth and to do away with capitalism.

Another BirchJohnnyMcCarthyJoe shares his ugliness.”

“So you don't think Obama et al want to grow government, redistribute wealth, and do away with capitalism (what's left of it)?”

“Policy wise, what has Obama supported that does not grow government, redistribute wealth, or erode the fundamental elements of capitalism?

Anything?”

“That is not what they are doing no matter how emphatically you declare it to be true.”

“Fine, can you name one policy that he supports that suggests otherwise?”

“LOL..gotta love LUsho...remember his hissy about "LIBERAL"...heck the libbies know words MEAN THINGS and therefore they want "Progressive" to Replace LIBERAL, Moderate to replace "LIBERAL with no Guts"

The truth gets too tough..change the terminology.”

“Let's just let BigBiz have at it, they'll end up eating all their best customers.”

“They already ate them, Cliff.

The leftovers are being used as chum as the ship of state sales through a wicked fog.

Candy Dan, what's happ'nin', ya freak?”

“Nothing Dude. Great weekend fun day...two days of training coming up. What's up wit u?”

“I'll take that as a 'no'.”

“Marko...um ever hear of the Global Poverty Act? So um you don't think taking over 1/6th of the US Economy to give free medical care at the expense of the "producers" is anything to worry about?
last edited: 11/02/09 1:53:12 PM”

“1/6 of the US Economy? Where did you get THAT figure? The bill itself only talks about adding about 0.7% of the GNP to aid. Granted, that's not nearly as scary a number so I understand your wanting to use 1/6 instead.”

“The Marxist, socialists, and communists currently in charge

dOOd, that line is pure bull#&%!$ and you deserve derision for buying into that McCarthyism nonsense.

By handing out those false labels you are outing yourself as a right-wing kook.

You can't have a "serious discussion" with your mind poisoned to reality.”
MarkO

Marxist-Obama
Sosialist-All of them
Communist-Van Jones

Mark-o, you can deny it all you want but that only makes you the one with a poisoned mind”

“d00d, you don't know what a marxist, socialist, or communist IS! All you know is that Glenn Beck makes a stern face when he uses those words, and then gets really excited when he connects those words to Obama.”

“LMAO!”

“Wow, just like 1965 Orange County California with all the John Birch Butts seeing commies and peaceniks everywhere. Did you check under that bush Rosey?”

“they surround us!”

“stratdood is an embarrassment - much like MarkO is to the libbies.”

“According to Wikipedia:

“Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers’ councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.”

“The modern socialist movement largely originated in the late-19th century working class movement. In this period, the term ’socialism’ was first used in connection with European social critics who criticized capitalism and private property. For Karl Marx, who helped establish and define the modern socialist movement, socialism would be the socioeconomic system that arises after the proletarian revolution, in which the means of production are owned collectively. This society would then progress into communism.””