Company puts disclaimer on Constitution

#26
#26
volfanjustin said:
I hope you are joking. This company has now ticked off the right, liberals hate America and hate the Constitution so how does this help them? Libs don't think these documents are relevant, so libs are not buying it anyway, conservatives now don't like this company and are not going to buy from them.
Click to expand...


See, that's the problem. If someone does not agree with your intepretation of a 230 year old document, you paint them as disagreeing with the document itself, which is not a fair characterization.

This is why the dialogue is so harsh. People like you bludgeon and label other points of view as "UnAmerican" or the like rather than discuss the merits of the differing views.




BigPapaVol said:
It might not, but it's certainly not what you painted either and conservatives aren't anything close to the sheepish idiots you claimed. One off morons don't prove anything one way or another.
Click to expand...


I can live with that. This fellow no more represents the views of, say, the Democratic party, than Orly Taitz represents the views of the GOP, evne though each may concur in some parts of those respective parties' platforms.




Orly Taitz, First Class Nutjob





KB5252 said:
It's pretty obvious the guy did it as a political statement, and you're correct, it is his right to do so. It doesn't make it any less moronic or make him his thoughts on the constitution any less idiotic though.

There does seem to have been a growing amount of extreme lefties who do believe the constitution is flawed however, at least more seem to be making those thoughts known. It isn't an indictment on the left though, morons will be morons and they come in all political flavors.
Click to expand...



No, see, same problem as above. They do not think the document is flawed. But people do disagree on its meaning. Put it this way: the Supreme Court routinely debates the meaning of that document and they change their minds on various provisions every 20-50 years or so. Does that mean that the dissent in a case is Un-American? Or that the majority was when the case gets overturned and the intepretation changed?


This is the problem with the tactics of some on the right. Its the massive overstatement and labeling of alternative points of view, to shame them into submission.

Now that is quite Un-American.
 
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
See, that's the problem. If someone does not agree with your intepretation of a 230 year old document, you paint them as disagreeing with the document itself, which is not a fair characterization.

This is why the dialogue is so harsh. People like you bludgeon and label other points of view as "UnAmerican" or the like rather than discuss the merits of the differing views.







I can live with that. This fellow no more represents the views of, say, the Democratic party, than Orly Taitz represents the views of the GOP, evne though each may concur in some parts of those respective parties' platforms.




Orly Taitz, First Class Nutjob









No, see, same problem as above. They do not think the document is flawed. But people do disagree on its meaning. Put it this way: the Supreme Court routinely debates the meaning of that document and they change their minds on various provisions every 20-50 years or so. Does that mean that the dissent in a case is Un-American? Or that the majority was when the case gets overturned and the intepretation changed?


This is the problem with the tactics of some on the right. Its the massive overstatement and labeling of alternative points of view, to shame them into submission.

Now that is quite Un-American.
Click to expand...

If the disclaimer didn't specifically read, "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today".

What he is saying here is that because of the time in which the constitution was written it is flawed and does not reflect the values of today. It is rather simple to understand that sentence. If he meant anything else he would simply not have written it in that way. He means exactly what he said and no amount of spin will change that fact.
 
#29
#29
Wow. So this is a PR stunt and Fox is wrong for covering it.

Just when I think he couldn't possibly top himself, he does.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
See, that's the problem. If someone does not agree with your intepretation of a 230 year old document, you paint them as disagreeing with the document itself, which is not a fair characterization.

This is why the dialogue is so harsh. People like you bludgeon and label other points of view as "UnAmerican" or the like rather than discuss the merits of the differing views.
Click to expand...

Unbelievable.

Let's recap shall we? An article is posted pointing out the people are bothered about a disclaimer attached to historic documents.

Your first reaction is to claim this is obviously a PR stunt by the publisher to sell copies to righties so they'll have an example of liberal bias. (see bold above)

Next, when it is suggested your idea might be way off and has no support you double down and call me and others "outraged dimwits". (see bold above)

Then you have to back off your original premise because even you realize it has no merit (see bold above).

Then you lament that the tone of the debate is harsh and blame that all on people other than yourself (see bold above).

Nice work. Let's hope potential clients don't read this board and see your "logic".
 
#31
#31
lawgator1 said:
Seriously. Do you know how many companies publish this? How many copies of it are floating around from different publishers over the years?

Please. If you don't see this for what it is, you are just dimwitted.
Click to expand...

clown_chili_peppers.jpg
 
#32
#32
volinbham said:
Unbelievable.

Let's recap shall we? An article is posted pointing out the people are bothered about a disclaimer attached to historic documents.

Your first reaction is to claim this is obviously a PR stunt by the publisher to sell copies to righties so they'll have an example of liberal bias. (see bold above)

Next, when it is suggested your idea might be way off and has no support you double down and call me and others "outraged dimwits". (see bold above)

Then you have to back off your original premise because even you realize it has no merit (see bold above).

Then you lament that the tone of the debate is harsh and blame that all on people other than yourself (see bold above).

Nice work. Let's hope potential clients don't read this board and see your "logic".
Click to expand...

game. set. match.
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
Unbelievable.

Let's recap shall we? An article is posted pointing out the people are bothered about a disclaimer attached to historic documents.

Your first reaction is to claim this is obviously a PR stunt by the publisher to sell copies to righties so they'll have an example of liberal bias. (see bold above)

Next, when it is suggested your idea might be way off and has no support you double down and call me and others "outraged dimwits". (see bold above)

Then you have to back off your original premise because even you realize it has no merit (see bold above).

Then you lament that the tone of the debate is harsh and blame that all on people other than yourself (see bold above).

Nice work. Let's hope potential clients don't read this board and see your "logic".
Click to expand...

+1

Don't forget that daddy is the judge.......

:hi:
 
#34
#34
#36
#36
TruthIsOutThere said:
This has nothing to do with how the left feels about this country. This isn't even news. Who the hell cares what one dumb company prints. Don't like it, don't buy it. Free market capitalism at its best.... I can't believe this has riled some many people up.
Click to expand...

This is the document that laid the frame our country was built on, those who love this country are going to have an opinion just as this guy does. He decided to put his idiotic opinion out there for everyone to see so people are going to have a reaction to it.

Then we had a left leaning member of this community tell us how this was a publicity stunt obviously hatched to sell more copies to ignorant and unsuspecting conservatives. When that theory was shown to make very little sense then another equally lame argument was put forth and so on. The reaction you are seeing is more of a response to a particular poster than it is to some moron publisher opinions on the constitution.
 
#37
#37
KB5252 said:
This is the document that laid the frame our country was built on, those who love this country are going to have an opinion just as this guy does. He decided to put his idiotic opinion out there for everyone to see so people are going to have a reaction to it.

Then we had a left leaning member of this community tell us how this was a publicity stunt obviously hatched to sell more copies to ignorant and unsuspecting conservatives. When that theory was shown to make very little sense then another equally lame argument was put forth and so on. The reaction you are seeing is more of a response to a particular poster than it is to some moron publisher opinions on the constitution.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Nobody like the LG. I've been around long enough to see that.

I still think the issue (not the reacation or debate on this board) is just silly. Don't know why Fox even reported it. Some may find the constitution sacred, some may not. But were not Iran, we can still draw Mohammad.
 
#39
#39
TruthIsOutThere said:
Fair enough. Nobody like the LG. I've been around long enough to see that.

I still think the issue (not the reacation or debate on this board) is just silly. Don't know why Fox even reported it. Some may find the constitution sacred, some may not. But were not Iran, we can still draw Mohammad.
Click to expand...

I don't dislike LG, I just find some of his opinions on politics and other things flat out wrong. Plus I like to debate/argue.
 
#44
#44
VOLinthaATL said:
You might be the most hypocritical person on the face of the earth.
Click to expand...


Note I said "some" on the right use that tactic. Some on the left do it, too. But if you read this thread, you will see more than one or two examples of posters characterizing all "liberals" as subscribing to all of these theories.

Its a blatant effort to say that, if you have an interpretation of a clause of the document that is different from my own, or from that espoused by scholars I endorse, then you buy into all of the differences that a guy like this publisher would endorse.

And therefore, you are a witch.




KB5252 said:
What he is saying here is that because of the time in which the constitution was written it is flawed and does not reflect the values of today.
Click to expand...


