SG Broadband Community

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 2010 4:30 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:He believes it. When he said it is not germane to the point I was making.

Something you will not hear Obama say is that through this document he calls flawed, America has become a bastion of freedom for all people, including slaves. It was hard won, but the Constitution kept us on course and as long as we live by its flawed doctrine, we will be able to continue to form a more perfect union. Obama is a racist. A racist cannot see a document drawn up by rich European caucasians as something to be admired, no matter what it says or stands for.

They are a good neighbor to have to the North. Maybe even the best neighbor.

"Out of context" produces a logical fallacy. Obama made the statement nine years ago, on a panel regarding slavery. Beyond that Sarahnn, is the conjecture of his opposition.

Here is an offering of the context. Where he quite awkwardly explains his statement.
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/obama-co ... /id/326165

A flawed diamond is still a diamond. Like Bush before him, Obama has taken a oath to defend the Constitution..... warts and all.

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:05 pm**

David wrote:"Out of context" produces a logical fallacy. Obama made the statement nine years ago, on a panel regarding slavery. Beyond that Sarahnn, is the conjecture of his opposition.

Absolutely no conjecture is necessary. Obama also said that this flaw continues to this day. Further, he did not state what flaw that was present when the Constitution was drawn up continues to this day. Do you know what that flaw might be?

A flawed diamond is still a diamond. Like Bush before him, Obama has taken a oath to defend the Constitution..... warts and all.

Obama has taken an oath to defend the Constitution even as he believes that there is an inherent flaw that might be in opposition to his goals?

By the way, David. What does "inherently flawed" mean to you?

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 2010 7:51 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:Absolutely no conjecture is necessary. Obama also said that this flaw continues to this day. Further, he did not state what flaw that was present when the Constitution was drawn up continues to this day. Do you know what that flaw might be?

Obama has taken an oath to defend the Constitution even as he believes that there is an inherent flaw that might be in opposition to his goals?

By the way, David. What does "inherently flawed" mean to you?

The Constitution was amended 27 times...hence, it was flawed.

The Constitution is not an economic document nor does it establish economic policy.

Culturally, due to our economic structure, we weigh social problems on a cost-benefit scale. Morality is secondary.

The inherent flaw, as suggested by Obama, lies not in the Constitution itself, but in those that interpret it solely by means of cost-benefit analysis. Also, the folks that wrote it, came from the same culture.

For example:

Social problem: Slavery

The South: How much is it going to cost me when I lose my negroes?
(cost-benefit)

The North: You can't keep slaves because it's not the right thing to do.
(morality)

Posted: **Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:53 pm**

JawZ wrote:The Constitution was amended 27 times...hence, it was flawed.

Your logic eludes me. It will probably be amended again. It does mean we can't get it right. Therefore, it is not flawed in a sense of needing repair. There is nothing wrong with our Constitution.

The Constitution is not an economic document nor does it establish economic policy.

Of course it's not. It's a political document.

Culturally, due to our economic structure, we weigh social problems on a cost-benefit scale. Morality is secondary.

Morality is culturally relative. We weigh social problems with consideration to the violation of individual rights.

The inherent flaw, as suggested by Obama, lies not in the Constitution itself, but in those that interpret it solely by means of cost-benefit analysis. Also, the folks that wrote it, came from the same culture.

For example:

Social problem: Slavery

The South: How much is it going to cost me when I lose my negroes?
(cost-benefit)

The North: You can't keep slaves because it's not the right thing to do.
(morality)

The flaw is in the document according to Obama. What is that flaw?

Btw, the North did not fight the war to free the slaves. Simply put, (and if I remember my history lessons) the South seceded and when they fired on Fort Sumter, the North called them on it.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:45 am**

Sarahnn wrote:Your logic eludes me. It will probably be amended again. It does mean we can't get it right. Therefore, it is not flawed in a sense of needing repair. There is nothing wrong with our Constitution.

Of course it's not. It's a political document.

Morality is culturally relative. We weigh social problems with consideration to the violation of individual rights.

