You are not signed in (Login or Join Free)   |   Help
Sploofus Trivia
Trivia GamesCommunityLeaderboardsTournaments
You are here:  Home  >>  Chat Forums  >>  The Salty Dog  >>  View Chat Message

View Chat Message

Pages:  1    

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:06 PM


I heard an interview today where Obama said that the Constitution has a fundimental flaw, as it does not specify what the government must do FOR the people.

To me, this is a serious issue, as it reflects Obama's position that the government is the SOURCE of our freedom and sustenance.

I think it is more proof in the fundamental flaw of the Obama candidacy that makes it even MORE clear why we should not elect him.

How can he Solemny Swear to protect and uphold a Constitution he feels is fundamentally flawed?

Does this matter to anyone other than me?

Resolsufoolps  (Level: 20.7 - Posts: 95)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:09 PM

Nope, doesn't matter to me, still voting for him November 4th.

Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:12 PM


Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:15 PM

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Lblewis  (Level: 47.0 - Posts: 31)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:22 PM

I voted for him a week ago.

Gerryn  (Level: 18.7 - Posts: 141)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:25 PM

I voted also....MOOOOOOOOOO......Yippie ....can't wait til ll/5...

Phitzy1  (Level: 66.4 - Posts: 873)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:25 PM

heh too

Gerryn  (Level: 18.7 - Posts: 141)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:31 PM

Hang up your cowbell....the end is near (thank heaven)

Pennwoman  (Level: 152.3 - Posts: 2478)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:37 PM

make it stop make it stop make it stop make it stop
sorry, cant find the remote and the political ads are back to back
I CAN NOT WAIT until this is over

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:40 PM

The constitution is crap. I wouldn't even care if they scrapped it and came up with a modern one. What's it good for? It can be interpreted pretty much anyway you want to depending on the winds of change and fashion. Any government where a speed limit can be outlawed because it is unconstitutional, despite the fact that the founding fathers didn't even drive cars, just goes to show you its a political tool and not a document that can "guide" us in all matters like some claim it can. People treat it like fundamentalists treat the Bible. We have our own minds, we need not follow their guidance, we should follow our own. Founding fathers, you are dismissed, I'll be thinking for myself from now on. I'll be running for office soon, you going to vote for me Tex?? My 3 1/2 cents.

Diva305  (Level: 145.8 - Posts: 1641)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 9:47 PM


Doesn't the title of this thread give you a clue?????
Why do you read something you want to
Make It Stop, Make It Stop??????

Send in a support ticket, I'm sure they'll be happy to delete it for you after all the Constitution doesn't apply here.

Bleepy  (Level: 138.8 - Posts: 620)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:00 PM

This whole fiasco saddens me. God bless America!

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:02 PM

LOL, Nope... Probably won't vote for you Stout.

Constitution is crap? Hmmmm Nice sentiments. Where was the speed limit abolished because it was unconstitutional? There is no "right" to drive, therefore, no "right" to speed.

Which amendments to abolish first...

2nd? That's the most popular. After all, only the government should have guns, right?

How bout the first? Free speech? Who needs it.

What about Women's sufferage? Or protection from the government taking your home and occupying it? The government already is violating that one when they take private property and deed it to developers like Jerry Jones in Arlington TX.

Why is the government responsible for "giving" us money. Homes. Land. insurance?

Why aren't we responsible for our own selves?

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:04 PM

McCain or Obama...

Ultimately the question (to me) is this. Why do we want the Government responsible for our lives?

Weren't we created free?

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:07 PM


You crack me up. It's like a person who sees Death Wish advertised on HBO, watches it, and then complains about the violence.

It's called DEATH WISH. Don't watch it.

My post wasn't titled "furry little kittens, and why we love them". If it was, and THEN I stated my opinion on presidential politics, that would be foul play.....

Tuzilla  (Level: 131.2 - Posts: 3769)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:11 PM

Having a little trouble with people using their 1st amendment right to free speech, dearie? Can't stand it when someone expresses their rightful angst over the ads, pontificating, whining, preaching, screeching and overreaching? Gee, I thought we were on a two-way street, not a your...I mean one-way.

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:18 PM

No, It's two way.

I respect her right to whine about the political rhetoric. I respect my right to say she shouldn't whine.

Sounds 2 way to me.

Tuzilla  (Level: 131.2 - Posts: 3769)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:24 PM

Sorry Tex. I wasn't speaking to you, but a couple posts back up above yours.

