WTF is wrong with Lone Star College?

That is an low-bar excuse.....with 310 million people in the US there are going to be some people who are irresponsible...so the Progressives use those few as an excuse to control our lives, remove freedom and limit liberty...................

Based on that standard; nothing is off limits if a few people are irresponsible,,,including forks and spoons I suppose.........

If people were more responsible, they wouldn't need nannies!



I. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

That is an low-bar excuse.....with 310 million people in the US there are going to be some people who are irresponsible...so the Progressives use those few as an excuse to control our lives, remove freedom and limit liberty...................

Based on that standard; nothing is off limits if a few people are irresponsible,,,including forks and spoons I suppose......... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I was being sarcastic about it.

Fundamentally, a democratic government reflects the wants of the people. If the people don't want their citizens to have easy access to dangerous weapons, then they should have the right to limit that.

It's always ironic when Conservatives try and accuse Progressives of being the control freaks given their stances on civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and generally most social issues.

Then why do we need a Constitution and Bill of Rights ?

Then why do we need a Constitution and Bill of Rights ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a codification of the baseline values our society has decided to set upon itself - it doesn't conflict with the rights of a society to enact laws that reflect their needs.

Conservatives almost fetishize the Constitution, treating it like it's some holy scripture handed down from our demigod progenitors. While it is an amazing historical document, at it's heart, it's just the social contract that our society set for itself when our country was founded. The Framers were wise enough to recognize that they couldn't account for the entire future needs of our society and purposefully left the Constitution vague and malleable so that future society could decide for itself what it needed.

It's always ironic when Conservatives try and accuse Progressives of being the control freaks given their stances on civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and generally most social issues. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I guess I missed the memo on the "control freak" thingy ... on accusations ... but ...

.. I would accuse someone for being an embarrassed Socialst for calling themselves ...


... a "Progressive" ...

It's matter of labeling .... trash the label "Conservative" ... no need to trash the label "Liberal" they do it to themselves ... then avoid the criticism by taking the "high road" label of a "Progressive" .... sounds so ... "advanced" ... "sophisticated" ... knowledgeable" ... so "ahead" of everyone else ... if not down right .... "above them all"!

Help me out here ... what is the "Progressive" platform on say ...

.... gay marriage?

... women's rights?

... equall opportunity?

... debt reduction?

... military preparedness?

... education?

... "gun control"?

just to name a few.

I guess I missed the memo on the "control freak" thingy ... on accusations ... but ...

.. I would accuse someone for being an embarrassed Socialst for calling themselves ...


... a "Progressive" ...

It's matter of labeling .... trash the label "Conservative" ... no need to trash the label "Liberal" they do it to themselves ... then avoid the criticism by taking the "high road" label of a "Progressive" .... sounds so ... "advanced" ... "sophisticated" ... knowledgeable" ... so "ahead" of everyone else ... if not down right .... "above them all"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Funny how the 1%er party likes to accuse everyone else of trying to look down on them...

Help me out here ... what is the "Progressive" platform on say ...

.... gay marriage? In general, Progressives are more for gay marriage than Conservatives.

... women's rights? In general, Progressives are more for women's rights than Conservatives.

... equall opportunity? In general, Progressives are more for equal opportunity than Conservatives.

... debt reduction? In general, Progressives are less focused on reducing debt through purely cutting spending and more open to all methods of increasing revenue (including raising taxes) than Conservatives.

... military preparedness? In general, Progressives are less likely to increase spending on the military and invade other countries for protracted wars than Conservatives.

... education? In general, Progressives are more for increasing spending and the quality of our education than Conservatives.

... "gun control"? In general, Progressives are more for protecting the lives of the many vs the individual right to own deadly weapons than Conservatives.

just to name a few. Originally Posted by LexusLover

SeewhatIdidthere?

Funny how the 1%er party likes to accuse everyone else of trying to look down on them... Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Wonder why "they" do that? Hmmmmmmm?

Oh ... wait .... you said ..... "trying to look down"!

When one is flat on their back looking up ... that's tough to do!

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a codification of the baseline values our society has decided to set upon itself - it doesn't conflict with the rights of a society to enact laws that reflect their needs.

Conservatives almost fetishize the Constitution, treating it like it's some holy scripture handed down from our demigod progenitors. While it is an amazing historical document, at it's heart, it's just the social contract that our society set for itself when our country was founded. The Framers were wise enough to recognize that they couldn't account for the entire future needs of our society and purposefully left the Constitution vague and malleable so that future society could decide for itself what it needed. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

That is one hell of a post, jbravo.

You've said in a clear, non-threatening manner what I've been trying to tell these fucking assholes all along.



And agreed!

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a codification of the baseline values our society has decided to set upon itself - it doesn't conflict with the rights of a society to enact laws that reflect their needs.

Conservatives almost fetishize the Constitution, treating it like it's some holy scripture handed down from our demigod progenitors. While it is an amazing historical document, at it's heart, it's just the social contract that our society set for itself when our country was founded. The Framers were wise enough to recognize that they couldn't account for the entire future needs of our society and purposefully left the Constitution vague and malleable so that future society could decide for itself what it needed. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

JBarfo, that is utter and total bullshit. The Framers did not intend for the Constitution to be vague and malleable. They intended it to be a tight restraint on government to interfere with the rights of the people. Show me ONE instance of one of our Founders saying the Constitution needs to be vague so future generations can make it say what they want. Shyster lawyers and slick politicians have turned the Constitution into that, but that was NOT the Framers intent. That is bullshit, plain and simple.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a codification of the baseline values our society has decided to set upon itself - it doesn't conflict with the rights of a society to enact laws that reflect their needs.

Conservatives almost fetishize the Constitution, treating it like it's some holy scripture handed down from our demigod progenitors. While it is an amazing historical document, at it's heart, it's just the social contract that our society set for itself when our country was founded. The Framers were wise enough to recognize that they couldn't account for the entire future needs of our society and purposefully left the Constitution vague and malleable so that future society could decide for itself what it needed. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

How exactly do you codify baseline values? Could you be anymore vague?

Actually, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a codification of the divisions of POWER under which we live. They divide up power between the state governments and the federal government in one respect and then further divides up the federal power between an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judiciary. The legislative power is still further divided between a Senate and a House of Representatives.

The Constitution and BoR determine which institution has the power to do what and - more importantly - what powers are FORBIDDEN to any or all institutions.

They are neither vague nor malleable. And before you stick your foot further in your mouth, it doesn't "evolve" either. The only people who think that way are progressives who don't want the Constitution getting in the way of their agenda.

Unfortunately for progressives, the Constitution restricted the power of the federal government to disarm its own citizens. It is a nasty bit of historical trivia, but the Constitution figuratively painted a bull's eye on the new federal government it was creating - just in case it got too powerful.

Letting the federal government determine for itself the reach of the 2nd Amendment is rather like letting the fox guard the hen house. A bad idea all around.

So, if you want to get rid of guns completely (or almost completely), you are going to have to change the Constitution. The left doesn't have the support for that - so they talk about how the Constitution evolves - or is vague and malleable.

Whatever it takes to get what they want.

If in fact the Framers (great term) intended the Fucking constitution to be absolute, then why amend it 10 times? Why free the slaves? Why give women the vote? Repeal the poll tax? Outlaw alcohol? (Ooops ... Somebody fucked up on that one, didn't they?).

You guys are really little else than fundamentalist religious fanatics, stuck in the Stone Age.

If in fact the Framers (great term) intended the Fucking constitution to be absolute, then why amend it 10 times? Why free the slaves? Why give women the vote? Repeal the poll tax? Outlaw alcohol? (Ooops ... Somebody fucked up on that one, didn't they?).

You guys are really little else than fundamentalist religious fanatics, stuck in the Stone Age. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Strawman argument. And you answered your questions in your own post.

They didn't intend it to be absolute. They provided Article V to amend it when so desired:
--------------------------------------------------------
Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
---------------------------------------------------

Don't like the 2nd Amendment? Propose a new amendment to modify or repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Im not necessarily targeting the second amendment. I don't have a problem with it, but do with zealots who believe they have absolute power to possess weapons of mass destruction where I live. Ive shot my share of game (which I also know how to prepare in quite delicious ways.). I have no problems with handguns, if properly licensed and displayed ... Not a fan of CHLs.

I am talking about the repeated notion by some that the fucking constitution is a stone tablet rather than a living breathing code of laws to guide this country through the ages... Including today. It has been changed over the centuries and should be again if the people deem it necessary.

That is where we disagree.

In other words, Assup, you don't want a Constitution. If it can mean whatever you want it to mean, then it means nothing. ¿Comprende?

Freed slaves, women voting, repealed poll tax...give the GOP credit numbnuts for getting it right.