The Constitution of the United States
Over 300 million people live under the US Constitution but very few people really know or understand its true meaning. Even some members of Congress are completely ignorant of what is contained in this document. Actually the Constitution is not so much a set of rules of what people can do, but is a set of rules of what the government CAN NOTdo.
Today people are attacking this document as being out dated and not right for our times. Islamists are saying that a much older doctrine, Sharia law, should replace it entirely. Others are pushing for the laws of the United Nations to over rule the Constitution.
These Constitutional detractors are becoming relentless in their efforts and if they are successfulthe only out come will be total anarchy.
Therefore it is up us, We the People, to protect and defend the Constitution from these evil forces. We can best do that by studying the Constitution and learning the true meaning of what it says and what it means. I believe that any person, regardless of nationality, would be willing to defend the ideals of the Constitution, if they truly understood the document.
"Today people are attacking this document as being out dated and not right for our times. Islamists are saying that a much older doctrine, Sharia law, should replace it entirely. Others are pushing for the laws of the United Nations to over rule the Constitution."
Exactly who are these people, these "others"? Are you hearing this in the neighbourhood? Does this message come to you while wearing a tin foil hat. I know that there is a republican congressman demanding that all muslims be deported (even the ones who are born here, or are legal citizens). Is that constitutional? The constitution has been constantly amended since it was created. Did the civil rights act offend you? Are there citizens that you believe that should not be included or covered by your constitution? Freedom of speech? Religion? Please expand.
No, I wouldn't agree. Since it is the representatives of your own party who are coming out of the closet to endorse slavery and attacking civil and human rights. Your paranoia and propaganda is much more reminiscent of fascism and nothing to do with the constitution. And you still don't understand what "socialism" is. Please. That would imply that the government sought to control all means of production and distribution. Has Obama advocated a government takeover of private corporations? No, he has definitely not. Is his "government" buying up your local pizza joint? No, the banks are doing that. And then selling it to another individual at a profit. Can you understand the simplest of terms?
Did you know that god is not mentioned once in the constitution? Probably not. Did you know that the EPA was created by Richard Nixon? The demonizing of it is another attempt to give free reign to corporations to have a free hand, with no regulation or concern for the flames that come out of taps around fracking sites, and to dump toxic waste anywhere. What's to stop them? As long as it maximizes profit. I plead with you again to please back up any accusation that you make with evidence. Facts. I know that your party doesn't want to recognize them, but it is the basis of logic and reason. I will give you a year to do some research.
A reference? Some historical fact related to this? Something scholarly? Was lighting water on fire a trick? And can you explain why flame would come out of water taps only around fracking sites? Please, please try.
There you go name calling again. You must have really busted your grannie panties! Hmmm, corporations have standards do they? Who should judge or police that? the corporations themselves seems to be your answer. What's to stop them from dumping anything anywhere, toxic or not. The EPA. But not in your opinion. You want to trust a corporate entity which exists to make a profit for its shareholders. Why would they care about the "little" people? Or any environmental impact. Without federally regulated standards you would be drinking arsenic in your water. And in 1970 they knew nothing about the environment? I know that you right wingers don't like science, but try and be rational.
Pull back there a bit, girl. "Prick" won't get you bonus points. And the whole "blue collar, energy worker" thing is probably another figment of your wild imagination. Obviously, I'm not going to believe anything that you say if you can't even bother to verify yourself on here. It's like listening to your gas emissions as they come flaming out of my tap. Put the drink down and go to bed. Try to gather a thought.
Unfortunately, most haven't even read it (the Constitution). As for Congress, most of the time we have to worry about laws being pushed through too quickly (or even those little bits buried deep in the text of the bills) and I'd bet that most of them aren't fully read before given a yay or nay. I'd say the Constitution tells what the federal govt can do, what the States can't do, and leaves everything else up to the States and the People, respectively. Article I, Section 8 is my favorite. The Amendments are what get more into the rights of the People. In some ways, the Bill of Rights (first ten) have seen some challenges, such as domestic spying, or even "free speech zones". I'm not really worried about the Sharia law thing. The UN is seen by many as a big threat, and personally, I don't really care for it. As for anarchy, that's a term that brings a lot of fear, without people knowing that it doesn't necessarily mean chaos and destruction, but also simply without govt (in an ideal anarchy, men can govern themselves).
As for the other comments here...I don't take anyone who tries to make the name of anyone (particularly the president) into some funny/cute little misspelling ("oliar") very seriously. In socialism, the workers/laborers would own the company. Please, don't confuse socialism with communism (even in other aspects).
The EPA keeps companies from running amok and dumping any which place they please. Yes, companies are only for profits. They don't care about the little guy, and most flat out don't really care for their employees, so what's a little patch of dirt somewhere to them? As for the healthcare thing, there's still the option of private insurance. Frankly, healthcare is way too expensive, anyways (and yes, it's privately run). On a note of insurance, I had come across several patients who told me candidly that even after years of paying, their companies didn't fully cover their expenses. Let me give an example...I'm an EMT. I took a patient to the hospital for a colostomy bag check. This little vial of sealant costs about $100 each, if obtained at the hospital. The same company makes the same thing with the same ingredients and it is available at the dollar store for about $1. That's not even looking at outrageous prices for "IV therapy" (not including the materials), which is simply the act of administering an IV (trust me, it's not a complicated procedure, and I don't think the nurses get paid extra for each IV they provide).
I haven't heard of the lighting water thing and the Natives doing it 200 years ago. The only firewater I know of is alcohol. Um, if you are harder on companies than the EPA, what's the problem with the EPA again? That would infer that you are stricter than the EPA, so the EPA wouldn't be the problem. It would be the standards being set by the company or those who are harder on the company than the EPA. Out of curiosity, if you are one of the "blue collar workers", how do you have a say in what the company can and cannot do?
Lesser of two evils? Yah...It's still evil, nonetheless. I wouldn't count too much on third party, since the media purposely ignores them most of the time. I actually saw a clip of someone on CNN saying they ignored Ron Paul because they didn't think he had a chance. Who the candidate is/was isn't important, it's the fact that this clown admitted to withholding air time from a candidate based on that company's feelings. That's not really giving the People a chance to think for themselves. I'm pretty sure that ALL outlets do that. I know of not one truly fair or unbiased news outlet so far. That should tell you something there. For some odd reason, the words of John Adams and George Washington seem to elude everyone when it comes to how much we need a two-party system...
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, Oct. 2, 1789
"However may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
GEORGE WASHINGTON
The only thing this two-party system has accomplished is to further polarize politics and create a much unnecessary divide among the People (who already have enough divisions as it is...racial, class, gender, religious, etc).
Those are great quotes dj.
Yep. Washington went into further detail about this in his Farewell Address, and it's amazing how you can read these quotes and see just why they said these things. Some things never change, though...Maybe one day people will take something from history and actually learn from it.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!