Boebert: "The Constituion is not evolving." (Massachusetts, abuse, voters)

[maciesmom]

Originally Posted by RetireinPA

a) you didnt ask me
b) wouldnt think I would have to cuz this is the future and they have stuff like this now:


https://boebert.house.gov/


You really couldnt find this? Ill mention this to my bud, he runs the house websites.


at any rate, I dont know who she is personally, aint my crongresscritter so I have no reason to focus on her and info is scarce as (like most republicans) her wiki page has been extensively vandalized by operatives and pacs funded by soros, but I hear the locals just seem to love her to pieces and that, after all, is what counts no?


But we still have not addressed the GED nonsense. And you might wanna think strongly on your answer becuz it does paint a heckofa elitist position. What EXACTLY do you disapprove of with people who get GEDs (at any age) especially ones who are successful?

She introduced, called-for and supported. Anything actually done?

[RetireinPA]

Originally Posted by cuebald

If you ever read any of the Articles of Secession from any of the states in the Confederacy

Actually, I have. It was required reading AND the #$@# term paper on them later. (term papers for the modern educated, were these tortuous devices we had to write, single spaced, dozen pages, biblio, cites, footnotes etc. I am a better person for it, but it still sucked.)


so, having read them, when I read something like this:

, you will find that the sole reason the Confederacy was created was so the members could continue to own people as chattel property.

That tells me the person speaking, has NOT.




and this:

Black people were considered inferior to White People.

is about the the sole driving force, why the modern democratic party arose from the (literal) ashes of the south and created 'fine' institutions like the klan and 'fine' practices such as jim crow and separate but equal.


Moral: when a discussion turns to slavery and racism and the south etc etc, a democrat, should REALLY shut their mouths and stay silent cuz they back some real monsters....just sayin - history and facts just are not on your side.


ps: couple weeks ago, dear leader mentioned George Wallace in a speech. I know it went way over the head of our fellow lefties here, but the irony meter broke. beyond repair.


























yes, the use of the word 'fine', in tics as I presented it was tongue in cheek, nothing fine about them at all.

[chucksnee]

Don't think this thread turned out like the op wanted. 1900+ looks and around 200 posts? Hahahaaaa....

[cuebald]

Originally Posted by RetireinPA

Actually, I have. It was required reading AND the #$@# term paper on them later. (term papers for the modern educated, were these tortuous devices we had to write, single spaced, dozen pages, biblio, cites, footnotes etc. I am a better person for it, but it still sucked.)


so, having read them, when I read something like this:




That tells me the person speaking, has NOT.




and this:


is about the the sole driving force, why the modern democratic party arose from the (literal) ashes of the south and created 'fine' institutions like the klan and 'fine' practices such as jim crow and separate but equal.


Moral: when a discussion turns to slavery and racism and the south etc etc, a democrat, should REALLY shut their mouths and stay silent cuz they back some real monsters....just sayin - history and facts just are not on your side.


ps: couple weeks ago, dear leader mentioned George Wallace in a speech. I know it went way over the head of our fellow lefties here, but the irony meter broke. beyond repair.


























yes, the use of the word 'fine', in tics as I presented it was tongue in cheek, nothing fine about them at all.

If you are going to try to make the argument that the Confederacy was about "States' Rights", you need to also explain what they wanted to retain the rights to continue doing.

[RetireinPA]

Originally Posted by maciesmom

She introduced, called-for and supported. Anything actually done?

still not sure what you are asking. has she introduced legislation? yes. co sponsored? yes.


what does this have to do with her GED?


PS - she is tied with AOC for number of pieces of introduced legislation that became law.

[RetireinPA]

Originally Posted by cuebald

If you are going to try to make the argument that the Confederacy was about "States' Rights", you need to also explain what they wanted to retain the rights to continue doing.

i didnt make that argument at all. you did. which shows there is a lot more you didnt study up on.


I will give you hint, IF the secession was about keeping slaves (and we know its not) and the war started about freeing slaves (and we know its not) the emancipation proclamation, that you have contributed, came YEARS after the war started.


so, by your owns posts we start with:


1) the sole reason was keeping people enslaved


then you added


2) state rights



keep digging. the north, at the outset, had zero intention of ending anything. they even said so.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

The Church of England and its power over laws. Those who came here did so, so as they could practice their religion freely. Not to have that right taken from them or established for them, as it was the case with the Church of England in their day. (see Martin Luther; the father of the Protestant religious practice; the church split) Their pov on Christ has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by cuebald

So are you saying the intent of the First Amendment was written to give only those who were members of the Church of England the right to practice their religion freely? That sure isn't how it's interpreted.

The First Amendment was written so that people could choose their own religion; not have it (taxed from their earnings) chosen for them by the government.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

People announcing that "the slaves are not people, they are property", as many southerners and a few northerners did, did not stop the slaves from being people, nor did it turn them into property. It was just part of the usual lies that the Democrats of the time used to bring the force of Big Govt against people who couldn't stop them or defend themselves. Normal people knew all along that the slaves were just as much "people" as all the non-slaves, no matter what was said about them by the people who wanted to enslave them.

Lincoln (and the rest of the Federal government) absolutely had the power to free them. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a measure to wage war against the South during the Civil War, disrupting the South's economy by taking away their slave labor.

It was just part of the usual lies that the Democrats of the time used to bring the force of Big Govt against people who couldn't stop them or defend themselves.

A Democrat in the North would vote Northern interest, a Democrat in the South for Southern interests; Republicans same thing.

Lincoln (and the rest of the Federal government) absolutely had the power to free them.

And make them u.s. Citizens? Because if it was up to Congress the Northern States held 183 Delegates and the Southern States 120. Then of course as a citizen one has the right to a government education, own property, and carry a fire arm; all regulated by the State, yes?

disrupting the South's economy by taking away their slave labor.

Confederates had incorporated them into the war, the additional manpower, is why Lincoln did what he did. He thought they would all leave; he was wrong.

[chucksnee]

Originally Posted by cuebald

read: *"conservatives

If you ever read any of the Articles of Secession from any of the states in the Confederacy, or Confederate Alexander Stephens' "Keystone Speech", you will find that the sole reason the Confederacy was created was so the members could continue to own people as chattel property. Black people were considered inferior to White People.

Black people were regularly bought, sold, whipped, starved, and abused at the will of their owners, with no access to the legal recourse granted to citizens. They were treated as property, regardless of how anyone cares to nuance their condition. If they were taken away from the White men who owned them, 5A should have been on the side of the slave owners.

Comprehend, anit-trumper/lefites....take your pick...but comprehend.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by cuebald

read: *"conservatives

If you ever read any of the Articles of Secession from any of the states in the Confederacy, or Confederate Alexander Stephens' "Keystone Speech", you will find that the sole reason the Confederacy was created was so the members could continue to own people as chattel property. Black people were considered inferior to White People.

Black people were regularly bought, sold, whipped, starved, and abused at the will of their owners, with no access to the legal recourse granted to citizens. They were treated as property, regardless of how anyone cares to nuance their condition. If they were taken away from the White men who owned them, 5A should have been on the side of the slave owners.

Slavery in the United States

"They also discovered that, because slaves constituted a considerable portion of individual wealth, masters fed and treated their slaves reasonably well."

Originally Posted by chucksnee

Comprehend, anit-trumper/lefites....take your pick...but comprehend.

Comprehend what? A Conservative in the 1700s?

A conservative in the North would vote for Northern interest and the conservative in the South would vote Southern interests, with the majority of Delegates being in the North. The Original Constitution did not make u.s. citizens of the slaves. Massachusetts argued that a free citizen of their State (it is Constitutional) should be a free citizen in South Carolina, however, federal immigration law in 1790 states otherwise.

"In the same year, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, extending citizenship to free white persons of good character who had resided in the United States for two years and took an oath of allegiance.31 The law excluded indentured servants, non‐​whites, and slaves from naturalization."

There are a few other things the Original Constitution omitted:

"The original Constitution of the United States proposed for ratification by the Federal Convention of 1787 lacked any explicit reference to freedom of speech or of the press. According to the Federalist Framers of the Constitution, explicit provisions for such freedoms as speech and the press were unnecessary, since the Constitution granted only certain narrow powers to Congress. They argued that by including a Bill of Rights, which seemed to imply such a Bill was necessary, the Constitution might taken as implying that the Congress had more power than it did. Despite this argument, the absence of a Bill of Rights was incredibly unpopular and nearly cost it its ratification. Only by promising to introduce a Bill of Rights as amendments were the Federalist authors of the document able to persuade key states to adopt it, and North Carolina did not ratify it until after the Bill of Rights was actually added."


The original document stands the same as it always did. The change are the amendments that were in later years added to the original. Some might even call that an evolution of the document, however, the words as written in the original have never changed.