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:32 PM

Oh, and As a side note...

I tried my best not to rant.

I stated the issue.

What my concerns were.

Why I thought my concerns mattered.

Then asked for others opinions.

I refrained from my "if you vote for Obama, yer a left wing, pinko commie alien from the third moon of Saturn who steals babies, kicks dogs, and hates baseball, hotdogs, apple pie, mom, and probably puts cheese whiz on your nachos"

Aren't you glad I didn't name my post THAT? That was an attempt at humor BTW......

Gerryn  (Level: 18.7 - Posts: 141)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:37 PM

On 11/5 you can hang up your cowbell and go out to pasture....Yea Rah..

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:42 PM


I'm sorry... What does that MEAN?

Am I a cow? My avitar is not a self portrait.

Tsk9653  (Level: 113.2 - Posts: 1466)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 10:52 PM

1. I didn't hear or see this interview Tex, and would be interested in more info so i could check it out.

2. The Constitution was seriously flawed because it enshrined slavery and counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for purposes of representation to Congress.

3. Laddy: Hadn't heard anything about a court declaring a speeding law unconstitutional, but i would have to know all the facts. At first blush, it sounds odd. The founding fathers were long gone by the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, which, as interpreted by the SCOTUS for decades requires the states to accord equal protection of law. Another way might be violation of substantive due process -- if the law were completely arbitary, for instance, a limit of 5 mph on a four lane road. The constitutional principles can be applied on facts that did not exist - involving technologies that did not exist - when the Constitution (or applicable amendments) were ratified. I'd fear what a new Constitution would look like. I suspect it would give government explicitly more power in such areas as warrantless survellance so i'm not keen on scraping the current one.

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 11:01 PM

TSK Here it is ( as best I could find it....)

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 11:11 PM


lest I be chastised.... I agree that the original constitution had some issues. Slavery. Women's suffrage. Prohibition.

But the basic components that KEEP the government from completely seizing our wealth and possesions were fundamentally correct.

Obama's position, as I read it, calls for a Constitutional initiative to the redistribution of wealth as the Government sees fit.

I have to find fault in that. I am not, by any means the definition of rich. But to the family who is a one parent household, who's only income is flipping burgers at Mickey D's, I'm sure I appear very well off.

It appears that the "rich" will be deemed as the ones that do not have the power in numbers to vote themselves money from others. If everyone looks to those who make more than them as greedy, and expects the government to redistribute downward, where does it stop?

It stops with the true fruition of what people have been chanting for years:

A poor class who GETS from the wealthy. A rich class who GIVES to the poor. And a government who sets the stage,

Kaufman  (Level: 254.1 - Posts: 3936)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 11:13 PM

To requote the post that began this thread:

"I heard an interview today where Obama said that the Constitution has a fundimental flaw, as it does not specify what the government must do FOR the people.

To me, this is a serious issue, as it reflects Obama's position that the government is the SOURCE of our freedom and sustenance."


Prior to the American Revolution, we were govened by a King. We were literally the King's people.

Our Founding Fathers in their incredible wisdom said, this is wrong; this is backwards. We should not be the people of the government, by the government, and for the government. No, what government we need should do our bidding, work for what is good for the people of this land. A government of the people, by the people, and FOR the people. Our government, not the other way around. Obama's stated goal is exactly what this government should be!

Now the fact that somewhere in the last two plus centuries, in spite of the Constitution carefully written and amended to ensure that it could not happen, some machinations among the three branches of the government and/or the non-vigilance of the American people have allowed in many ways the cart to be put before the horse and the government to become our masters (liberals and conservatives can fight out in which respect this most holds true, but that is tangential to this discussion). The fact that it could have happened in spite of the attempts to make our Constitution airtight only serves to validate the Senator's stand.

But I repeat, I don't think that quote at all insinuates that the government is the SOURCE of our freedom and sustenance, but rather that it should work as our tool in maintaining our freedom and sustenance. Is there anything wrong with that?

PS: Of course the Constitution is flawed. The existence of the 17th Amendment and its subsequent repeal are an easy proof.

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 11:22 PM

I agree that the basic elements have been hijacked by many.

However, the flaws basically touted by Obama imply, as I read them, that the Government should be in the position of direct redistribution of wealth. I don't see that as By the people, for the people, or of.

I see that as the government making the decisions as to who the haves and have nots will be.

Diva305  (Level: 145.8 - Posts: 1641)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 11:28 PM

"Having a little trouble with people using their 1st amendment right to free speech, dearie? "

Listen dearie: I don't have trouble with people using their 1st amendment right to free speech; it's the suppression and deletion of MY rights to free speech here.
In that 90% of MY FACTUAL or QUOTED posts (not chuga chuga posts) were deleted, is what I have a problem with. I understand that this is a "private" site, but as a "customer", I think or would actually hope, that ALL people should be allowed to express their opinions or POST ACTUAL FACTS WITHOUT blatant bias.

However, I know that's not a reality.

I'll send in a support ticket so YOU can read it and answer


Kaufman  (Level: 254.1 - Posts: 3936)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 11:39 PM

Every government on earth has been making that decision since at least the third century, BC.

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Tue, 28th Oct '08 11:42 PM

Yeah, Kaufman,

But at least, until now, the USA has at least TRIED (or pretended, based on POV) to make it SEEM like we can all Be Who We Choose To Be.......

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 12:12 AM

Do we want the government to be in the DIRECT business of wealth redistribution?

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 12:26 AM

I apologize, I don't know all the facts, I was just having some fun with Tex. Here's the link to the law I was talking about: I was really only having fun and offering my perspective, in fact I thought Tex would ignore my response, like he had done before. Truth be told, I love a good debate, I even like it when I lose because I learn something new. And yes, I do lose. But I've had to quit my debating at various websites because I work two jobs and go to school. I fear I do not have the time for the kind of fun I would like to have Tex. All I can do is pop in every now and again and offer what time I have. Hope that is good enough. And what I wrote IS my perspective. Hope that doesn't sound like a cop-out, but real debate takes time to research, which I have very little of. If you can put the debate on pause, until say Obama goes up for re-election after his presidency, I should have more time......

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 12:42 AM

The Montana speed limit article is quite interesting.

Seems that when the Government butted out, Things got better......

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 12:53 AM

I agree with your general premise Tex, that that government is best which governs least, but I seem to not share your belief that the general character of our citizenry can due without more government intervention. I'm sorry, I do not share your optimism at this time. I believe there are better solutions than government, but I do not believe that those better solutions will in general be utilized. This post doesn't mean I have time for this btw.

Texlewee  (Level: 34.1 - Posts: 601)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 12:56 AM

Well, the good news is....

After next Tuesday, I'll have to change my motivation...

Hopefully to an "I'm glad McCain was able to pull it out" post,

But, it looks like an " I hope Obama doesn't get us all killed" mantra may be in order.

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 12:59 AM

Sounds fair, even I have my concerns and I'm voting for him!! Just being honest....

Knerd  (Level: 99.0 - Posts: 1141)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 1:15 AM

Diva - you are certainly entitled to your opinion. What I don't appreciate is when you try to twist someone's words to mean something that wasn't intended to support your thinking. You did this in another post - you cut and paste an excerpt of a very positive post by me and made it appear that I support communism. That was pure fiction and and I don't understand the point other than to disrepect me and others. I think that is what everyone has had enough of. A spirited political debate? No problem. But there is no need to belittle and mock people just because they don't believe as you do. That thread that I started wasn't even political!

Smokydevil  (Level: 163.0 - Posts: 5381)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 1:38 AM

Not directing this at anybody in particular, but I feel that these threads do not get out of control because of their subject matter, but perhaps because of how we respond to one another. I can say, for example, that Tex has, did, and I'm sure will continue to offend me by how he phrases things, and I don't assume its intentional on his part either, but what matters isn't what somebody says or what they do that matters in keeping these things under control and in perspective it is how we respond to that. What I've learned from debating, is that if you don't like how somebody is playing, either don't play or try to disarm your "opponent" by stressing similarities or conceding points. I've found this always works for me, even if in the end of all things we still "agree to disagree". Not directing this at anybody, but don't want to see this thread get out of hand either.....and I apologize if I've stirred up hurt feelings that I missed out on by posting on this thread.

Knerd  (Level: 99.0 - Posts: 1141)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 1:46 AM

Jeremy - know your heart is always in a good place. And sorry, Diva, for calling you out - but that did hurt my feelings. I really hope that after the election that we can put all this behind us and get along.

Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 5:42 AM

Tex, it seems as if most of the replies to your question were answered with smoke an mirrors. Go figure. To answer the question. Yes I am concerned. It amazing how many people have been swayed but a fast talker with no real substance. I think we'll see an o'bama administration that will make Jesse Jackson look like he actually has a job. 'Hail to the Chief" is going to become a rap version of "Money for Nothin' (and chicks for free). We can actually thank Bush for letting in enough people to the country that electing a president no longer requires intellect. The Upside is The 'I told you so' factor will my fun around here. Got to run and hide my guns, be back later.

Papermanbill  (Level: 41.3 - Posts: 1313)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 7:01 AM

I still wish Bubba was prez !!! Next year this time, the phrase "Buyers Remorse" is going to be a common terminology used by ALL.....

Jank0614  (Level: 67.1 - Posts: 4597)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 7:26 AM

In response to "Does this matter to anyone other than me?"

Yes, it matters to me. The Constitution of the US is the best in the world. It changes as people get wiser and vote in Amendments - or get wiser and don't - or get wiser and repeal them.

It's been tried and tested and has served us well for the purposes it was intended.

And for the life of me, I don't understand how so many people can look past what Obama says to vote for him when 16 years ago he wouldn't have stood a chance. Fifty years ago, people who said the socialist things he says now were considered enemies of the country and were not put in power. On the other hand, I'm glad people are not abused now for saying those things and they do enjoy freedom of speech.

While I'm glad the country has matured to point of being able to hear Obama's positions rationally and without violence, the actual electing him as head of our country and foreseeing who he would be appointing to positions of power in his administration chills me to the bone. I hope this is a pendulum swing that causes citizens in the future to swing it back toward center and NOT vote for a nebulous "change" again - I hope they get that out of their system now and in the future vote for someone who holds closer to support of the Constitution. I agree that I don’t see how he can put his hand on a Bible and swear to uphold the very Constitution he disempowers with his beliefs.

Since Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and speaks the most liberal words of anyone running for Democrat candidate for president, I don't understand how anyone can think of him as a centrist. But if he wins, I hope and pray you're right and I'm wrong.

Spacecat  (Level: 157.2 - Posts: 667)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 10:02 AM

Nothing will change come November 5, 2008 as far as who is the president. The next president does not take office till January 20, 2009. That is 77 days later.

Resolsufoolps  (Level: 20.7 - Posts: 95)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 10:34 AM

"Aren't you glad I didn't name my post That?"

Sounds like a good idea actually, you should name your next post "That"

Kaelin  (Level: 49.2 - Posts: 1685)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 11:00 AM

My son was working on his homework last night and they are studying Pontiac's War & the Royal Proclamation of 1763

It was a trip back in time for me which I was glad for the refresher course on. Some good, some bad - but a definitive reminder of what it took to get us to where we have the privilege of what we have today - in my opinion anyway's_Rebellion - for anyone that might be interested

Tuzilla  (Level: 131.2 - Posts: 3769)
Wed, 29th Oct '08 11:19 AM

Gee whiz, Diva. I am so, so sorry I peaked your ire. I'm apologize for calling you dearie. I checked You are quite possibly not a dearie, as you obviously know yourself better than I.

Still, I find it interesting that when the repertoire is going you way, you feel the right to have a say. But when some differ or tire of the thoughts you inspire, you are quick to tell them to go away.

Have any kind of day you desire (trying not to imply any forced expectations).

Felix  (Level: 109.3 - Posts: 2500)
Thu, 30th Oct '08 6:59 AM

Diva, Most Libs don't know how to act when they are actually called on something. So be understanding. The Socialist want everyone to be happy, except those footing the bills. If you've worked hard, didn't waste you money and lived within your means then your time is coming to have to be like everyone else. Diva have a Great Day (while we still can). By the old maxim Bliss is just around the corner.

Alvandy  (Level: 226.0 - Posts: 7527)
Thu, 30th Oct '08 7:32 AM

Reflecting at the concept of the U.S. Constitution.
Note the Preamble:


I believe that describes what the Government's purpose is. It seem to be the source of our freedom and sustenance.
It permits each generation to reflect on what that role becomes as times change.

Obama is reminding us to not forget the Constitution. That's not too radical. The document allows for changes.
It comes down to specifics of what the government needs to do FOR the people.

Pages:  1    

Copyright © 2003-2016 Sploofus Holdings LLC.  All rights reserved.
Legal Notice & Privacy Statement  |  Link to Sploofus