Tea Party Whacko crapping on the constitution
- Thread starter WhiteTailEER
- Start date
Pretty sure I spoke out about that too. If I didn't here, I know I did in conversations elsewhere.
But you can't seem to ever admit that something a right wing whacko says or does is wrong, just deflect it back to something else.
Still won't ... lol
Go ahead. It won't hurt you.
It will be liberating to have a thought that is rational, reasonable, and not dictated by a partisan stance.
You can do it ... I have faith in you.
Go ahead. It won't hurt you.
It will be liberating to have a thought that is rational, reasonable, and not dictated by a partisan stance.
You can do it ... I have faith in you.
Re: Still won't ... lol
This is a discussion board. There are partisans posing everyday. In fact, you're posting here. To laughably post that a "whacko" wants to demolish the Constitution in light of this President's actions is clearly an attempt at equivalency. This one is not even close.
This is a discussion board. There are partisans posing everyday. In fact, you're posting here. To laughably post that a "whacko" wants to demolish the Constitution in light of this President's actions is clearly an attempt at equivalency. This one is not even close.
My faith in you was unfounded
There is no attempt at equivalency, and no comparison to the President's actions at all. You had to bring up the president and mandatory voting so you can deflect away from admitting that one of your whackos is wrong about something and is promoting something that is unconstitutional.
Mandatory church is wrong. So is mandatory voting. Only one of us seems to be able to say that though.
It takes a little creative thinking to frame absolutely everything in attempt to keep the image of your party pure. However, there is a big different between creative thinking and critical thinking.
Keep dancing.
I honestly thought you were at least capable of a thought that didn't toe the company line.
There is no attempt at equivalency, and no comparison to the President's actions at all. You had to bring up the president and mandatory voting so you can deflect away from admitting that one of your whackos is wrong about something and is promoting something that is unconstitutional.
Mandatory church is wrong. So is mandatory voting. Only one of us seems to be able to say that though.
It takes a little creative thinking to frame absolutely everything in attempt to keep the image of your party pure. However, there is a big different between creative thinking and critical thinking.
Keep dancing.
And do you know what direction those rates have been going in?
By the way, you may be an exception, but lots of people actually consider things like infidelity and divorce less bad in the grand scheme of things than stuff like, say, slavery and discrimination based on sex, race, creed and and sexual preference.
By the way, you may be an exception, but lots of people actually consider things like infidelity and divorce less bad in the grand scheme of things than stuff like, say, slavery and discrimination based on sex, race, creed and and sexual preference.
Re: Still won't ... lol
This lady, Arizona state Senator Sylvia Allen (R) wants a bill that requires people to attend church. "We should probably be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth."
This clearly viloates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
See how I did that? I stated exactly what she wants to do and exactly how it violates the US Constitution.
Your turn.
Please provide one, just one, example of something the President has done that violates the Constitution. I'll help you get started by providing an example.
This lady, Arizona state Senator Sylvia Allen (R) wants a bill that requires people to attend church. "We should probably be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth."
This clearly viloates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
See how I did that? I stated exactly what she wants to do and exactly how it violates the US Constitution.
Your turn.
The rates I described are astronomically higher today than at the founding of this country. So infidelity isn't immoral? Wow.
And we are told over and over again by the race baitors that this country is intractably racist. If this is true, it sounds like it hasn't changed since the founding of the country.
And we are told over and over again by the race baitors that this country is intractably racist. If this is true, it sounds like it hasn't changed since the founding of the country.
Re: My faith in you was unfounded
If you want to cite whaco's, you need to find "national" figures that have some influence over broad public policy. As obscure senator from Arizona is irrelevant. Both of us can find whaco's on both side that have very little if any influence on public policy.
If you want to cite whaco's, you need to find "national" figures that have some influence over broad public policy. As obscure senator from Arizona is irrelevant. Both of us can find whaco's on both side that have very little if any influence on public policy.
