12
   

is the pledge unconstitutional?

 
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 May, 2011 05:04 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

So Fido, where's that alleged contradiction?
My wife already thinks that I live on this stupid computer, and while I sometimes do while it rains, when it does not rain and I have help on the payroll trying to get my siding done, which get a small addition to my house done, I have to let lord Setanta wait... And you shall wait... If you want to do some preliminary reading; I would suggest the preamable where the goals of the constitution are plainly stated, and ask you to show me a single place in the rest of the constitution that seeks those goods as goals... You might suggest some of the Amendments, but they are after all amendments and not the original constitution... In addition, there is no evidence given the authority of the Supreme Court that they will not run all over any bill of rights right they might choose, or allow any that are in contradiction to the rights of individuals... I will get with you... But even now I have stuff looming... A couple of sand volley ball matches in the rain and 45 degrees... Fun... At least more fun than bumping pecker heads with you...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 01:43 am
@hamilton,
Quote:
Is the pledge unconstitutional?
It is Constitutional, so long as it is freely VOLUNTARY,
not the product of extortion.





David
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 04:00 am
@Fido,
In other words, you can't come up with your alleged contradiction. I'm content to wait, despite your snide insults. It won't change the undeniable fact that you won't find that contradiction.

It would help you not to make **** up.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 04:01 am
Oh, and I would not suggest any amendment--amend means to change, not to contradict.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 06:03 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Oh, and I would not suggest any amendment--amend means to change, not to contradict.

are you saying that your perfectly satisfied with how the government is doing?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 06:07 am
@hamilton,
No, and don't trail your coat at me. I don't intend to get suckered into a stupid argument with an uninformed member.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 07:36 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

In other words, you can't come up with your alleged contradiction. I'm content to wait, despite your snide insults. It won't change the undeniable fact that you won't find that contradiction.

It would help you not to make **** up.
There is the contradiction between the allowance of slavery and the blessings of liberty...

There is the contradiction between perfect union, and a divided government, and one with the senate which was meant to stiffle democracy...

There is a contradiction in the power of congress to make rules for government, which along with the separation of powers was the excuse the Supreme Court used to pass on the House of Representatives limits on the number of its members, because if government is its own ruler then the people are not, and not one goal of the preamble, which are all good goals will ever be reached...

The idea current at the time was that people were not only entitled to by ruled, but were entitled to good government which was conducive to their happiness, and the Declaration of Independence says as much, that the pursuit of happiness is a right, but this is not much of an addition to what Aristotle says, that governments are formed for good which he judges so because good is the goal of all human activity... And the preamble sets forth those goals in detail, but then sweeps the means of reaching those goals out of the reach of the people... Was there any reason representation should have been based upon the number of slaves to any degree since not they, but their owners were represented... Is there any reason slavery should have been allowed at all when right from the start there were doubts about its moral acceptiblity??? Can anyone, or any nation in moral conflict be tranquil... The anti democratic forces empowered by the constitution have only grown stronger.. As Jefferson feared, the power to run deficites has led to military adventures abroad, and as he predicted, it would be run up by the rich and loaded on the backs of working people... To pay off the debt, a sovereign Nation of Cherrokees was dispossessed and was moved to Oklahoma... It is to pay off debts that the commonwealth is always put in private hands, and no one can say there by in what fashion the goals of the Preamble of the Constitution are reached...

Government that is not directly responsible to the people will never be responsive to their needs... Congress has found it can go around the people and act outside of the constitution in making its own rules, and its rules have empowered parties which are not recognized by the constitution except as freedom of assembly, and yet the people have no power to get rid of these pest, and they provide another level of inertia to a government provided at birth with inertia to democracy... People, if they would have the good government the Preamble demands need a government which will respond to their needs and change to suit changing circumstances... Look at the wars we have gotten into, or been brought into by the rich, or been unpreppared for financially because of the demands of the rich through their parties... Defense is where the preamble has come closest to being met by the actions of government, and there its failure has been absolute... The death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Americans can be laid squarely at the failures of the constitution to deliver good government as promised, and to promise what it had already sold cheap to the rich... We cannot have government by the rich without the rich one day owning all, and making lords of themselves... The poor must govern the rich, and the rich must struggle to show they are entitled to their wealth or it must be returned to the commonwealth...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 07:40 am
@hamilton,
hamilton wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and I would not suggest any amendment--amend means to change, not to contradict.

are you saying that your perfectly satisfied with how the government is doing?
Don't pay any attention to that idiot... If bad manors were brains he would be the smartest ass in the world...

