Glenn Beck is back with his chalkboard and with a lot less crazy

[TheBlackKnight]

No, the tea party dosent not love the constitution.

All their "freshman" players get elected at mid terms. . . .and then re-up the Patriot Act. NDAA was pasted a couple days ago.

I know it's terribly cliche, but if your not a fan of our founding documents, move to fucking canada or something.

[Chas]

(29-12-2012 03:04 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(29-12-2012 06:00 AM)Diablo Wrote:  No the tea party loves it. They just don't understand it.

I don't give two shits about the constitution. Basing your govt on rigid rules from 2 centuries ago is obviously going to cause issues.

That is partly my gripe. While the fundamentals of the U.S constitution are perpetual, it seems other aspects are not. It was an elegantly authored piece written by geniuses, but that does not mean it is inerrant and everlasting.

There is a process for changing the Constitution written in to the Constitution; that's how smart those guys were.

They did not think they wrote a perfect document for all time. They wrote the first 10 amendments.

There have been 17 more, and will be more still.

[Chas]

(29-12-2012 03:22 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  No, the tea party dosent not love the constitution.

All their "freshman" players get elected at mid terms. . . .and then re-up the Patriot Act. NDAA was pasted a couple days ago.

I know it's terribly cliche, but if your not a fan of our founding documents, move to fucking canada or something.

Or amend it. The founders wrote it in; use it.

[Momsurroundedbyboys]

I'm a former libertarian. I do believe in some of what they stand for, but they are becoming usurped or hijacked by republicans and the tea party. The vision is becoming blurred. I think once the economy is finally back on track, you'll see the real intent of the tea party or theyll just go away.

I totally believe that we need healthcare, the EPA, FDA, etc. because we just can't trust companies to do the right thing, just because....I think history more or less proves that point.

Im just a lot more pessimistic than Penn is. While I agree the government doesn't belong in marriage, it is and even he admitted to getting married to protect his children. I don't see that changing -- so why not be for marriage equality.

I've heard glenn beck rant up one side and down about the gay agenda. I doubt he's softened his stance.

[Logica Humano]

(29-12-2012 05:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(29-12-2012 03:04 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  That is partly my gripe. While the fundamentals of the U.S constitution are perpetual, it seems other aspects are not. It was an elegantly authored piece written by geniuses, but that does not mean it is inerrant and everlasting.

There is a process for changing the Constitution written in to the Constitution; that's how smart those guys were.

They did not think they wrote a perfect document for all time. They wrote the first 10 amendments.

There have been 17 more, and will be more still.

I didn't say there wasn't a method of change. I am simply stating that several clauses within the constitution are extremely broad, vague, and generic. I am well aware of the purpose of this, but it is reason enough to take the notion of "constitutionalism" with a grain of salt. It is much like people who claim to believe in the Bible. They cherry pick passages in order to support their own agenda.

I did not say they believed they wrote an inerrant document.

For better, or for worse.

(29-12-2012 06:18 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm a former libertarian. I do believe in some of what they stand for, but they are becoming usurped or hijacked by republicans and the tea party. The vision is becoming blurred. I think once the economy is finally back on track, you'll see the real intent of the tea party or theyll just go away.

I totally believe that we need healthcare, the EPA, FDA, etc. because we just can't trust companies to do the right thing, just because....I think history more or less proves that point.

Im just a lot more pessimistic than Penn is. While I agree the government doesn't belong in marriage, it is and even he admitted to getting married to protect his children. I don't see that changing -- so why not be for marriage equality.

I've heard glenn beck rant up one side and down about the gay agenda. I doubt he's softened his stance.

The line was blurred when the Populist party was devoured. I think once the economy is back on track, we will see many of these libertarians' true colors as well.

Yes, the difference between a government and a corporation is that, ideally, the people control what the government does (that is not the case with Crony Capitalism). Many fail to understand that a corporation is like a living, functioning organism. It strives for its own self-preservation and truly has no other purpose.

Penn is a smart guy, but he is too idealistic. There are some legal precautions one must take in life, marriage happens to be one of them. Why many have problems accepting it is beyond me.

Glenn Beck hasn't changed. I nearly burst out laughing with his subtle placement of the democratic party being closer to totalitarianism, and with his mention of Nazis.

[Momsurroundedbyboys]

(29-12-2012 08:01 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(29-12-2012 05:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is a process for changing the Constitution written in to the Constitution; that's how smart those guys were.

They did not think they wrote a perfect document for all time. They wrote the first 10 amendments.

There have been 17 more, and will be more still.

I didn't say there wasn't a method of change. I am simply stating that several clauses within the constitution are extremely broad, vague, and generic. I am well aware of the purpose of this, but it is reason enough to take the notion of "constitutionalism" with a grain of salt. It is much like people who claim to believe in the Bible. They cherry pick passages in order to support their own agenda.

I did not say they believed they wrote an inerrant document.

For better, or for worse.

(29-12-2012 06:18 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm a former libertarian. I do believe in some of what they stand for, but they are becoming usurped or hijacked by republicans and the tea party. The vision is becoming blurred. I think once the economy is finally back on track, you'll see the real intent of the tea party or theyll just go away.

I totally believe that we need healthcare, the EPA, FDA, etc. because we just can't trust companies to do the right thing, just because....I think history more or less proves that point.

Im just a lot more pessimistic than Penn is. While I agree the government doesn't belong in marriage, it is and even he admitted to getting married to protect his children. I don't see that changing -- so why not be for marriage equality.

I've heard glenn beck rant up one side and down about the gay agenda. I doubt he's softened his stance.

The line was blurred when the Populist party was devoured. I think once the economy is back on track, we will see many of these libertarians' true colors as well.

Yes, the difference between a government and a corporation is that, ideally, the people control what the government does (that is not the case with Crony Capitalism). Many fail to understand that a corporation is like a living, functioning organism. It strives for its own self-preservation and truly has no other purpose.

Penn is a smart guy, but he is too idealistic. There are some legal precautions one must take in life, marriage happens to be one of them. Why many have problems accepting it is beyond me.

Glenn Beck hasn't changed. I nearly burst out laughing with his subtle placement of the democratic party being closer to totalitarianism, and with his mention of Nazis.

I noticed that too (placement of Democrats) I was insulted for about a minute and thought...well, it's Beck.

[Chas]

(29-12-2012 08:01 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(29-12-2012 05:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  There is a process for changing the Constitution written in to the Constitution; that's how smart those guys were.

They did not think they wrote a perfect document for all time. They wrote the first 10 amendments.

There have been 17 more, and will be more still.

I didn't say there wasn't a method of change. I am simply stating that several clauses within the constitution are extremely broad, vague, and generic. I am well aware of the purpose of this, but it is reason enough to take the notion of "constitutionalism" with a grain of salt. It is much like people who claim to believe in the Bible. They cherry pick passages in order to support their own agenda.

I did not say they believed they wrote an inerrant document.

For better, or for worse.

My apologies, I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

[smidgen]

I guess I should stay off the political forums here being a conservative who agrees with Glenn on most conservative issues. I just ignore his religion. So I'll just say hi and agree to disagree.

[Chas]

(03-01-2013 12:08 PM)smidgen Wrote:  I guess I should stay off the political forums here being a conservative who agrees with Glenn on most conservative issues. I just ignore his religion. So I'll just say hi and agree to disagree.

No, don't stay away. Many of us are libertarian-leaning or centrist. My politics are a neither conservative nor liberal, I agree and disagree with both.

We have been known to have polite, intelligent, useful political discussions here. On rare occasions.

[smidgen]

(03-01-2013 12:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 12:08 PM)smidgen Wrote:  I guess I should stay off the political forums here being a conservative who agrees with Glenn on most conservative issues. I just ignore his religion. So I'll just say hi and agree to disagree.

No, don't stay away. Many of us are libertarian-leaning or centrist. My politics are a neither conservative nor liberal, I agree and disagree with both.

We have been known to have polite, intelligent, useful political discussions here. On rare occasions.

I'm all about having a good debate. I just get sick of all the finger pointing and name calling on both sides of the isle. I agree with almost nothing liberal except the fact that I'm pro choice.
I'm basically a gun loving, pro choice, conservative leaning, vote for the person not the party, non believer. Isn't that a mess.

I'm all about having a good debate. I just get sick of all the finger pointing and name calling on both sides of the isle. I agree with almost nothing liberal except the fact that I'm pro choice.
I'm basically a gun loving, pro choice, conservative leaning, vote for the person not the party, non believer. Isn't that a mess.