Sunday, July 03, 2005

Example of Conservoscum Ignorance

Here is a letter a conservoscum wrote the Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) bitching about all these "liberal" policies that are ruining our country. I couldn't believe it.....there isn't a smart one in the whole bunch.

Here is a snip of this letter:

"Liberals have turned the United States Constitution and its Amendments into “breathing” Political Documents. These documents are meaningless unless they are respected and honored. We have to take our Country back or we will soon not have a Country." More here>>>

Clearly, this idiot is blind to what the chump and his crime family are doing to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But, maybe I should give the guy a break...his mental problem was probably diagnosed on a video tape by Dr. Frist (Quack-TN).

I gotta say, though, the preacher dude (a dedicated republiscum) I'm working with knows that there needs to be a change to a more liberal America.....maybe it was the threat of the nine-story fall that convinced him.

Off to the mountains with my daughter...have a great holiday and remember that independence starts with a liberal 'we' and not a conservoscum 'I'.


At 7/07/2005 10:30 AM , Blogger halcyon67 said...

Republicans are in denial, severe denial. I dont' know what has gotten into them. I have always seen Graham to be one of the more sane Senators. They are ruining our country, not the other way around. They drive me fucking nuts. First is a Quack, and so are the rest of his "christian" buddies.

At 7/13/2005 12:28 PM , Blogger Abraham said...

"The older members at The Coalition for a Republican-Free America must admit that we have major problems when it comes to a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. For the most part, the framers understood that the Constitution was a living, breathing document which would grow and evolve as the people, society, and technology grew and evolved. We're talking about a group of white, upper class men who would have been as baffled by steam power and the telegraph as we are by gene splicing and quantum physics. In other words, we feel that the Founding Fathers should be admired but not worshiped as infallible gods. The Constitution, as it stood in 1787 was a fair enough document, but it had some obvious shortcomings. The right to vote was limited to male property owners; slavery was a protected institution; blacks were counted as 3/5 human; United States senators were selected by the respective state legislatures, not by the direct vote of the people; 18-year-olds could not vote. Moreover, the framers knew that their creation wasn't perfect. They knew that future generations would need to amend the document to their own needs and situations. (Thomas Jefferson, while not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, was highly interested in the proceedings and went so far as to suggest that no generation should be allowed to impose its constitutional values on the next, going so far as to suggest that the Constitution be torn up and rewritten from scratch by each new generation; which, considering the life span and marriage habits of the late Eighteenth Century would have been every 19 years. Consequently, if Jefferson and his disciples had prevailed, we would be operating under our twelfth or thirteenth constitution instead of the amended one under which we presently operate. In addition, the framers gave is Ninth Amendment which reads "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and a Tenth Amendment which reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by this constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people." Also, the fact that the constitution has a means by which it can be amended tells us that the framers themselves did not accept a strict constructionist view on the matter.

The constructionist (revisionist) view that the Founders did not believe in a right to privacy is not only delusional and absurd, it demonstrates how radical this (mis)interpretation of the founding document truly is. The Founding Fathers has just freed themselves from the British Empire. They knew well what it was like to live in an occupied nation where the citizens could be forced to quarter British troops; where their houses could be searched, ram shackled, or burned to the ground. To suggest that they did not understand the value of privacy is highly akin to siding with Imperial Britain. Indeed in private conversations the three of us have often wondered: On which side would the strict constructionists have fought in 1776--with George Washington or Benedict Arnold? The answer seems clear. If the side they emulate the most had won the Revolutionary War we would be speaking with English accents and the only red, white, and blue that we would be flying would be in the British Union Jack."


The entire series of 14 essays may be found at:


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home