Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
you are not a liberal. you sound sane. If there are too many bad cops why do we want them to be the ones with guns? Have you built an arsenal? If not then how do you know it is too easy? the military is a gigantic bureaucracy just like most big companies and most state governments.
Nope he's certainly more Liberal than Conservative. By the way I would question sanity of anyone who has made the statements you have in your first post on this thread. Sounds like one of those loons from Conservative talk radio.
you are not a liberal. you sound sane. If there are too many bad cops why do we want them to be the ones with guns? Have you built an arsenal? If not then how do you know it is too easy? the military is a gigantic bureaucracy just like most big companies and most state governments.
Trust me. I'm a liberal. But few liberals have a check list of things they must all agree to.
Trust me. I'm a liberal. But few liberals have a check list of things they must all agree to.
As I said, you're a stereotyper.
This past weekend there was a neo-nazi rally in Georgia. Said group were clearly composed right-wingers. But if someone were to claim all Conservatives were neo-nazis there would be massive outcry.
Yet it's okay to lump all Liberals into one group that agree on everything.
This past weekend there was a neo-nazi rally in Georgia. Said group were clearly composed right-wingers. But if someone were to claim all Conservatives were neo-nazis there would be massive outcry.
Yet it's okay to lump all Liberals into one group that agree on everything.
What seems to be happening recently, is that in some circles, "liberals" do indeed get lumped into one amorphous but supposedly definable group. Liberals, as goes the narrative:
- hate guns, and particularly hate gun-owners.
- have never met at tax that they didn't love.
- disdain property-rights, and believe that business is theft.
- deplore white people in general, and blue-collar white men in particular.
- hold traditional hard-work in the most abject contempt.
- absolutely worship Hillary Clinton.
Thus, anyone who asserts even the faintest sentiment in favor of liberalism, is regarded as unthinking adherent to the above catechism. Subtle, isn't it?
This thread assumes that "conservatives" somehow own the belief in the Constitution. I'm sure ALL Americans believe in the Constitution. The question is how to apply such body of laws.
This past weekend there was a neo-nazi rally in Georgia. Said group were clearly composed right-wingers. But if someone were to claim all Conservatives were neo-nazis there would be massive outcry.
Yet it's okay to lump all Liberals into one group that agree on everything.
This thread assumes that "conservatives" somehow own the belief in the Constitution. I'm sure ALL Americans believe in the Constitution. The question is how to apply such body of laws.
This thread assumes that "conservatives" somehow own the belief in the Constitution. I'm sure ALL Americans believe in the Constitution. The question is how to apply such body of laws.
I don't think the question of application existed until 80 years ago when "the switch in time that saved nine" forestalled FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices (expanding the number of Justices to 15) so his New Deal legislation would not be struck down all the time as unconstitutional.
I don't think interpretation was much of an issue before then as the Constitution is not especially ambiguous.
I don't think the question of application existed until 80 years ago when "the switch in time that saved nine" forestalled FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices (expanding the number of Justices to 15) so his New Deal legislation would not be struck down all the time as unconstitutional.
I don't think interpretation was much of an issue before then as the Constitution is not especially ambiguous.
Really? Did you not ever study the differing views of constitutional powers surrounding federalism and conflict between Federalists and Jeffersonians?
I don't think the question of application existed until 80 years ago when "the switch in time that saved nine" forestalled FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices (expanding the number of Justices to 15) so his New Deal legislation would not be struck down all the time as unconstitutional.
I don't think interpretation was much of an issue before then as the Constitution is not especially ambiguous.
This alleged ambiguity arose because other people besides white men began asserting their rights. The Constitution always guaranteed certain freedoms to all Americans. But in 1952, certain children couldn't attend the same schools. Remember the E.R.A. in the 70s?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
