Conservatives hate your constitution

ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
The way it was supposed to work was that we elect people who looked out for our best interests based upon the majority, with a eye toward keeping the tyranny of that majority in check. That means that at times the minority is ill served. As it now stands, it is the minority, the very rich and powerful that is most often served while the rest languish. So long as this is the case, I am definitely for "the greater good". THis is not feelings but pure logic. The greater good often means the greater prosperity for the majority which, contrary to trickle down, has been shown to work. We could look at that "feelings not logic" stance where it applies to keeping the WWII memorial open while shutting down the meals on wheels program, which, as much as anything, helps the vets who were being honored at the memorial. Which is feel good and which is logic?

My standing on the prone back of another while holding my hand to my heart in reverence toward the flag is pure feeling and absent of logic.
Click to expand...
I'll address the last because I agree completely with that sentiment. I saw a lot of that immediately post 9/11.

Your first paragraph makes giant assumptions. More money was spent in trying to keep people from seeing the memorial than simply ignoring it. I'm sure somebody has done a study on how many people were killed by the shutdown, should be easy enough to find. You'll have to back up your statement in bold with proof. War on poverty, war on drugs and the war on terror are all under the guise of the greater good. The Patriot Act is for the greater good. ACA is for the greater good. NSA spying is for the greater good. Nope, not a fan. I'm sure you'll argue those acts really AREN'T for the greater good yet the ACA is. Pretty awesome you get to decide isn't it? If I got to decide greater good policies I'd be all for it too. My greater good start would be abolishing overlapping federal agencies and severely limiting any central planning. Do you see now what a fallacy the term is? You are for the greater good as long as it fits your ideology, as am I. IMO individual liberties lead to the most benefits of the greater good.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
I'll address the last because I agree completely with that sentiment. I saw a lot of that immediately post 9/11.

Your first paragraph makes giant assumptions. More money was spent in trying to keep people from seeing the memorial than simply ignoring it. I'm sure somebody has done a study on how many people were killed by the shutdown, should be easy enough to find. You'll have to back up your statement in bold with proof. War on poverty, war on drugs and the war on terror are all under the guise of the greater good. The Patriot Act is for the greater good. ACA is for the greater good. NSA spying is for the greater good. Nope, not a fan. I'm sure you'll argue those acts really AREN'T for the greater good yet the ACA is. Pretty awesome you get to decide isn't it? If I got to decide greater good policies I'd be all for it too. My greater good start would be abolishing overlapping federal agencies and severely limiting any central planning. Do you see now what a fallacy the term is? You are for the greater good as long as it fits your ideology, as am I. IMO individual liberties lead to the most benefits of the greater good.
Click to expand...
Amen, brother, amen!

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to ginwilly again."
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
canndo said:
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
​
Click to expand...
Victory awarded, point conceded. I completely forgot about this long ago struck provision. You proved me wrong there...Damnit!!
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Individual liberties you say? Explain to me again why you oppose the civil rights act.
Click to expand...
I assume that is directed at me, AC? You, Buck, and Cheesy seem to be in a never ending crusade to demonize all who disagree with you, with the "R" word, but I will try yet again to have a reasoned conversation.

I see a fundamental problem with title II. If you don't see the conflict between these laws, one of which is the supreme law of the land, then get back to me and we can discuss it.

[h=3]Title II[/h] Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[SUP][38][/SUP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964



First amendment to the US constitution:
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.


[h=2]Freedom of association[/h] Further information: Freedom of association
Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the Supreme Court ruled, in National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama (1958),[SUP][209][/SUP] that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of membership was an essential part of this freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
It's also a law that says you can't discriminate based on religion, but you can based on hair color, waistline, height, looks, favorite college sports team, voice inflections etc etc. It's a morality clause that says you can discriminate based on this, but not on that. Hard to reach real equality with laws like this.

It takes a special kind of special to equate disagreeing with a clause as being the same as being against civil rights.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
ginwilly said:
Actually, if we followed our founders intent, shutting down the federal government would have barely been noticed.

Your judgement comes from an admittedly greater good slant while mine comes from an individual liberty slant. Of course we are going to interpret the same findings in different ways, I've accepted this. What I try to avoid is painting ALL dems with a brush because I've met some truly righteous people from the left. I disagree with the whole premise of "greater good" because of societies fickleness and the 1st level thinking required to embrace it.

I feel if we all chipped in just a little we'd have no need for safety nets from a central planning standpoint. I disagree with using force to make those who disagree with me comply with what I feel is best, I'm not wired that way. I do my best to practice what I preach but admittedly fail more often than I'd care to admit. I still feel I'm doing more for the "greater good" than harmful liberal feel good policies that are based on feelings, not logic.

Central planners are the nut low and stifle a society's advancement more than any other factors. <----IMO
Click to expand...
You've touched on a point in two different threads that made a light bulb go on in my head.
The feeling of community and chipping in to help those who need a hand.

You said you grew up in a big city, Detroit if I remember and you never experienced that until you visited the south and witnessed their generosity and compassion first hand.

I grew up in a small town environment, we never knew any better but to chip in when a friend or a neighbor needed it.

I'm wondering if there is a correlation with people growing up in urban areas and the lack of inner community outreach.
The majority of those on the left live in urban areas, perhaps this is why many feel the need to rely on government?

Just a thought
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
I see a fundamental problem with title II.
Click to expand...
yeah, it gives blacks freedom of association with people like you who join white supremacy groups.

how are you to enjoy your soup when a black person is allowed to sit next to you?

you poor, persecuted thing.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
I have to say that it is extremely amusing to see the lefties all ganged up and rejecting the first amendment right to free association in a thread titled, "Conservatives hate your constitution".

Well done, commies, well done!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
desert dude said:
I have to say that it is extremely amusing to see the lefties all ganged up and rejecting the first amendment right to free association in a thread titled, "Conservatives hate your constitution".

Well done, commies, well done!
Click to expand...
the supreme court has looked at civil rights and found no first amendment contradiction.

that is something that you created, it is not a valid constitutional objection, it is just you crying about how much you hate to associate with black people, as evidenced by your decision to join a white separatists and supremacists group.
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
yeah, it gives blacks freedom of association with people like you who join white supremacy groups.

how are you to enjoy your soup when a black person is allowed to sit next to you?

you poor, persecuted thing.
Click to expand...
I have no problem breaking bread with black people, but I refuse to sit next to a life time failure who was expelled from high school, dropped out of college, lives off the kindness of daddy-in-law, and then lectures me on morality as if he has the first fucking clue what he is talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top