Civilized said:

---

Me too. Going negative just becomes a race to the bottom.

Trump/Hillary and Trump/Biden were/are pretty bad but Tillis/Cunningham may take the cake for negative campaigning. I ever hear another one of those ****ing ads again it will be too soon.

---

The words are worse but the hate was worse Hunt - Senator NO Helms....2 machines. At least we got a good governor for 16 years! Senator NO Helms was the first to tell out and out lies about someone in a campaign! He lied like hell to get in the Senate against a great man in Robert Morgan! Robert Morgan got run over by a MACHINE...like another good man did in Jimmy Carter. Good men can't be politicians......but the world knows they are/were good men!

ciscopack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Me too. Going negative just becomes a race to the bottom.

Trump/Hillary and Trump/Biden were/are pretty bad but Tillis/Cunningham may take the cake for negative campaigning. I ever hear another one of those ****ing ads again it will be too soon.

---

The words are worse but the hate was worse Hunt - Senator NO Helms....2 machines. At least we got a good governor for 16 years! Senator NO Helms was the first to tell out and out lies about someone in a campaign! He lied like hell to get in the Senate against a great man in Robert Morgan! Robert Morgan got run over by a MACHINE...like another good man did in Jimmy Carter. Good men can't be politicians......but the world knows they are/were good men!

---

I thought Morgan lost to John East in part because Morgan refused to show East in his wheel chair. Carter Wren and the Congressional Club was quite the machine.

lumberpack5 said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Me too. Going negative just becomes a race to the bottom.

Trump/Hillary and Trump/Biden were/are pretty bad but Tillis/Cunningham may take the cake for negative campaigning. I ever hear another one of those ****ing ads again it will be too soon.

---

The words are worse but the hate was worse Hunt - Senator NO Helms....2 machines. At least we got a good governor for 16 years! Senator NO Helms was the first to tell out and out lies about someone in a campaign! He lied like hell to get in the Senate against a great man in Robert Morgan! Robert Morgan got run over by a MACHINE...like another good man did in Jimmy Carter. Good men can't be politicians......but the world knows they are/were good men!

---

I thought Morgan lost to John East in part because Morgan refused to show East in his wheel chair. Carter Wren and the Congressional Club was quite the machine.

---

Maybe so....Robert Morgan was a good dude.....probably not a great politician. Mr. Smith-Morgan went to Washington. East and the Helms machine.

Joe Biden campaign suspends negative Trump ads for now. Jesse Helms was the modern father of negative ads!

It's also fake news.

Agree, it's a big nothing burger.

With Trump at this point, further examples that he lacks empathy or presidential decorum are like peeing in the ocean.

He's Jersey trash in a bespoke suit.

packgrad said:

---

---

Not saying she's lying here but this is a woman who is on record lying repeatedly while under oath in court.

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

jadawson said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Not saying she's lying here but this is a woman who is on record lying repeatedly while under oath in court.

---

Biden has plagiarized speeches before and put them out as his own. He has bragged about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine that was investigating his son. They said the prosecutor was corrupt, but that has been proven false. Biden was playing around with his current wife when she was still married to her first husband.

If Tara Reede had said this about a Republican, you would see it on every channel, every hour of the day. I don't know if she is being truthful or not, but her mom did call into Larry King right after this happened. She is not perfect, but Biden is not as pure as the wind blown snow either.

---

Never said a word about Biden but clearly you needed to get that off your chest.

Also, it does make me laugh that NOW is when im supposed to care about infidelity from a politician? Do we know who is in office right now?

jadawson said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

jadawson said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Not saying she's lying here but this is a woman who is on record lying repeatedly while under oath in court.

---

Biden has plagiarized speeches before and put them out as his own. He has bragged about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine that was investigating his son. They said the prosecutor was corrupt, but that has been proven false. Biden was playing around with his current wife when she was still married to her first husband.

If Tara Reede had said this about a Republican, you would see it on every channel, every hour of the day. I don't know if she is being truthful or not, but her mom did call into Larry King right after this happened. She is not perfect, but Biden is not as pure as the wind blown snow either.