Let me suggest that he knows more than me, but thinks less about what he knows... He is missing insight which is an essential quality to philosophers, but then, there is a reason blind people like the dark... They are at home there and others are not... Feel at home... The internet is ours, for now.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 08:02 am
@Fido,
So when you made up that horseshit about contradictions in the constitution, was that an example of "insight" on your part? Is that what you mean by "inspired" thinking?

The word you wanted was manners--manors are estates, or the houses on those estates. You've got a gall to criticize what anyone else writes, or especially to criticize anyone else's manners.

You great, raving hypocrite.
hamilton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 08:48 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

So when you made up that horseshit about contradictions in the constitution, was that an example of "insight" on your part? Is that what you mean by "inspired" thinking?

The word you wanted was manners--manors are estates, or the houses on those estates. You've got a gall to criticize what anyone else writes, or especially to criticize anyone else's manners.

You great, raving hypocrite.
when you criticize his spelling and not his points, it doesnt make you right. also, everyone is a hypocrite. you are a hypocrite. in fact, when you wrote that he has gall to criticize another persons opinion, you said yourself on numerous occasions that no one can expect not to be challenged. honestly, i know you more a hypocrite than he. your nothing but a somewhat intelligent schoolyard bully who does not know manners.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 08:55 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

So when you made up that horseshit about contradictions in the constitution, was that an example of "insight" on your part? Is that what you mean by "inspired" thinking?

The word you wanted was manners--manors are estates, or the houses on those estates. You've got a gall to criticize what anyone else writes, or especially to criticize anyone else's manners.

You great, raving hypocrite.
If you asked your daddy to borrow the car to go to the store, and once you had told him that sent him a text that you were half way to Texas, would that not be a contradiction taken as a whole??? The object was to promise something but deliver something other... The Senate was always undemocratic, and has become ever less so, and it gives people in states like Montana and Alaska great power relative to their populations, but they are no where in proportion to the populations they represent...

In giving life tenure to the Supreme Court did they do anything to reach the goals they set forth in the preamble of the constitution??? There they stated their purpose, but no reasonable person then or now would suggest that giving anyone royal powers in every sense but title, and heraldry would gain for this people the goals there stated... We pledge our allegience to one nation, the republic of the United States, with liberty and justice for all... Well that is how it should be: Justice for all, for liberty is the result of justice for all... Where is justice ever the result of inequality??? Where does justice result from equal cause being given unequal weeght??? Yet, from the start, injustice was empowered through slavery, and through the institution of the Senate, and the Supreme Court... Now; if those people of that age did not have the courage or the ability to deal with the contradictions present in our society, between our goals and our means, but instead, as the wealthy, and the slave owning class only empowered themselves and left for future generations the bloody work of resolving those contradictions then, they failed us, and their constitution failed us, and it fails us yet today... Lincoln who was far more intelligent than you will ever be saw it as a representative, that we are a house divided, and that for the moment we had buried our differences and united until our strength be such that we could defend ourselves while fighting ourselves... That, at least is my assessment, that while we were weak we were also self possessed, but were always of divided loyalties, some which were still to king and nobility, and we had before us an element that feared and hated democracy... The problem is, that justice for all will never be reached without equality, and no democracy is possible without equality, so the inequality enshrined in the constitution forever contradicted the goals for which it was written... We still cannot fix it short of war, and it is leading to our destruction... Consider even the war fought over property rights in slaves... After all the lives that contradiction cost us, at the end, property rights were made even stronger, and today, property rights wins nearly every contest between it, and civil rights... Property has rights most people can only dream of, and because of it, their lives are nightmares...
Fido
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 09:08 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

So when you made up that horseshit about contradictions in the constitution, was that an example of "insight" on your part? Is that what you mean by "inspired" thinking?