The flaw is in the document according to Obama. What is that flaw?

Btw, the North did not fight the war to free the slaves. Simply put, (and if I remember my history lessons) the South seceded and when they fired on Fort Sumter, the North called them on it.

"It does mean we can't get it right. Therefore, it is not flawed in a sense of needing repair. There is nothing wrong with our Constitution."

Humans can not create perfection, the Constitution has never, is not and never will be perfect, because it is written and amended by human hands. Besides perfection can only change for the worst. Only the erroneous can change or be amended for the better, which was, of course, UOD's point.

"Morality is culturally relative."

We are in the same culture here, so regardless of how culturally relative morality may be, when pertaining to a single culture that is a moot point.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:29 am**

jeremyboycool wrote:"It does mean we can't get it right. Therefore, it is not flawed in a sense of needing repair. There is nothing wrong with our Constitution."

Humans can not create perfection, the Constitution has never, is not and never will be perfect, because it is written and amended by human hands. Besides perfection can only change for the worst. Only the erroneous can change or be amended for the better, which was, of course, UOD's point.

Nothing is perfect. Not people or things or ideas ....nothing. That's why I said the Constitution does not need repair. The Constitution declares a committment and it has to be brought up to that expectation with new circumstances, thus the amendments. Are we on the same page here?

If UOD's point was that the Constitution gets better with each amendment, I will have to differ. It is the fact that the Constitution can address the challenges facing a free society for almost three centuries gives it pretty high marks.

I have been reading this thread along with you. What gave you the impression that anyone here was not able to express an opinion without your help?

Sorry, I'm just having my first cup of coffee and I'm not a morning person. Have a great day, Jeremy.

"Morality is culturally relative."

We are in the same culture here, so regardless of how culturally relative morality may be, when pertaining to a single culture that is a moot point.[/QUOTE]

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:34 am**

jeremyboycool wrote:

"Morality is culturally relative."

We are in the same culture here, so regardless of how culturally relative morality may be, when pertaining to a single culture that is a moot point.

I wasn't speaking of cultures demographically. I was speaking of evolving cultures. Cultures are static. They do not stay the same.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:40 am**

Sarahnn wrote:Your logic eludes me. It will probably be amended again. It does mean we can't get it right. Therefore, it is not flawed in a sense of needing repair. There is nothing wrong with our Constitution.

Of course it's not. It's a political document.

Morality is culturally relative. We weigh social problems with consideration to the violation of individual rights.

The flaw is in the document according to Obama. What is that flaw?

Btw, the North did not fight the war to free the slaves. Simply put, (and if I remember my history lessons) the South seceded and when they fired on Fort Sumter, the North called them on it.

The definition of an amendment, specifically as it relates to our Constitution, is....get ready for it....CHANGE!!!!!! Isn't it ironic that CHANGE was also Obama's campaign slogan?

As for the Constitution needing repair...and again, thank God you are wrong...it was amended. The major concern was that the Constitution, as it was originally written, didn't fully address or declare (declaratory) the tenets of human liberty. It also didn't fully delineate and constrain the government's powers hence, the (restrictive) clauses contained in the amendments.

Now onward to the flaw...here, how bout you listen to what Obama said of the flaw word for word. Maybe you'll get it this time. (probably not)

[YOUTUBE]a_xNyrzB0xI[/YOUTUBE]

The Constitution was written by a bunch of white guys who represented a privileged majority whose ancestral lines just got done with the ethnic cleansing of the Indians...so the moral lessons contained within the Constitution as it was written applied to whom? Is the light going off?

Ok, so now that that is out of the way...

As for the Civil War...whoever taught you your history should be hung, drawn, and quartered.

The reasons for secession of the southern states from the north was due to the growing anti-slavery movement in the north that was being headed up by Lincoln. He ran a campaign of limiting expansion of slavery. He won, the south seceded because they saw their state's right to slavery threatened, and the rest...is history lol. That's why we have the 13th Amendment.

