Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

  1. #21
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,093

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by element94 View Post
    That's because a good swath of the population gives details of the impeachment charges about as much time as they give to Kim Kardashian's farts, about 2 seconds. They go to their "news" show of choice so they can be told how to feel about it.
    So Bernie needs to hire Kim Kardashian.

  2. #22
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    01-13-20 @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    380

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by element94 View Post
    This has me thinking: how useful, ultimately, is the Constitution without men of honor?
    You didn't mean it to be a tricky question, or for anyone to critically analyze it, but a perfect government charter is not useful if all of the government officers are dishonorable lying cheaters.

    The subsisting United States Constitution is an erroneous charter, and the founders knew it to be so, because they were aware that they did not have all of the information necessary to compose a more reliable charter, nor the sophisticated man power. George Washington is credited with having commenced the Third Continental Congress with the ambition to do the best that they could do.
    Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair;
    the event is in the hand of God.

    Furthermore, the Federalist Papers, if you can comprehend them, has a lot of descriptions of the inadequacies; but the problem is that contemporary pundits/politicians use these descriptions to vilify their partisan adversaries as being corrupt.

    The checks and balances are conflicted and not balanced. The founders, and subsequent generations, have only had one simple formula to work with, and it is mistakenly used to formulate separate "branches," where as, what it actually describes are the three phases for processing law, which would then be the subdivisions of the proper branches. The proper branches of government are supposed to be demarcated by the main partitions of civil law: sovereignty, martial, diplomacy, commerce, trust, and property law. The founders were probably unable to determine the main partitions, and they were definitely unable to organize the proper separation, because of the stricter qualification standards that such specifications would prescribe - they just did not have the information revealed to determine the peer groups, nor the sophisticated manpower available to recruit, during the founding eras of the nation and adjoining states.

    ​Trickle down economics is not a campaign policy - it is an inevitable and constant aspect of social systems - the "food chain." Consequently, because the irregular subsisting three-part system, with its complicated and incomprehensible unaligned subdivisions, is tasked with processing modern detailed law under the stress of tremendous diversity and advanced sophisticated media personalities irresponsibly determined to exploit the inadequacies in their self-aggrandizing efforts to reveal that the system is "broken;" what we have, now, is a semi-chaotic mess that is politely referred to as “political gridlock” at the federal level, that trickles down in the forms of government corruption and hypocrisy, social hysteria and disorder, and eventually leads to individual frustration that sometimes ends with violent acts that are sometimes premeditated and prosecuted as domestic terrorism - cellular rebellion. Because some people believe that they know how to exploit the inadequacies in such a way that it will shock society to reorder the social order - "I'll teach them," is their rant. The problem being nobody has a reordering plan.

    Yes, the Constitution is only useful if there are some honorable people in the government, and although, Trump is a business con-man, he is not a criminal. He used to patronize the presidential politicians for favors, just like many other rich people who contribute large sums of money to the politician's campaigns. He knows that Hillary Clinton is corrupt - she promised Trump that she would win in 2008, because she had the dirt on Obama. She lied and kept pushing the lie even after Obama was elected to the presidency.

  3. #23
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,093

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Lunaphiles View Post
    ...Trump is a business con-man, he is not a criminal...
    That phrase is self contradictory.

    Trump is a con man, he is a criminal. They say all politicians lie - but he does it so brazenly.

    Right now he is protected by the office of the presidency.

  4. #24
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    01-13-20 @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    380

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    That phrase is self contradictory.

    Trump is a con man, he is a criminal. They say all politicians lie - but he does it so brazenly.

    Right now he is protected by the office of the presidency.
    Are you kidding me??? Is this all you got?

    All of the presidential candidates are protected, dumb ass. You have not noticed that they are all able to make the false claim that the presidents' intentions are political - so they can be as corrupt as they want to be.

    Can you answer the question that the thread is about - Does the Constitution rely on the existence of honorable men in the government???