He did not say that the document is flawed because its old. He said that people need to realize its limitations in terms of applying to today because of the context of its being written. I think most people agree with that at some level, though we might disagree as to how to deal with those limitations.

Then he went off and started talking about sexuality, etc., and of course that freaked everyone out because he is espousing a liberal agenda in mind when reading it.

You know, he perfectly well could have said that it did not account for international terrorism or nuclear weapons and that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments has to be read in light of the threats of today.

See, that alternative interpretation, based on a limitation of context, you would love if it such interpretation in your view broadened the authority of the executive to do things that in 1776 would have been unthinkable.

Because you would endorse an interpretation of due process that allows enhanced interrogation techniques, does that mean you think that the document is flawed?
 
#45
#45
lawgator1 said:
Note I said "some" on the right use that tactic. Some on the left do it, too. But if you read this thread, you will see more than one or two examples of posters characterizing all "liberals" as subscribing to all of these theories.

Its a blatant effort to say that, if you have an interpretation of a clause of the document that is different from my own, or from that espoused by scholars I endorse, then you buy into all of the differences that a guy like this publisher would endorse.

And therefore, you are a witch.







He did not say that the document is flawed because its old. He said that people need to realize its limitations in terms of applying to today because of the context of its being written. I think most people agree with that at some level, though we might disagree as to how to deal with those limitations.

Then he went off and started talking about sexuality, etc., and of course that freaked everyone out because he is espousing a liberal agenda in mind when reading it.

You know, he perfectly well could have said that it did not account for international terrorism or nuclear weapons and that the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments has to be read in light of the threats of today.

See, that alternative interpretation, based on a limitation of context, you would love if it such interpretation in your view broadened the authority of the executive to do things that in 1776 would have been unthinkable.

Because you would endorse an interpretation of due process that allows enhanced interrogation techniques, does that mean you think that the document is flawed?
Click to expand...

I'm paraphrasing but what he said basically was that it would be written differently today to reflect current values. I'm not even worried about the second sentence here because I do believe that a parent has the right and obligation to try and educate and encourage independent thought in their kids.

I still stand by my interpretation of this guys agenda based on his statement. It plainly reads the document is antiquated and has flaws because some people feel differently today, at least that's how I see it.
 
#48
#48
KB5252 said:
I'm paraphrasing but what he said basically was that it would be written differently today to reflect current values. I'm not even worried about the second sentence here because I do believe that a parent has the right and obligation to try and educate and encourage independent thought in their kids.

I still stand by my interpretation of this guys agenda based on his statement. It plainly reads the document is antiquated and has flaws because some people feel differently today, at least that's how I see it.
Click to expand...


Depends on the definition of "flawed." If you mean that it has inherent in it certain phraseology or pattern of thought that is susceptible to sincerely debatable meanings, that's one thing.

If you mean in error, wrong, that's something else.

I read his statements as being that he subscribes to the former, albeit with some extreme views about what modern day considerations should moderate the interpretations and overly harsh and even startling rhetoric about the limitations of literal interpretations.

I definitely think that those documents are best viewed as fundamental rule setting, but in need of reasonable application that sublty changes over time to meet the realities of the day.

I do not agree with him that people ought to be explaining that to 5th graders if for no other reason than that they really would not understand that. I definitely do not agree that you should feel obliged to tell a 5th grader that sexuality or feminism concerns limit the document's continued viability.
 
#49
#49
LG, they dont put a disclaimer in those porn mags you "read" saying that

"This publication in no way reflects the moral views of all Americans. You may need to consult an eye doctor after several uses of "articles" located inside. This publication is by no means reflective of self-respecting women and should not be displayed in areas known to be occupied by persons of poor medical health. This publication can cause depression, especially in males not physically attractive enough to bag hot chicks(aka the LG clause)."

So why do they need one on the Constitution?
 
#50
#50
TruthIsOutThere said:
This has nothing to do with how the left feels about this country. This isn't even news. Who the hell cares what one dumb company prints. Don't like it, don't buy it. Free market capitalism at its best.... I can't believe this has riled some many people up.
Click to expand...

This is an example how the left feels about our founding documents and our country. Believe me I would not buy anything from this publisher. It's news because we have said for some time now that the left believes the Constitution is not relevant and is meaningless, this further proves that.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top