patrick.net

socal2 says

Doesn't Dan know that Jefferson was a big slave holder? Using Dan's ability to revise history, that means Jefferson must have been an evil Conservative, teabagger!

Yes, and he was also a slave rapist, and both actions were evil and hypocritical. That doesn't negate the fact I presented that the founding fathers did not intend the first Constitution to be the only one. They expected to last a few years or decades and then be replaced by something better. Is anyone denying this?

Dan8267 says

Yes, and he was also a slave rapist, and both actions were evil and hypocritical. That doesn't negate the fact I presented that the founding fathers did not intend the first Constitution to be the only one. They expected to last a few years or decades and then be replaced by something better. Is anyone denying this?

Dude - using *YOUR* rules where you label millions of southerners as evil racists based on the actions of Democrats a generation before, that means Jefferson is an evil monster and can not be used as an authority on anything.

Get with the times, the Progs in Connecticut are already airbrushing Jefferson from history.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/will-the-democratic-party-abandon-thomas-jefferson-andrew-jackson/399722/

socal2 says

Dude - using *YOUR* rules where you label millions of southerners as evil racists based on the actions of Democrats a generation before, that means Jefferson is an evil monster and can not be used as an authority on anything.

You're still missing the point, which is that the Constitution wasn't even intended to be permanent by the founding fathers. Whether or not they were evil is irrelevant. There is no reason to believe that the Constitution should never be rewritten. If the founding fathers are evil, that's just more reason to rewrite the Constitution. The hypocrisy of slavery is yet more reason. You have not given any reason why the Constitution should never be rewritten. You have added nothing to this conversation as is typical of you.

OK, so start writing! Please post your new constitution in this thread.

I have some ideas for it:

* publicly funded elections

I'm sorry, but we already have that. The elections are funded by the ill-gotten gains of the crony-capitalists that got congress to pass laws and bailouts that made the rich richer and the poor poorer, for the last 50 years, actually ever since 1776. In other words, elections at the public's expense, and in more ways than one.

The only surefire way to make US politics reflect the will of the people is proportional representation, And get rid of the senate at the same time, they are anything but proportional in their representation.

But inherited wealth is the exact opposite of meritocracy.

Yuuup.justme says

The only surefire way to make US politics reflect the will of the people is proportional representation, And get rid of the senate at the same time, they are anything but proportional in their representation.

Yes - the Senate is profoundly undemocratic. Wyoming, with less than a million people, gets the same number of Senators as NY, CA, FL, or NY with tens of millions. Nor does it fulfill it's original role, which was to stop the Federal Government from imposing unfunded mandates on the States.

socal2 says

And if a Republican wins the White House next year (as seems likely)

Let's see: lost the 5 of the past 6 presidential elections in the popular vote.
Get the House thanks to gerrymandering - consistently lose to Dems in generic congressional total by around 2%.
Get the Senate because the fix-the-truck-on-the-front-lawn states (pop. 153), get the same two senators as everyone else.

They could well win the White House in 2016. Hell, in 2000 the Rs almost won the popular vote, and that was after 8 years of peace and prosperity under a president who took Bin Laden seriously. But they have one huge geriatric problem: their dessicated, fearful racist geriatric base, which is streaming into the funeral homes faster than fresh, pasty-faced hateful young religious fanatics can be recruited to replace them.

socal2 says

This is not a 1st trimester abortion.

Most democrats, most progressives, and most liberals oppose third trimester abortions unless the mother's life is in danger. As for second trimester abortions, that's the gray area and there will always be a gray area because a fertilized egg does not become a person in a single, discrete step.

what proof do you have that any slave he procreated with did not give herself freely?
Links please...

Dan8267 says

Yes, and he was also a slave rapist,

HydroCabron says

Let's see: lost the 5 of the past 6 presidential elections in the popular vote.

Let's see: Democrats are running Hillary fucking Clinton. That's the best you can do in that big balkanized tent you got? If she drops out due to all the criminal email and Clinton Foundation scandals, you got old pasty white Socialist Bernie Sanders waiting in the wings.

With illegal immigration and the barbarity of the abortion industry being exposed, I wouldn't be so confident in the Democrat's shaky coalition.

You REALLY think all the minorities and young and stupid millennial voters who were all dreamy for Obama will go to the effort of pulling the lever for those two old fossils?

SoftShell says

what proof do you have that any slave he procreated with did not give herself freely?

Links please...

A slave, by definition, is not free from coercion including threats against her life. What manner of scum would consider a slave master having sex with his slave not to be rape?

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

So, how exactly are liberals fucking over human rights and how exactly are conservatives upholding them?

Taking aside that all the evils listed above came from the Democrat party.

The Liberals, Progressive, Democrats (whatever you want to brand yourself today to hide from your deplorable past) is the party of unrestrained abortion and eugenics which eclipses all the past vile Democrat racist policies of the past. Millions of lives snuffed out with Dr. Mengele picking through the dismembered arms and legs looking for organs to sell.