The word you wanted was manners--manors are estates, or the houses on those estates. You've got a gall to criticize what anyone else writes, or especially to criticize anyone else's manners.

You great, raving hypocrite.
You are an idiot if you do not recognize the similarity and connection between manors and mannors... Do you think there is not some connection between gentility and being gentle, as the French say: Nice... Or Gentile associations or government, to go back even further??? Do you pronounce the b in doubt, or debt like some slave because it is spelled in that fashion??? I use my language to communicate, but it does not work with anyone unwilling to meet me half way... Like I said with you: Everything out, and nothing in... The written word follows speech which is a far older form, and it is that purpose that is served by writing, to convey the spoken word over time and distance... But educated pricks like yourself, who demand that perfection of speech they are incapable of in thought, are the worst sort of dumasses to deal with... As was said of the Bourbons: That they forgot nothing, and learned nothing could be easily said of you... My spelling is not so bad that you cannot tell what I am saying... You want to be an ass where the opportunity presents itself.. Consider that with my spelling aside, that I may know more, having read more about your language than you have, and I understand its evolution as you do not, and its changes in spelling, and meaning... If you spell bus, it is a shortening and so a mis spelling of the word Omnibus, but does that mean you will walk if there is a bus available??? Quit being an ass...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 09:09 am
@Fido,
Leaving aside that the constitution does not guarantee a democratic form of government--you still fail to identify any internal contradiction. The rest of that drivel is just babbling nonsense. If you actually could point out genuine contradiction in the text, you'd need only post the relevant passages. But you don't, because you can't.

I see that you spread more bullshit when you've got less sense in the nonsense you're trying to peddle.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 09:12 am
@hamilton,
I've already told him again and again that there is no internal contradiction in the constitution, and invited him to show what it is. I don't really care who you think is right, because you have already clearly demonstrated that your resentments, the chip on shoulder, counts for more than the realityof the situation. If he had a real contradiction to point to, he'd have posted the text by now. He hasn't, and that's because he can't.

I didn't say he has a gall to criticize other people's opinions--that's a straw man fallacy, which is about as good as it ever gets with you. I don't mind being challenged--and so far, you and your asshole buddy there haven't been able to come up to the mark.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 11:13 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
You've got a gall to criticize what anyone else writes, or especially to criticize anyone else's manners.

You great, raving hypocrite.


Holy jumpin' sheepshit, Set. You must practice this in front of a mirror railing at the guy who really is the "great raving hypocrite".

This goes way beyond cojones. It's unbelievable how blind you are to your hypocrisy.

Somebody, quote this for Setanta. He really needs a healthy dose of reality.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 12:04 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Leaving aside that the constitution does not guarantee a democratic form of government--you still fail to identify any internal contradiction. The rest of that drivel is just babbling nonsense. If you actually could point out genuine contradiction in the text, you'd need only post the relevant passages. But you don't, because you can't.

I see that you spread more bullshit when you've got less sense in the nonsense you're trying to peddle.
You are correct, that the constitution does not guarantee democratic government.... Which is the damned point after all, that it promises all that it does in the Preamble, which is part of the constitution, and yet denies the possiblity of reaching that goal... If liberty is a goal, how is that possible with only part of the population free to govern or self govern, as democracy would be... How is justice possible without equality, which is another goal not specifically stated, but one essential to democracy??? The general welfare, and tranquility are stated as goals, but only the specific welfare of a certain class is provided for, and this make every state but tranquility likely... Perfect union is set forth as a goal, but right from the start sectional interests we placated, and the inequality of people before government, and so, law was made certain, and so no path toward unity was sought, or provided... The Civil War was made certain... Our national defense has always been put at the service of a certain privilaged class, first by the national debt which could be managed for the benefit of the rich, then by denial of the right of taxation that congress clearly has and will not use, but mostly by the leadership of the business and commercial class which in their interest have brought our society into war while leaving the military always unprepared for war... The class of generals and officers put forward by the Senatorial class have been the biggest bunch of losers imaginable... It is the citizen soldiers who have for the most part saved this country and suffered its failures...

