Just Let him Die..!

Actually, no! . Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Can you not read? I didn't make up WTF's post that i quoted above.

I don't care what the reason was. That had nothing to do with his original point in this thread.

Can you not read? I didn't make up WTF's post that i quoted above.

I don't care what the reason was. That had nothing to do with his original point in this thread. Originally Posted by Doove

Can you not read? The point of WTF's post was to make an ad hominem attack against the Constitution using his pessimistic, negatively-biased interpretation of the Three Fifths Compromise.

Regarding the Three Fifths Compromise, are you with the pro-slavery proponents or the abolitionists?

Actually, no! The discussion is about whether the Three Fifths Compromise – at the time of ratification – was a positive or negative aspect of the Constitution.

Abolitionists were against enumerating any slaves – they were for counting 0 out of 5 slaves; 0% – for purposes of representation and decreasing the power and control of slave owners. Pro-slavery proponents were for enumerating all – they were for counting 5 out of 5 slaves; 100% – for purposes of representation and increasing the power and control of slave owners. It’s up to you to decide which side you would have supported. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So you admit the Constitution was all about compromise?

Something you Tea Huggers have trouble with.

The Constitution was made by men. You act like God wrote it. It is flawed just as the men who wrote it were flawed , just as you and I are flawed.

My point then and now is that you drag it out as a be all end all when it suits your fancy.

Learn to read and follow along. This isn't that hard.

Can you not read? The point of WTF's post was to make an ad hominem attack against the Constitution using his pessimistic, negatively-biased interpretation of the Three Fifths Compromise.

Regarding the Three Fifths Compromise, are you with the pro-slavery proponents or the abolitionists? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It is not an either or.

What you have trouble with.....what all you right wingers have trouble with is that you drag it out as if you are the only one that understands the Constitution.

That is flawed thinking.

. . .
Learn to read and follow along. This isn't that hard. . . . Originally Posted by WTF

How very condescending of you... and so predictablel!
When the discussion gets tough... tuck the tail and belittle... quite impressive! BRAVO'

Regarding the Three Fifths Compromise, are you with the pro-slavery proponents or the abolitionists? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Haven't thought about it. Don't care.

How very condescending of you... and so predictablel!
When the discussion gets tough... tuck the tail and belittle... quite impressive! BRAVO' Originally Posted by MrGiz

That's beautiful!

I know, i know....let me save you the trouble....

And then... as expected... more of the same drivel from Doove Originally Posted by MrGiz

Very Good!! * You're paying attention!

I'm with ya, on your first comment above, though.
Imagine that!

I do see the first 10 Amendments, our Bill of Rights, as a devinely inspired document.

One great thing about our Constitution is the Founders delibertly made it very difficult to change. In Parlimentary forms of government, the law of the land is what a majority of the Members of the Governing Body can agree uopn at any given time. This makes the laws subject to the petty whims of the moment.

In our Republic, there is always that "pesky" Constitution that gets in the way of those whims. While it can be aggravating to those who see it as an road block to imposing their particular views on others, it has, and will, stand the test of time.

So you admit the Constitution was all about compromise? Never said it wasn't.

Something you Tea Huggers have trouble with.

The Constitution was made by men. You act like God wrote it. It is flawed just as the men who wrote it were flawed , just as you and I are flawed. The Constitution is the law of the land, and it should be adhered to by those elected to follow and enforce that law. Those who deem it "unnecessary" or "trivialize" it by ignoring its provisions are the ones who are truly and presumptuously playing at being god-like. For they are ignoring the law of the land that is supposed to rule over all citizens equally. If a president, a justice or a congressman is allowed to deviate from the law and rule over others by whim, what protection then is left for the average citizen?

My point then and now is that you drag it out as a be all end all when it suits your fancy. If change is needed, there is an amendment process, and that process should be followed. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Every single amendment was the product of men with good intentions: not providence. The 18th Amendment was repealed, the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and the 14th Amendment needs to be tweeked: all through the amendment process.

Learn to read and follow along. You'd do well to follow your own advice, for it was you that was misrepresenting the Constitution.

It is not an either or. O' but it is: you who are so prompt to often trot out Hobson's Choice when it suits your purposes. Originally Posted by WTF

. . .

There are a couple of new amendments which I think are needed... only to clarify the original, intended limitations of the "reach" of our Federal Government!! Violations to the contrary have become curiously "accepted" by the ignorant masses.... and THAT is a HUGE problem!!

How very condescending of you... and so predictablel!
When the discussion gets tough... tuck the tail and belittle... quite impressive! BRAVO'
Originally Posted by MrGiz

Condescending of him to me , of me to him and now you to me.

You are smart enough to see that are you not?

Originally Posted by WTF
So you admit the Constitution was all about compromise? Never said it wasn't.

Something you Tea Huggers have trouble with.

The Constitution was made by men. You act like God wrote it. It is flawed just as the men who wrote it were flawed , just as you and I are flawed. The Constitution is the law of the land, and it should be adhered to by those elected to follow and enforce that law. Those who deem it "unnecessary" or "trivialize" it by ignoring its provisions are the ones who are truly and presumptuously playing at being god-like. For they are ignoring the law of the land that is supposed to rule over all citizens equally. If a president, a justice or a congressman is allowed to deviate from the law and rule over others by whim, what protection then is left for the average citizen?

"Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison."


My point then and now is that you drag it out as a be all end all when it suits your fancy. If change is needed, there is an amendment process, and that process should be followed. The Constitution has been amended 27 times. Every single amendment was the product of men with good intentions: not providence. The 18th Amendment was repealed, the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and the 14th Amendment needs to be tweeked: all through the amendment process.

Learn to read and follow along. You'd do well to follow your own advice, for it was you that was misrepresenting the Constitution.

It is not an either or. O' but it is: you who are so prompt to often trot out Hobson's Choice when it suits your purposes. That is exactly my point, we all do it! God Damn you and Giz are hard headed. Just because I make fun of you two does not mean that I think I do not fall into the same petty things that you two do. All men do, including the SOB's that wrote the Constitution. You act as if they walked on water. They were looking out for their own selfish interests just like we all are.

Condescending of him to me , of me to him and now you to me.

You are smart enough to see that are you not?


Originally Posted by WTF

Perhaps... but I'm not trying to defend my position in a debate, using weak mis-direction tactics.* Much like Doove... my interest in the entire thread is pretty low... I was only commenting on some of the personality behind the debate.

You've never heard me say The U.S. Constitution is a Perfect "End All" Document... but until it is amended further... it is what it is!
One thing we do (or hopefully, should) have in common is... we share it, as citizens.

Perhaps... but I'm not trying to defend my position in a debate, using weak mis-direction tactics.* Much like Doove... my interest in the entire thread is pretty low... I was only commenting on some of the personality behind the debate.

You've never heard me say The U.S. Constitution is a Perfect "End All" Document... but until it is amended further... it is what it is!
One thing we do (or hopefully, should) have in common is... we share it, as citizens. Originally Posted by MrGiz

This is worth repeating....That is exactly my point, we all do it! God Damn you and Giz are hard headed. Just because I make fun of you two does not mean that I think I do not fall into the same petty things that you two do. All men do, including the SOB's that wrote the Constitution. You act as if they walked on water. They were looking out for their own selfish interests just like we all are.

. . . Learn to read and follow along. This isn't that hard. . . . . Originally Posted by WTF

I am not sure if it is deliberate or not... but you continue to appear to want to skip over the very simple point I was trying to make in my original reply.

It was a very condescending remark; used by you, to muddy the discussion in the middle of an otherwise decent debate of an issue which I admittedly, do not care much about.* Originally... that was my only point!

I often find myself interested in the quality of the debates here (including some of your positions), without having much of a strong personal opinion about the actual topic.* I only wish the quality of the debate could be maintained throughout!!*

Believe it or not... I usually find this forum to be somewhat educational... although too often, it becomes silly shit slinging between juveniles!

I am not sure if it is deliberate or not... but you continue to appear to want to skip over the very simple point I was trying to make in my original reply.

It was a very condescending remark; used by you, to muddy the discussion in the middle of an otherwise decent debate of an issue which I admittedly, do not care much about.* Originally... that was my only point!

I often find myself interested in the quality of the debates here (including some of your positions), without having much of a strong personal opinion about the actual topic.* I only wish the quality of the debate could be maintained throughout!!*

Believe it or not... I usually find this forum to be somewhat educational... although too often, it becomes silly shit slinging between juveniles! Originally Posted by MrGiz

I reply to a condescending post in a condescending manner and you reply to my condescending post in a condescending manner and all you want to talk about is my condescending manner?

That is how I am reading ya there Mr Giz.

If I B served me a shit sammy with a smile on his face....do you think I should just eat it cause he was so nice about it?

Granted the attitude was a pleasant change but the menu was the same ole chit.