quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I will point out from a soveriegnty of man issue that not only minds are beautiful, so someone wants to poke a pretty ass or some nice titties into the conversational mix, those fresh views are extremely welcome from both idiot conservatives and whacko liberals who post here, I believe we can agree on that.

Ron

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Thats disingenuous at best Bull....one can beleive and cherish the Constitution without being what we refer to as a "strict Constitutionalist"
The term as it is used today denotes a way of thinking that is diametrically oposed to those who see the document as a "living and flexible thing".
Both groups would readily state they love the document....but both see the parchment in different light.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Methinks you are trying to pull a fast one with that set of tata's.....the offer was IIRC a "look " at your boobs....and ,ya said "maybe" your ass.
Not just any(though impressive) boobs will do yanno!

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

<snip>

I have nothing against the Constitution, I just don't agree with the Libertarian position that it's words are as sacred as the Bible. The problem with fundamental religion is the strict interpretation for modern times of a text written thousands of years ago devoid of any appreciation for the times and context in which it was written. I see Libertarians in the same light. It's amusing how they want to rely on the "Founder's intent" when debating the "proper" interpretation without realizing that the document itself is in fact a compromise. The Founders did not all agree on it's content or meaning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

I think you misunderstood. For most independents, there is no candidate in the primaries who represents our views. So many of us don't vote. There have to be enough independents in a district who are willing to sign a petition and get their candidate on the ballot, but the districts are Gerrymandered to assure that most voters in any particular district are either very conservative or very liberal. There is a non-partisan group that is trying to get more sensible districts drawn so that moderates like me could field a candidate.

Joe Lieberman is the exception, not the rule. And if I am not mistaken, he was not an Independent when he was elected, but someone may have to fact check me on that.

I have nothing against the Constitution, I just don't agree with the Libertarian position that it's words are as sacred as the Bible. The problem with fundamental religion is the strict interpretation for modern times of a text written thousands of years ago devoid of any appreciation for the times and context in which it was written. I see Libertarians in the same light. It's amusing how they want to rely on the "Founder's intent" when debating the "proper" interpretation without realizing that the document itself is in fact a compromise. The Founders did not all agree on it's content or meaning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx


Why, if you disagree with a party platform would you want to vote in a primary for their to be candidate? You are aware that an Independent can and have petitioned to be on ballots at all levels of office? Ever hear of Joe Lieberman?

And yes, Libertarians do believe in strictly adhering to the original uncorrupted laws of the land, kinda why we have a Supreme Court. So it must be more than a Libertarian thing.

Do you have something against our Constitution? Personally, I like millions before have sworn to support and defend that old parchment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

So we'll just have to disagree, Thad. I believe it represents a framework for governing, and you believe it must be strictly interpreted. I have issues as well with the growth of government and ensuing corruption, but I believe there are other ways to deal with these things that don't include taking us back to the 1700's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx


No its not dis-anything..... It's straight talk without spin or verbal manipulation.

The Constitution isn't some fickle construct of misunderstood ideology. It's not written in some ancient text and should never be perverted by the most recent "King of the Hill". If additions or alterations need implemented, the provision for amendments has been provided by the framers.

The framers never intended to have their words distorted or corrupted by slick talking ideologues. The reason its so hard to amend is so it would not be alterred by fads and passing fancy.....

Imagine if men like McCarthy could have manipulated the wording unchecked longer than they had.

Yes the Constitution needs to grow with the times, and it can, by amendments. Hence the concept of a living document. But to allow its wording to be manipulated unchecked is irresponsible and un-American.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Thats disingenuous at best Bull....one can beleive and cherish the Constitution without being what we refer to as a "strict Constitutionalist"
The term as it is used today denotes a way of thinking that is diametrically oposed to those who see the document as a "living and flexible thing".
Both groups would readily state they love the document....but both see the parchment in different light.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Methinks you are trying to pull a fast one with that set of tata's.....the offer was IIRC a "look " at your boobs....and ,ya said "maybe" your ass.
Not just any(though impressive) boobs will do yanno!

Well, if this is what I have to do to get some respect around here...

Don't hate me because I'm smart.

And, I would have shown my ass, but only one cheek would fit in the avatar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx


ok..............After reading this interesting take on your perspective I congratulate you on the choice of hair color for the new photo. It's much more fitting. No offense to all blonds, but a stereo type is a stereo type.

Girlie when you are ready to discuss things logically and not interject biblical reference and cut with comparing the Constitution to ancient Hebrew concepts written in languages no one speaks in at this day and age I'll intertain your objections. But at this point you sound as looped as the other Brain or his archrival the hunkster.

[...]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

You know what the best part of that outdated old piece of compromised writing? That it provides a path for changing and amending it. Yeah that path is a bit tough to accomplish, especially in this day and age (where compromise is some Greek word to many). Which is why we see all of the power struggles over judicial nominations, which is the backdoor process for making changes to the document without needing to get it ratified.

Just like the federal government (both parties) has moved well past the enumerated powers provided for in the Constitution. That is why I find fault with the "living and breathing" argument, it is just a way to rationalize not being able to get the required votes to ratify the various power grabs and changes they want to make.

But hell, lets just read every other letter or some use some other pattern to read what we want into it, as it couldn't possibly apply to all of the changes in attitude and technology....

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

<snip>

I have nothing against the Constitution, I just don't agree with the Libertarian position that it's words are as sacred as the Bible. The problem with fundamental religion is the strict interpretation for modern times of a text written thousands of years ago devoid of any appreciation for the times and context in which it was written. I see Libertarians in the same light. It's amusing how they want to rely on the "Founder's intent" when debating the "proper" interpretation without realizing that the document itself is in fact a compromise. The Founders did not all agree on it's content or meaning.

quote:

You know what the best part of that outdated old piece of compromised writing? That it provides a path for changing and amending it. Yeah that path is a bit tough to accomplish, especially in this day and age (where compromise is some Greek word to many). Which is why we see all of the power struggles over judicial nominations, which is the backdoor process for making changes to the document without needing to get it ratified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: xBullx

Your point is understood, and I'm not as dictomatic as some seem to think. Like I pointed out I'm socially liberal, must be why I like all you perverted fucks.

But Thadius made a great post at #91 that simplifies what I said in an earlier post and his comments fit my line of thinking just about right.

Thanks for the civil discourse, it's much better than some of our other recent encounters.

quote:

I'm not and never was bringing up anything necessitating a change or an ammenment to the document....my whole discussion with Bull boils down to the fact that there are two schools of thought where that particular document is concerned.The first the strict interpitation ...which holds that only that enumerated and nothing else is actually there.
The second(the one I adhere to is a more "flexible" reading of the document...one where a whole lot more of an "intent' of the framers comes into play....my only point is that the holding of either position does not indicate a lack of reverance for the document itself

• Is the Constitution an outline for determining what you can do - or what you can't do?
  
• Does the Constitution provide the authority where personal choice and freedom is superseded in the case of a specific act and the act's impact on others?
  
• Outside of pragmatic count regarding elections (hanging chad decisions notwithstanding) is the Constitution the source document legitimizing majority rule over personal choice?
  
• Is interpreting the Constitution the job of the US Supreme Court, or should all their decisions be pragmatic and made on the basis, if it specifically isn't in the Constitution, it must be added as an amendment or not considered 'Law'?

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub
It was an analogy, and a fitting one, and you completely missed the point. Many evangelicals today do interpret the Bible literally, just like many Libertarians choose to interpret the Constitution literally. But you are welcome to disagree if you like.