The goals of our Constitution are fair, and current to the best ideas of that time or any other... In the formation of the constitution, in its practical action and intent, it was made to serve and protect the powerful of that time, and of every time since... If Slavery had not become for so many so obnoxious as a moral issue it would still exist since no one before or since has had the power to change those property rights by amendment.... Then it was left to the South to drive the first nail in its coffin by its own belligerence...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 12:57 pm
@Fido,
You haven't produced any evidence of a contradiction. And the preamble, which reads, in it's entirety:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

. . . is as easily found as the rest of the document. I guess you just can't be bothered to actually read the document and make comments based on how the text in fact reads.

In fact, this is all bullshit on a par with what you habitually make up around here. Ludicrous and specious allegations based on your personal feeling that the government has not historically lived up to the promise of the preamble don't constitute evidence of any contradiction.

It's because you wander off into fields pungent with manure sprung from what you call "inspired" writing, and what i call horseshit that i don't want you quoting me, or in any way attempting to involve me in your idiocy.

Don't quote me, don't attempt to in any way suggest that anything i've written has any relevance to the fairy tales you peddle around here. As long as you leave me alone, i'll leave you alone. In this instance, as in all others in which you have attempted to me involve in your folly, you're a liar, you're making **** up as you go along, and i want no part of it.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 05:49 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You haven't produced any evidence of a contradiction. And the preamble, which reads, in it's entirety:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

. . . is as easily found as the rest of the document. I guess you just can't be bothered to actually read the document and make comments based on how the text in fact reads.

In fact, this is all bullshit on a par with what you habitually make up around here. Ludicrous and specious allegations based on your personal feeling that the government has not historically lived up to the promise of the preamble don't constitute evidence of any contradiction.

It's because you wander off into fields pungent with manure sprung from what you call "inspired" writing, and what i call horseshit that i don't want you quoting me, or in any way attempting to involve me in your idiocy.

Don't quote me, don't attempt to in any way suggest that anything i've written has any relevance to the fairy tales you peddle around here. As long as you leave me alone, i'll leave you alone. In this instance, as in all others in which you have attempted to me involve in your folly, you're a liar, you're making **** up as you go along, and i want no part of it.
By empowering the slave masters, and by its protection of property the Constitution of the United States denied justice, denied union, denied tranquility, denied the general welfare, compromised defense, and assaulted liberty for all... You would have to be the stupidest person on the planet to not see what Lincoln saw long before the civil war that this nation in order to give t he appearance of unity glossed over a multitude of contradictions that in the end were not resolved even by civil war, but only changed in form and again left to fester... We are still a house divided and you are too stupid to be believed...

What was aimed at was clearly spelled out, and wht was effected was anything but what was aimed at... Did it work??? Ask all the poor negroes who died in slavery, all those whites of every kind who died in defense of slavery, and all who died to maintain union... Ask all of those who died or were maimed in defense of property and capitalism when the defense of capital and capitalism and property is no part of the aim of the Constitution...Ask the many who died because of wars started for capital with a defense robbed of its vitality to protect the rich from taxation... Would what those people have died for ever have reached the level of Good Government??? They cannot answer, but their deaths are the answer... No good government trades the lives of its citizen, nor their happiness for the profits of a few shameless capitalist... If the Constitution is not contradiction, it is bald faced lie... What a re re you are... You have a serious case of stupidity going for you??? How is it working???
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 06:08 pm
@Setanta,
What does a contradiction mean to you... Diction must play some part in it and actions do speak for themselves... If I said I was driving to the store and then shot out the tires of my car, I could not have been telling the truth... What my words said could not ever be reconciled with my actions, and so there would be a contradiction... The constitution in its points and articles is words, and the preamble is words... Those two psrts can never be reconciled... The good aims of government in the preamble are good enough, and within reach and reason... They have never been touched except by accident because they were never the true goal... The unstated goal, and the one that was reached was a government too weak to do much good, and too weak to do much evil...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2011 12:49 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Leaving aside that the constitution does not guarantee a democratic form of government--you still fail to identify
any internal contradiction. The rest of that drivel is just babbling nonsense.
Yes.
From the history of his posts,
it appears that he is probably not capable of better than that.
In his delusions, he is probably a deft, insightful writer.
Not everyone in this forum is in good mental health.

I don 't hold out much hope.





David
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 04:18:06