So I don't want to hear this nonsense about states rights because it's all a ruse for white power and racism. Which not coincidentally, brings us back to the flaw...

You see Sara...YOU are the flaw.

As for your ([s]alleged trolling[/s]) behavior...well, we've been having quite the discussion as to how to handle you. Some suggest ignoring you...but I think that's dangerous. I find you to be a cancer...a cancer that needs to be quickly recognized and eradicated. Now, the big question is...how to achieve that end? I believe that through a process of civil engagement, your grand ideas will be marginalized and diminished. This humiliation will serve as a lesson to all would be posters that support your cancerous thoughts.

So by all means....continue on!!!!!

opcorn:

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:06 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:Nothing is perfect. Not people or things or ideas ....nothing. That's why I said the Constitution does not need repair. The Constitution declares a committment and it has to be brought up to that expectation with new circumstances, thus the amendments. Are we on the same page here?

If UOD's point was that the Constitution gets better with each amendment, I will have to differ. It is the fact that the Constitution can address the challenges facing a free society for almost three centuries gives it pretty high marks.

I have been reading this thread along with you. What gave you the impression that anyone here was not able to express an opinion without your help? Sorry, I'm just having my first cup of coffee and I'm not a morning person. Have a great day, Jeremy.

"Morality is culturally relative."

We are in the same culture here, so regardless of how culturally relative morality may be, when pertaining to a single culture that is a moot point.

"Are we on the same page here?"

No, you are saying it is flawed therefore we shouldn't fix those flaws. Then, despite everything else you said about not fixing it and how it can't be flawed because it is flawed, you say we need to fix it.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:11 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:I wasn't speaking of cultures demographically. I was speaking of evolving cultures. Cultures are static. They do not stay the same.

The North and the South both fought the war at the same time, in the same culture.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:37 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:logic eludes me.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:28 pm**

jeremyboycool wrote:The North and the South both fought the war at the same time, in the same culture.

No just the opposite. It was their clash of cultures that exacerbated their unresolvable differences.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:34 pm**

jeremyboycool wrote:"Are we on the same page here?"

No, you are saying it is flawed therefore we shouldn't fix those flaws. Then, despite everything else you said about not fixing it and how it can't be flawed because it is flawed, you say we need to fix it.

Okay, let me see if I can articulate better what I am thinking, minus the typos...

The Constitution is not flawed in the sense that it needs repair. It works just the way it is. The amendments are not course corrections but they are affirmative extensions of what the Constitution is basically about. And here I'm thinking of the Bill of Rights.

So, if you look at the Constitution as a system of Government, it is far from flawed.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:39 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:Okay, let me see if I can articulate better what I am thinking, minus the typos...

The Constitution is not flawed in the sense that it needs repair. It works just the way it is. The amendments are not course corrections but they are affirmative extensions of what the Constitution is basically about. And here I'm thinking of the Bill of Rights.

So, if you look at the Constitution as a system of Government, it is far from flawed.

[YOUTUBE]GcatQSyRK6c[/YOUTUBE]

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:12 pm**

JawZ wrote:The definition of an amendment, specifically as it relates to our Constitution, is....get ready for it....CHANGE!!!!!! Isn't it ironic that CHANGE was also Obama's campaign slogan?

I agree with you to a degree. Do you know how much of the original Constitution is not considered valid today because of amendments which we could say "repaired" it?

As for the Constitution needing repair...and again, thank God you are wrong...it was amended.

Thank God, I am wrong? So you think that the original Constitution was a broken document in need of repair? Interesting.

The major concern was that the Constitution, as it was originally written, didn't fully address or declare (declaratory) the tenets of human liberty. It also didn't fully delineate and constrain the government's powers hence, the (restrictive) clauses contained in the amendments.

How could it?

Now onward to the flaw...here, how bout you listen to what Obama said of the flaw word for word. Maybe you'll get it this time. (probably not)

You are the one who doesn't get it. If you were secure in your knowledge you would not have such a need to berate me. Give it a rest.

[YOUTUBE]a_xNyrzB0xI[/YOUTUBE]

The Constitution was written by a bunch of white guys who represented a privileged majority whose ancestral lines just got done with the ethnic cleansing of the Indians...so the moral lessons contained within the Constitution as it was written applied to whom? Is the light going off?

Let me light the way for you. You are damn straight that's who wrote the Constitution. And if you don't like that, go whine to your Mother, or leave the country or go write a better system of government. Just don't spew vitriol at me for our founding father's brilliance.

Ok, so now that that is out of the way...

How do you know what's out of the way. You obviously walk in the dark.

As for the Civil War...whoever taught you your history should be hung, drawn, and quartered.

Another childish spewing of arrogance. What am I supposed to do with that?

The reasons for secession of the southern states from the north was due to the growing anti-slavery movement in the north that was being headed up by Lincoln. He ran a campaign of limiting expansion of slavery. He won, the south seceded because they saw their state's right to slavery threatened, and the rest...is history lol. That's why we have the 13th Amendment.

You must get your information from a third-grade reader. It was alot more complicated than that. Why was Lincoln perfectly willing to continue to allow slavery where it stood without going to war? Simpletons have more information than you think you have. My God, man, read up on the civil war sometimes will ya. I'm embarrassed for you.

So I don't want to hear this nonsense about states rights because it's all a ruse for white power and racism. Which not coincidentally, brings us back to the flaw...

I have no idea what you just said. Were you high, by any chance when you read my posts?

You see Sara...YOU are the flaw.

Brilliant remark. I'm also the reason why you look so stupid talking to me. Hell, I'll take the blame for all your shortcomings if you want. Whatever helps you to save face.

As for your ([s]alleged trolling[/s]) behavior...well, we've been having quite the discussion as to how to handle you. Some suggest ignoring you...but I think that's dangerous. I find you to be a cancer...a cancer that needs to be quickly recognized and eradicated. Now, the big question is...how to achieve that end? I believe that through a process of civil engagement, your grand ideas will be marginalized and diminished. This humiliation will serve as a lesson to all would be posters that support your cancerous thoughts.

Wow, you are quite the little dictator, aren't you? I'd like to hear others agree with you here publically that I am a cancer . Because if they don't, you either hang with cowards or no one wants to claim you or your comments.

Once again, I am embarrassed for you. Btw, why are you discussing me privately? I don't find you pertinant enough to discuss unless I am feeling magnaminous enough to answer to your website despotism.

So by all means....continue on!!!!! opcorn:

Are you giving me your permission to post here? How much more can you humiliate yourself?

If you don't like my comments, steer clear.

Do you have any friends here who, if they object to my posts have the courage to step up and tell me so? Or are cowardly backstabbers the only friends you have here?

That was rhetorical. Carry on. Don't let me bother you. Wait, you're not strong enough to not be bothered by others opinions are you. Sorry, my bad.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:22 pm**

Btw jawz, obama mentions afro americans/slaves as a reflection of the blind spot.

Women were not allowed to vote, indentured servants were not allowed to vote and as a matter of fact, only land owners had a voice in our government. Did the founding fathers envision twentieth century america? No. Did obama mention women and indentured servants, no. Why? because he is a racist.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:26 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:

Wow, you are quite the little dictator, aren't you? I'd like to hear others agree with you here publically that I am a cancer .

Since you asked.

Do you have any friends here who, if they object to my posts have the courage to step up and tell me so?

Yeah he does and I do.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:32 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:Btw jawz, obama mentions afro americans/slaves as a reflection of the blind spot.

Women were not allowed to vote, indentured servants were not allowed to vote and as a matter of fact, only land owners had a voice in our government. Did the founding fathers envision twentieth century america? No. Did obama mention women and indentured servants, no. Why? because he is a racist.

He did not have to do so. It is a given.

It would seem you already have the answers as to why the Constitution had/has flaws.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:43 pm**

David wrote:He did not have to do so. It is a given.

It would seem you already have the answers as to why the Constitution had/has flaws.

Would it seem that way to you? Then what flaw continues to this day? Is the answer to that question a given also?

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:52 pm**

Roody wrote:Since you asked.

Yeah he does and I do.

oh geeezzz.....jawz and roody. Didn't you make that clear with the first post I made here? Are you the "we" jawz is referring to?

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 2:55 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:oh geeezzz.....jawz and roody. Didn't you make that clear with the first post I made here? Are you the "we" jawz is referring to?

You asked and I answered.

You were away for awhile, but you can ask anyone on here that JawZ and I have had our share of moments where we went at it. That can be verified by anyone here.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:00 pm**

Roody wrote:You asked and I answered.

You were away for awhile, but you can ask anyone on here that JawZ and I have had our share of moments where we went at it. That can be verified by anyone here.

Why are my views so important that you and Jawz feel threatened?

These are only opinions expressed on a free forum. I don't really want to get in a fray with people I don't agree with. Jawz on the other hand is viciously enraged by those who openly disagree with his views. It's almost scary.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:04 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:Why are my views so important that you and Jawz feel threatened?

These are only opinions expressed on a free forum. I don't really want to get in a fray with people I don't agree with. Jawz on the other hand is viciously enraged by those who openly disagree with his views. It's almost scary.

I don't feel threatened by you at all.

I've tried more then once to engage you on issues without all the partisan BS and every time it always goes back to the same ole "Obama sucks" crap. You don't even consider looking in the mirror to see what is wrong with your own party/ideals.

I give credit to JawZ for having the guts to blast the party he is affiliated with when they screw up.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:15 pm**

Sarahnn wrote: or leave the country

I asked about a year ago why people employ this ignorant remark...

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=77728

I like this response....

"If you don't like the fact that I'm freely expressing my opinions in a country that allows me to do so you're welcome to move to a country that restricts free speech, and leave the rest of us to speak our minds."

Again, you really aren't here to have discussion with anyone...you are on a soapbox pushing an agenda. You already have your mind made up. As a card carrying member of the GOP, I want to make sure that YOUR voice doesn't represent me as a member.

As for the civil war bit, again, you fail. Lincoln didn't go to war with a state like Delaware because they didn't SECEDE!!!!!! It wouldn't change the fact the he was anti-slavery or would move to abolish it. The Emancipation Proclamation was a temporary order used against those states that seceded.

Your espousal of revisionist fantasy is mind boggling yet...understandable given your agenda.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:22 pm**

JawZ wrote:I asked about a year ago why people employ this ignorant remark...

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=77728

I like this response....

"If you don't like the fact that I'm freely expressing my opinions in a country that allows me to do so you're welcome to move to a country that restricts free speech, and leave the rest of us to speak our minds."

Again, you really aren't here to have discussion with anyone...you are on a soapbox pushing an agenda. You already have your mind made up. As a card carrying member of the GOP, I want to make sure that YOUR voice doesn't represent me as a member.

As for the civil war bit, again, you fail. Lincoln didn't go to war with a state like Delaware because they didn't SECEDE!!!!!! It wouldn't change the fact the he was anti-slavery or would move to abolish it. The Emancipation Proclamation was a temporary order used against those states that seceded.

Your espousal of revisionist fantasy is mind boggling yet...understandable given your agenda.

shut up jawz. I'm sick of your tantrums.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:22 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:Why are my views so important that you and Jawz feel threatened?

These are only opinions expressed on a free forum. I don't really want to get in a fray with people I don't agree with. Jawz on the other hand is viciously enraged by those who openly disagree with his views. It's almost scary.

Not enraged at all. In fact, I find it highly entertaining. What viewpoint have I been pushing? Please, by all means...let's hear it!!!!! What threads have I started since your return that espouses a point of view that you disagree with?

You just want to stir the pot simply because you can and not because you want to have meaningful discussion with friends.

Posted: **Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:23 pm**

Sarahnn wrote:shut up jawz. I'm sick of your tantrums.

I hear the ignore feature works GREAT!!!!!!

SG Broadband Community

The next President?