    Why cant you get past the Trump and Democrat ****, and answer the question for the stupid piece of **** idiot who thought he was asking a thought provoking question?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    If the president was a Democrat, those senators would be holding up Lt Col Vindman as a saint and a patriot...but his testimony attacks Trump (a Republican)

    For GOP senators and congressmen, it doesn't matter who you are, you're a traitor if you dare to attack them.
    No kidding?!?!?! Haven't you noticed that is how it is for both parties!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    OMG do you just lap up everything that Trump tells you ?

    Are you such a fan boy that you're prepared to believe anything ?
    Do you just lap up everything the Democrats spew?? Are you such a dull thinker that you are prepared to believe everything??


    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    Trump doesn't care about corruption (unless he can do the corrupting and gain a benefit). Trump doesn't give a damn about the Ukraine, ALL he cared about was getting dirt on Biden and winning again in 2020. That's absolutely all.
    You are wrong, because you are not willing to examine all of the situation and are only able to believe what the Democrat pigs tell you to believe.

    The Justice Department is ****ed-up, because it is not a separate entity that it is supposed to be. The presidential candidates are immune from prosecution, and that is what Joe Biden is hiding behind.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,093

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Lunaphiles View Post
    Are you kidding me??? Is this all you got?
    The president is a criminal and that's not enough ?

    As Bill Maher says: Nixon said he was not a crook, Trump admits he's a crook and says "so what" ?


    ...all of the presidential candidates are protected, dumb ass....
    Personal attack

    But no they're not. Entering into an electoral race doesn't grant you any legal protection


    ...does the Constitution rely on the existence of honorable men in the government???
    Yes

    And sadly there is a shortage of honor in the White House.

    ...no kidding?!?!?! Haven't you noticed that is how it is for both parties...
    Oddly enough no

    Did Clinton accuse any of his accusers of treason ?
    Did Obama make any such accusation to his critics when in office ?

    I think you'll find it a trait of the new right wing MAGA hate wearing brigade.


    ...do you just lap up everything the Democrats spew...
    No...what things do you have in mind should not be believed ?


    ...are you such a dull thinker that you are prepared to believe everything?

    No
    See above


    ...You are wrong, because you are not willing to examine all of the situation and are only able to believe what the Democrat pigs tell you to believe.....
    Your reference to "Democratic pigs" labels you as part of the extreme right wing.
    Your opinion can hardly be called "even handed" and seriously undermines any accusation from you of not being able to "examine all of the situation"

    And I note a lack of anything remotely resembling a defense of Trump - because there is none.
    The RW can't defend Trump, just throw mud at his accusers.


    The Justice Department is ****ed-up, because it is not a separate entity that it is supposed to be...
    The president appoints the AG or didn't you know


    ...presidential candidates are immune from prosecution, and that is what Joe Biden is hiding behind.
    Says who ?

    Are we to believe there is some dirt on Biden in the Ukraine - a bit like Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that Bush Jr KNEW were there....but weren't.

  6. #26
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Houston
    Last Seen
    01-13-20 @ 05:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    380

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    Your opinion can hardly be called "even handed" and seriously undermines any accusation from you of not being able to "examine all of the situation"
    I am the only person alive who has an even hand of thinking. I am the only person who figured out that the three-part government model is inaccurate and that there is a more logical formula for dividing the government.

    United States Fourth Continental Congress

    The founders, and subsequent generations, have only had one simple formula to work with, and it is mistakenly used to formulate separate "branches," where as, what it actually describes are the three phases for processing law, which would then be the subdivisions of the proper branches. The proper branches of government are supposed to be demarcated by the main partitions of civil law: sovereignty, martial, diplomacy, commerce, trust, and property law. The founders were probably unable to determine the main partitions, and they were definitely unable to organize the proper separation, because of the stricter qualification standards that such specifications would prescribe - they just did not have the information revealed to determine the peer groups, nor the sophisticated manpower available to recruit, during the founding eras of the nation and adjoining states.
    You get that through your ****ing head, you stupid dumb **** racist.

    Only a racist would be against having a constitutional convention that gathers the diversity of people that the founders could not gather. And no doubt, you do not want to have a constitutional convention. Nobody at Debate Politics wants to do it, except me. I am the only person accepting of the diversity to hear their ideas for making this a better government for the people, by the people, of the people.
    Last edited by Prof_Lunaphiles; 12-01-19 at 03:30 PM.