---

Never said a word about Biden but clearly you needed to get that off your chest.

Also, it does make me laugh that NOW is when im supposed to care about infidelity from a politician? Do we know who is in office right now?

---

In fairness, one of the first things the Dems tried to get Trump on was Stormy Daniels, so it seemed to matter to you just a few years ago. But not now I suppose?

Pacfanweb said:

---

jadawson said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

jadawson said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Not saying she's lying here but this is a woman who is on record lying repeatedly while under oath in court.

---

Biden has plagiarized speeches before and put them out as his own. He has bragged about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine that was investigating his son. They said the prosecutor was corrupt, but that has been proven false. Biden was playing around with his current wife when she was still married to her first husband.

If Tara Reede had said this about a Republican, you would see it on every channel, every hour of the day. I don't know if she is being truthful or not, but her mom did call into Larry King right after this happened. She is not perfect, but Biden is not as pure as the wind blown snow either.

---

Never said a word about Biden but clearly you needed to get that off your chest.

Also, it does make me laugh that NOW is when im supposed to care about infidelity from a politician? Do we know who is in office right now?

---

In fairness, one of the first things the Dems tried to get Trump on was Stormy Daniels, so it seemed to matter to you just a few years ago. But not now I suppose?

---

Ive never said I was voting for Cal Cunningham before or after this scandal (hint: i don't think I am). It mattered to me then and it matters to me now.

The projection is unreal with the words you are putting in my mouth.

Ask yourself though, why do so many seem to care now when they voted (and will vote again) for one of the biggest examples of immoral New York Elitist that has ever existed. Publicly cheated on his first wife and even played it up in the tabloids. Cheated on Melania as well while she was pregnant. He is walking example of breaking the commandments and all these religious people don't seem to care when it's trump.

jadawson said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

jadawson said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

jadawson said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Not saying she's lying here but this is a woman who is on record lying repeatedly while under oath in court.

---

Biden has plagiarized speeches before and put them out as his own. He has bragged about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine that was investigating his son. They said the prosecutor was corrupt, but that has been proven false. Biden was playing around with his current wife when she was still married to her first husband.

If Tara Reede had said this about a Republican, you would see it on every channel, every hour of the day. I don't know if she is being truthful or not, but her mom did call into Larry King right after this happened. She is not perfect, but Biden is not as pure as the wind blown snow either.

---

Never said a word about Biden but clearly you needed to get that off your chest.

Also, it does make me laugh that NOW is when im supposed to care about infidelity from a politician? Do we know who is in office right now?

---

In fairness, one of the first things the Dems tried to get Trump on was Stormy Daniels, so it seemed to matter to you just a few years ago. But not now I suppose?

---

Ive never said I was voting for Cal Cunningham before or after this scandal (hint: i don't think I am). It mattered to me then and it matters to me now.

The projection is unreal with the words you are putting in my mouth.

Ask yourself though, why do so many seem to care now when they voted (and will vote again) for one of the biggest examples of immoral New York Elitist that has ever existed. Publicly cheated on his first wife and even played it up in the tabloids. Cheated on Melania as well while she was pregnant. He is walking example of breaking the commandments and all these religious people don't seem to care when it's trump.

---

Most religious people are anti abortion and thus anti democrat who openly support and fund baby killing factories . They will always vote against dem policy regardless of who the pub candidate is. Take note I said most and not "all".

Bas2020 said:

---

jadawson said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

jadawson said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

jadawson said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Not saying she's lying here but this is a woman who is on record lying repeatedly while under oath in court.

---

Biden has plagiarized speeches before and put them out as his own. He has bragged about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine that was investigating his son. They said the prosecutor was corrupt, but that has been proven false. Biden was playing around with his current wife when she was still married to her first husband.

If Tara Reede had said this about a Republican, you would see it on every channel, every hour of the day. I don't know if she is being truthful or not, but her mom did call into Larry King right after this happened. She is not perfect, but Biden is not as pure as the wind blown snow either.

