Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Black Political Activists: Tea Party 'Not Racist'
msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 08/14/13 11:52 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I guess it can be stated that the ideology of the democratic party attracts more ignorant people who do not understand the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Same type statement you make about the Tea Party.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 08/14/13 11:53 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I guess it can be stated that the ideology of the democratic party attracts more ignorant people who do not understand the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Same type statement you make about the Tea Party. can absolutely be stated, be interesting to see actual STUDIES That back up that logic though,,lol then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol

Serchin4MyRedWine Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 3483	Wed 08/14/13 11:58 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I guess it can be stated that the ideology of the democratic party attracts more ignorant people who do not understand the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Same type statement you make about the Tea Party. can absolutely be stated, be interesting to see actual STUDIES That back up that logic though,,lol then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol Agreed it can be changed, but there are proper ways to change it unlike how Obama totally disregards the Constitution which he is sworn to uphold!

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 08/14/13 11:59 AM
of course,,,,

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48912	Wed 08/14/13 12:35 PM
then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol "Living document" is code for "we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean", and the expression is used by people who want judges to amend the U.S. Constitution instead of amending it the way that it is supposed to be amended.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Wed 08/14/13 02:51 PM
then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol "Living document" is code for "we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean", and the expression is used by people who want judges to amend the U.S. Constitution instead of amending it the way that it is supposed to be amended. the courts INTERPRET the law,, its their job the congress and president AMEND laws and create laws,, that's their job,, as A UNIT (not separately)

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48912	Wed 08/14/13 03:53 PM
then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol "Living document" is code for "we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean", and the expression is used by people who want judges to amend the U.S. Constitution instead of amending it the way that it is supposed to be amended. the courts INTERPRET the law,, its their job the congress and president AMEND laws and create laws,, that's their job,, as A UNIT (not separately) Courts explain what a law means as it is written, not as people want it to mean.

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 08/15/13 02:58 AM
then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol "Living document" is code for "we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean", and the expression is used by people who want judges to amend the U.S. Constitution instead of amending it the way that it is supposed to be amended. the courts INTERPRET the law,, its their job the congress and president AMEND laws and create laws,, that's their job,, as A UNIT (not separately) Courts explain what a law means as it is written, not as people want it to mean. courts INTERPRET the law 2.Translate orally the words of another person speaking a different language. citizens do the same thing,, many of them will align with the courts interpretations, and many of them wont,,,

Dodo_David Joined Fri 08/13/10 Posts: 48912	Thu 08/15/13 05:15 AM
then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol "Living document" is code for "we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean", and the expression is used by people who want judges to amend the U.S. Constitution instead of amending it the way that it is supposed to be amended. the courts INTERPRET the law,, its their job the congress and president AMEND laws and create laws,, that's their job,, as A UNIT (not separately) Courts explain what a law means as it is written, not as people want it to mean. courts INTERPRET the law 2.Translate orally the words of another person speaking a different language. citizens do the same thing,, many of them will align with the courts interpretations, and many of them wont,,, Interpreting a law is one thing. Reading something into the law that is not there in order to please someone is another thing. The latter is the desire of those who keep calling the U.S. Constitution a "living document".

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Thu 08/15/13 05:54 AM Edited by Conrad_73 on Thu 08/15/13 05:57 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I guess it can be stated that the ideology of the democratic party attracts more ignorant people who do not understand the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Same type statement you make about the Tea Party. can absolutely be stated, be interesting to see actual STUDIES That back up that logic though,,lol then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol There is a specific way to do that,and nope,it is NOT through the Pen Of POTUS! Besides,The Constitution is the Long Form of;The Right To Life Liberty and The Pursuit Of Happiness! So,you think any of those Rights could/Ought to be abridged if a Majority decides to do so? Get it through your Head,those Right enumerated are not for Sale by anyone! That's why they are called RIGHTS!

TBRich Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 8232	Thu 08/15/13 07:14 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I guess it can be stated that the ideology of the democratic party attracts more ignorant people who do not understand the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Same type statement you make about the Tea Party. can absolutely be stated, be interesting to see actual STUDIES That back up that logic though,,lol then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol There is a specific way to do that,and nope,it is NOT through the Pen Of POTUS! Besides,The Constitution is the Long Form of;The Right To Life Liberty and The Pursuit Of Happiness! So,you think any of those Rights could/Ought to be abridged if a Majority decides to do so? Get it through your Head,those Right enumerated are not for Sale by anyone! That's why they are called RIGHTS! Here you are wrong. For example, there is a notable decline in people being allowed to access their rights under the Brady rulings.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Thu 08/15/13 07:21 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I guess it can be stated that the ideology of the democratic party attracts more ignorant people who do not understand the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Same type statement you make about the Tea Party. can absolutely be stated, be interesting to see actual STUDIES That back up that logic though,,lol then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol There is a specific way to do that,and nope,it is NOT through the Pen Of POTUS! Besides,The Constitution is the Long Form of;The Right To Life Liberty and The Pursuit Of Happiness! So,you think any of those Rights could/Ought to be abridged if a Majority decides to do so? Get it through your Head,those Right enumerated are not for Sale by anyone! That's why they are called RIGHTS! Here you are wrong. For example, there is a notable decline in people being allowed to access their rights under the Brady rulings. what makes you believe the Brady-Laws are constitutional?

TBRich Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 8232	Thu 08/15/13 07:27 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I guess it can be stated that the ideology of the democratic party attracts more ignorant people who do not understand the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Same type statement you make about the Tea Party. can absolutely be stated, be interesting to see actual STUDIES That back up that logic though,,lol then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol There is a specific way to do that,and nope,it is NOT through the Pen Of POTUS! Besides,The Constitution is the Long Form of;The Right To Life Liberty and The Pursuit Of Happiness! So,you think any of those Rights could/Ought to be abridged if a Majority decides to do so? Get it through your Head,those Right enumerated are not for Sale by anyone! That's why they are called RIGHTS! Here you are wrong. For example, there is a notable decline in people being allowed to access their rights under the Brady rulings. what makes you believe the Brady-Laws are constitutional? Have they been ruled unconstitutional? Do they not conform to the criteria for a fair and speedy trial? Are they currently not part of the "law of the land?" Are they valid reasons for appeal?

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Thu 08/15/13 07:51 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I guess it can be stated that the ideology of the democratic party attracts more ignorant people who do not understand the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Same type statement you make about the Tea Party. can absolutely be stated, be interesting to see actual STUDIES That back up that logic though,,lol then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol There is a specific way to do that,and nope,it is NOT through the Pen Of POTUS! Besides,The Constitution is the Long Form of;The Right To Life Liberty and The Pursuit Of Happiness! So,you think any of those Rights could/Ought to be abridged if a Majority decides to do so? Get it through your Head,those Right enumerated are not for Sale by anyone! That's why they are called RIGHTS! Here you are wrong. For example, there is a notable decline in people being allowed to access their rights under the Brady rulings. what makes you believe the Brady-Laws are constitutional? Have they been ruled unconstitutional? Do they not conform to the criteria for a fair and speedy trial? Are they currently not part of the "law of the land?" Are they valid reasons for appeal? Doesn't matter! Let them take your Rights,a little bit at a time! I hear there is a new Song being played at the WH! "We get them one Right at a time........."! Hasn't made Youtube yet,but it has already been alluded to!

InvictusV Joined Sun 11/23/08 Posts: 5282	Thu 08/15/13 08:02 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I wasn't saying that you called them racist. Rangel called them racist. What ideology attracts racists? Lower taxes? Smaller government? Liberty? Freedom? Defending the constitution?

Leigh2154 Joined Sun 10/02/11 Posts: 16479	Thu 08/15/13 08:37 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, What ideology attracts racists? Good question....

