The NEW Constitution

[LHardy]

Whatever cracker. Keep telling yourself the Declaration of Independence is a legal document.

It actually was an Illegal document, while under the rule of England.
Here take this back to your history teacher. If you had one?
Argue till your blue in the face. Your wrong.

Just for sake of time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence

The United States Declaration of Independence was an act of the Second Continental Congress, adopted on July 4, 1776, which declared that the Thirteen Colonies in North America were "Free and Independent States" and that "all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." The document, formally entitled The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,^[1] explained the justifications for separation from the British crown, and was an expansion of Richard Henry Lee's Resolution (passed by Congress on July 2), which first proclaimed independence. An engrossed copy of the Declaration was signed by most of the delegates on August 2 and is now on display in the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.
The Declaration is considered to be the founding document of the United States of America, where July 4 is celebrated as Independence Day and the nation's birthday. At the time the Declaration was issued, the American colonies were "united" in declaring their independence from Great Britain. John Hancock, as the elected President of Congress, was the only person to sign the Declaration of Independence on July 4th. It was not until the following month on August 2nd that the remaining 55 other delegates began to sign the document.^[2]
US President Abraham Lincoln succinctly explained the central importance of the Declaration to American history in his Gettysburg Address of 1863:

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

No where in the bible does it call all poor people "perpetually lazy" either. If you are comfortable with painting all the poor "perpetually lazy" than I assume you're comfortable with me calling you an ignorant racist, right? I mean, while we're throwing around vague generalities. . .

How is attacking "perpetually lazy" being racist? I have not read any comment that points out a specific race but rather a type of person.

In fact, only Run and you have gone as far as to paint the people mentioned as non-white by the racist remarks.

Why is it when people discuss the bottom feeders, people on both sides of the argument both assume and accept that the people are minorities? We all know that bottom feeders come in all colors.

This conversation could have been and should have been about the mindset of people and NOT the color of their skin. However, that would lead to a weak argument for the bleeding heart defenders of the "poor" so the first move is to make it about race. This sets the tone as anyone who agrees with the message in the tongue-in-cheek post as a racist.

Rather nice play I must say. Pathetic but effective.

[raoul duke]

How is attacking "perpetually lazy" being racist? I have not read any comment that points out a specific race but rather a type of person.

How is grouping the entirety of the poor as "perpetually lazy" even accurate? I used "racist" as an example to make a point. If we're working on the assumption that all or most of the poor is "perpetually lazy" I see no intellectual stretch in calling all the people who complain about it "racist." The minute we want to try an address the reasons for ever-growing population living in poverty in a fair and open dialogue, I'll retract my blanket application of racism.

In fact, only Run and you have gone as far as to paint the people mentioned as non-white by the racist remarks.

Why is it when people discuss the bottom feeders, people on both sides of the argument both assume and accept that the people are minorities? We all know that bottom feeders come in all colors.

You wouldn't know it reading this message board. Unless I'm missing the threads about welfare-fraud and abuse in rural (read: more white) areas.

This conversation could have been and should have been about the mindset of people and NOT the color of their skin. However, that would lead to a weak argument for the bleeding heart defenders of the "poor" so the first move is to make it about race. This sets the tone as anyone who agrees with the message in the tongue-in-cheek post as a racist.

And if this message board didn't ascribe that mindset to every person living in poverty in urban areas (read: overwhelmingly minority.) As for making it about race, it is in some respects. Minorities are hugely overrepresented when it comes to people living in poverty. What do you think plays a role in that? Are you saying minorities are less competent or intelligent? Or not smart enough to pull themselves out of poverty? (I know you are not, but that's the undercurrent a lot of these stupid screeds have.)

Rather nice play I must say. Pathetic but effective.

Much like the "NEW Constitution," eh?

[LHardy]

Knowing how you like to change the arguement mid stream when your loosing.

No it wasn't. The rest of that is so god-damned stupid and so obviously aimed at the poor and disadvantaged it could be considered latently racist, I'm not even going to bother with it. A "straw-man" is for retards who have nothing substantial or intelligent to say.

Which was in response to the "founded under one true god" comment.

Key word here is "founded."

[raoul duke]

It actually was an Illegal document, while under the rule of England.
Here take this back to your history teacher. If you had one?
Argue till your blue in the face. Your wrong.

Just for sake of time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence

The United States Declaration of Independence was an act of the Second Continental Congress, adopted on July 4, 1776, which declared that the Thirteen Colonies in North America were "Free and Independent States" and that "all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." The document, formally entitled The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,^[1] explained the justifications for separation from the British crown, and was an expansion of Richard Henry Lee's Resolution (passed by Congress on July 2), which first proclaimed independence. An engrossed copy of the Declaration was signed by most of the delegates on August 2 and is now on display in the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.
The Declaration is considered to be the founding document of the United States of America, where July 4 is celebrated as Independence Day and the nation's birthday. At the time the Declaration was issued, the American colonies were "united" in declaring their independence from Great Britain. John Hancock, as the elected President of Congress, was the only person to sign the Declaration of Independence on July 4th. It was not until the following month on August 2nd that the remaining 55 other delegates began to sign the document.^[2]
US President Abraham Lincoln succinctly explained the central importance of the Declaration to American history in his Gettysburg Address of 1863:

Hey, you found Wikipedia. Now show me where the Declaration has any effect of law? It doesn't.

[LHardy]

Hey, you found Wikipedia. Now show me where the Declaration has any effect of law? It doesn't.

Show me where I said it did.
And
Tell us all what must happen prior to establishing law.

