This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
Spock
Posts: 3845
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:01 pm

This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#1 Post by Spock » Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:39 pm

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=58256&p=561856&hili ... ge#p561856

To my understanding the whole purpose of the Consittution was to form a Republic.

SSS>>>"If you look at dictatorships in recent years, you will find that most of them retain the form of a republican government and hold elections, albeit manipulating them through various means to achieve near-unanimous results in the ruling party's favor. Nazi Germany held Parliamentary elections in both 1936 and 1938. The Soviet Union held regular elections from 1937 until its breakup. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had several Parliamentary and presidential elections."<<<

Equating a Republican form of government with dictatorships doesn't exactly speak strongly for your innate "respect for the Constitution."

Oh and BTW-please show me that the Soviet Union's elections were based on a "Republic" model-they might have been-but I am not sure how they worked there.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6513
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#2 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:56 pm

Spock wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:39 pm
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=58256&p=561856&hili ... ge#p561856

To my understanding the whole purpose of the Consittution was to form a Republic.

SSS>>>"If you look at dictatorships in recent years, you will find that most of them retain the form of a republican government and hold elections, albeit manipulating them through various means to achieve near-unanimous results in the ruling party's favor. Nazi Germany held Parliamentary elections in both 1936 and 1938. The Soviet Union held regular elections from 1937 until its breakup. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had several Parliamentary and presidential elections."<<<

Equating a Republican form of government with dictatorships doesn't exactly speak strongly for your innate "respect for the Constitution."
The people you are addressing really have no comprehension of what the Constitution is and was intended to do. They just know there is a concept of a 'Constitution' and their understanding of it is limited to what their party leadership tells them it is.
The Constitution was written by a group of enormously wise people who came together with the express purpose of designing a 'Federal' government which would bring 13 seperate colonies, or States under one entity that would represent them as a nation. It was written to expressly delimit what the powers of that federal government would be, and what powers it would NOT have (which was pretty much everything that was not specifically delimited)
These 'Founding Fathers' had a vested interest in keeping the powers of any federal government they created as small and limited as they could make it, but having it still be effective in what they designed it to do. Their reasons for doing so were very famously stated in another document called the Declaration of Independence.

Our current Federal Government has been corrupted by 2 centuries worth of finding loopholes and figuring out creative ways to circumvent the limitations imposed by the original document. And, sorry, e-bigots, the democrat party of today seems to have no understanding, respect or intention of abiding by those restrictions to get what it wants. Case in point: Roe v Wade. There is NO, absolutely no, Constitutional basis for that decision and there never was. What is on the table is if the Supreme Court is going to overturn that decision or continue with it purely on political grounds.

The only reason, IMO, that the word 'Constitution' is even on the lips of democrats these days is that they are trying to push their sham Jan 6th committee arguments.

Just MO.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 20732
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#3 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Jun 21, 2022 1:49 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:56 pm
they are trying to push their sham Jan 6th committee arguments.
Flock:

I don't expect you to answer this because you tend to ignore tough questions or people who point out inconvenient facts. But I'll ask anyway. You keep referring to the Jan. 6 committee as a "sham" committee. But the vast majority of the people who have testified so far are Republicans, including elected officials, Trump staffers, people in the Justice Department and others, along with various White House police and other law enforcement personnel.

So, do you disbelieve what they are all saying about what Trump and his top advisers did after the election?

Or do you feel it's just not a big deal, say on a par with someone dressed as Lady Justice marching in front of Brett Kavanaugh's house?
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 25093
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#4 Post by Bob Juch » Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:41 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:56 pm
Spock wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:39 pm
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=58256&p=561856&hili ... ge#p561856

To my understanding the whole purpose of the Consittution was to form a Republic.

SSS>>>"If you look at dictatorships in recent years, you will find that most of them retain the form of a republican government and hold elections, albeit manipulating them through various means to achieve near-unanimous results in the ruling party's favor. Nazi Germany held Parliamentary elections in both 1936 and 1938. The Soviet Union held regular elections from 1937 until its breakup. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had several Parliamentary and presidential elections."<<<

Equating a Republican form of government with dictatorships doesn't exactly speak strongly for your innate "respect for the Constitution."
The people you are addressing really have no comprehension of what the Constitution is and was intended to do. They just know there is a concept of a 'Constitution' and their understanding of it is limited to what their party leadership tells them it is.
The Constitution was written by a group of enormously wise people who came together with the express purpose of designing a 'Federal' government which would bring 13 seperate colonies, or States under one entity that would represent them as a nation. It was written to expressly delimit what the powers of that federal government would be, and what powers it would NOT have (which was pretty much everything that was not specifically delimited)
These 'Founding Fathers' had a vested interest in keeping the powers of any federal government they created as small and limited as they could make it, but having it still be effective in what they designed it to do. Their reasons for doing so were very famously stated in another document called the Declaration of Independence.

Our current Federal Government has been corrupted by 2 centuries worth of finding loopholes and figuring out creative ways to circumvent the limitations imposed by the original document. And, sorry, e-bigots, the democrat party of today seems to have no understanding, respect or intention of abiding by those restrictions to get what it wants. Case in point: Roe v Wade. There is NO, absolutely no, Constitutional basis for that decision and there never was. What is on the table is if the Supreme Court is going to overturn that decision or continue with it purely on political grounds.

The only reason, IMO, that the word 'Constitution' is even on the lips of democrats these days is that they are trying to push their sham Jan 6th committee arguments.

Just MO.
Your understanding of American history is greatly lacking. Your writing above says there was a united group who adopted the Constitution. That is dead wrong.

In actuality, there were two opposing groups: the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were for the adoption of the Constitution. They were for a strong central government and weak state governments.

The Anti-Federalists were led by Thomas Jefferson and opposed the adoption of the Constitution. They feared that the new national government would be too powerful and threaten individual liberties.

Did you learn about the Compromise of 1790? If not, look it up.

I assume you would have been an Anti-Federalist.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 20721
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#5 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:54 pm

Spock wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:39 pm
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=58256&p=561856&hili ... ge#p561856

To my understanding the whole purpose of the Consittution was to form a Republic.

SSS>>>"If you look at dictatorships in recent years, you will find that most of them retain the form of a republican government and hold elections, albeit manipulating them through various means to achieve near-unanimous results in the ruling party's favor. Nazi Germany held Parliamentary elections in both 1936 and 1938. The Soviet Union held regular elections from 1937 until its breakup. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had several Parliamentary and presidential elections."<<<

Equating a Republican form of government with dictatorships doesn't exactly speak strongly for your innate "respect for the Constitution."

Oh and BTW-please show me that the Soviet Union's elections were based on a "Republic" model-they might have been-but I am not sure how they worked there.
One of the things the Constitution says is that State Legislatures get to decide how to allocate their electoral votes. So if enough states (acting through their Legislatures) decide to allocate their electoral votes in accordance with the national popular vote, that is entirely in accordance with the Constitution. Or do you only like the Constitution when it yields political results that you like? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6513
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#6 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:02 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 2:41 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:56 pm
Spock wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 12:39 pm
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=58256&p=561856&hili ... ge#p561856

To my understanding the whole purpose of the Consittution was to form a Republic.

SSS>>>"If you look at dictatorships in recent years, you will find that most of them retain the form of a republican government and hold elections, albeit manipulating them through various means to achieve near-unanimous results in the ruling party's favor. Nazi Germany held Parliamentary elections in both 1936 and 1938. The Soviet Union held regular elections from 1937 until its breakup. Iraq under Saddam Hussein had several Parliamentary and presidential elections."<<<

Equating a Republican form of government with dictatorships doesn't exactly speak strongly for your innate "respect for the Constitution."
The people you are addressing really have no comprehension of what the Constitution is and was intended to do. They just know there is a concept of a 'Constitution' and their understanding of it is limited to what their party leadership tells them it is.
The Constitution was written by a group of enormously wise people who came together with the express purpose of designing a 'Federal' government which would bring 13 seperate colonies, or States under one entity that would represent them as a nation. It was written to expressly delimit what the powers of that federal government would be, and what powers it would NOT have (which was pretty much everything that was not specifically delimited)
These 'Founding Fathers' had a vested interest in keeping the powers of any federal government they created as small and limited as they could make it, but having it still be effective in what they designed it to do. Their reasons for doing so were very famously stated in another document called the Declaration of Independence.

