Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 58

Thread: The Constitution is a piece of paper

  1. #1
    LibForestPaul
    Member

    The Constitution is a piece of paper

    The United States is on par with Nazi Germany at roughly 1930.
    How could the psychology and the political movement of Nazism been stopped and reversed in 1930?
    1) Supporting a libertarian candidate
    2) Voting
    3) Mass protests
    4) ...???



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Actually, it was written on parchment and was largely a listing of what the federal government was allowed to do. The American people were to be the enforcement arm.

    Guess who fell down on the job; the American people.
    Last edited by LibertyEagle; 09-01-2015 at 06:42 PM.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by LibForestPaul View Post
    The United States is on par with Nazi Germany at roughly 1930.
    How could the psychology and the political movement of Nazism been stopped and reversed in 1930?
    1) Supporting a libertarian candidate
    2) Voting
    3) Mass protests
    4) ...???
    In what sense? Certainly it's not a direct comparison.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Actually, it was written on parchment and was largely a listing of what the federal government was allowed to do. The American people were to be the enforcement arm.

    Guess who fell down on the job; the American people.
    Disproven on this site so many times and in so many ways I'm not going to bother with engaging this other than to say it's false.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Disproven on this site so many times and in so many ways I'm not going to bother with engaging this other than to say it's false.
    lol. No it hasn't. Not even a little bit. A bunch of yapping by people who have bought into cultural marxism does not a proof make.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Actually, it was written on parchment and was largely a listing of what the federal government was allowed to do. The American people were to be the enforcement arm.

    Guess who fell down on the job; the American people.
    American people are the enforcement arm? What exactly are you implying here, LE?

  8. #7
    The American people voted for people like trump, to solve their pet issue of the day even if solving their pet issue Trumped all over the constitution..
    War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    American people are the enforcement arm? What exactly are you implying here, LE?
    I don't think She meant it as a veiled threat to the authority. Vote harder!
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Disproven on this site so many times and in so many ways I'm not going to bother with engaging this other than to say it's false.
    the 1789 Constitution does not apply to the people HB.
    an argument could be made that it somewhat did after 1791.

    do you even know what function our Constitution serves? why it was created in the first place?

    probably not.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    the 1789 Constitution does not apply to the people HB.
    an argument could be made that it somewhat did after 1791.

    do you even know what function our Constitution serves? why it was created in the first place?

    probably not.
    Yes, which is why I oppose it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    American people are the enforcement arm? What exactly are you implying here, LE?
    the founders made Democracy illegal in this country. yes, that is correct.

    they did however, include the Democratic PROCESS. within the framework of a Republic.
    this makes good sense to me. it allows for the people (those who are paying attention anyhow. ) to give "consent"
    how else could "consent" be granted while avoiding the perils of Democracy?

    that is how I see it.

    peace.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    the 1789 Constitution does not apply to the people HB.
    an argument could be made that it somewhat did after 1791.

    do you even know what function our Constitution serves? why it was created in the first place?

    probably not.
    To form a government. "A more perfect" one can be argued. But, in the end to form a government to wrap together the individual states and the citizens which inhabited them, and tie them in a big bow.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Yes, which is why I oppose it.
    so, you oppose any and all Federations of any type?
    even a con federation?

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    To form a government. "A more perfect" one can be argued. But, in the end to form a government to wrap together the individual states and the citizens which inhabited them, and tie them in a big bow.
    that is exactly what happened. yes. but that was NOT the original intent.

    from 1789 to 1791. there was no bill of rights. the constitution did not need one.

    and yes, it was to form a union or federation of existing states. the constitution did not create the "states" it was to serve as a means of controlling / limiting them.
    that is why it did not apply to the people!
    Last edited by HVACTech; 09-01-2015 at 07:35 PM.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    that is exactly what happened. yes. but that was NOT the original intent.

    from 1789 to 1791. there was no bill of rights. the constitution did not need one.

    and yes, it was to form a union or federation of existing states. the constitution did not create the "states" it was to serve as a means of controlling them.
    that is why it did not apply to the people!
    States control people. Federations control states. Ergo Federations control people.

    Perhaps we should have went with James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton and Nathaniel Gortham's idea in 1786 to have ourselves another monarchy. Prince Henry of Prussia , the younger brother of Frederick the Great would have served the purpose greatly. They even wrote a letter inviting him to be king (Baron von Stuebbens suggestion). Too bad he vacillated. A constitutional monarchy would have been grand!

