FirstFreedom
Moderator
Please, let's not insult Oprah - she has 10 times the brainpower of Maher and 100 times that of Rosie.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ron Paul to be on "Real Time" tonight
- Thread starter badbob
- Start date
Please, let's not insult Oprah - she has 10 times the brainpower of Maher and 100 times that of Rosie.
michibilly
New member
I didnt say he did or didnt follow the constitution I said he is to wack to elect. Did you hear him taking about volcanos when asked about global warming? Do you see his not even on the map numbers?Im sorry you beleive so strongly in him. I have lots of things I beleive strongly in that Im sure Im right about that no one agrees with. What I said was the guy is to wack to elect in this country and the results will tell you Im right.
Far as him following the constitution goes. I dont think its alive but I dont think its setin stone either. Im sure it says you have the right to own a tank, the right to have 18 wives, and the right to smoke weed all day every day.Who agrees/disagrees? Have a made my point about what the constitution says ?
Far as him following the constitution goes. I dont think its alive but I dont think its setin stone either. Im sure it says you have the right to own a tank, the right to have 18 wives, and the right to smoke weed all day every day.Who agrees/disagrees? Have a made my point about what the constitution says ?
.The Constitution means what it says and what the Founding Fathers intended, it's not a "living document" subject to the whim of whatever someone wants it to mean. Otherwise we really have no constitution
This is what otta be. IMHO
Please, let's not insult Oprah - she has 10 times the brainpower of Maher and 100 times that of Rosie.
You betchja,
I never watch her show or any of the others for that matter but you get a idea of the quality of people anyway.
Scott Conklin
New member
Did you hear him taking about volcanos when asked about global warming?
You mean that volcanic activity that produces far more greenhouse gasses than we do? You don't actually believe we have anything to do with the earth's natural cycle of heating and cooling?
Do you see his not even on the map numbers?
At one time I could have pointed to Clinton's non-existent numbers. Kennedy's. Anybody at all. Your point?
Im sorry you beleive so strongly in him. I have lots of things I beleive strongly in that Im sure Im right about that no one agrees with.
What does that have to do with either the Constitution or moving someone into the spotlight?
What I said was the guy is to wack to elect in this country and the results will tell you Im right.
These aren't "results". This is current statistics. Results come at the end. But if he IS too "wack"(whatever that actually means) it isn't a reflection on Paul. It's a reflection on our sound-byte, ignorant populace. They'd be the ones that are too "wack", when it comes right down to it.
Far as him following the constitution goes. I dont think its alive but I dont think its setin stone either.
No, there's a very clear method for modifying it. Beyond that, yes, it's pretty straightforward and set in stone.
Im sure it says you have the right to own a tank, the right to have 18 wives, and the right to smoke weed all day every day.Who agrees/disagrees? Have a made my point about what the constitution says ?
No. What does pulling random things from thin air have to do with it?
Scott Conklin
New member
Guess the 2nd amendment isn't part of your "nonliving" constitution then. . .
The 2A is part of the BoR, crafted at roughly the same time and according to basic procedures established then. Has nothing to do with the bizarre modern leftist misrepresentation of the Constitution as a "living" document.
You don't actually believe we have anything to do with the earth's natural cycle of heating and cooling?
Why not? Why is this so hard for you to understand? I`m not saying this is the case, but why is it not possible for humans to contribute to global warming? Simply assuming that GW is caused by man or not caused by man represents massive ignorance on both ends.
Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
Scott Conklin
New member
It's not difficult for me to understand at all. I simply look back on the historical/geological record, the source of current waste products added to the enviroment by nature and the rate/methods of nature's recycling and it's obvious any effect man has is negligible. Short of nuclear war we just aren't that important. Even then, we'd only change things for a short(geologic) time and ruin it for ourselves. Earth, nature, would keep right on going in the same general pattern as always.
The idea we make that big a difference to the planet beyond the localized level is a sign of just how bloated our own egos are.
The idea we make that big a difference to the planet beyond the localized level is a sign of just how bloated our own egos are.
The 2A is part of the BoR, crafted at roughly the same time and according to basic procedures established then. Has nothing to do with the bizarre modern leftist misrepresentation of the Constitution as a "living" document.
You are so silly. The point is that the very existence of the amendment process makes the document "living and breathing". That concept was built-in, not modern. I admit it was leftist and bizarre at the time, though.
You do know the constitution wasn't written in stone and brought down from a mountain?
Amending the Constitution is not the same thing as saying it is a "living document."
When people say it is a "living document" they mean what the Constitution says as it is currently written means whatever they (the current reader) think it means at the time. For example: Leftist love to spout, well regulated militia means the national guard. Or use the general welfare clause to steal money from people.
When people say it is a "living document" they mean what the Constitution says as it is currently written means whatever they (the current reader) think it means at the time. For example: Leftist love to spout, well regulated militia means the national guard. Or use the general welfare clause to steal money from people.
When people say it is a "living document" they mean what the Constitution says as it is currently written means whatever they (the current reader) think it means at the time.
That's not what living document means. A living document is one that is updated, and has that ability built in to it existence.
For example: Leftist love to spout, well regulated militia means the national guard. Or use the general welfare clause to steal money from people.
Better example, Gonzales arguments against habeus corpus
It's not difficult for me to understand at all. I simply look back on the historical/geological record, the source of current waste products added to the enviroment by nature and the rate/methods of nature's recycling and it's obvious any effect man has is negligible. Short of nuclear war we just aren't that important. Even then, we'd only change things for a short(geologic) time and ruin it for ourselves. Earth, nature, would keep right on going in the same general pattern as always.
The idea we make that big a difference to the planet beyond the localized level is a sign of just how bloated our own egos are.
Very good arguement! As a matter of fact, I have presented a similar contention on more than one occasion. However, despite our confidence in the above, I cannot help but wonder what direct or indirect effect our civilization will have on future generations as well as on existing species. Scientific debate has been persuasive on both sides, and an easy dismissal of one side may not be prudent. This is the reason why I asked the previous question. However, the sensationalistic approaches taken by media manipulators and attention-craving politicians should be readily dismissed and treated for what they are.
Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
Scott Conklin
New member
You are so silly.
Well, no. But I suppose when you are about to say something silly, as you did and I quote below, accusing someone of that very thing has some validity...?
The point is that the very existence of the amendment process makes the document "living and breathing". That concept was built-in, not modern. I admit it was leftist and bizarre at the time, though.
So, you don't know what the modern concept of a "living" document is? or you don't know what the original concept/methodology of change was? The Amendment process is a time consuming one specifically designed to make casual alterations to these documents unlikely. It takes a well defined goal and a concerted effort to get there to make an Amendment happen. This was certainly NOT a leftist concept of the time, though it was a liberal one. VERY different concepts.
The modern "living document" concept, OTOH, is leftist. It places the meaning of the Constititution and BoR in the hands of judges and attorneys and even lobbyists, to be defined according to the current whims of whatever special interest group is throwing the most money and/or influence into an argument at a given time. It specifically circumvents the entire idea of the Amendment process and the clear indication of the process that these are not "living" documents to be altered without great planning.
You do know the constitution wasn't written in stone and brought down from a mountain?
Well yes, I do, but apparently you obviously don't know much about the original mechanisms for change vs the current agenda-politics that have(tried) to replace that mechanism.
Scott Conklin
New member
That's not what living document means. A living document is one that is updated, and has that ability built in to it existence.
No. Sorry. See above. The modern leftist concept is one where the words mean whatever is useful to and endorsed by the Powers That Be(or want to be) at any given moment. This concept was created expressly to allow avoiding the correct, slow, even annoying, method of change built into the system. Mere ability to be changed does not, in modern lefty vernacular, mean "living". It's just not convenient enough for their needs.
Scott Conklin
New member
Both terms are used interchangably by the left when seeking to get the Constitution or BoR to say what they want when they need it to. If one term or the other is being used incorrectly at this late date then I'd suggest you talk to those who created the issue and the problem.
usndoc1964
Inactive
Stop arguing and start spreading the word...
I myself and many, many others here in Pennsylvania are spreading the
message of liberty and personal freedom. We are 30,000 plus strong and
we have ALL vowed that each and every day to tell at least 5 to 10 new people Ron Paul's message. It's a grass roots effort. We are busy every day with this endeavor. Letters to the Editor and calling local newspapers and public access TV stations are all part of it. We will keep it up for it's to save our country. Everyone here should go out and do the same. Light the fires
of Liberty one person at a time!
I myself and many, many others here in Pennsylvania are spreading the
message of liberty and personal freedom. We are 30,000 plus strong and
we have ALL vowed that each and every day to tell at least 5 to 10 new people Ron Paul's message. It's a grass roots effort. We are busy every day with this endeavor. Letters to the Editor and calling local newspapers and public access TV stations are all part of it. We will keep it up for it's to save our country. Everyone here should go out and do the same. Light the fires
of Liberty one person at a time!
Last edited:
Letters to the Editor and calling local newspapers and public access TV stations are all part of it. We will keep it up for it's to save our country. Everyone here should go out and do the same. Light the fires
of Liberty one person at a time!
I suggest you call the guys in charge of the USA Today/Gallup Poll... they don't even have his name on the list..
Any man who wants to get rid of the CIA wholesale is a total moron.
Yep. It will be interesting to see what George Tenet's book will say at the end of this month, though.