Our current Federal Government has been corrupted by 2 centuries worth of finding loopholes and figuring out creative ways to circumvent the limitations imposed by the original document. And, sorry, e-bigots, the democrat party of today seems to have no understanding, respect or intention of abiding by those restrictions to get what it wants. Case in point: Roe v Wade. There is NO, absolutely no, Constitutional basis for that decision and there never was. What is on the table is if the Supreme Court is going to overturn that decision or continue with it purely on political grounds.

The only reason, IMO, that the word 'Constitution' is even on the lips of democrats these days is that they are trying to push their sham Jan 6th committee arguments.

Just MO.
Your understanding of American history is greatly lacking. Your writing above says there was a united group who adopted the Constitution. That is dead wrong.

In actuality, there were two opposing groups: the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, were for the adoption of the Constitution. They were for a strong central government and weak state governments.

The Anti-Federalists were led by Thomas Jefferson and opposed the adoption of the Constitution. They feared that the new national government would be too powerful and threaten individual liberties.

Did you learn about the Compromise of 1790? If not, look it up.

I assume you would have been an Anti-Federalist.
But amazingly, these people who did not agree with one another were able to work together without believing each other were the personification of evil. They did not accuse the people they didn't agree with of trying to poison everyone's water, of being greedy MFs, of being racist, homophobic, etc (Oh, I forgot, they were all racists and everything else) and basically making it impossible to come up with compromises. They worked toward a common goal and treated each other with courtesy and respect, for the most part. What they came up with flowered into the best, most free and diverse nation the world has ever produced and has stood for 2 and a half centuries. As Ben Franklin said, they came up with a '... republic, if you can keep it'. We've managed to keep it. kinda, so far. But it may not withstand the assault from YOUR party. Because your party is laser-focused on the wrongs of the past rather than the successes, achievements, and growth we have made and possibilities for the future. To many of us, it looks like you HATE this country, regardless of your claims to the contrary.

I stand with and support the Constitution of the United States, BJ.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 25093
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#7 Post by Bob Juch » Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:43 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:02 pm
But amazingly, these people who did not agree with one another were able to work together without believing each other were the personification of evil.
Ask Alexander Hamilton how that worked out.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6513
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#8 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:52 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:43 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:02 pm
But amazingly, these people who did not agree with one another were able to work together without believing each other were the personification of evil.
Ask Alexander Hamilton how that worked out.
Well, I like his musical.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you, and I don't know why I let myself be dragged into it.
What does that comment have to do with ANYTHING in this thread other than 'Whatever it is, I'm against it'?
Nothing but a stupid attempt at arguing about a non relevant point.

https://vimeo.com/456603177
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling

User avatar
Estonut
Evil Genius
Posts: 10319
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Location: Garden Grove, CA

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#9 Post by Estonut » Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:47 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:43 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:02 pm
But amazingly, these people who did not agree with one another were able to work together without believing each other were the personification of evil.
Ask Alexander Hamilton how that worked out.
You are apparently unaware that his duel had nothing to do with working cooperatively on the Constitution.
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6513
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#10 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:53 pm

Estonut wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:47 pm
Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:43 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:02 pm
But amazingly, these people who did not agree with one another were able to work together without believing each other were the personification of evil.
Ask Alexander Hamilton how that worked out.
You are apparently unaware that his duel had nothing to do with working cooperatively on the Constitution.
That's his middle name.
His vision of the Constitution was spelled out in a number of published articles collectively called 'The Federalist Papers' He wrote most of them, BJ. And though his ideas didn't entirely win out, he was instrumental in getting the final product ratified. He ultimately worked for the good of the country, not his faction. Something that does not seem to happen today.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 25093
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#11 Post by Bob Juch » Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:35 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:53 pm
Estonut wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:47 pm
Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:43 pm
Ask Alexander Hamilton how that worked out.
You are apparently unaware that his duel had nothing to do with working cooperatively on the Constitution.
That's his middle name.
His vision of the Constitution was spelled out in a number of published articles collectively called 'The Federalist Papers' He wrote most of them, BJ. And though his ideas didn't entirely win out, he was instrumental in getting the final product ratified. He ultimately worked for the good of the country, not his faction. Something that does not seem to happen today.
The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. It was a group effort.