Waiting with baited breath

[raoul duke]

Knowing how you like to change the arguement mid stream when your loosing.



Which was in response to the "founded under one true god" comment.

Key word here is "founded."

Which is why "one true god" is mentioned zero times in the Constitution, right?

[LHardy]

Which is why "one true god" is mentioned zero times in the Constitution, right?

You loose.

Come play again when you can establish a train of thought that does not deviate from the targeted point. The founding document.

[leftWNYbecauseofBS]

How is grouping the entirety of the poor as "perpetually lazy" even accurate? I used "racist" as an example to make a point. If we're working on the assumption that all or most of the poor is "perpetually lazy" I see no intellectual stretch in calling all the people who complain about it "racist." The minute we want to try an address the reasons for ever-growing population living in poverty in a fair and open dialogue, I'll retract my blanket application of racism.

I just went back and you introduced the phrase "perpetually lazy" and only you and I even typed it. So run brought in the racist and you brought in the perpetually lazy.... Maybe it is me but I just do not see it.


You wouldn't know it reading this message board. Unless I'm missing the threads about welfare-fraud and abuse in rural (read: more white) areas.

I would love to have that conversation but the moment you attack anything that is remotely close to being used mostly by minorities, you are called a racist. Like I said it is the counter attack of choice.
Countless threads about what is wrong with the system have been crushed by those people who call anyone who questions the system a NeoCon or a racist.


And if this message board didn't ascribe that mindset to every person living in poverty in urban areas (read: overwhelmingly minority.) As for making it about race, it is in some respects. Minorities are hugely overrepresented when it comes to people living in poverty. What do you think plays a role in that? Are you saying minorities are less competent or intelligent? Or not smart enough to pull themselves out of poverty? (I know you are not, but that's the undercurrent a lot of these stupid screeds have.)

This is a great question and should be it's own thread. In short I think a system has been created that makes it too easy to not try. Would love to discuss the long version.


Much like the "NEW Constitution," eh?

Come on. This is a MB. Anything is posted to get the conversation going. Just like the random conversations I know people like you and I would have drinking beers at a bar. Here is a selection of what is being talked about today. Rather random...don't you think?

Another computer question

The NEW Constitution

Traffic Cameras

Onions

Unproven sex allegations fire girls coach at McKinley

Brain Higgins is JOKE !

[raoul duke]

You loose.

Come play again when you can establish a train of thought that does not deviate from the targeted point. The founding document.

Wait, so the thread was supposed to be called "the NEW Declaration of Indepence"?

The targeted point was that in the "NEW constitution" this:

ARTICLE XI : You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

Is patently false. Go read the Federalist Papers. The country was not "founded on the belief in one true god." It was founded on the belief that white land owners were getting the "high-hard one" from the King George. That they went to church or mentioned God in the passionate and beautifully worded Declaration of Independence is irrelevant to what the law of this country was based or founded on. Some of the ideas expressed in the the Declaration of Independence made it into the Constitution ("God" not being one of them.) Still, it has no force or effect over anyone. The Constitution (a decidedly secular document) however, does. That's my point.

[keyboard150]

The Declaration of Independence can be compared to the South's ceding from the union.

The South declared itself free from Union rule....which was illegal. We did the same thing to England.

The Declaration wasn't really necessary...the Constitution established what we needed anyway.

It's was just cool to have a "rub it in your face" document.

[HipKat]

Your sophistry is amazing but not surprising.
Nice try at whisking away the need for the declaration.
What good is the constitution if your still tied to England? Answer - No good at all. You can't have a President when your still the bitch of the King.
The first step is the declaration and that is the foundation. You can say "No it's not!" all you want. Your dead wrong.

Actually, I agree with you.
We needed to declare our intentions, then outline them, in the Constitution.
Without the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, I suppose, would have basically been both.

[run4it]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...f_Independence

The United States Declaration of Independence was an act of the Second Continental Congress, adopted on July 4, 1776, which declared that the Thirteen Colonies in North America were "Free and Independent States" and that "all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved." The document, formally entitled The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,^[1] explained the justifications for separation from the British crown, and was an expansion of Richard Henry Lee's Resolution (passed by Congress on July 2), which first proclaimed independence. An engrossed copy of the Declaration was signed by most of the delegates on August 2 and is now on display in the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.
The Declaration is considered to be the founding document of the United States of America, where July 4 is celebrated as Independence Day and the nation's birthday. At the time the Declaration was issued, the American colonies were "united" in declaring their independence from Great Britain. John Hancock, as the elected President of Congress, was the only person to sign the Declaration of Independence on July 4th. It was not until the following month on August 2nd that the remaining 55 other delegates began to sign the document.^[2]
US President Abraham Lincoln succinctly explained the central importance of the Declaration to American history in his Gettysburg Address of 1863:

Ermmm...wouldn't the fact that we had gone through not one, but TWO Continental Congresses have already established the fact that we felt ourselves to be autonomous? You don't hold your own Congress when you're beholden to a higher authority. The Declaration is a post-facto justification (in case the rest of the world, whose recognition we desperately wanted and needed, wanted it).

Again, Raoul is correct, that the Declaration has no legal standing. Take a look at the clauses. The "standing armies" one, in particular, would render our military positively illegal except for times when War has been declared by Congress.

By the way, when did I mention anything about race?

[kma516]

Whatever cracker. Keep telling yourself the Declaration of Independence is a legal document.

Charming!!

Pot, meet kettle ...

[LHardy]

The Mayflower Compact, 1620
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620."

The Virginia Declaration of Rights
Adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.
Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other