---

Never said a word about Biden but clearly you needed to get that off your chest.

Also, it does make me laugh that NOW is when im supposed to care about infidelity from a politician? Do we know who is in office right now?

---

In fairness, one of the first things the Dems tried to get Trump on was Stormy Daniels, so it seemed to matter to you just a few years ago. But not now I suppose?

---

Ive never said I was voting for Cal Cunningham before or after this scandal (hint: i don't think I am). It mattered to me then and it matters to me now.

The projection is unreal with the words you are putting in my mouth.

Ask yourself though, why do so many seem to care now when they voted (and will vote again) for one of the biggest examples of immoral New York Elitist that has ever existed. Publicly cheated on his first wife and even played it up in the tabloids. Cheated on Melania as well while she was pregnant. He is walking example of breaking the commandments and all these religious people don't seem to care when it's trump.

---

Most religious people are anti abortion and thus anti democrat who openly support and fund baby killing factories . They will always vote against dem policy regardless of who the pub candidate is. Take note I said most and not "all".

---

seems like picking and choosing which of the commandments matters most to you when the candidate you are voting for ignores several of them in the hopes that he will end something violating one. Particularly when it has failed to happen for almost 50 years now and every year that goes by builds up more and more case history that would prevent even strict "don't legislate from the bench" judges from overturning.

Interesting article on why conservatives should continue focusing on state and local level elections to add stricter barriers to abortions in their state rather than hoping a judiciary will overturn 50 years of case history.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/conservatives-cant-rely-on-amy-coney-barrett-to-overturn-roe-v-wade

WOW. You guys must watch this. I've seen a lot of these videos of Biden groping and sniffing the hair of young girls in public, but hadn't seen this one yet. Here he is literally pinching the chest/nipple of a young girl. They break it down in slow motion, and it's clear...the girl even recoils in pain.

jadawson said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

jadawson said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

jadawson said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Not saying she's lying here but this is a woman who is on record lying repeatedly while under oath in court.

---

Biden has plagiarized speeches before and put them out as his own. He has bragged about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine that was investigating his son. They said the prosecutor was corrupt, but that has been proven false. Biden was playing around with his current wife when she was still married to her first husband.

If Tara Reede had said this about a Republican, you would see it on every channel, every hour of the day. I don't know if she is being truthful or not, but her mom did call into Larry King right after this happened. She is not perfect, but Biden is not as pure as the wind blown snow either.

---

Never said a word about Biden but clearly you needed to get that off your chest.

Also, it does make me laugh that NOW is when im supposed to care about infidelity from a politician? Do we know who is in office right now?

---

In fairness, one of the first things the Dems tried to get Trump on was Stormy Daniels, so it seemed to matter to you just a few years ago. But not now I suppose?

---

Ive never said I was voting for Cal Cunningham before or after this scandal (hint: i don't think I am). It mattered to me then and it matters to me now.

The projection is unreal with the words you are putting in my mouth.

Ask yourself though, why do so many seem to care now when they voted (and will vote again) for one of the biggest examples of immoral New York Elitist that has ever existed. Publicly cheated on his first wife and even played it up in the tabloids. Cheated on Melania as well while she was pregnant. He is walking example of breaking the commandments and all these religious people don't seem to care when it's trump.

---

You missed the point. The Dems seemed to care quite a bit about Trump and Stormy just a few years ago, but now not a one that was going to vote for Cal has changed their mind about this.
And I didn't mention a thing about who you were/weren't voting for.

And here's another very damning one of Biden inappropriately touching a young girl over and over (stroking her hair, creepily touching her face) right in front of the child's parents, with the mother being sworn into office by Biden. The little girl is clearly very uncomfortable. I'm shocked that the parents didn't do anything. But I guess that's what some people would do in that situation -- in the presence of someone as powerful as the Vice President, and relying on him to advance their career.

