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.