our constitution

Bman wrote:just like old times Fighter ... I will prove you wrong ... below is an excerpt.

Karl Christian Rove (born December 25, 1950) was Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush until his resignation on August 31, 2007. He has headed the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Public Liaison, and the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. Since leaving the White House, Rove has worked as a political analyst and contributor for Fox News, Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove


Not STFU and go back to work.

Just as I stated, Deputy Chief of Staff, which is a title many previous administrations have had. Consider yourself owned!

Fighter59 wrote:

Bman wrote:just like old times Fighter ... I will prove you wrong ... below is an excerpt.

Karl Christian Rove (born December 25, 1950) was Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush until his resignation on August 31, 2007. He has headed the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Public Liaison, and the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. Since leaving the White House, Rove has worked as a political analyst and contributor for Fox News, Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove


Not STFU and go back to work.

Just as I stated, Deputy Chief of Staff, which is a title many previous administrations have had. Consider yourself owned!

He was Deputy Chief of Staff and then was Sr. Advisor ... he had those two distinct roles. Sr. Advisors report to the President not to the Chief of staff.

Fighter, you are once again spoutiing off on facts you don't know ... we have schooled you previuosly on EIC consider yourself OWNED again.

Funny you mention Karl Rove since he owned the Dem's in 2000 and 2004. He got GWB elected in 2004, he's a political genius.

An advisor isn't a Czar or that's what they'd be called, nice spin though.

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:if it takes an appointment to fill a real need..rather than months and months of pissing in the wind by the just-say-no'ers whose mission is to waste time and do nothing..why not appoint and get some work done. it isnt like he is the originator of appointing czars.

That's worked well for countries run by Kings. I thought we got away from the "King" system by declaring our independence from England. Now it looks like we have our own king. King Obama.

So what exactly is the problem with these appointments again? I know you said load of crap, but really, what is the issue?

See Van Jones for an example. But if you like kingdoms there is nothing wrong with them.

Bman wrote:

Fighter59 wrote:

Bman wrote:just like old times Fighter ... I will prove you wrong ... below is an excerpt.

Karl Christian Rove (born December 25, 1950) was Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff to former President George W. Bush until his resignation on August 31, 2007. He has headed the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Public Liaison, and the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. Since leaving the White House, Rove has worked as a political analyst and contributor for Fox News, Newsweek and The Wall Street Journal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove


Not STFU and go back to work.

Just as I stated, Deputy Chief of Staff, which is a title many previous administrations have had. Consider yourself owned!

He was Deputy Chief of Staff and then was Sr. Advisor ... he had those two distinct roles. Sr. Advisors report to the President not to the Chief of staff.

Fighter, you are once again spoutiing off on facts you don't know ... we have schooled you previuosly on EIC consider yourself OWNED again.

Forget your estrogen pill today?

Scooby01_98 wrote:Here is a link to the US Constitution, where is slavery and only white land owners allowed to vote in it (article and section please)? The 14th amendment did away with certain state laws that did have those requirements. You know slaves count as 3/5 of a person for the distribution of legislatures. ect.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/index.html

i am familiar with the constitution. my original point was regarding either-or. want the constitution as it was originally written with none of the articles or amendments attached..meaning the bill of rights also. constitution was ratified in 1787 and (constitutional amendments) bill of rights was ratified in 1791..my point. and fyi only white male landowners were permitted to vote until the 1870's when a few states started allowing indians, blacks, and women.. seems altho in constitution voting is left to the individual states, old voting records info is available i have a olde big book dated 1880 with facts about all states and then-territories stating who is permitted to vote, according to the law in each state or territory.

floridafun wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:Here is a link to the US Constitution, where is slavery and only white land owners allowed to vote in it (article and section please)? The 14th amendment did away with certain state laws that did have those requirements. You know slaves count as 3/5 of a person for the distribution of legislatures. ect.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/index.html

i am familiar with the constitution. my original point was regarding either-or. want the constitution as it was originally written with none of the articles or amendments attached..meaning the bill of rights also. constitution was ratified in 1787 and (constitutional amendments) bill of rights was ratified in 1791..my point. and fyi only white male landowners were permitted to vote until the 1870's when a few states started allowing indians, blacks, and women.. seems altho in constitution voting is left to the individual states, old voting records info is available i have a olde big book dated 1880 with facts about all states and then-territories stating who is permitted to vote, according to the law in each state or territory.

It was you that infer that the constitution restricted only white and property owners could vote. So why bring up what states did on a topic on the U.S. constitution.?

floridafun wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:Here is a link to the US Constitution, where is slavery and only white land owners allowed to vote in it (article and section please)? The 14th amendment did away with certain state laws that did have those requirements. You know slaves count as 3/5 of a person for the distribution of legislatures. ect.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/index.html

i am familiar with the constitution. my original point was regarding either-or. want the constitution as it was originally written with none of the articles or amendments attached..meaning the bill of rights also. constitution was ratified in 1787 and (constitutional amendments) bill of rights was ratified in 1791..my point. and fyi only white male landowners were permitted to vote until the 1870's when a few states started allowing indians, blacks, and women.. seems altho in constitution voting is left to the individual states, old voting records info is available i have a olde big book dated 1880 with facts about all states and then-territories stating who is permitted to vote, according to the law in each state or territory.

I'm still missing your point what old voting laws have to do with the Constitution. All I said is there are many who want to make sure they don't have rights taken away. Allowing blacks, females, etc. to vote after 1870 or whenever is giving a right, not taking it away.

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:Here is a link to the US Constitution, where is slavery and only white land owners allowed to vote in it (article and section please)? The 14th amendment did away with certain state laws that did have those requirements. You know slaves count as 3/5 of a person for the distribution of legislatures. ect.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/index.html

i am familiar with the constitution. my original point was regarding either-or. want the constitution as it was originally written with none of the articles or amendments attached..meaning the bill of rights also. constitution was ratified in 1787 and (constitutional amendments) bill of rights was ratified in 1791..my point. and fyi only white male landowners were permitted to vote until the 1870's when a few states started allowing indians, blacks, and women.. seems altho in constitution voting is left to the individual states, old voting records info is available i have a olde big book dated 1880 with facts about all states and then-territories stating who is permitted to vote, according to the law in each state or territory.

I'm still missing your point what old voting laws have to do with the Constitution. All I said is there are many who want to make sure they don't have rights taken away. Allowing blacks, females, etc. to vote after 1870 or whenever is giving a right, not taking it away.

it took the right away of a core group who made all decisions themselves prior to that time.

floridafun wrote:

Markwes wrote:Just my opinion but I think most people who fight to protect the constitution don't really have a problem with adding to it, though doing so shouldn't be taken lightly. The problem comes when we start talking about taking away an existing right. A good example is the Fairness Doctrine, which many believe goes against freedom of the press.

guess thats true. like the right of white land-owner males were the only ones allowed to vote originally. and the right of white schools to be protected against having to tolerate non-whites learning right in the same classroom as their own kids.

i dont see what the problem is with the fairness doctrine actually. i cant wrap my mind around the constitutionality of it as a point of arguement. it was in the constitution before it was removed--right? other than the extremists might hear 2 sides to a commentary and ooops what if they start thinking the other side is making some iota of sense!!!

the added-to rights and the taking away of some rights is what i was responding to here. that would not be particularly the constifution as the either-or i mentioned earlier i dont think

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:if it takes an appointment to fill a real need..rather than months and months of pissing in the wind by the just-say-no'ers whose mission is to waste time and do nothing..why not appoint and get some work done. it isnt like he is the originator of appointing czars.

That's worked well for countries run by Kings. I thought we got away from the "King" system by declaring our independence from England. Now it looks like we have our own king. King Obama.

So what exactly is the problem with these appointments again? I know you said load of crap, but really, what is the issue?

See Van Jones for an example. But if you like kingdoms there is nothing wrong with them.

Van Jones is the unemployed guy, right?

floridafun wrote:

Markwes wrote:

floridafun wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:Here is a link to the US Constitution, where is slavery and only white land owners allowed to vote in it (article and section please)? The 14th amendment did away with certain state laws that did have those requirements. You know slaves count as 3/5 of a person for the distribution of legislatures. ect.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/index.html

i am familiar with the constitution. my original point was regarding either-or. want the constitution as it was originally written with none of the articles or amendments attached..meaning the bill of rights also. constitution was ratified in 1787 and (constitutional amendments) bill of rights was ratified in 1791..my point. and fyi only white male landowners were permitted to vote until the 1870's when a few states started allowing indians, blacks, and women.. seems altho in constitution voting is left to the individual states, old voting records info is available i have a olde big book dated 1880 with facts about all states and then-territories stating who is permitted to vote, according to the law in each state or territory.

I'm still missing your point what old voting laws have to do with the Constitution. All I said is there are many who want to make sure they don't have rights taken away. Allowing blacks, females, etc. to vote after 1870 or whenever is giving a right, not taking it away.

it took the right away of a core group who made all decisions themselves prior to that time.

Still living in the past....

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:

floridafun wrote:if it takes an appointment to fill a real need..rather than months and months of pissing in the wind by the just-say-no'ers whose mission is to waste time and do nothing..why not appoint and get some work done. it isnt like he is the originator of appointing czars.

That's worked well for countries run by Kings. I thought we got away from the "King" system by declaring our independence from England. Now it looks like we have our own king. King Obama.

So what exactly is the problem with these appointments again? I know you said load of crap, but really, what is the issue?

See Van Jones for an example. But if you like kingdoms there is nothing wrong with them.

Van Jones is the unemployed guy, right?

Yeah, King Obama's friend.

whoosieme wrote:Scrotman YOU were the one who whanked and whinged over Obamas use of the "czar" word and how unamerican it was and some other senseless blither. I only pointed out that Bush was the president who use the term czar 1st.
And so freaking what if Geo the 1st didnt have a "green czar" he STILL czars. "czars" as in the word that sends Scrotman in a patriotic dither........

I didn't know what "senseless blither" meant until I just read your post. Hail the King!

WONDER JUST WHOSE CONSTITUTION THIS IS!! one of my fave sites i have neglected some parts of recently..

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

section 8...just a few things that fly in the eye of teabaggers everywhere..and seems to prove my oft stated position on a well regulated militia (under the training and control by the government) right to bear arms..but i degress plus..requires that the gov SHALL provide for the general welfare of the usa which shall be uniform throughout the states (health care?)..

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

floridafun wrote:WONDER JUST WHOSE CONSTITUTION THIS IS!! one of my fave sites i have neglected some parts of recently..

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

section 8...just a few things that fly in the eye of teabaggers everywhere..and seems to prove my oft stated position on a well regulated militia (under the training and control by the government) right to bear arms..but i degress plus..requires that the gov SHALL provide for the general welfare of the usa which shall be uniform throughout the states (health care?)..

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

floridafun wrote:WONDER JUST WHOSE CONSTITUTION THIS IS!! one of my fave sites i have neglected some parts of recently..

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

section 8...just a few things that fly in the eye of teabaggers everywhere..and seems to prove my oft stated position on a well regulated militia (under the training and control by the government) right to bear arms..but i degress plus..requires that the gov SHALL provide for the general welfare of the usa which shall be uniform throughout the states (health care?)..

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Hmmm, learn something new every day. The word "erection" is in our Constitution.

I fell asleep before I read that part.

I had 2 cups of coffee this morning. That helped.

Kroman wrote:I fell asleep before I read that part.

some day maybe you will become a patriotic american and will be interested in our founding documents.

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:I fell asleep before I read that part.

some day maybe you will become a patriotic american and will be interested in our founding documents.

Maybe some day someone will explain to you the real meaning of the founding documents.

Kroman wrote:I fell asleep before I read that part.

most republicans have the same reaction...

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:I fell asleep before I read that part.

most republicans have the same reaction...

most democrats take over a week to reply to someone's post too.

floridafun wrote:

Kroman wrote:I fell asleep before I read that part.

some day maybe you will become a patriotic american and will be interested in our founding documents.

I've read them. I'm just not patriotic enough to read your long winded boring posts.

Kroman wrote:

Pez wrote:

Kroman wrote:I fell asleep before I read that part.

most republicans have the same reaction...

most democrats take over a week to reply to someone's post too.

oooh burn...