What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Shouldn’t the people get to elect their own Senators?

Well, maybe not.
Click to expand...

As transparent political fig leaves go, IALTO. It's up there with states' rights, original intent, and religious liberty on the Rushmore of laughably obvious rationalizations of evil.

It's just a shame the right sandblasted racial purity off the mountain after their German brothers-in-arms took it too far, but Dump is doing his best to bring back blood and soil.
 
Last edited:
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

"What the Founders intended" means jack and **** when we're discussing an Amendment. And the powers of the states died in 1865, not 1913.
 
Kepler said:
As did slavery.
Click to expand...

That was in place when the Union was formed and the outlaw of the importation of slaves (by 1820?) was written into the original version.

It took a war and the 13th Amendment to outlaw it completely in the USA.

Prohibition was not to correct a flaw in the original Constitution, but an attempt at social engineering by the Fed. That is not what the amendment process is for.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

The amendment process can be for anything We the People want it to be, thank you very much. The Constitution is just the highest law in the land, not divine etching on golden tablets.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

joecct said:
That was in place when the Union was formed and the outlaw of the importation of slaves (by 1820?) was written into the original version.

It took a war and the 13th Amendment to outlaw it completely in the USA.

Prohibition was not to correct a flaw in the original Constitution, but an attempt at social engineering by the Fed. That is not what the amendment process is for.
Click to expand...

LOL, wut?
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

joecct said:
Prohibition was not to correct a flaw in the original Constitution, but an attempt at social engineering by the Fed. That is not what the amendment process is for.
Click to expand...

Women's suffrage is "social engineering." Emancipation is "social engineering." Banning property requirements on the franchise is "social engineering." The Civil Rights movement is "social engineering."

You aren't defending a difference in kind, you're advocating for your particular, narrow, parochial preferences, just like the rest of us.

Insofar as there is any default setting on the Constitution it's privilege and should be rooted out and expunged. Stop thinking scripturally -- the Founders were as full of sh-t as everybody else who ever lived. We defer to them only as a practical matter to prevent chaos, but when we explicitly overrule them we stand on exactly the same justification as they had in writing the document in the first place.

None of the Constitution came from God (since, ya know, aint one). It's arbitrary sh-t you and I make up every day, and we can change it every day if we want to. We are not the slaves to the past, as much as the rich want us to be to protect their dominance. Come with me if you want to be free. Stay where you are if you want to grovel for table scraps from the masters who invented and focus grouped your political faith to con you out of your birthright as a free man.
 
Last edited:
LynahFan said:
The amendment process can be for anything We the People want it to be, thank you very much. The Constitution is just the highest law in the land, not divine etching on golden tablets.
Click to expand...

Are you saying god didn’t etch it in stone and drop them down to the founders?
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Does his cow agree?

“JUST IN: GOP Rep. Devin Nunes says he's preparing to send eight criminal referrals to Attorney General William Barr for crimes including lying to Congress, misleading Congress and leaking classified information.”
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Does his cow agree?

“JUST IN: GOP Rep. Devin Nunes says he's preparing to send eight criminal referrals to Attorney General William Barr for crimes including lying to Congress, misleading Congress and leaking classified information.”
Click to expand...

Speaking of leaking, that grapefruit he just drilled a hole in.

If his memos were any indication, I look forward to seeing how quickly these are laughed out of court.
 
joecct said:
That was in place when the Union was formed and the outlaw of the importation of slaves (by 1820?) was written into the original version.

It took a war and the 13th Amendment to outlaw it completely in the USA.

Prohibition was not to correct a flaw in the original Constitution, but an attempt at social engineering by the Fed. That is not what the amendment process is for.
Click to expand...

Go back to Civics class...
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Uh oh, someone's 401k is heavily invested in pharmaceuticals...

What a piece of sh** senator. Profits mean more than public health.
 
Re: 116th Congress: Episode 1 - Trial by Fire

Devin Nunes' council did keyword searches on Twitter for his name and key phrases, and they're appalled at the results that turned up. They're suing Twitter users for merely discussing news articles in their Tweets. That's right, Nunes' legal council doesn't understand how Twitter works.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">OMG — did Nunes’ counsel do a Twitter keyword search for this reporter’s tweet and then accuse her of bolding the words on Twitter?! <a href="https://t.co/qNAJL2Hk8R">https://t.co/qNAJL2Hk8R</a> <a href="https://t.co/a2qq0aS3UV">pic.twitter.com/a2qq0aS3UV</a></p>— Matt Pearce &#55358;&#56709; (@mattdpearce) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1115435311360643072?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 9, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top