Pacfanweb said:

---

jadawson said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

jadawson said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

jadawson said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Not saying she's lying here but this is a woman who is on record lying repeatedly while under oath in court.

---

Biden has plagiarized speeches before and put them out as his own. He has bragged about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine that was investigating his son. They said the prosecutor was corrupt, but that has been proven false. Biden was playing around with his current wife when she was still married to her first husband.

If Tara Reede had said this about a Republican, you would see it on every channel, every hour of the day. I don't know if she is being truthful or not, but her mom did call into Larry King right after this happened. She is not perfect, but Biden is not as pure as the wind blown snow either.

---

Never said a word about Biden but clearly you needed to get that off your chest.

Also, it does make me laugh that NOW is when im supposed to care about infidelity from a politician? Do we know who is in office right now?

---

In fairness, one of the first things the Dems tried to get Trump on was Stormy Daniels, so it seemed to matter to you just a few years ago. But not now I suppose?

---

Ive never said I was voting for Cal Cunningham before or after this scandal (hint: i don't think I am). It mattered to me then and it matters to me now.

The projection is unreal with the words you are putting in my mouth.

Ask yourself though, why do so many seem to care now when they voted (and will vote again) for one of the biggest examples of immoral New York Elitist that has ever existed. Publicly cheated on his first wife and even played it up in the tabloids. Cheated on Melania as well while she was pregnant. He is walking example of breaking the commandments and all these religious people don't seem to care when it's trump.

---

You missed the point. The Dems seemed to care quite a bit about Trump and Stormy just a few years ago, but now not a one that was going to vote for Cal has changed their mind about this.
And I didn't mention a thing about who you were/weren't voting for.

---

I already said that im probably changing my mind in literally the post you responded to. But honestly why should dems change their minds? Its been proven time and time again that neither party cares about immorality in a candidate and in a two party system the high road gets you nowhere. Considering a large portion of the religous population of the country are conservative, you'd think they would care but hypocrisy runs deep amongst them as well.

And when you say things like "so it seemed to matter to you a few years ago. But not now I suppose?" i tend to view it as saying something about me. Seeing as you used Dems to refer to the group at large in the previous sentence the 2nd one is easy to see as a personal jab.

I used to support Trump, but no longer do. But you can't compare the past marital infidelities of a candidate to their support for abortion or their other immoral positions on issues. That's apples and oranges. It certainly reflects negatively upon the character of a person that they would have committed adultery. But I'm sure if you asked almost any political candidate (including Trump) about his past adultery, for instance, he would not condone it. He would say he made a mistake. And maybe that person is not just saying that, but has had a true change of heart, and is now a better person.

But with an issue like abortion, you have Democrats CONTINUING to support the murder of unborn children. It's not like, "hey I USED to support abortion in the past, but now I apologize and no longer support it". No, they CONTINUE To support the murder of unborn children.

jadawson said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

jadawson said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

jadawson said:

---

packgrad said:

---

---

Not saying she's lying here but this is a woman who is on record lying repeatedly while under oath in court.

---

Biden has plagiarized speeches before and put them out as his own. He has bragged about getting a prosecutor fired in Ukraine that was investigating his son. They said the prosecutor was corrupt, but that has been proven false. Biden was playing around with his current wife when she was still married to her first husband.

If Tara Reede had said this about a Republican, you would see it on every channel, every hour of the day. I don't know if she is being truthful or not, but her mom did call into Larry King right after this happened. She is not perfect, but Biden is not as pure as the wind blown snow either.

---

Never said a word about Biden but clearly you needed to get that off your chest.

Also, it does make me laugh that NOW is when im supposed to care about infidelity from a politician? Do we know who is in office right now?

---

In fairness, one of the first things the Dems tried to get Trump on was Stormy Daniels, so it seemed to matter to you just a few years ago. But not now I suppose?

---

Ive never said I was voting for Cal Cunningham before or after this scandal (hint: i don't think I am). It mattered to me then and it matters to me now.

The projection is unreal with the words you are putting in my mouth.

