The US Constitution.
 

U.S. Constitution | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Actually an interesting read especially if you read books about its origin.

You do realize that Parado's Law, the rule of 80-20 applies.
Hence 20% of the people are liable to read the constitution (or anything else). And I believe that number could be off by half (i.e. maybe 10% instead of 20%).

Most dialogue is either 3rd or more hand; or more than likely a parroting of their favorite biased media source; or talking partisan point directives.

If there were more first hand basis for discussion the quality of dialogue would increase sunstantially.

And there may even be an increased tolerance for opinions other than their own.

But not likely in this instant gratification, electronic instant communication of everything from fact to political BS.

It might be interesting if Obama should actually read the Constitution and not the Cliff Notes.

I heard a theory the other day and I can't remember where. The jist of it was that before people were hoping for fifteen minutes of fame but now, with the internet and sites like this, twitter, facebook they aspire to be famous, or maybe heard, all the time.

I think I got it right and it does feel right to me.

If you want to read it, I know Capt. Khan's father has a copy. While I think Trump's attack was another example of foot-in-mouth disease, the media has been ridiculous. Even Fox News was critical since they viewed Khan as "apolitical" I'm sorry, but whatever he was prior, as soon as he took the podium at the DNC he BECAME POLITICAL. This is a minor issue. The real choice is simply between America as it has been, or a transformation into a European socialist state.

These days it's closer to a 99:1 ratio with 1% actually knowing the material and 99% just repeating an opinion they "agree" with.

No, I think with information comes a lack of "tolerance", information lets you "know" the truth of a thing. Tolerance is compromise and compromise is ALWAYS settling for less. Compromise doesn't foster greatness. Compromise and tolerance is voting for the lesser of two evils. It won't "fix" anything.

It was a damn compromise...not what anyone really wanted.

The major compromises centered on:

a) abolishing slavery

b) sharing power among 3 branches as opposed to a "king-like" president.

c) maintaining state's rights as opposed to a single country

Two out of three wasn't bad, and they fixed the other one 76 years later

Maybe it was back in Negotiating 101 that I remember the phrase;

.........if you are not prepared to compromise you are unprepared to negotiate.....

They traded one for the other...we still have 2 out of 3. States rights? It's a joke. States only get to rule on the inconsequential.

Some things cannot/should not be compromised. Agreed? Or was that class in laywering school where they teach "the rule of money". For the truly important, there can't be compromise.

Not in 1787. We really only started to give up states rights in earnest with FDR

You talked of abolishing slavery, at the SAME time, states rights were stripped. Lincoln did both. Ask the southern states about "rights". The knife just gets twisted a bit with each election. As each ADDS to the authority of the federal government.

Reading comprehension challenged???? I said no such thing. I said the debate over the original constitution included slavery and UPHOLDING state's rights, not stripping them. I wouldn't view preserving the union, as Lincoln did, as "stripping" state's rights, there is no point of allowing a state the "right" to secede from the union. After all, federal law does trump state law. The problem has been the proliferation and scope of federal law. Yes, there were dribs and drabs of federal power grab along the way, but it did not kick into high gear until FDR

The guy that is annoying you is not worth the effort . His ONLY entertainment is to come on here and get under the skin of as many people as possible .

Sometimes he identifies himself as " CNM " other times he posts without identifying himself .
All anyone does when they respond to him is to feed his little ego and encourage him to continue . What we should be doing is just to " Ice " him out by never responding to his provocations .
He is not interested in constructive dialog at all . He just wants to stir people up. He is a first class coward who is no doubt very very afraid to reveal what his real name is .
You have to feel sorry for someone when this is their only human contact and source of joy .

I'm all too aware of "CNM" But each time he responds, he shows himself to be an even bigger idiot that we all suspected. So I subscribe to the philosophy of giving him/her enough rope to hang himself. Plus, he stands as a reminder of just how stupid the American electorate can be.

Don't say rope and hang himself or our resident liberal will start screaming for admin to shut us down. They will call you a bully.

Doubt it, since it was clearly more idiomatic than a suggestion.

Now you've done it. You called them "idiomatics" :1rotfl:

The states wanted that "right to leave" in the Constitution or they wouldn't ratify it.

You have NO "rights" if you don't have the right to leave. You are a SLAVE. A peer can walk away from a one-sided arrangement...a slave cannot. The states are SLAVES to the federal government. They have NO choice once the corrupt, bought and paid for SCOTUS rules against them.

Their MOST important "right" vanished when Lincoln attacked them for exercising their Constitutional right to secede.

You think I'm CNM? Really? We couldn't be more different.

I'm all for constructive dialog, lets have some. You disagree that it was Lincoln and his forbidding the states to exercise secession that took away states rights? If you can't walk away when conditions get "intolerable" for you, WHAT are you? An equal? If you can't walk away, you can't leave, you have no rights. EVERYTHING that happens to you is at their whim.

Please...respond. Explain to me how prisoners have rights. The states became prisoners to the federal government via Lincoln. They cannot leave no matter how authoritarian the feds become.

It's not racial, you can speak freely.

:1rotfl:

The fact that you are so dead wrong...is quite an insight. :thumbup:

You just can't believe, that there are a number of others who don't share the viewpoint of the right-wingnuts (and racists/bigots) posting here....now can you? ;)

If I write something, I sign it. Whether anyone else (LIKE YOU) chooses to/not to do so...is simply their choice.

But you better get used to the idea that you can't hide in your mob, because it's obvious that you're not going to be able to try and bully others from speaking out against such despicable, disgusting dribble.

In other words, as much as it hurts...there is a lot more than just me. ;)



Whether any of you right-wingnuts respond or not, is certainly not going to stop me from speaking out against you intolerant jerks.

Nice try though. :D


You do realize don't you, that everyone can see that you're lying?

I have not only rebutted many of the 'opinions' spewed from folks like yourself with facts and links...I see a real dearth from your side doing the same.

Why is that?


You mean exactly like YOU are doing? :oops:

What's your real name you flaming hypocrite?

How in the heck does some scumbag like yourself, even find the courage to show such flaming hypocrisy?

You truly must be mentally 'touched.'


Don't feel sorry for me...life is good! :ho:



:wave:

CNM

Point proved. ColdNoMore couldn't resist. He-She thinks that everyone else is wrong on here, when the reality is the opposite.

...and it is a well-known fact that the Regressives are wrong!

RBT

The political forum is more about arguing then politics.

If someone asked which ants are better some of you would say red ants without even reading anything about ants. And when someone said black ants are better, you still wouldn't read because the truth doesn't matter. You're bored and like to argue.

I'm not judging. Just see it how it is. Nobody is listening to you anyway, especially if it looks like a lot of reading..

PFH wrote this.

It's not his initials, it's an acronym for how hot it is outside.

Depends on who the "regressives" are. Democrats have embraced socialism. Socialism is regressive. Socialism in itself does not work. Therefore, it is more than likely that Democrats are wrong.

On the other hand, if you consider the older Republicans to be conservative, then being "regressive" is what made this country the best in the world. In this case, if being "regressive" is being conservative, then these "regressives" are RIGHT.

This algorithm works.