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Thu 08/15/13 09:05 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, I guess it can be stated that the ideology of the democratic party attracts more ignorant people who do not understand the Constitution or the Bill of rights. Same type statement you make about the Tea Party. can absolutely be stated, be interesting to see actual STUDIES That back up that logic though,,lol then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol Indeed it is living, to an extent. But it seems as though interpretations from the court, and amendments improperly overridden are demeaning the document. Pushing it continually away from its intent. This intent being; balance of power. It has been stated by many involved in it's making that there are certain things the government should NEVER do. Things like illegal searches/seizures, disarming citizens, preventing free speech, etc. which are included in the Bill of Rights. Our forefathers knew the very nature that still guides us today. All those in charge will actively pursue more control as it is their job to regulate. When the majority rules (which is a true democracy) 51% of the population can enslave the other 49%, quite literally. Everyone of all branches (including people) continually strive for more money. And everyone is corruptible (hence the balancing certain powers).

msharmony Joined Mon 08/31/09 Posts: 61041	Thu 08/15/13 09:05 AM
then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol "Living document" is code for "we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean", and the expression is used by people who want judges to amend the U.S. Constitution instead of amending it the way that it is supposed to be amended. the courts INTERPRET the law,, its their job the congress and president AMEND laws and create laws,, that's their job,, as A UNIT (not separately) Courts explain what a law means as it is written, not as people want it to mean. courts INTERPRET the law 2.Translate orally the words of another person speaking a different language. citizens do the same thing,, many of them will align with the courts interpretations, and many of them wont,,, Interpreting a law is one thing. Reading something into the law that is not there in order to please someone is another thing. The latter is the desire of those who keep calling the U.S. Constitution a "living document". don't like 'living' ? what about 'elastic' The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written. franklin d roosevelt or how about AMENDING law to the times,,,? In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.[5] (brown vs board) or connecting it to the 'context of the times' Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. James Madison ,,seems founders knew that it was important to consider the TIMES when faced with interpreting or amending their document,,,too bad so many take it as a simplistic BIBLE , to read EXACTLY like it did when the founders created it with the distinct capacity to be AMENDED,,,,,

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Thu 08/15/13 09:15 AM Edited by Drivinmenutz on Thu 08/15/13 09:17 AM
then there are those who understand the constitution to be a LIVING document , written with flexibility to be changed and adapted,, instead of worshipped as the final eternal word,,,lol "Living document" is code for "we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean", and the expression is used by people who want judges to amend the U.S. Constitution instead of amending it the way that it is supposed to be amended. the courts INTERPRET the law,, its their job the congress and president AMEND laws and create laws,, that's their job,, as A UNIT (not separately) Courts explain what a law means as it is written, not as people want it to mean. courts INTERPRET the law 2.Translate orally the words of another person speaking a different language. citizens do the same thing,, many of them will align with the courts interpretations, and many of them wont,,, Interpreting a law is one thing. Reading something into the law that is not there in order to please someone is another thing. The latter is the desire of those who keep calling the U.S. Constitution a "living document". don't like 'living' ? what about 'elastic' The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written. franklin d roosevelt or how about AMENDING law to the times,,,? In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the Nation. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.[5] (brown vs board) or connecting it to the 'context of the times' Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. James Madison ,,seems founders knew that it was important to consider the TIMES when faced with interpreting or amending their document,,,too bad so many take it as a simplistic BIBLE , to read EXACTLY like it did when the founders created it with the distinct capacity to be AMENDED,,,,, This is kinda like saying, "Terrorism is a huge risk which our forefathers couldn't have seen. In order to combat it in our day we must tap all phones/emails, and run them through a constant database." Or "Crime is becoming an unforeseen problem and criminals have technology that was unknown at the writing of our constitution. Lets keep people safe by putting cameras on all street corners and all homes (in case of break in)." "Lets conduct random searches of homes to look for drugs and/or missing persons." "Lets disarm the populace." "We could more effectively combat crime if we chipped everyone so we can track movements." These are all very scary things. If we don't take the constitution as it is written seriously, all these are a strong possibility.

Drivinmenutz Joined Wed 11/14/07 Posts: 4290	Thu 08/15/13 09:16 AM
Calling the tea party racist is doing it in a collective sense. So your individual case example is what is absurd.. when did I call the tea party racist? flowers are beautiful, but they still attract bees Im stating that the ideology of the tea party is likely to attract racists,, its not a condemnation of the party any more than its a condemnation of flowers that bees happen to be drawn to them,,, What ideology attracts racists? Good question.... Indeed, i would certainly like to know...