We're must less racist, and much less pretty much everything-ist, than when the country was founded. Is there more infidelity now than then? I don't know. I bet there's less murder though, which is the kind of thing that counts way more than infidelity. There sure as hell is a lot less slavery. There sure as hell is a lot less race hate. Women can vote and for that matter do a million other things they couldn't do 225 years ago. But if there's more infidelity today I guess it wipes all that other stuff out.
I will admit that it's amusing to watch the way the twist everything.
Where did he say that infidelity isn't immoral? He didn't. He said that in the grand scheme of things to most people it probably isn't as bad as slavery.
Re: Still won't ... lol
The President has unilaterally changed Obamacare many, many times in direct contravention to the law. The President has unilaterally provided amnesty and work permits for millions of illegals. The President has unilaterally changed environmental law which even liberal scholars say is unconstitutional. Obama has been overturned by the Supreme Court on 9-0 votes. For example, his "recess" NLRB appointment when Congress was in session.
I could go on and on
The President has unilaterally changed Obamacare many, many times in direct contravention to the law. The President has unilaterally provided amnesty and work permits for millions of illegals. The President has unilaterally changed environmental law which even liberal scholars say is unconstitutional. Obama has been overturned by the Supreme Court on 9-0 votes. For example, his "recess" NLRB appointment when Congress was in session.
I could go on and on
Re: My faith in you was unfounded
A United States Senator is not a "national" figure?
A United States Senator has no influence over broad public policy?
I guess the Arizona Senators are the only ones that don't get to vote on or introduce any bills?
Wow ... the lengths you'll go to twist and deflect and try to make an argument.
A United States Senator is not a "national" figure?
A United States Senator has no influence over broad public policy?
I guess the Arizona Senators are the only ones that don't get to vote on or introduce any bills?
There you go, changing your argument again.
You said that he claimed that infidelity was not immoral. Now you have to twist it around.
You are apparently condensing slavery into "betrayal of civility and respect"? I was never a slave, but I would dare say that they would have characterized the experience as a bit more intense than a simple "betrayal of civility and respect".
Or maybe you are saying that the discrimination that he referred to is what was a "betrayal of civility and respect". In which case you're saying that that is indeed immoral. Therefore gays shouldn't be discriminated against and gay marriage should be legal.
I think we're making some good progress here.
Drug use. Murder rates. Crime rates. Abortion rates. Come on. You need to read your history books if you think the people that first settled here engaged in high rates of this kind of behavior.
And to compare contemporary mores with those of the settlers is apples and oranges.
And to compare contemporary mores with those of the settlers is apples and oranges.
Re: You didn't read your own article
No difference at all. It is a member of a congressional or legislative body (passes laws) that is attempting to pass an unconstitutional law on citizens of the United States.
No difference at all. It is a member of a congressional or legislative body (passes laws) that is attempting to pass an unconstitutional law on citizens of the United States.
Re: Still won't ... lol
Can you share with us which Articles of the Constitution that the President violated?
I didn't think so.
Can you share with us which Articles of the Constitution that the President violated?
I didn't think so.
Drugs and abortion were kinda irrelevant since technology made them hard to do. Alcohol had to serve as the drug. Plenty of people abused alcohol back then.
I don't know what the murder rates were in the US in the founding of the country but I know that in general murder rates have decreased drastically over the past hundreds and thousands of years. The old days weren't necessarily the good old days, like portrayed in the movies.
I don't know what the murder rates were in the US in the founding of the country but I know that in general murder rates have decreased drastically over the past hundreds and thousands of years. The old days weren't necessarily the good old days, like portrayed in the movies.
"attempting to pass an unconstitutional law"...... LMAO......
do you even realize what you are posting? Do you know how a law is declared "unconstitutional". This women may very well be a nutcase but I must have missed the part that stated a state law was passed and was ruled "unconstitutional".
do you even realize what you are posting? Do you know how a law is declared "unconstitutional". This women may very well be a nutcase but I must have missed the part that stated a state law was passed and was ruled "unconstitutional".
Wups
What happened to your opposition Tri-State? Broadly speaking, Article 1, Section 1 "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in congress". That doesn't leave much room for the Administrative body to make laws. He also swears or affirms to uphold the constitution...... enforce the laws...... etc.