  7. #27
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,093

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Lunaphiles View Post
    I am the only person alive who has an even hand of thinking....
    That statement alone is enough to dismiss you


    You get that through your ****ing head, you stupid dumb **** racist.

    Only a racist would be against having a constitutional convention that gathers the diversity of people that the founders could not gather. And no doubt, you do not want to have a constitutional convention. Nobody at Debate Politics wants to do it, except me. I am the only person accepting of the diversity to hear their ideas for making this a better government for the people, by the people, of the people.

    Reported.

  8. #28
    Advisor element94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    02-21-20 @ 01:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    565

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Lunaphiles View Post
    You didn't mean it to be a tricky question, or for anyone to critically analyze it, but a perfect government charter is not useful if all of the government officers are dishonorable lying cheaters.

    The subsisting United States Constitution is an erroneous charter, and the founders knew it to be so, because they were aware that they did not have all of the information necessary to compose a more reliable charter, nor the sophisticated man power. George Washington is credited with having commenced the Third Continental Congress with the ambition to do the best that they could do.

    Furthermore, the Federalist Papers, if you can comprehend them, has a lot of descriptions of the inadequacies; but the problem is that contemporary pundits/politicians use these descriptions to vilify their partisan adversaries as being corrupt.

    The checks and balances are conflicted and not balanced. The founders, and subsequent generations, have only had one simple formula to work with, and it is mistakenly used to formulate separate "branches," where as, what it actually describes are the three phases for processing law, which would then be the subdivisions of the proper branches. The proper branches of government are supposed to be demarcated by the main partitions of civil law: sovereignty, martial, diplomacy, commerce, trust, and property law. The founders were probably unable to determine the main partitions, and they were definitely unable to organize the proper separation, because of the stricter qualification standards that such specifications would prescribe - they just did not have the information revealed to determine the peer groups, nor the sophisticated manpower available to recruit, during the founding eras of the nation and adjoining states.

    ​Trickle down economics is not a campaign policy - it is an inevitable and constant aspect of social systems - the "food chain." Consequently, because the irregular subsisting three-part system, with its complicated and incomprehensible unaligned subdivisions, is tasked with processing modern detailed law under the stress of tremendous diversity and advanced sophisticated media personalities irresponsibly determined to exploit the inadequacies in their self-aggrandizing efforts to reveal that the system is "broken;" what we have, now, is a semi-chaotic mess that is politely referred to as “political gridlock” at the federal level, that trickles down in the forms of government corruption and hypocrisy, social hysteria and disorder, and eventually leads to individual frustration that sometimes ends with violent acts that are sometimes premeditated and prosecuted as domestic terrorism - cellular rebellion. Because some people believe that they know how to exploit the inadequacies in such a way that it will shock society to reorder the social order - "I'll teach them," is their rant. The problem being nobody has a reordering plan.

    Yes, the Constitution is only useful if there are some honorable people in the government, and although, Trump is a business con-man, he is not a criminal. He used to patronize the presidential politicians for favors, just like many other rich people who contribute large sums of money to the politician's campaigns. He knows that Hillary Clinton is corrupt - she promised Trump that she would win in 2008, because she had the dirt on Obama. She lied and kept pushing the lie even after Obama was elected to the presidency.
    Trump is only not a criminal because there is no one that will convict him of his crimes. He, and his family, bilk a charity and no one goes to jail. How about you or I try that and see what happens.

  9. #29
    Sage
    Rich2018's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Norcross, Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    16,093

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by element94 View Post
    Trump is only not a criminal because there is no one that will convict him of his crimes. He, and his family, bilk a charity and no one goes to jail. How about you or I try that and see what happens.
    If Trump loses next November, he better have a good lawyer ready.

  10. #30
    Advisor element94's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    02-21-20 @ 01:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    565

    Re: The Constitution Relies Too Much On Men Of Honor

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich2018 View Post
    If Trump loses next November, he better have a good lawyer ready.
    Rudy and his camera crew are ready.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •