An open letter to the people who hate Obama more than they love America

More fundamentally, you missed the argument that it is irrelevant that some of the FFs owned slaves in 1789. You've yet to offer any examples where in the world slavery was not common place in 1789; hence, your and WE's attempts to denigrate the FFs fails absolutely. Once again, your pretentious belief that you and your liberal ilk are more moral and more wise is just more condescending BS. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

some how their point began as who cares about the founding fathers because they were slave owners so they are discredited, and by inference all their works are worthless.

retreat upon retreat from that line of argumentation, retreat not by acquiesence or agreement, but solely by an ever changing line of "points"
without support for any prior "point" made, it is now they are left with the "point" slavery was bad.

Alright, I've had this person on "ignore" since the first silly post of his I read, but, am I to understand there are still people who consider themselves educated and still believe the civil war was "fought for the abolition of slavery"? Has our educational system really gotten this bad?

That's sort of like saying WW1 was fought to establish the use of the submarine. Slavery was, of course, abolished ". . . within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States", as a strategy to help win a war already begun, not as the reason for beginning it. Even then not all slaves were freed, including those owned by US Grant who's wife had inherited them, those people were not freed till after the war was finished and the Constitution amended.

When we are scared as a nation...the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on.

That said, I basically agree with both camps in degrees on this one.

You "originalists" and "strict constructionists" constantly invoke the founding fathers' original intent as the end-all be-all for your bizarre interpretations of the meaning of the constitution.
Originally Posted by timpage

wanting to read the constitution and apply it as it is written is a bizarre method of interpretation of its meaning??????


how about not reading it as it is written and applying it as some wish it were written is perhaps a tad more bizarre

some how their point began as who cares about the founding fathers because they were slave owners so they are discredited, and by inference all their works are worthless. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Their ad hominem attacks are truly disingenuous.

Alright, I've had this person on "ignore" since the first silly post of his I read, but, am I to understand there are still people who consider themselves educated and still believe the civil war was "fought for the abolition of slavery"? Originally Posted by Iaintliein

No, Tiny Minded Tim was merely demonstrating why he is not an astute lawyer while simultaneously further exposing himself as a Kool-Aid drinking liberal.

As a true, Kool-Aid drinking minion of the current administration, Tiny Minded Tim doesn’t believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land – despite possessing a law degree (evidently a Cracker Jack treasure). No doubt that is why he, in this forum, attempts to charge, try and convict the FFs using laws and standards proscribing slavery that were not extant in 1789. Unlike the provision in Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, which states Congress shall pass no ex post facto law, Tiny Minded Tim superciliously insists the FFs living in 1789 should be held accountable in the court of public opinion for laws, provisions and standards that were not legislated, enacted and accepted until the 1860s. Once again Tiny Minded Tim has pompously asserted that he and his ilk are superior to the dictates of the Constitution. Once again, his pretentious assertions are exposed as being completely bereft of intelligence.

When we are scared as a nation...the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. Originally Posted by WTF

Only in the befogged-minds of Kool-Aid drinking liberals who are drunk on the double-speak of their martinets.

Only in the befogged-minds of Kool-Aid drinking liberals who are drunk on the double-speak of their martinets. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

no, I B, the first half of his post was salient. tarnished by the remainder perhaps..but i can take a nugget now and then for what its worth from the most unlikely of sources

Louie never tells us what he thinks, he only cuts and pastes. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

A very "special" comment from one of the most prolific "copy and pasters" on ECCIE. You post NUMEROUS times a day with Copies and Pastes! This is just another "Pot Calling the Kettle Black" moment for you, COG!

WELL DONE, Big Louie!

How about the pot calling the kettle stainless steel? Seems a bit less offensive.

The Founding Fathers had no desire
to separate state and God- just an
opposition to a national church.
Congess has had a chaplain and started
each session with a christian prayer for
over 230 years now.
There in no way in hell our FF would have
consented to legal infanticide much less
state funded infanticide.
UCMJ forbid faggotry from it's incept.
None of the FF would have thought fags
belonged anywhere except in an asylum.

That's just a brief overview of some of your
misguided crapola.
You have no idea what is in the actual scriptures
not that it matters as you evidently think you
are more moral than the Lord anyway.
To whit the scriptures talk about your ilk
quite a bit.
That you think you know the right path to trod.
It looks good to you and seems right to you.
It's end is the pit of death.

We love this country more than we do
some closet muslim bisexual narcissist.

The flame of Liberty is not in you.

You are a slave hawking for his master. Originally Posted by anaximander

SEPARATION IS INTENDED!

There WAS and IS a continued implication for that separation and while it has been blurred on many occasions, it is also noted in this 1833 letter (below) written by James Madison just a couple of years before his death.

Congress has gone back and forth on whether to pay those chaplains out of government monies or require a collection from members of Congress to break the implied tie of any religion to any part of the government.

They were also torn in some of the earliest pre-Constitutional meetings of the Continental Congress about what religions to allow to serve as Chaplains for fear of favoring one over another and they were certainly apprehensive at the Philadelphia assemblies that the predominant Quaker sect would be given preference.

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions & doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by an entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order & protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others." (James Madison in a letter to Jasper Adams, September 1833)

This country has and is still evolving. To go back to the Founding Fathers so-called "intentions" would simply open up the debates this country has already had the wisdom to settle. Those debates would include Women's suffrage, slavery, the absence of rights to those without property and many other now-undeniable rights that this nation made many sacrifices to put behind us. Women and minorities have yet to realize all of the nuances that accrue to the others who were never without these rights.

To those who keep whining that they "want their country back", I say be careful what you wish for. You should be happy with the milestones achieved and be thankful that the blood and imprisonment was not yours.

There was nothing about the slave trade in 1789 that was unlawful -- don't you get it? Hence, your and WE's attempts to denigrate the FFs fails absolutely. Once again, your pretentious belief that you and your liberal ilk are more moral and more wise is just more condescending BS. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Is this sort of logic on which you are basing your flimsy argument? If so, please spare those of us who know your shit from your Shinola!

Most of the Continental Congress along with many other Colonial meetings after war was declared were held in Philadelphia. OF COURSE, Deists like most of the founders wanted "separation" because they feared a strong Quaker influence from the outset.

Your accusation of our opinion of the founders as being somehow less altruistic is pure bullshit! No, IDIOT, it was because while bright, they were still hampered by the very same human nature that has always been with mankind.

That is why this country's struggle is an ongoing process.

However, back in the "Fairy Tale" portion of my mind (that must be more highly-developed in YOUR minds) and where your thoughts must dwell on a constant basis in your own, I would like to see some of you less enlightened people shipped back to be with our FF's.

I wonder how far your anti-Presidential posts and emails in a public forum would fare against a Founding Father-laced tribunal looking into treasonous behavior?

Your accusation of our opinion of the founders as being somehow less altruistic is pure bullshit! No, IDIOT, it was because while bright, they were still hampered by the very same human nature that has always been with mankind. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

You are a jack-ass. It is Tiny Minded Tim and WE who are making the ad hominem attacks against the altruism of the FFs. Once again you've demonstrated your inadequate, third grade reading skills.

That is why this country's struggle is an ongoing process. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

An ongoing process that SHOULD be accomplished by Constitutional rules and procedures and not by the the dictates of an autocratic.

Note the Communist title of the writer: Minister of Truth Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Minister Goebbels would have been so proud of you. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

With all this talk of "Ministers", you morons (not Mormons) left out The Rev. Robert Jeffress, yet another "Minister"!

Hitler could have beat the GOP field by using their own talking points.

You are a jack-ass. It is Tiny Minded Tim and WE who are making the ad hominem attacks against the altruism of the FFs. Once again you've demonstrated your inadequate, third grade reading skills.

An ongoing process that SHOULD be accomplished by Constitutional rules and procedures and not by the the dictates of an autocratic. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I made no reading or comprehension mistakes, stupid! My argument that altruism continues to be a struggle just like it always has just went over your head and made you begin to stutter and use the wrong words. That's OK. We'll wait for you to catch up.

Louie never tells us what he thinks, he only cuts and pastes. Not sure there have been many original thoughts coming from him. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Does pasting something in make it any less true? Your complaint seems to be that I cut and paste rather that what was posted.

You cut and pasted bullshit. I already said that.