Ask yourself though, why do so many seem to care now when they voted (and will vote again) for one of the biggest examples of immoral New York Elitist that has ever existed. Publicly cheated on his first wife and even played it up in the tabloids. Cheated on Melania as well while she was pregnant. He is walking example of breaking the commandments and all these religious people don't seem to care when it's trump.

---

Because he doesn't tell us about some moral high ground. The point is, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. No person should be an idol of another. The real argument to be made: which politician, then party, gets us closest to liberty. Liberty meaning individual freedoms as recognized and protected by the constitution. Our moral compass is from God (at least for me it does), not people...

Liberty is why I will vote Republican as they are the closest to it that we have. Another government solution is: A) not constitutional, and B) taking away more of our liberties. Study the original intent of the constitution and you will come away with the same opinion. If you don't, then, you are not putting original intent along with what people were experiencing at the time. I will say this: technology has changed; however, really nothing else has changed from the times these founders lived.

Liberty is Liberty! Today, 250 years ago, 1,000's of years ago...

GuerrillaPack said:

---

I used to support Trump, but no longer do. But you can't compare the past marital infidelities of a candidate to their support for abortion or their other immoral positions on issues. That's apples and oranges. It certainly reflects negatively upon the character of a person that they would have committed adultery. But I'm sure if you asked almost any political candidate (including Trump) about his past adultery, for instance, he would not condone it. He would say he made a mistake. And maybe that person is not just saying that, but has had a true change of heart, and is now a better person.

But with an issue like abortion, you have Democrats CONTINUING to support the murder of unborn children. It's not like, "hey I USED to support abortion in the past, but now I apologize and no longer support it". No, they CONTINUE To support the murder of unborn children.

---

Well no i do think you can compare it. Particularly when no one can agree exactly when life begins. Not even all sects of Christianity agree, so it comes off as disingenuous to a lot of people to call it the murder of unborn children when many wouldn't agree with that statement.

At the time Roe V Wade decision was made, the Southern Baptist Convention president praised the decision saying "I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person," the redoubtable fundamentalist declared, "and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed." So it seems like baptists can't even get it straight what they believe even though scripture hasn't changed in the last 50 years....

The largest Presbyterian org in the country is largely pro-choice, UCC, Quakers, Disciples of Christ, not to mention Judaism, with many Jewish leaders often coming off insulted that Christians choose to make laws off interpretations of scripture that are in opposition to their own interpretations of the same text.

I would argue that there are some conservatives out there who only believe it does for political points as well. If you notice during all abortion debates a fetus is a person that can be murdered, but when debating a stimulus bill a fetus was vehemently argued by conservatives as not counting as a person in the household. Seems like the fetus inside a woman only counts as a person unless they are being asked to open up their wallets...

caryking said:

---

Because he doesn't tell us about some moral high ground. The point is, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. No person should be an idol of another. The real argument to be made: which politician, then party, gets us closest to liberty. Liberty meaning individual freedoms as recognized and protected by the constitution. Our moral compass is from God (at least for me it does), not people...

Liberty is why I will vote Republican as they are the closest to it that we have. Another government solution is: A) not constitutional, and B) taking away more of our liberties. Study the original intent of the constitution and you will come away with the same opinion. If you don't, then, you are not putting original intent along with what people were experiencing at the time. I will say this: technology has changed; however, really nothing else has changed from the times these founders lived.

Liberty is Liberty! Today, 250 years ago, 1,000's of years ago...

---

Well I would say that a LOT has changed since the time these founders lived. At the time of writing for instance liberty for them only mean liberty for white property holding males. I think we're all glad the society has moved past that.

Thomas Jefferson argued in his letters to James Madison that they should specifically allow within the framework that the document should be revisited and amended by each generation for periodical repairs until the end of time. Many of these founders that we rely so heavily on probably wouldn't be as happy as you'd think that we are still largely relying on their same words from almost 250 years ago.

jadawson said:

---

Well no i do think you can compare it. Particularly when no one can agree exactly when life begins. Not even all sects of Christianity agree, so it comes off as disingenuous to a lot of people to call it the murder of unborn children when many wouldn't agree with that statement.

