Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Philosophy For discussion about general and fundamental problems connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language


Thanks Tree26Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 2nd, 2017, 07:33 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
You want a debate. This is a discussion. I'm not here to debate people on what version of constitutionalism you think I belong to or should be categorized in.

To make it simple for you, Democrats believe in socialized medicine and I don't. Democrats believe in gun control. I don't. The Democrats believe the more people they bring into the United States, the more liberal voters it means for them. I don't agree with wholesale citizenship.

The Republicans have had their share of things that made me ask who represents the people that favor Liberty. The income tax, pushed by the Republicans was a plank from the Communist Manifesto. The main stream news media says that the Republican Establishment is on the side of globalists... and I've rejected that my entire life. It was also the Republicans that gave us the 14th Amendment that stripped the Rights from Americans and reduced unalienable Rights to bastardized government granted rights.

I think the most embarrassing thing for the Republican Party was that they expected us to believe they could come up with the so - called "Patriot Act" and have that bill ready to be signed in just over six weeks, but they could not come up with an alternative to Obamacare in six YEARS.

And so, I'm asking the question, who represents the constitutionalists? The above Parties don't represent any faction of constitutionalism as best that I can determine.
What is a Constitutionalist? For that matter, define Liberty.

What rights were stripped away in the 14th Amendment?

If both Democrats and Republicans propose laws and they are signed by the President, are they not laws until or if they are challenged to be Constitutional?

Are you then claiming to be a Constitutionalist? What makes you believe you are a Constitutionalist? What makes you believe Democrats and Republicans are not Constitutionalists? It all boils down to interpretation.

Last edited by TreeDoc; October 2nd, 2017 at 08:29 PM.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 04:43 AM   #12
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
What is a Constitutionalist? For that matter, define Liberty.

What rights were stripped away in the 14th Amendment?

If both Democrats and Republicans propose laws and they are signed by the President, are they not laws until or if they are challenged to be Constitutional?

Are you then claiming to be a Constitutionalist? What makes you believe you are a Constitutionalist? What makes you believe Democrats and Republicans are not Constitutionalists? It all boils down to interpretation.
How come, after me telling you this is not a debate and that I'm asking the questions, you are still trying to draw me into a debate? I'm going to be nice and answer your questions - but, you didn't answer mine. So, unless you can do that, this will be your last response. You and I are not going to have a debate. You don't have the temperament for it and the last time you and I went at it, it ended the thread. Remember?

FWIW:

1) Liberty: freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity, or any other form of arbitrary control
2) the sum of rights and exemptions possessed in common by the people of a community, state, etc.
3) a particular right, franchise, or exemption from compulsion
4) a too free, too familiar, or impertinent action or attitude
5) the limits within which a certain amount of freedom may be exercised: to have the liberty of the third floor
6) permission given to a sailor to go ashore; specif., in the U.S. Navy, permission given to an enlisted person to be absent from duty for a period ordinarily of 48 hours or less
the period of time given
PHILOS.
7) freedom to choose; freedom from compulsion or constraint


Liberty dictionary definition | liberty defined

In my own view, the limits to your rights is simple: Your Rights end where my nose begins.

Your second point - Involves the 14th Amendment. Already told you. You just won't bother to read what I've written. So, that is not a legitimate question, but the 14th Amendment circumvented ALL unalienable Rights; it replaced our Rights with benefits and privileges; it created a phony equality and made citizens out of people the very Constitution did not intend to make citizens. Today, insofar as the United States Supreme Court is concerned, you have NO rights save of those granted by government.


You asked: "If both Democrats and Republicans propose laws and they are signed by the President, are they not laws until or if they are challenged to be Constitutional?"

RESPONSE: NOT according to the United States Supreme Court themselves.

While everything boils down to interpretation, it does not take interpretation for the Democrats to ignore the Constitution and all your Rights and propose that we can change it by a simple majority.

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796
discollector is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 06:45 AM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
"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..."

From the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States

At one level, the critics have a minor point. It's all about interpretation. But, the founding fathers did not intend for the Constitution to apply to every group of individuals. It was written for a specific people. Today, when we think we can lump every race, color, creed, religion, non-religion, economic viewpoint, social viewpoint, sexual orientation and political affiliation into one huge pot and come out with anything that unites people then we are suffering from delusions of grandeur.
discollector is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 06:51 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
How come, after me telling you this is not a debate and that I'm asking the questions, you are still trying to draw me into a debate? I'm going to be nice and answer your questions - but, you didn't answer mine. So, unless you can do that, this will be your last response. You and I are not going to have a debate. You don't have the temperament for it and the last time you and I went at it, it ended the thread. Remember?

FWIW:

1) Liberty: freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity, or any other form of arbitrary control
2) the sum of rights and exemptions possessed in common by the people of a community, state, etc.
3) a particular right, franchise, or exemption from compulsion
4) a too free, too familiar, or impertinent action or attitude
5) the limits within which a certain amount of freedom may be exercised: to have the liberty of the third floor
6) permission given to a sailor to go ashore; specif., in the U.S. Navy, permission given to an enlisted person to be absent from duty for a period ordinarily of 48 hours or less
the period of time given
PHILOS.
7) freedom to choose; freedom from compulsion or constraint


Liberty dictionary definition | liberty defined

In my own view, the limits to your rights is simple: Your Rights end where my nose begins.

Your second point - Involves the 14th Amendment. Already told you. You just won't bother to read what I've written. So, that is not a legitimate question, but the 14th Amendment circumvented ALL unalienable Rights; it replaced our Rights with benefits and privileges; it created a phony equality and made citizens out of people the very Constitution did not intend to make citizens. Today, insofar as the United States Supreme Court is concerned, you have NO rights save of those granted by government.


You asked: "If both Democrats and Republicans propose laws and they are signed by the President, are they not laws until or if they are challenged to be Constitutional?"

RESPONSE: NOT according to the United States Supreme Court themselves.

While everything boils down to interpretation, it does not take interpretation for the Democrats to ignore the Constitution and all your Rights and propose that we can change it by a simple majority.

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796
How can your question be answered if you don't first define what a Constitutionalist is? You claiming to be a Constitutionalist doesn't make others not Constitutionalists.

How did the 14th circumvent the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How did the 14th create a phony equality? How did it make citizens out of people not intended by the Constitution? Since the 14th does none of that, and the Constitution never made anybody a citizen to begin with, what makes you believe you are a Constitutionalist?

What makes you believe that the Supreme Court says a law passed isn't lawful until it is decided if it is Constitutional?

The Constitution can be amended by a majority of votes (Article V) as your quote says, so how is the Constitution being usurped?
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 06:53 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
"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..."

From the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States

At one level, the critics have a minor point. It's all about interpretation. But, the founding fathers did not intend for the Constitution to apply to every group of individuals. It was written for a specific people. Today, when we think we can lump every race, color, creed, religion, non-religion, economic viewpoint, social viewpoint, sexual orientation and political affiliation into one huge pot and come out with anything that unites people then we are suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Nobody has criticized anything you have stated. The whole point of a discussion is getting your viewpoint and understanding from where you are coming from.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 08:38 AM   #16
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
While channel hopping on Sunday morning one of the political news programs (could have been Meet the Press) had some news guru saying that the Republican Party has come down to Nationalists with Donald Trump and Globalists within the Establishment Republicans.

My take is a bit different. Since Fox News is owned primarily by Rupert Murdoch and a Saudi Prince. There is no way they are going to allow nationalists to build an effective defense against globalism. They will let it appear that the nationalists have a voice when, in fact, the positions Fox promotes ultimately leads to globalism.

Then you have Donald Trump who is cozy with Rupert Murdoch. Then the ultimate nationalists, the alt right are represented by Richard Spencer, an atheist. The Democrats represent socialism and communism. Establishment Republicans represent globalism. The "nationalists" represent atheists, National Socialists, and the ultimate POLICE STATE. Who represents constitutionalists? Who is representing Liberty?
We were being pushed so far from the OP, I repeated it.
discollector is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 09:10 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,803
When ya find yourself arguing in circles, the discussion is over ... or should be.
Thanks from discollector
imaginethat is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 02:11 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
While channel hopping on Sunday morning one of the political news programs (could have been Meet the Press) had some news guru saying that the Republican Party has come down to Nationalists with Donald Trump and Globalists within the Establishment Republicans.

My take is a bit different. Since Fox News is owned primarily by Rupert Murdoch and a Saudi Prince. There is no way they are going to allow nationalists to build an effective defense against globalism. They will let it appear that the nationalists have a voice when, in fact, the positions Fox promotes ultimately leads to globalism.

Then you have Donald Trump who is cozy with Rupert Murdoch. Then the ultimate nationalists, the alt right are represented by Richard Spencer, an atheist. The Democrats represent socialism and communism. Establishment Republicans represent globalism. The "nationalists" represent atheists, National Socialists, and the ultimate POLICE STATE. Who represents constitutionalists? Who is representing Liberty?
The constitution has been gamed, it doesn't work anymore, it's being used to strip the middle class of it's wealth and power.

Globalism is the only hope, imagine there's no country, nothing to fight and die for. Imagine all people, sharing the world as one.
goober is offline  
Old October 3rd, 2017, 06:10 PM   #19
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Georgia
Posts: 808
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
The constitution has been gamed, it doesn't work anymore, it's being used to strip the middle class of it's wealth and power.

Globalism is the only hope, imagine there's no country, nothing to fight and die for. Imagine all people, sharing the world as one.
No thanks. I've worked hard for what I've earned.
discollector is offline  
Old October 4th, 2017, 03:59 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
iolo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rhondda
Posts: 1,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by discollector View Post
No thanks. I've worked hard for what I've earned.
A great many people work hard, but capitalism steals all their money. I'm for a democratic world government, under which any minor group that wants it gets a reasonable degree of self-government.
Thanks from right to left
iolo is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Philosophy and Religion > Philosophy

Tags
globalist, nationalist



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Biggest nationalist specie in the US McCoy Opinion Polls 13 November 10th, 2017 11:19 AM
Nationalist president McCoy Conspiracy Theories 4 July 20th, 2017 08:55 AM
Globalist Soros Exposed Funding Over 50 Organizations in Women’s March on DC Sabcat Progressivism 11 January 25th, 2017 11:28 AM
Syrian Chemical Weapons: Globalist Mag Says Kucinich is Infowars Conspiracy Theorist imaginethat Current Events 36 May 2nd, 2013 07:04 AM
Paris - Old School Black Nationalist Rap leighredf Education 1 September 15th, 2009 10:20 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.