Let's Give Up on the Constitution

#76
#76
hog88 said:
OK now how does that quote and your interpretation of it relate to the constitution and this subject we're discussing?
Click to expand...
I need to spell out the relevant conversation that stems from a quote about societal dynamics and institutional philosophy that comes from an architect of our government?
 
#77
#77
McDad said:
It doesn't matter to me if you wrongly ascribe meaning which isn't there. To me, it is black and white because it is explicitly stated. There is no ambiguity and therefore no inference is needed.

His second paragraph you quoted is a furthering of the preceding paragraph...the paragraph where he references amending the constitution.
You want to change the constitution? I say go for it. Mechanisms for change are included in the governing document. You want to scrap it? Over lot's of people's dead bodies.
Click to expand...

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human”

Hey look, he had a section of that quote that describes you perfectly. TJ living rent free in your head from the grave, impressive.
 
#78
#78
OHvol40 said:
“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human”

Hey look, he had a section of that quote that describes you perfectly. TJ living rent free in your head from the grave, impressive.
Click to expand...
You're lashing out like a child denied their sugary treat.
Neither your tantrum nor your inability to understand plainly worded language give any credibility to the inaccurate position that Jefferson would favor scraping the founding document rather than amending it.

I have a few problems with Jefferson as POTUS and some of his revisionism after-the-fact. But to argue he is making a point which is simply not proven in the text you chose is preposterous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and 82_VOL_83
#80
#80
McDad said:
You're lashing out like a child denied their sugary treat.
Neither your tantrum nor your inability to understand plainly worded language give any credibility to the inaccurate position that Jefferson would favor scraping the founding document rather than amending it.

I have a few problems with Jefferson as POTUS and some of his revisionism after-the-fact. But to argue he is making a point which is simply not proven in the text you chose is preposterous.
Click to expand...

To speak hyperbolically about “scrapping” the constitution (which I’ve never mentioned) and acting like your interpretation of someone else’s words is indisputable fact may be the real tantrum.
 
#81
#81
OHvol40 said:
I need to spell out the relevant conversation that stems from a quote about societal dynamics and institutional philosophy that comes from an architect of our government?
Click to expand...

As it relates to this conversation yes. What do you think he meant? Do you think he was still talking about amendments or scrapping the entire constitution?
 
#82
#82
hog88 said:
As it relates to this conversation yes. What do you think he meant? Do you think he was still talking about amendments or scrapping the entire constitution?
Click to expand...
Neither, he was opining about how to create longevity for any established society.
 
#83
#83
Grand Vol said:
Term limits on House and Senate, 12 years period between the two.

I'm not opposed to repealing the 17th
Click to expand...

I'm opposed to term limits on House members because it limits my choice in representation.
 
#85
#85
OHvol40 said:
To speak hyperbolically about “scrapping” the constitution (which I’ve never mentioned) and acting like your interpretation of someone else’s words is indisputable fact may be the real tantrum.
Click to expand...
It seems to me you posted a lovely little quote in a thread about doing away with the constitution. A thread which was bumped by a reference to a fringe element who advocates same. And now, you're desperately attempting to move the goal posts.

I'm at peace either way. I am confident anyone reading the discussion and the exchanges we had will see the correctness of my position and the wrongness of yours (even if implied).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol and 82_VOL_83
#87
#87
McDad said:
It seems to me you posted a lovely little quote in a thread about doing away with the constitution. A thread which was bumped by a reference to a fringe element who advocates same. And now, you're desperately attempting to move the goal posts.

I'm at peace either way. I am confident anyone reading the discussion and the exchanges we had will see the correctness of my position and the wrongness of yours (even if implied).
Click to expand...

There are no goalposts. I couldn't care less about a thread title. Is it possible to have a conversation in here that isn’t dichotomous?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#88
#88
OHvol40 said:
There are no goalposts. I couldn't care less about a thread title. Is it possible to have a conversation in here that isn’t dichotomous?
Click to expand...
Certainly. But only if neither party conversing is a dich.;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#90
#90
hog88 said:
I was being sarcastic.

Do you think he was referring to scrapping the constitution at some point or just amending it as needed?
Click to expand...

I think it’s an open-ended quote with a theme that is meant to provoke reflection.
 
#92
#92
Grand Vol said:
I'm completely opposed to your opposition. You end up with douchebags like Schiff or career politicians like Pelosi without them.
Click to expand...

I would rather have them then have my choices for direct representation in DC limited.

Now, I also want congress to be cut back to 90 days in session per year, cut salary accordingly, no per diem (build barracks and chow hall for them) and no pension or HC benefits once out of office.
 
#93
#93
hog88 said:
I would rather have them then have my choices for direct representation in DC limited.

Now, I also want congress to be cut back to 90 days in session per year, cut salary accordingly, no per diem (build barracks and chow hall for them) and no pension or HC benefits once out of office.
Click to expand...

I agree. We should not be limited in our choices as voters. If the person is a douchebag, vote 'em out. I disagree with term limits for President too
 
#94
#94
Sea Ray said:
I agree. We should not be limited in our choices as voters. If the person is a douchebag, vote 'em out. I disagree with term limits for President too
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with term limits for POTUS. You don't vote for POTUS.
 
#100
#100
hog88 said:
I'm opposed to term limits on House members because it limits my choice in representation.
Click to expand...
When "public service" becomes a short term gig vs a career, you will have more choices. 3 terms in the house, 2 in the senate (amend to 4 year terms), 2 as VP and 2 as president. If you can climb that political ladder more power to you. 99% won't make it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, ETV and tennvols77
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top