I wouldn't think you're a fan of the Federalist Papers or the Federalist Party. You have expressed many of your opinions that are in opposition to the Federalists'.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6513
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#12 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:48 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:35 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:53 pm
Estonut wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:47 pm
You are apparently unaware that his duel had nothing to do with working cooperatively on the Constitution.
That's his middle name.
His vision of the Constitution was spelled out in a number of published articles collectively called 'The Federalist Papers' He wrote most of them, BJ. And though his ideas didn't entirely win out, he was instrumental in getting the final product ratified. He ultimately worked for the good of the country, not his faction. Something that does not seem to happen today.
The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. It was a group effort.

I wouldn't think you're a fan of the Federalist Papers or the Federalist Party. You have expressed many of your opinions that are in opposition to the Federalists'.
Thank you Captain Obvious for another irrelevant comment. (Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the pseudonym Publius to publish 85 articles defining their perspective on the issue of ratifying the new Constitution. Luckily they didn't publish them on the WWTBAM Bored. The stalker would have had a field day. And they would have been driven to drink by your inane commentary. bob would have called them all liars and threaten to sue them). That I said 'He wrote most of them' was an obvious clue that I knew who wrote them. But of course, I am assuming you think you know more about US History than I do. But go right ahead.)

At this point, what the hell does it matter whether I am a 'fan' of the federalist papers or not, BJ? I am a fan of reasoned thinking, of which the Federalist Papers are a great example. And so is the Constitution.

Judging from what you post here, you know very little,if anything, apparently, about reasoned thinking. And neither does the stalker, whose ubiquitous rant will be coming soon. He relies on google to do his thinking for him.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 25093
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#13 Post by Bob Juch » Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:53 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:48 pm
Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:35 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 5:53 pm


That's his middle name.
His vision of the Constitution was spelled out in a number of published articles collectively called 'The Federalist Papers' He wrote most of them, BJ. And though his ideas didn't entirely win out, he was instrumental in getting the final product ratified. He ultimately worked for the good of the country, not his faction. Something that does not seem to happen today.
The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. It was a group effort.

I wouldn't think you're a fan of the Federalist Papers or the Federalist Party. You have expressed many of your opinions that are in opposition to the Federalists'.
Thank you Captain Obvious for another irrelevant comment. (Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the pseudonym Publius to publish 85 articles defining their perspective on the issue of ratifying the new Constitution. Luckily they didn't publish them on the WWTBAM Bored. The stalker would have had a field day. And they would have been driven to drink by your inane commentary. bob would have called them all liars and threaten to sue them). That I said 'He wrote most of them' was an obvious clue that I knew who wrote them. But of course, I am assuming you think you know more about US History than I do. But go right ahead.)

At this point, what the hell does it matter whether I am a 'fan' of the federalist papers or not, BJ? I am a fan of reasoned thinking, of which the Federalist Papers are a great example. And so is the Constitution.

Judging from what you post here, you know very little if anything, apparently, about reasoned thinking. And neither does the stalker, whose ubiquitous rant will be coming soon. He relies on google to do his thinking for him.
So do you agree with the Federalists that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary?
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6513
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#14 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:59 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:53 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:48 pm
Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 6:35 pm


The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. It was a group effort.