How on earth can you claim Liberals are upholding "human rights" when your party is the party of killing MILLIONS and MILLIONS of unwanted babies?

Gosh. No wonder Republicans keep losing elections. It's abortion abortion abortion. Morals morals morals. God God God.
What the F is wrong with you guys? The Bible is a book written by illiterate idiots, which has already been proven wrong a million times by science, but you brainwashed wackos just don't get it.
That "like" was supposed to be a "dislike" Sorry.

Dan8267 says

socal2 says

This is not a 1st trimester abortion.

Most democrats, most progressives, and most liberals oppose third trimester abortions unless the mother's life is in danger. As for second trimester abortions, that's the gray area and there will always be a gray area because a fertilized egg does not become a person in a single, discrete step.

Not bad Dan. There is hope for you. Sadly, you eventually convince me there isn't every time.

Yet you have zero proof there was any coercion. You just draw conclusions and apply them to the entire populace of slaves and slave owners.
A slave master in love with a "slave in name only", and with reciprocating love from the woman, would not, by definition, force sex onto her.
By your generality below, you are stating there was never a case, given the tens of thousands of possibilities, that a slave owner and slave would not have fallen in love with each other.
Given that you have a modicum of intelligence, I find it hard to believe that you don't already know this.
So the obvious conclusion is that you just shitted out a sentence to work the insult "what manner of scum" into the conversation.
Well done, GeorgieBoy! Well done!

Dan8267 says

A slave, by definition, is not free from coercion including threats against her life. What manner of scum would consider a slave master having sex with his slave not to be rape?

SoftShell says

that a slave owner and slave would not have fallen in love with each other.

https://www.Q1IMzT2bWok

SoftShell says

What manner of scum would consider a slave master having sex with his slave not to be rape?

https://www.66X8a-hY0kE

Strategist says

Gosh. No wonder Republicans keep losing elections. It's abortion abortion abortion. Morals morals morals. God God God.

What the F is wrong with you guys? The Bible is a book written by illiterate idiots, which has already been proven wrong a million times by science, but you brainwashed wackos just don't get it.

One doesn't have to be religious to understand that killing unborn babies for convenience is a major ethical dilemma. You only has to have a basic understanding of Science, Biology, Ethics and Law to be uneasy with this practice.

And it is not Republicans always bringing up abortion. The last 2 presidential election cycles had Obama and the Democrats running on the "War on Women" meme scaring all the Nancy-boy Democrats and the women that Republicans were going to steal their lady-parts. McCain and Romney stayed miles away from the abortion debate.

What these videos are doing is exposing the monstrous lie that people like Dan and the Democrats are still perpetuating that abortions only involved scraping out a couple cells or a cyst. Now we have leading Planned Parenthood doctors and managers on video talking about delivering live babies (infanticide) and delaying abortions to allow the baby to get bigger to better harvest the organs to sell.

Most normal people with a basic understanding of Science have major qualms about this practice and are no longer able to hide behind euphemisms of "choice" or "reproductive health".

People like Rand Paul are already turning the debate around on Democrats when he said a few months ago "Ask the DNC if it's OK to kill a 7 pound baby in the uterus".
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rand-paul-ask-dnc-head-if-its-ok-to-kill-a-7-pound-baby-in-the-uterus-dws-responds/

One more idea for our new constitution: high inheritance taxes. It is very common among Republicans to argue two contradictory things:

1. everyone should rise or fall on their own efforts (meritocracy)

2. it is wrong to tax inherited wealth

But inherited wealth is the exact opposite of meritocracy

Each person should be free to pursue happiness, liberty and improve their lot in lift. The reason why the Enlightenment happened, and why Europeans got on boats was to escape the elitism (lobbyists), fifedoms (unions), pharisees (expanding corrupt government).

The fact that the regressives did an end run around the Constitution and the intent of the bill of rights, does not mean we need to overturn what is still the most progressive government foundation ever. We just need to go back to basics and overturn the power created by elitism (lobbyists), fifedoms (unions), and pharisees (expanding corrupt government).

Entitlemented says

The fact that the regressives did an end run around the Constitution and the intent of the bill of rights, does not mean we need to overturn what is still the most progressive government foundation ever.

The Progs want to ban the Bill of Rights too!

https://www.eiZFXkmofgI

OK, so start writing! Please post your new constitution in this thread.

I have some ideas for it:

* publicly funded elections

* absolute prohibition on secret courts

* absolute prohibition on national security letters

* a right to privacy in all your electronic communication unless you are specifically named as a suspect in a crime

* specifically affirming that corporations and unions are not legal persons. only "natural born" humans are persons.

* prohibition of income tax and sales tax, to be replaced with a land value tax and tax on radio spectrum

+1

Dan8267 says

A slave, by definition, is not free from coercion including threats against her life. What manner of scum would consider a slave master having sex with his slave not to be rape?

A major forgotten idea from the Enlightenment: Authority and Power corrupts the wielder worst of all.