• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After some wrangling, U.S. Constitution is read in House

disneydude said:
Really? When have Democrats or Republicans introduced legislation to ban hand guns? Or Ban Rush Limbaugh.

You are listening to waaay to much of the hysterics coming from your right-wing channels.

As far as the fairness doctrine. The fairness doctrine didn't try to ban any ideas, exactly the opposite. It was designed to prevent right-wing corporations from buying up all the airwaves and monopolizing the views presented. The idea that the right-wing doesn't or shouldn't own the public airwaves is obviously foreign to you.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court Strikes Down Handgun Bans | Criminal Justice | Change.org
 
Barbbtx said:
Michelle Bachmann and the Tea Party Caucus are going to study it and one of Supreme Court Justices is going to give classes.
Click to expand...

Michelle Bachmann
Tea Party
and study
should never be words found in the same sentence
 
disneydude said:
No...contrary to right-wing propoganda.....the Democrats are not trying to take your guns.....you can stop the hysteria

As for Rush Limbaugh....are you really that paranoid that your idol might be taken off the air? Trust me......I don't know about Al Sharpton....but Al sharpton doesn't control the Democratic party and isn't going to get your favorite right-wing propoganda off the air.

Take a deep breath....its all going to be ok.
Click to expand...

I'm cool. You're the one that asked. Don't start trippin' on me, over a question that you asked. Got it?
 
apdst said:
I'm cool. You're the one that asked. Don't start trippin' on me, over a question that you asked. Got it?
Click to expand...

Who's trippin? I'm not the one in hysterics thinking that there is a conspiracy to take my guns away.....
 
disneydude said:
Who's trippin? I'm not the one in hysterics thinking that there is a conspiracy to take my guns away.....
Click to expand...

Neither am I. I was just answering your questions.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
A lot of people act like if it's an idea the founders had, or if it's in the Constitution, it's the most awesome thing ever.

Reminders that the founders weren't perfect and neither is the Constitution are a good thing.
Click to expand...

You may not think it's the most awesome thing ever, but it is the law of the land.
 
disneydude said:
You are seriously going to try to argue that one state.....really one jurisdiction, Chicago is indicative of a nationwide attempt to take your guns away?
Click to expand...

Isn't this an interesting situation we find ourselves in. Can i suggest we look at that particular issue in a different light.

Generally people living in an urban area want gun control to help with urban violence. For whatever reason, urban dwellers are more ready to accept police protection rather than self protection (whether you wanna admit it or not, this is what gun control is all about). While rural dwellers prefer the idea of self protection, responsibility, and liberty.

The court ruling you're referring to isn't a gun rights ruling, it's a states' rights ruling. As an advocate of states rights and local control, if a municipality decides they feel safer relying on local police force to aid in protection, shouldn't they be allowed to do that? Why should the federal government infringe on their freedom to decide that? While I personally will never live in an area that won't allow me to protect myself, I could never force others to protect themselves when they decide another solution works for them.

All that being said 53 people were shot in chicago last father's day. It is obvious that people need to decide in whom to trust their protection because in certain areas of this country there is very little protection at all unless you belong to a gun toting gang.
 
Last edited:
TacticalEvilDan said:
Noooooooooo, I think slavery was bad and should not have been codified in the Constitution. I understand why it was, but it's still embarrassing. We should keep that embarrassment in mind.
Click to expand...

Why should you find what our founding fathers did to be embarrassing? Slavery was something that was done all over the world and it happened a long time ago. I am glad our founding fathers had slaves, wiped out a lot native Americans and other things that whiny libs like us to feel bad about. Almost everybody in this country today is a by-product of those things and without those things we would not exist and the US would not exist. Apologizing or feeling embarrassed or bad about the bad things our foundlings fathers did is something only stupid whiny libs do.



It's not exactly piss-poor, and if the Democrats had pulled this stunt I would've given them exactly the same treatment.
Click to expand...

You made a thread about republicans not reciting something that is obsolete in the constitution. It is exactly piss poor.
 
the hell with the pointless, but very public civics exercise

what congress needs is some math lessons

emphasize what must happen when the numbers are less than zero ... especially if the end result needs to be positive
 
disneydude said:
God....please, please please don't let it be Scalia....or Thomas the Supreme Court midget.
Click to expand...

Be careful... your racism is showing for all to see.

See how it feels ?
 
Well, this is it, kids, let the LOLPOCALYPSE begin -- Glenn Beck agreed with me this morning.

I heard him building up to it while I was driving to work. I begged him not to do it, to let me keep what's left of my self-respect, but he didn't listen. He literally called the Republicans cowards for not reading the unabridged Constitution.

Which one of you asshats is on his payroll? :lol:

My only consolation was that we went back to our separate corners about 2 minutes later. He stated that the only portion of the Constitution which fit the definition of "progressive" (which he defined as avoiding a revolution and incrementally deploying your agenda over time) was the 3/5ths compromise.

Considering the fact that Massachusetts ratified the Constitution on the condition that the Bill of Rights was coming shortly thereafter, either the Bill of Rights was similarly "progressive," or the entire original Constitution was. :lol:
 
Tucker Case said:
According to th earticle, it was:

If that was the goal, the entire document should have been read wihtout any editting.

Ignoring the negative aspects of our roots is folly.
Click to expand...

If "Bringing it back to its political roots" constitutes "Governing from a constitutionally sound basis" then reminding people or pieces of the constitution that are no longer valid and thus can't be governed from is somewhat pointless.

If it was a history lesson for the sake of history, you'd be absolutely correct. If its a history lesson to try and remind people they need to be legislating in accordance with, and in the confines of, the constitution, then reading the portions of the constitution that are no longer applicable is a waste of time.

Are you suggesting there's literally only one way, and that one way is YOUR way, to be talking about the "political roots" of our country? That it must be talking about learning about the HISTORY of the constitution and can't be talking about the roots of legislating in accordance with the constitution?

Granted, I don't rightly care either way on this. I don't think its a big deal to do it, I don't think it'd be a big deal to read it verbatim. I just don't see what there is to get worked up about here, nor do I see any notion of hypocrisy or revisionism going on. it just seems like bitching for bitchings sake.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
Perhaps because the three-fifths compromise is no longer a part of the Constitution???
Click to expand...
Except that the 3/5 Compromise is still part of the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment may have nullified it, but that does not mean that the text was completely removed from the document.
 
zyphlin said:
if "bringing it back to its political roots" constitutes "governing from a constitutionally sound basis" then reminding people or pieces of the constitution that are no longer valid and thus can't be governed from is somewhat pointless.
Click to expand...

this...........
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
After some wrangling, U.S. Constitution is read in House



You mean like the 3/5ths compromise?

So I guess we're getting back to our Constitutional roots, we're just ignoring the parts that are too embarrassing to acknowledge.

Cowards. :lol:


TED,
Who will be pointing to this the next time a right-leaning wingnut talks about revisionism.
Click to expand...

Why did the pages stick together?

Was he masturbating on the 10th Amendment before he came out to read?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom