By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The sad state of the US people.

SamuelRSmith on 17 October 2008

Why dod Americans give such a shit about the constitution? A document written around 200 years ago by some old guys in funny wigs? And, hell, it's not all that forward looking... if it was, there would be no need for amendments.

At the end of the day, all people, and all leaders should just say "bollucks" to any constitution and just do what's right for the people at the time.

Oh, and a free market doesn't mean a free people, in fact, it can often result in the opposite, especially when we start talking worldwide.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
SamuelRSmith said:
Why dod Americans give such a shit about the constitution? A document written around 200 years ago by some old guys in funny wigs? And, hell, it's not all that forward looking... if it was, there would be no need for amendments.

At the end of the day, all people, and all leaders should just say "bollucks" to any constitution and just do what's right for the people at the time.

Oh, and a free market doesn't mean a free people, in fact, it can often result in the opposite, especially when we start talking worldwide.

 

Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land that protect our basic rights.

No law is allowed to infringe on the constitution... and therefore to change, modify or take away what are seen as are most precious rights you need to go through an longer process and get more support then a normal law would.

 

 



SamuelRSmith on 17 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Why dod Americans give such a shit about the constitution? A document written around 200 years ago by some old guys in funny wigs? And, hell, it's not all that forward looking... if it was, there would be no need for amendments.

At the end of the day, all people, and all leaders should just say "bollucks" to any constitution and just do what's right for the people at the time.

Oh, and a free market doesn't mean a free people, in fact, it can often result in the opposite, especially when we start talking worldwide.

 

Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land that protect our basic rights.

No law is allowed to infringe on the constitution... and therefore to change, modify or take away what are seen as are most precious rights you need to go through an longer process and get more support then a normal law would.

 

 

 

 But if you change the constitution, you can make all kinds of crazy laws. The idea of having a written constitution which laws cannot infringe is basically ridiculous when you're allowed to change the constitution.



Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
SamuelRSmith said:
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
Why dod Americans give such a shit about the constitution? A document written around 200 years ago by some old guys in funny wigs? And, hell, it's not all that forward looking... if it was, there would be no need for amendments.

At the end of the day, all people, and all leaders should just say "bollucks" to any constitution and just do what's right for the people at the time.

Oh, and a free market doesn't mean a free people, in fact, it can often result in the opposite, especially when we start talking worldwide.

 

Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land that protect our basic rights.

No law is allowed to infringe on the constitution... and therefore to change, modify or take away what are seen as are most precious rights you need to go through an longer process and get more support then a normal law would.

 

 

 But if you change the constitution, you can make all kinds of crazy laws. The idea of having a written constitution which laws cannot infringe is basically ridiculous when you're allowed to change the constitution.

That's why it's very hard to change the constitution.

So it can be updated with the times... but hard to change... though it's gotten a lot easier to change with the advent of political parties... and their only being two.

When you look at it from the point of view of a document where 13+ I different groups with their own agendas have to change it.  (how it used to be...)

Then you can see that the important stuff wouldn't of been change.  As such it takes people with principle to be extra vigilant about stuff and protect people they even disagree with.

It's why people like the ACLU protect racists.

 



okr on 17 October 2008

Haha, I will miss these epic threads about McOba after election.

TWEWO (The World Ends With Obama), sure...

Too bad that most people outside (and quite some people inside) USA think the world restarts after Bush.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
okr said:
Haha, I will miss these epic threads about McOba after election.

TWEWO (The World Ends With Obama), sure...

Too bad that most people outside (and quite some people inside) USA think the world restarts after Bush.

Bush wasn't any better.  It's just nobody knew Bush wanted to take away all sorts of personal freedoms till after 9/11.

 



akuma587 on 17 October 2008

I am so happy that either Obama or McCain will undo a lot of the damage the Bush Administration has done.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

okr on 17 October 2008

Oh, I didn't mean he was any better Kasz, au contraire.

The world can't wait to get rid of him, people are counting the days.



Kasz216 on 17 October 2008
okr said:
Oh, I didn't mean he was any better Kasz, au contraire.

The world can't wait to get rid of him, people are counting the days.

You misunderstand me.  I mean, the difference why people weren't complaining about this when bush was first running is that nobody knew.

I'm hoping Obama changes his energy policy when elected.  If not he'll kill more people then Bush ever did with how badly he'll screw up the global food crisis.  Luckily though, that's the kind of killing the rest of the world doesn't really notice as much.

I'd vote for him over McCain if he switched his position so that instead he abolished all Ethanol Subsides.



bardicverse on 17 October 2008
SuperDave said:
bardicverse said:
SuperDave said:
Man you people are so overly dramatic, I don't get how you're all so angry.

@Mafoo saying things like "Oh, and I don't own a gun, nor do I wish harm on anyone. I just want to right to defend myself against my government." just makes you sound like a psycho. The government is not out to get you and you don't need some constitutional right to go shoot them up if you consider them unjust.

@bardicverse, don't fool yourself into thinking that America was founded upon equality. It took nearly 100 years to abolish slavery, 150 to provide women the ability to vote and still have a large wage gap compared to men. Gay people still can't get married. You can't be president unless you're born an American. Sure compared to some countries, this is way better, but don't lift that stiff upper lip claiming America is this glorious land of freedoms and equality.

 

Actually it was, that was the intended principle. You have to take into consideration that the views of society at the time didn't regard slaves or women on the same level in general. It would be like passing a law now that excludes rights for frogs, and 100 years from now, frog rights are established. Women and slaves were not viewed as "individuals" in general, and thus the laws were slighted against them, only on the grounds that they were so often overlooked. Had someone like Abe Lincoln said "Hey, those slaves - theyre people too", things might have been different. What you are saying is the end result of a social norm of a time period many moons ago. Yet, don't think that the intent was for equality.

 

 

Ok I'll accept that, but that exact argument can be used to point out why the right to bare arms is no longer needed. Clearly it made sense during a period where the country had recently had to fight for their independance against a foreign power and very much distrusted the role of government. Yet anytime someone suggests removing gun rights because it's really not necessary in todays society(the 'man' is not coming to get you), people get all up in arms(no pun intended) saying that the founding fathers protected your rights to bare arms etc.

I definitely need the right to bare arms... i wear a lot of t-shirts! Ohhh you mean BEAR arms. ;) hehe just messin on your spelling. But seriously, I can agree with your point there, though I think when you take something AWAY from the constitution, you're undermining the founders of this country. Additions of rights for blacks and women amongst other people only further promote the ideals that the constitution was founded on - equality. Taking arms away from citizens is a negative, as if one were to say that there was an error in the constitutional rights.