At the time Roe V Wade decision was made, the Southern Baptist Convention president praised the decision saying "I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person," the redoubtable fundamentalist declared, "and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed." So it seems like baptists can't even get it straight what they believe even though scripture hasn't changed in the last 50 years....

The largest Presbyterian org in the country is largely pro-choice, UCC, Quakers, Disciples of Christ, not to mention Judaism, with many Jewish leaders often coming off insulted that Christians choose to make laws off interpretations of scripture that are in opposition to their own interpretations of the same text.

I would argue that there are some conservatives out there who only believe it does for political points as well. If you notice during all abortion debates a fetus is a person that can be murdered, but when debating a stimulus bill a fetus was vehemently argued by conservatives as not counting as a person in the household. Seems like the fetus inside a woman only counts as a person unless they are being asked to open up their wallets...

---

The fact that people disagree on a question or issue does NOT mean that there is no certainty (ie, a definitive truth) on the issue or question. There are now "disagreements" about whether there are two genders (male and female) or "70 genders".

Peoples opinions have ZERO bearing upon reality. The fact of the matter is that human life begins at conception. That is beyond question. It is 100% clear from basic biology, and easily proven. At conception, the unborn child is #1 alive, and #2 carries complete genetics to qualify as a "human being". So, at conception it is a human being that is alive.

To kill that unborn child, whether at 1 day after conception, or 8.5 months after conception while the unborn child is still in the womb...is MURDER. Period. The act of being born and removing the unborn child from the womb does not magically make it a "human being" at that point. The unborn child is a living human being whether they are 2, 3, 5, 7, or 9 months old.

I don't care what the Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, or Judaism says. Anyone condoning abortion is condoning the MURDER of unborn children.

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

Because he doesn't tell us about some moral high ground. The point is, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. No person should be an idol of another. The real argument to be made: which politician, then party, gets us closest to liberty. Liberty meaning individual freedoms as recognized and protected by the constitution. Our moral compass is from God (at least for me it does), not people...

Liberty is why I will vote Republican as they are the closest to it that we have. Another government solution is: A) not constitutional, and B) taking away more of our liberties. Study the original intent of the constitution and you will come away with the same opinion. If you don't, then, you are not putting original intent along with what people were experiencing at the time. I will say this: technology has changed; however, really nothing else has changed from the times these founders lived.

Liberty is Liberty! Today, 250 years ago, 1,000's of years ago...

---

Well I would say that a LOT has changed since the time these founders lived. At the time of writing for instance liberty for them only mean liberty for white property holding males. That's such a bunch of crap and you know it. It's the lefts new talking point! I think we're all glad the society has moved past that.

Thomas Jefferson argued in his letters to James Madison that they should specifically allow within the framework that the document should be revisited and amended by each generation for periodical repairs until the end of time. We have it. It's called the amendment process and it very difficult to do, so, your statement is so hollow! Many of these founders that we rely so heavily on probably wouldn't be as happy as you'd think that we are still largely relying on their same words from almost 250 years ago. Again, that's a bunch of crap! Words spoken by a very uniformed person.

---

My thoughts in bold above...

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

Because he doesn't tell us about some moral high ground. The point is, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. No person should be an idol of another. The real argument to be made: which politician, then party, gets us closest to liberty. Liberty meaning individual freedoms as recognized and protected by the constitution. Our moral compass is from God (at least for me it does), not people...

Liberty is why I will vote Republican as they are the closest to it that we have. Another government solution is: A) not constitutional, and B) taking away more of our liberties. Study the original intent of the constitution and you will come away with the same opinion. If you don't, then, you are not putting original intent along with what people were experiencing at the time. I will say this: technology has changed; however, really nothing else has changed from the times these founders lived.

Liberty is Liberty! Today, 250 years ago, 1,000's of years ago...

---

Well I would say that a LOT has changed since the time these founders lived. At the time of writing for instance liberty for them only mean liberty for white property holding males. That's such a bunch of crap and you know it. It's the lefts new talking point! I think we're all glad the society has moved past that.

Thomas Jefferson argued in his letters to James Madison that they should specifically allow within the framework that the document should be revisited and amended by each generation for periodical repairs until the end of time. We have it. It's called the amendment process and it very difficult to do, so, your statement is so hollow! Many of these founders that we rely so heavily on probably wouldn't be as happy as you'd think that we are still largely relying on their same words from almost 250 years ago. Again, that's a bunch of crap! Words spoken by a very uniformed person.

---

My thoughts in bold above...

---

If you care to expound upon those points please feel free to do so. Im sorry if i don't take "that's a bunch of crap" by itself as a solid rebuttal. I literally gave the example of Thomas Jefferson and your response is "that's a bunch of crap"

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

jadawson said:

---

caryking said:

---

Because he doesn't tell us about some moral high ground. The point is, we have all fallen short of the glory of God. No person should be an idol of another. The real argument to be made: which politician, then party, gets us closest to liberty. Liberty meaning individual freedoms as recognized and protected by the constitution. Our moral compass is from God (at least for me it does), not people...

Liberty is why I will vote Republican as they are the closest to it that we have. Another government solution is: A) not constitutional, and B) taking away more of our liberties. Study the original intent of the constitution and you will come away with the same opinion. If you don't, then, you are not putting original intent along with what people were experiencing at the time. I will say this: technology has changed; however, really nothing else has changed from the times these founders lived.

Liberty is Liberty! Today, 250 years ago, 1,000's of years ago...

---

Well I would say that a LOT has changed since the time these founders lived. At the time of writing for instance liberty for them only mean liberty for white property holding males. That's such a bunch of crap and you know it. It's the lefts new talking point! I think we're all glad the society has moved past that.

Thomas Jefferson argued in his letters to James Madison that they should specifically allow within the framework that the document should be revisited and amended by each generation for periodical repairs until the end of time. We have it. It's called the amendment process and it very difficult to do, so, your statement is so hollow! Many of these founders that we rely so heavily on probably wouldn't be as happy as you'd think that we are still largely relying on their same words from almost 250 years ago. Again, that's a bunch of crap! Words spoken by a very uniformed person.

---

My thoughts in bold above...

---

If you care to expound upon those points please feel free to do so. Im sorry if i don't take "that's a bunch of crap" by itself as a solid rebuttal. I literally gave the example of Thomas Jefferson and your response is "that's a bunch of crap"

---

Yep, that's what it is... "a bunch of crap". I don't know specifically where Jefferson said that to Madison; however, I am confident that what you are saying, if true, is taken completely out of context. As I said, above, the constitution does provide for an amendment process. Unfortunately, to the chagrin of liberals, it takes a lot to change it, as it should.

The problem with most liberals is that they can't handle the restrictions the constitution puts on them; so, they make up crazy statements like: founders wouldn't be as happy as you think as we...

What they wouldn't be happy about is the perversion of the constitution we have by both Republicans and Democrats. They literally didn't trust Man as they knew they could be corrupted.

Are you corrupted?

---

here's the letter to Madison, no context removed. It's pretty damn clear he thought the dead shouldn't rule over the living.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248

The most relevant section, but please read the whole thing

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right. It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly & without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal & vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

he thought that the constitution and laws should expire every 19 years or so and the new generation should write a new set of laws to govern themselves with, precisely because men are easily corrupted and we can't be certain that representatives are acting in the interest of their constituents.

This letter was written after the Constitution was ratified, including the Article outlining the amendment process.

A nation state attempting to operate under the strict construction of the Constitution will fail. I think perhaps we have reached the point in the relationship where we should split up into three to five smaller nation states and operate more like the European Union, sharing just a military, a common currency, Corps of Engineers, and open boarders.

The new Confederacy could consist of Northern Florida, Bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Western NC, SW Va, West Va., Kentucky and Tennessee.

They could attempt to follow strict construction, They could devolve State's rights so that they disenfranchise their poorer people. They could not provide Medicare, etc., etc. The key would be that visitors to their sub nation form the rest of the former US would retain their home sub nation rights on a visit. It would be a low tax, low service world.

The class caste system will become severe as it was in the past. I suspect that a lot of black folks, especially in Atlanta would migrate away.

California, Washington State, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado could run a very European economic and social system. They would offer a high tax, high service world.

New England, Middle Atlantic to include Eastern Va and Eastern NC, plus South Florida, PR, and VI could probably operate a moderate tax, high service environment, closer maybe to Germany or Switzerland and they would get a lot in migration from Atlanta.

In Texas and Western Oklahoma, every child can be given a gun at birth.

The Midwest and Upper Plains could run like most any developed nation in Stage 5 Demographic Transition.

As long as you don't turn over the military to Nashville, or Sacramento, or Dallas, it could work.

GuerrillaPack said:

---

---

Guy is a complete pervert - with children.

SupplyChainPack said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

---

Guy is a complete pervert - with children.

---

Says the guy who helped ruin Packpride.

lumberpack5 said:

---

A nation state attempting to operate under the strict construction of the Constitution will fail. I think perhaps we have reached the point in the relationship where we should split up into three to five smaller nation states and operate more like the European Union, sharing just a military, a common currency, Corps of Engineers, and open boarders.

The new Confederacy could consist of Northern Florida, Bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Western NC, SW Va, West Va., Kentucky and Tennessee.

They could attempt to follow strict construction, They could devolve State's rights so that they disenfranchise their poorer people. They could not provide Medicare, etc., etc. The key would be that visitors to their sub nation form the rest of the former US would retain their home sub nation rights on a visit. It would be a low tax, low service world.

The class caste system will become severe as it was in the past. I suspect that a lot of black folks, especially in Atlanta would migrate away.

California, Washington State, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado could run a very European economic and social system. They would offer a high tax, high service world.

New England, Middle Atlantic to include Eastern Va and Eastern NC, plus South Florida, PR, and VI could probably operate a moderate tax, high service environment, closer maybe to Germany or Switzerland and they would get a lot in migration from Atlanta.

In Texas and Western Oklahoma, every child can be given a gun at birth.

The Midwest and Upper Plains could run like most any developed nation in Stage 5 Demographic Transition.

As long as you don't turn over the military to Nashville, or Sacramento, or Dallas, it could work.

---

Hell no your not gonna stick eastern NC in with that group. Put the whole state in the southern group together

lumberpack5 said:

---

A nation state attempting to operate under the strict construction of the Constitution will fail. I think perhaps we have reached the point in the relationship where we should split up into three to five smaller nation states and operate more like the European Union, sharing just a military, a common currency, Corps of Engineers, and open boarders.

The new Confederacy could consist of Northern Florida, Bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Western NC, SW Va, West Va., Kentucky and Tennessee.

They could attempt to follow strict construction, They could devolve State's rights so that they disenfranchise their poorer people. They could not provide Medicare, etc., etc. The key would be that visitors to their sub nation form the rest of the former US would retain their home sub nation rights on a visit. It would be a low tax, low service world.

The class caste system will become severe as it was in the past. I suspect that a lot of black folks, especially in Atlanta would migrate away.

California, Washington State, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado could run a very European economic and social system. They would offer a high tax, high service world.

New England, Middle Atlantic to include Eastern Va and Eastern NC, plus South Florida, PR, and VI could probably operate a moderate tax, high service environment, closer maybe to Germany or Switzerland and they would get a lot in migration from Atlanta.

In Texas and Western Oklahoma, every child can be given a gun at birth.

The Midwest and Upper Plains could run like most any developed nation in Stage 5 Demographic Transition.

As long as you don't turn over the military to Nashville, or Sacramento, or Dallas, it could work.

---

Ah, balkanization. Works great every time. How about the statists let the libertarians live free. That would keep the country intact right there. That way ENC would not be included with New Jersey.