I wouldn't think you're a fan of the Federalist Papers or the Federalist Party. You have expressed many of your opinions that are in opposition to the Federalists'.
Thank you Captain Obvious for another irrelevant comment. (Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the pseudonym Publius to publish 85 articles defining their perspective on the issue of ratifying the new Constitution. Luckily they didn't publish them on the WWTBAM Bored. The stalker would have had a field day. And they would have been driven to drink by your inane commentary. bob would have called them all liars and threaten to sue them). That I said 'He wrote most of them' was an obvious clue that I knew who wrote them. But of course, I am assuming you think you know more about US History than I do. But go right ahead.)

At this point, what the hell does it matter whether I am a 'fan' of the federalist papers or not, BJ? I am a fan of reasoned thinking, of which the Federalist Papers are a great example. And so is the Constitution.

Judging from what you post here, you know very little if anything, apparently, about reasoned thinking. And neither does the stalker, whose ubiquitous rant will be coming soon. He relies on google to do his thinking for him.
So do you agree with the Federalists that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary?
Oh, just shut up.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 25093
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#15 Post by Bob Juch » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:04 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:59 pm
Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:53 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:48 pm

Thank you Captain Obvious for another irrelevant comment. (Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist Papers. Hamilton, Jay and Madison used the pseudonym Publius to publish 85 articles defining their perspective on the issue of ratifying the new Constitution. Luckily they didn't publish them on the WWTBAM Bored. The stalker would have had a field day. And they would have been driven to drink by your inane commentary. bob would have called them all liars and threaten to sue them). That I said 'He wrote most of them' was an obvious clue that I knew who wrote them. But of course, I am assuming you think you know more about US History than I do. But go right ahead.)

At this point, what the hell does it matter whether I am a 'fan' of the federalist papers or not, BJ? I am a fan of reasoned thinking, of which the Federalist Papers are a great example. And so is the Constitution.

Judging from what you post here, you know very little if anything, apparently, about reasoned thinking. And neither does the stalker, whose ubiquitous rant will be coming soon. He relies on google to do his thinking for him.
So do you agree with the Federalists that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary?
Oh, just shut up.
That's great reasoned thinking.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 6513
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#16 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:09 pm

Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:04 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:59 pm
Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:53 pm


So do you agree with the Federalists that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary?
Oh, just shut up.
That's great reasoned thinking.
Waste of my time talking to someone who doesn't read or comprehend what I say, and want just wants to argue about irrelevant bullshit.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs... Heathen bastard... Knows nothing about history... Liar.... don't know much about statistics and polling... Nothing at all about biology... Ignorant Bigot... Potential Future Pariah... Big Nerd... Spiraling

User avatar
Bob Juch
Posts: 25093
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Contact:

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#17 Post by Bob Juch » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:48 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:09 pm
Bob Juch wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:04 pm
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:59 pm

Oh, just shut up.
That's great reasoned thinking.
Waste of my time talking to someone who doesn't read or comprehend what I say, and want just wants to argue about irrelevant bullshit.
The Bill of Rights is irrelevant bullshit. I see.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 20732
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: This Old Thread Just Reeks of Respect For the Constitution

#18 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Jun 21, 2022 8:53 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Tue Jun 21, 2022 3:02 pm

But amazingly, these people who did not agree with one another were able to work together without believing each other were the personification of evil. They did not accuse the people they didn't agree with of trying to poison everyone's water, of being greedy MFs, of being racist, homophobic, etc (Oh, I forgot, they were all racists and everything else) and basically making it impossible to come up with compromises. They worked toward a common goal and treated each other with courtesy and respect, for the most part.
And as usual, Flock is wrong. From that well-known liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal:
However hard it may be to picture the founders resorting to rough-and-tumble tactics, there was nothing genteel about politics at the nation's outset. For sheer verbal savagery, the founding era may have surpassed anything seen today. Despite their erudition, integrity, and philosophical genius, the founders were fiery men who expressed their beliefs with unusual vehemence. They inhabited a combative world in which the rabble-rousing Thomas Paine, an early admirer of George Washington, could denounce the first president in an open letter as "treacherous in private friendship…and a hypocrite in public life." Paine even wondered aloud whether Washington was "an apostate or an imposter; whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any."