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    States control people. Federations control states. Ergo Federations control people.

    Perhaps we should have went with James Monroe, Alexander Hamilton and Nathaniel Gortham's idea in 1786 to have ourselves another monarchy. Prince Henry of Prussia , the younger brother of Frederick the Great would have served the purpose greatly. They even wrote a letter inviting him to be king (Baron von Stuebbens suggestion). Too bad he vacillated. A constitutional monarchy would have been grand!
    lulz Well-played, brother!
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Once the franchise was expanded beyond white male landowners, the Constitution was bound to fail
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    lulz Well-played, brother!
    a "piece of paper" will limit a Monarch?

    but not a federation?

    great plan! did you invent this yourself?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Guess who fell down on the job; the American people.
    Quite a few American people attempted to stop federal overreach. Hundreds of thousands of them died. There were even war crimes committed to keep them subjugated.

    Oh, sorry, that doesn't count, because losers don't get to write history.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    Once the franchise was expanded beyond white male landowners, the Constitution was bound to fail
    that's cute..

    the constitution was a franchise?

    ( I happen to know what those are)

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    Once the franchise was expanded beyond white male landowners, the Constitution was bound to fail
    Yep, that's where it went wrong. Not landowners mind you. Not American-Indian landowners, nor black landowners that the individual states recognized. The BIG fuggup was the part about white landowners when it came to the federation. STFU already.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Quite a few American people attempted to stop federal overreach. Hundreds of thousands of them died. There were even war crimes committed to keep them subjugated.

    Oh, sorry, that doesn't count, because losers don't get to write history.
    Bender is a federalist?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Yep, that's where it went wrong. Not landowners mind you. Not American-Indian landowners, nor black landowners that the individual states recognized. The BIG fuggup was the part about white landowners when it came to the federation. STFU already.
    The founders knew who they wanted to have the right to vote, and who they didn't. Every expansion of the franchise has been coupled with an expansion of government.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    the founders made Democracy illegal in this country. yes, that is correct.

    they did however, include the Democratic PROCESS. within the framework of a Republic.
    this makes good sense to me. it allows for the people (those who are paying attention anyhow. ) to give "consent"
    how else could "consent" be granted while avoiding the perils of Democracy?

    that is how I see it.

    peace.
    Yes, voting for people to vote for you, is like so much better than just plain voting. There's double more voting this way!
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Yes, voting for people to vote for you, is like so much better than just plain voting. There's double more voting this way!
    well. thank you!

    yes. what we need is learned men of wisdom.

    Dr Paul cured my apathy.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post

    "...from 1789 to 1791. there was no bill of rights. the constitution did not need one."
    Why do you think it did not need a Bill of Rights during that period?

    GA

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    The founders knew who they wanted to have the right to vote, and who they didn't. Every expansion of the franchise has been coupled with an expansion of government.
    The founders were Awesomesauce! Scroll back to post #15. Read it. Here's the rub.

    Prince Henry was one of the most debauched and notorious homosexuals in all Europe at the time. Ain't that a peach. These founders and their wisdom.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    The founders were Awesomesauce! Scroll back to post #15. Read it. Here's the rub.

    Prince Henry was one of the most debauched and notorious homosexuals in all Europe at the time. Ain't that a peach. These founders and their wisdom.
    How is that relevant to what I said?
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    How is that relevant to what I said?
    Because you said the founders "knew"....they didn't know $#@!. They were grasping at straws. Trying to form a government that protected them. Everyone else be damned. Just like you.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by ga anderson View Post
    Why do you think it did not need a Bill of Rights during that period?

    GA
    it had a specific function.
    the founders were radicals by today's standards.
    the original intent was to limit democracy / government.
    so that it would leave the people alone.
    and allow them and goods to cross the borders of the existing "states" unimpeded.

    it is my belief that the founders wanted us to live as close to anarchy as possible.
    (in a world heavily populated with statists)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. A piece of paper cannot protect you from the government
    By mediahasyou in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 10:12 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-08-2008, 01:15 AM
  3. Op-Ed piece about RP in the Drexel University paper
    By BillyFromPhilly in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-25-2008, 06:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •