Display MoreOver supper in the mid sixties I quipped that living document nonsense Mrs. Laws taught us in Civics.
My Daddy (prior to retiring to give momma her quality time) asked me to elaborate.
In no time we were all in a parochial school.
Thanks Daddy.
So you'd be fine tearing it back to the 10th amendment.
No, because the southern states were slaveholding and the 13th amendment prohibited slavery.
so were some northern states
Roll the Constitution back to the 10th and we fix the problems
Roll the Constitution back to the 10th and we fix the problems
Certainly a good start. If we actually had he system we brag about having I could probably support it. It's long, long gone though.
Alright, I've gone ahead blocked this seat sniffing milk-sop. Never done that before, but maybe it is useful. Especially when just seeing someone's name makes you feel icky, thinking of what they are like.
Who’da thunk fishface would pull such a fucking pussy move?
Who’da thunk fishface would pull such a fucking pussy move?
I can argue all day, but not if the other party is a troll looking for lulz. I stand by it. Guy disgusts me. It is such a minor point, what do you care. Again, no substance, just attracted by e-drama. Say something interesting, you're just trolling too. Collective mental age here is like 14.
I'd be fine rounding up everyone that disagrees and taking them for a tour of the gulfstream
I'd be fine rounding up everyone that disagrees and taking them for a tour of the gulfstream
Don't forget to charge up your hoveround.
Fishbaum can’t take a joke (as he apparently has no sense of humor) and when I show his faulty thinking, he takes his ball and goes home…
Fishbaum can’t take a joke (as he apparently has no sense of humor) and when I show his faulty thinking, he takes his ball and goes home…
Hell no the constitution wouldn't be passed today. First they'd never allow the second amendment. They are pushing the UN agenda 30 agenda now. It comes no where close to the constitution. You see, back then we had leaders who wanted freedom from government feudalism. Now we have leaders who embrace it and treat us like cattle because they believe they are superior humans over the rest.
The one amendment that should have never been passed, is the 17th amendment which allows individuals to vote for Senator rather than the representatives. Now all they gotta do is corrupt the largest cities/counties and boom, that's your Senator. Before representatives voted for Senator which normally meant that smaller populated rural areas had better representation of who became Senator. The democrats of course controlled congress in 1913 and the presidency under Woodrow Wilson. Guess what was also passed later in 1913? The Federal Reserve. This is partially why you have senators who have stayed in their positions for 40 years. Rural areas don't have representation for their senators anymore.
We all know that this thread is just another case of inbred bumpkins arguing that their votes should count more than the votes of normal people.
We all know that this thread is just another case of inbred bumpkins arguing that their votes should count more than the votes of normal people.
They should. That's what made this country the greatest on the planet.
As more and more time goes on, I've been convinced that Democracy **IS** the worst form of government.
They should. That's what made this country the greatest on the planet.
As more and more time goes on, I've been convinced that Democracy **IS** the worst form of government.
No doubt a lot of inbred bumpkins believe that while they sit in their trailer and watch False News while living off disability.
FUnny coming from the unclefucker hillbilly.
FUnny coming from the unclefucker hillbilly.
You're from TN, right? You know exactly the people I'm talking about. Hell, odds are you're one of them.
They should. That's what made this country the greatest on the planet.
As more and more time goes on, I've been convinced that Democracy **IS** the worst form of government.
Bam. Right on target.
The importance of today’s event I think really needs no explanation,” Notre Dame professor Philip Munoz said while introducing Duncan. “What happened two weeks ago at Stanford Law School raises fundamental questions about free speech and our liberal democracy and how healthy our free speech culture is … especially at our nation’s elite schools.” Munoz also noted that members of the Stanford Federalist Society were watching the lecture virtually.
Duncan began his talk by praising the enduring tradition of free speech, including student protests. “[America is] a great country, where you can harshly criticize federal judges and nothing bad will happen to you,” he said. “You might even get praised or promoted. … The students at Stanford and other elite law schools swim in an ocean of free speech.”
“But make no mistake, what went on in that classroom on March the ninth had nothing to do with our proud American tradition of free speech,” Duncan noted. “It was rather a parody of it.”
“It is not free speech to silence others because you hate them,” Duncan continued. “It is not free speech to jeer and heckle a speaker who has been invited to your school so that he can’t deliver a talk. It is not free speech to form a mob and hurl taunts and threats that aren’t worthy of being written on the wall of a public toilet. It is not free speech to pretend to be harmed by words or ideas you disagree with, and then use that feigned harm as a license to deny a speaker the most rudimentary forms of civility.”
Duncan rebuked the idea that the hecklers were engaging in “counter speech,” or participating in the “marketplace of ideas.”
“Counter speech means offering a reasoned response to an argument,” he said. “It doesn’t mean screaming ‘Shut up, you scum we hate you,’ at a distance of 12 feet. … The marketplace of ideas describes a free and fair competition among opposing arguments, with the most compelling one, we hope, emerging on the top. What transpired at Stanford was no marketplace. It was more like a flash mob on a shoplifting spree.”
Duncan said the mob had no intention of engaging with his ideas. “[T]he mob had no interest in my talk at all,” the judge remarked. “They were there to heckle and to cheer and to shame. Let’s say the quiet part out loud: The mob came to target me because they hate my work and my ideas.”
The protest had nothing to do with free speech, he concluded. “It had everything to do with intimidation. And to be clear, not intimidating me. I’m not intimidated by this. I’m a life-tenured judge. I’m going to go back to my court and keep writing opinions. No, the target of the intimidation was the protesters’ fellow students.”
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