Such highly charged language shouldn't surprise us. People who spearhead revolutions tend to be outspoken and courageous, spurred on by a keen taste for combat. After sharpening their verbal skills hurling polemics against the British Crown, the founding generation then directed those energies against each other during the tumultuous first decade of the federal government. The passions of a revolution cannot simply be turned off like a spigot.

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 had defined a sturdy framework for future debate, but it didn't try to dictate outcomes. The brevity and generality of the new charter guaranteed pitched battles when it was translated into action in 1789. If the constitution established an independent judiciary, for instance, it didn't specify the structure of the federal court system below the Supreme Court. It made no reference to a presidential cabinet aside from a glancing allusion that the president could solicit opinions from department heads. The huge blanks left on the political canvas provoked heated battles during Washington's time in office. When he first appeared in the Senate to receive its advice and consent about a treaty with the Creek Indians, he was so irked by the opposition expressed that he left in a huff. "This defeats every purpose of my coming here," he protested.

As two parties took shape, they coalesced around the outsize personalities of Hamilton and Jefferson, despite their joint membership in Washington's cabinet. Extroverted and pugnacious, Hamilton embraced this role far more openly than Jefferson, who preferred to operate in the shadows. Although not parties in the modern sense, these embryonic factions—Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans—generated intense loyalty among adherents. Both sides trafficked in a conspiratorial view of politics, with Federalists accusing the Republicans of trying to import the French Revolution into America, while Republicans tarred the Federalists as plotting to restore the British monarchy. Each side saw the other as perverting the true spirit of the American Revolution.

As Jefferson recoiled from Hamilton's ambitious financial schemes, which included a funded debt, a central bank, and an excise tax on distilled spirits, he teamed up with James Madison to mount a full-scale assault on these programs. As a result, a major critique of administration policy originated partly within the administration itself. Relations between Hamilton and Jefferson deteriorated to the point that Jefferson recalled that at cabinet meetings he descended "daily into the arena like a gladiator to suffer martyrdom in every conflict."

The two men also traded blows in the press, with Jefferson drafting surrogates to attack Hamilton, while the latter responded with his own anonymous essays. When Hamilton published a vigorous defense of Washington's neutrality proclamation in 1793, Jefferson urged Madison to thrash the treasury secretary in the press. "For God's sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut him to pieces in the face of the public." When Madison rose to the challenge, he sneered in print that the only people who could read Hamilton's essays with pleasure were "foreigners and degenerate citizens among us."

Feeding the venom of party strife was the unrestrained press. When the new government was formed in 1789, most newspapers still functioned as neutral publications, but they soon evolved into blatant party organs. Printing little spot news, with no pretense of journalistic objectivity, they specialized in strident essays. Authors often wrote behind the mask of Roman pseudonyms, enabling them to engage in undisguised savagery without fear of retribution. With few topics deemed taboo, the press lambasted the public positions as well as private morality of leading political figures. The ubiquitous James T. Callender typified the scandalmongers. From his poison-tipped pen flowed the expose of Hamilton's dalliance with the young Maria Reynolds, which had prompted Hamilton, while treasury secretary, to pay hush money to her husband. Those Jeffersonians who applauded Callender's tirades against Hamilton regretted their sponsorship several years later when he unmasked President Jefferson's carnal relations with his slave Sally Hemings.

As it turned out, the rabid partisanship exhibited by Hamilton and Jefferson previewed America's future far more accurately than Washington's noble but failed dream of nonpartisan civility. In the end, Washington seems to have realized as much. By his second term, having fathomed the full extent of Jefferson's disloyalty, he insisted upon appointing cabinet members who stood in basic sympathy with his policies. After he left office, he opted to join in the partisan frenzy, at least in his private correspondence. He no longer shrank from identifying with Federalists or scorning Republicans, nor did he feel obliged to muzzle his blazing opinions. To nephew Bushrod Washington, he warned against "any relaxation on the part of the Federalists. We are sure there will be none on that of the Republicans, as they have very erroneously called themselves." He even urged Bushrod and John Marshall to run as Federalists for congressional seats in Virginia.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 1123551892
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

Post Reply