• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Son of Liberty

Re: Son of A Bitch!

Joe Steel said:
That's just nonsense. Everything he has done has been consistent with the Founders intentions. For instance, PPACA provides for the general welfare just as the Constitution requires.
Click to expand...



The meaning of that phrase was not intended to mean what you are trying to assert that means.
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

Joe Steel said:
That's just nonsense. Everything he has done has been consistent with the Founders intentions. For instance, PPACA provides for the general welfare just as the Constitution requires.
Click to expand...

Holy crap dude. You need to use the sarcasm function when you post things like this.
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

Joe Steel said:
Only the words of the Constitution were ratified. Their meaning is for each citizen to determine for himself.
Click to expand...



Words have meanings.

At the time the phrase "general welfare" was used in the Constitution, it had a particular meaning.

The people who wrote the Constitution intended the meaning that they meant.

You can disagree about the wisdom of the founders, but to say they said what the did not say is simply dishonest and a swindle.
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

code1211 said:
Words have meanings.

At the time the phrase "general welfare" was used in the Constitution, it had a particular meaning.

The people who wrote the Constitution intended the meaning that they meant.

You can disagree about the wisdom of the founders, but to say they said what the did not say is simply dishonest and a swindle.
Click to expand...

That's the wrong-wing “living Constitution” argument that Mr. Steal is trying to make—that the Constitution means what he wants it to mean, even when that meaning directly contradicts what it actually says, or what its authors made clear that they meant. That's the premise that has allowed our government to go so far astray.
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

code1211 said:
Words have meanings.

At the time the phrase "general welfare" was used in the Constitution, it had a particular meaning.

The people who wrote the Constitution intended the meaning that they meant.

You can disagree about the wisdom of the founders, but to say they said what the did not say is simply dishonest and a swindle.
Click to expand...

None of the "intended the meaning that they meant" was ratified. Only the text was ratified. In the absence of ratified definitions, we're left to speculate on the meaning of the phrase.
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

Joe Steel said:
None of the "intended the meaning that they meant" was ratified. Only the text was ratified. In the absence of ratified definitions, we're left to speculate on the meaning of the phrase.
Click to expand...



You are speaking out of ignorance.

The "Federalist Papers" explains exactly what the Founders meant with every word of the Constitution. Every idea is presented and defended. The Constitution is a legal framework upon which to build a country to allow individuals to thrive in freedom from the domination of an overpowering central authority.

That you either haven't read it or do not understand it does not mean that it doesn't exist. You really need to read the book.

Again, you can disagree with what they said, but to portray your ideas as theirs when you are in disagreement with the absolute, basic assertions they made, is dishonest and a swindle.
 
Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman!

code1211 said:
You are speaking out of ignorance.

The "Federalist Papers" explains exactly what the Founders meant with every word of the Constitution. Every idea is presented and defended. The Constitution is a legal framework upon which to build a country to allow individuals to thrive in freedom from the domination of an overpowering central authority.

That you either haven't read it or do not understand it does not mean that it doesn't exist. You really need to read the book.

Again, you can disagree with what they said, but to portray your ideas as theirs when you are in disagreement with the absolute, basic assertions they made, is dishonest and a swindle.
Click to expand...

In other words, normal, standard liberalism.
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

code1211 said:
You are speaking out of ignorance.

The "Federalist Papers" explains exactly what the Founders meant with every word of the Constitution. Every idea is presented and defended. The Constitution is a legal framework upon which to build a country to allow individuals to thrive in freedom from the domination of an overpowering central authority.

That you either haven't read it or do not understand it does not mean that it doesn't exist. You really need to read the book.

Again, you can disagree with what they said, but to portray your ideas as theirs when you are in disagreement with the absolute, basic assertions they made, is dishonest and a swindle.
Click to expand...

The Federalist is a sales brochure. It was written to convince the People of New York to ratify the Constitution. It's no more reliable than any sales brochure.
 
Joe Steel said:
I never said anything about being topped. I'm saying no one can say Barack Obama isn't a real American.
Click to expand...

yes you did...

When it comes to being a real American and a true patriot, you just can't beat Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

by the very metric you introduced here, Obama was "beat"....25 to 11



I have no ancestors from the revolutionary war.... and that has no bearing on my patriotism or Americanism.

I'd say Obama is a "real American"( whatever the **** that's supposed to mean) , but i'd also say that having patriotic ancestors means exactly dick.
 
Son of a Bitch!

Thrilla said:
I'd say Obama is a "real American"( whatever the **** that's supposed to mean) , but i'd also say that having patriotic ancestors means exactly dick.
Click to expand...

I've so far seen nothing to refute my earlier impression that the entire point of this thread is to excuse President Obama's disastrous Presidency by trying to claim credit for him because of what his ancestors have done, rather than judging him by his own actions.
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

Joe Steel said:
The Federalist is a sales brochure. It was written to convince the People of New York to ratify the Constitution. It's no more reliable than any sales brochure.
Click to expand...



Of course. It also explains what they meant when they wrote the Constitution.
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

code1211 said:
Of course. It also explains what they meant when they wrote the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No. The Federalist is no more than what Jay, Hamilton and Madison thought the People of New York wanted to hear. It's like today's political ads - focused on an election not what happens after an election.
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

Joe Steel said:
No. The Federalist is no more than what Jay, Hamilton and Madison thought the People of New York wanted to hear. It's like today's political ads - focused on an election not what happens after an election.
Click to expand...



Caesar wrote a book on the Conquest of Gaul.

This was also a political document, but served as both a historical record and a military handbook.

It's still studied today by military students. Dismissing anything using a particularly narrow redefinition does not diminish the greatness of the work.

It may reveal the nature of the one being dismissive.

Are you seriously trying to assert the the Federalist Papers were a device to swindle the voters of New york and had no other, more noble, purpose?
 
Re: Son of A Bitch!

code1211 said:
... Are you seriously trying to assert the the Federalist Papers were a device to swindle the voters of New york and had no other, more noble, purpose?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Although "swindle" seems a bit harsh. Perhaps "puff" would be better.

Puffing is generally an expression or exaggeration made by a salesperson or found in an advertisement that concerns the quality of goods offered for sale. It presents opinions rather than facts and is usually not considered a legally binding promise. Such statements as "this car is in good shape" and "your wife will love this watch" constitute puffing.

Puffing legal definition of Puffing
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom