quote:
quote:
Cuck Todd is a straight up piece of fetid shite. No room for interpretation.

===
That may be true, but our founding fathers were just as full of shite. They wrote and signed the document stating all men are created equal and endowed with liberty from God. Many of those same men owned slaves, who were men. How do you rectify that hypocrisy? How can someone believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness yet enslave 100's of thousands or millions of people?

So there we have it - slavery once existed in this world and on this continent, so therefore nothing that has happened in the last 200 years has any meaning. We are free to dishonor all modes of civilized society without restriction because we can always point to 'an original sin' and bring down that hammer on anything today that inconveniences us.

Well done. you have a grievance that can never be salved without an all-powerful time machine.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by ChineseBandit58

Pearland, TX

Member since Aug 2005

48870 posts

Posted on 9/29/17 at 2:34 am to airfernando

quote:
Then Jefferson should have had the integrity and decency not to concede on an issue so important. The bottom line is that our founding fathers were gigantic hypocrites at best, evil at worst. That doesn't mean I don't appreciated what they did in founding this country.

cognitive dissonance on display

You 'appreciate' the establishment of the greatest nation the world has ever seen, or even dreamed of, just so you can sit around 200 years later and harbor a grievance about a universal sin and blame it all on their lack of integrity - so you can feel free to partake of the bounty they created for you and imagine that if only you had been in charge back then, things would be really great today.

I cannot imagine the depths of your ignorance and depravity.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by buckeye_vol

Member since Jul 2014

35378 posts

Posted on 9/29/17 at 3:03 am to ShortyRob

quote:
And he ran a whole fricking segment with multiple parties involved that basically was a "Moore doesn't know the constitution" while using his utterly 100% factual comments as evidence.

Actually watching the video, it's quite a deceptive representation, unless one is completely unfamiliar with Moore's history despite the fact that he is well-known for the very history that supports Todd's argument.

Or frankly even if he was actually basing solely on that comment, which would be an incorrect interpretation in isolation, but his conclusion is actually quite logical.

I mean when a Chief Supreme Court Justice of a State is removed from office because he made a clearly unconstitutional decision and then ignored the SCOTUS's order to rectify his unconstitutional decision because it was unconstitutional, then it's hard to say that he truly believes in the constitution. Then when he is somehow again elected to the office he was removed, and ignores another SCOTUS order based on a SCOTUS decision, THEN orders everyone who is in charge of the process related to the SCOTUS decision to also ignore the decision and order, it's hard to say that he values the constitution. And since he got suspended for that, and in combination for his previous removal, clearly the constitution is not something he values enough, especially since he was a Supreme Court Justice, not just Joe Schmo on the street.

And when his removal and suspension both relate to his religion, when he says Constitutional Rights are given by God, it's hard to say that he means it in the same way as the founding fathers.

And then we have his comments from a recent interview:

Alabama Senate GOP frontrunner: Constitution was written to "foster Christianity"

quote:
Jeff Stein: Where would you cut off the other end of the equation? Where should the limits be between religion and public life if you could?

quote:
Roy Moore: You have to understand what religion is — the duties you owe to the creator.

And then it starts there first. You have to understand it was the duty of the government under the First Amendment, according to Joseph Story who was there for 37 years and wrote the stories on the Constitution.

It was the duty to foster religion and foster Christianity. He said at the time of the adoption of the Constitution that “it was the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America that Christianity ought to be favored by the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience.”

First of all, what is is arguing is fundamentally counter the explicit words of the Constitution, and fundamentally counter the SCOTUS decisions throughout history.

So even if Joesph Story was actually making that argument, it's irrelevant, since the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions are the the only legal foundations of the topic.

Here is the thing. It appears that he based this solely on this Story quote:

quote:
“The answer is right here,” Moore told me in an interview in August, quoting Story’s explanation for the role of religion in American public life, as much from memory as the words in front of him. “‘It was the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America that Christianity ought to be favored by the State,’” he said.

That quote isn't even implying that the state should favor Christianity, it's saying that the SENTIMENT IN AMERICA was that the state should endorse Christianity. All it's saying is that it was the sentiment in America, which would have been pretty easy to surmise anyways, and is irrelevant to the law itself and Story wasn't even implying that it was. So to interpret Story's quote as meaning it was the DUTY TO FOSTER CHRISTIANITY is an inexcusable misrepresentation, especially to single it out as uniquely exclusive in its importance, above any other religions.

Story believed that religious faith with important, but from a practical and Constitutional perspective, using that to imply that one's own religion should be given some special importance, and justifying it with a view of the general public is a fundamental disregard of the Constitution itself.

Even then he left an important word out of the exact quote:

Did Supreme Court justice Joseph Story ever say that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there was near universal consensus that "christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state?"

quote:
Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.

Story was just a child when the Constitution was written, so he explicitly that it was PROBABLY the view held at that time, which is completely logical for a person who values the truth since he can't prove that it was a certainty.

Moore also excludes Story's explicitly counter to his argument too:

quote:
It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject.

Although he could have used this to justify his views that got him removed and suspended from STATE office, although court cases would make Story's opinion irrelevant:

quote:
Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.

So I guess what is most disturbing is that not only does Moore misinterpret or misrepresented concepts that are not that difficult to understand, he somehow can't even use them to support his views in the rare instances they may be applicable.

So given all of that, it's hard to say that Todd isn't correct about Moore's lack of value in the Constitution. Of course, his quote itself is a poor example to use in isolation, but given Moore's history, it's not so poor.

Regardless, given all that I've discussed above, his views on homosexuality and the right punish the behavior, and his comment Christian communities in Indiana and Illinois (mostly conservative midwest outside of Chicago) are instuting Sharia Law (Christian Communities is the key), Moore may not value the Constitution, whenever it doesn't fit his views, nor may he be capable to understand it in the first place if he doesn't understand even simpler things.

But hey let's focus on Todd's comments, when this person is about to become United States Senator. It says a lot about Dice when he can make a whole segment about a news anchor's perspective on the Constitution, which given the context is not out of line, yet ignore that the person the news anchor is criticizing is going to be a Senator and the criticisms are valid, regardless if the news anchor's basis is incorrect. That guy is terrible anyways, but I guess it's fun to make fun of the low hanging fruit on the other side.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Wolfhound45