What happened to your opposition Tri-State? Broadly speaking, Article 1, Section 1 "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in congress". That doesn't leave much room for the Administrative body to make laws. He also swears or affirms to uphold the constitution...... enforce the laws...... etc.
You keep saying everything is so much better
I don't see much difference at all, and if anything, we've improved in a few areas and crapped the bed in others. The only thing absolutely better today than earlier in our country is technology, which doesn't make us smarter.
I don't see much difference at all, and if anything, we've improved in a few areas and crapped the bed in others. The only thing absolutely better today than earlier in our country is technology, which doesn't make us smarter.
I am all for keeping religion and the government completely separate. This includes the religion of Man Made Climate Change. That religion should not be forced upon people any more than Christianity should..
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
My morals are based on what I think is right. Yes, that might come off to "I'm God" to some people but really, if you think about it religious people do the same thing in a sense. You pick your religion and then you say "That religion sets the morals, not me." And yet you're the one picking the religion so in a way you're picking your morals. It's just that when you pick your religion you're picking a whole set of morals at once instead of deciding each issue on a case by case basis.
Also, consider that whatever set of morals a religion has typically changes over time rather than being set in stone. We're nearing the 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War. Just 150 years ago a significant portion of this country thought it was okay to enslave black people. Even the people in the North that didn't want black people enslaved mostly thought black people were inferior. And this was a more Christian country numbers-wise then than now. So are "Christian morals" those expressed then or those expressed now? Or neither and instead those expressed 150 years from now?
That's just one example. People of lots of races and tribes and religions thought those there were different were bad hundreds of years ago. Also torture was more accepted back then. And cruelty to animals. In France in the 1600s cat burnings were held for amusement. Some of those bad things still go on today but they're more and more seen as abhorrent. In fact, that's why they're newsworthy today. And yet people back then were religious like they are now.
Consider a set of religious morals today and 500 years ago and 1,000 years ago. Are they the same? No, they change over time as society progresses in new ways of understanding morality. And those religions that don't progress over time look more and more ridiculous and outdated as time passes. Lots of people are Muslim and normals and yet a minority think that the morality of the 7th century should still rule today and they look ridiculous to everybody else.
So can we say religious people really get their morality solely from religion when the morality professed by religion changes over time? I think both religious and non-religious people are doing some thinking to figure out what is moral and what is not.
Also, consider that whatever set of morals a religion has typically changes over time rather than being set in stone. We're nearing the 150th anniversary of the end of the Civil War. Just 150 years ago a significant portion of this country thought it was okay to enslave black people. Even the people in the North that didn't want black people enslaved mostly thought black people were inferior. And this was a more Christian country numbers-wise then than now. So are "Christian morals" those expressed then or those expressed now? Or neither and instead those expressed 150 years from now?
That's just one example. People of lots of races and tribes and religions thought those there were different were bad hundreds of years ago. Also torture was more accepted back then. And cruelty to animals. In France in the 1600s cat burnings were held for amusement. Some of those bad things still go on today but they're more and more seen as abhorrent. In fact, that's why they're newsworthy today. And yet people back then were religious like they are now.
Consider a set of religious morals today and 500 years ago and 1,000 years ago. Are they the same? No, they change over time as society progresses in new ways of understanding morality. And those religions that don't progress over time look more and more ridiculous and outdated as time passes. Lots of people are Muslim and normals and yet a minority think that the morality of the 7th century should still rule today and they look ridiculous to everybody else.
So can we say religious people really get their morality solely from religion when the morality professed by religion changes over time? I think both religious and non-religious people are doing some thinking to figure out what is moral and what is not.
Re: "attempting to pass an unconstitutional law"...... LMAO......
Where did I state that a state law was passed? Reading comprehension; try it.
What I said was she wanted to pass a law that is unconstitutional. I quoted her word for word in my previous post in this thread.
You are a moron.
Where did I state that a state law was passed? Reading comprehension; try it.
What I said was she wanted to pass a law that is unconstitutional. I quoted her word for word in my previous post in this thread.
You are a moron.
