Michelle Let the Cat Out of the Bag

[RLENT]

aww after the Declaration..

No ... after the ratification and adoption of the Constitution ....

The country, as an legal entity, didn't even really exist prior to that.

Consider the meaning of the root of the word constitution which is constitute .... and why the above is true will become immediately apparent.

At the time of the Declaration the only thing that existed was individual states .... not a nation .... at least not as a formal, agreed-upon, legal entity.

 

[layoutshooter]

No ... after the ratification and adoption of the Constitution ....

The country, as an legal entity, didn't even really exist prior to that.

Consider meaning of the root word of constitution which is constitute .... and why the above is true will become immediately apparent.

At the time of the Declaration the only thing that existed was individual states .... not a nation .... at least not as a formal, agreed-upon entity.

What about after the adoption of the Articals of Confederation? I thought we were a country then. We had an elected president, did we not?

 

[greg334]

OVM,
They were second class citizens under King George, they were subject to more punitive rules than if they were born in England.

One of the reasons for the American only rule was simple, the history of England was not made up of a single blood line and external leaders didn't treat the English as equals but conquered people.

During the time when some of the philosophies were created that our founding fathers used to form their opinions and to chart the new country, England was in the middle of a civil war. That war was a religious war as much as one of principles and values, hence one reason for the separation clause.

But I digress.

The English had ties with Saxon, Hanover and other European states and even with the recent bloody civil war, the Jacobie rebellions and so on (including Bonnie Prince Charlie), the fathers may have felt that external rule wasn't the best for the country but rather to select a single representative from the states would be in the best interest for all involved.

I would think that all OLDER Canadians would know English history.

 

[copdsux]

So, since 08/04/1961, there has been an ongoing conspiracy, involving hundreds of thousands of people, all over the world, just so Barack Obama could become President of the United States, on January 20, 2009, just to p#%s you off?

 

[layoutshooter]

So, since 08/04/1961, there has been an ongoing conspiracy, involving hundreds of thousands of people, all over the world, just so Barack Obama could become President of the United States, on January 20, 2009, just to p#%s you off?

Well YEAH!! Geeez, only I doubt if it was hundreds of thousands. Just a few hundred!! There will soon be a book out on it, a tell all written by someone that Obama has or soon will tick off!! He/she/it will name names, dates and times.

The fact still remains that Obama, like most politicians, is a lying sack of turkey dung and cannot be trusted on this or any other issue.

Other than that and his beliefs, policies and foolishness he is an OK guy. Other than the fact that he sucks!!

 

[RLENT]

What about after the adoption of the Articals of Confederation? I thought we were a country then.

You are correct ..... sorta kinda ..... the Articles of Confederation were actually the first Constitution ..... but the "country" it established, is not the same country that ultimately ended up being established .... the one we have today ..... despite the names being the same .....

It was the forerunner of the country we have today.

The Articles of Confederation weren't actually ratified until March 1781 and the Constitution itself was then adopted and ratified in September 1781.

The Constitution is the document that fully and legally defines the sovereign entity that is currently the United States of America ... which is a federation (as opposed to the confederation, which the articles of Confederation defined and estabilished)

We had an elected president, did we not?

Again, yes ..... sorta kinda .... just not in the way most folks today would think of it: the President was the presiding officer of the Continental Congress, and he was not the chief executive in the same manner as the President is today .....

The office was not a co-equal branch, but was largely intended to ceremonial, and was subordinate to Congress, having been elected by the other members.

As an example, if you ask someone to name the Presidents of the United States, very few would be inclined to include the 10 individuals who served as President of the United States (in Congress Assembled) prior to the adoption and ratification of the Constitution - despite the fact that these individuals were, in fact, "Presidents of the United States" (just a different one than we currently have now)

Looking back some two hundred years later I sometimes wonder if we would not be far better off if the federalists hadn't gotten so much of their way, and the anti-federalists had prevailed.

 

[layoutshooter]

You are correct ..... sorta kinda ..... the Articles of Confederation were actually the first Constitution ..... but the "country" it established, is not the same country that ultimately ended up being established .... the one we have today ..... despite the names being the same .....

It was the forerunner of the country we have today.

The Articles of Confederation weren't actually ratified until March 1781 and the Constitution itself was then adopted and ratified in September 1781.

The Constitution is the document that fully and legally defines the sovereign entity that is currently the United States of America ... which is a federation (as opposed to the confederation, which the articles of Confederation defined and estabilished)


Again, yes ..... sorta kinda .... just not in the way most folks today would think of it: the President was the presiding officer of the Continental Congress, and he was not the chief executive in the same manner as the President is today .....

The office was not a co-equal branch, but was largely intended to ceremonial, and was subordinate to Congress, having been elected by the other members.

As an example, if you ask someone to name the Presidents of the United States, very few would be inclined to include the 10 individuals who served as President of the United States (in Congress Assembled) prior to the adoption and ratification of the Constitution - despite the fact that these individuals were, in fact, "Presidents of the United States" (just a different one than we currently have now)

Looking back some two hundred years later I sometimes wonder if we would not be far better off if the federalists hadn't gotten so much of their way, and the anti-federalists had prevailed.

I think we might have been better off in the long run had we stayed under the aritcals.

Our Constitution is a wonderful document. The ideas and dreams that it presents should be the dream and goal of all Men. Sadly, this government as all governmnet, has perverted this Nation for their own power, glory and enrichment. We need to return to the ideals of the Constitution or we will implode. History shows us that we are heading down the same path of every successfull Nation that came before us. Implosion may just be our destiny. I am saddened by the loss of lives and the loss freedoms that will bring.

 

[RLENT]

I think we might have been better off in the long run had we stayed under the aritcals.

You and I are of like mind in regards to that (imagine that ! )

Our Constitution is a wonderful document.

It is .... however, clearly it is not a perfect document .... (otherwise we wouldn't find ourselves in the soup)

The ideas and dreams that it presents should be the dream and goal of all Men. Sadly, this government as all governmnet, has perverted this Nation for their own power, glory and enrichment. We need to return to the ideals of the Constitution or we will implode. History shows us that we are heading down the same path of every successfull Nation that came before us. Implosion may just be our destiny. I am saddened by the loss of lives and the loss freedoms that will bring.

Well said !

 

[layoutshooter]

No, our Constitution is not perfect. That is why there was a means put into place to improve it. That is what "Amendments" are for. It is very difficult to amend the Constitution and for very good reason. It must be hard to do or that route would be used for every silly reason that could be thought of.

Every bill passed and every amendment considered should be for the propose of enhancing and improving personal freedom It should also be looking to decrease the heave hand of government.

I do think, that if we every chance to meet, that you would find that we have far more in common that we do opposed. I do believe that we both want to restore our freedoms so that we can live as we were intended too. Our only differences are in where we emphasize our blame.

 

[Doggie Daddy]

I learned that from watching the Viet Nam protesters in the 60's, actually, who were both disrespectful and damaging to my country.

No more damaging than McNamara or Westmoreland,and no I wasn't a protester from the 60's,proud Vietnam vet here.

 

[mjolnir131]

There is a t-shirt you may have seen some of the vets from Vietnam wear it says "don't ask me ,we wear winning when i left" it's not a joke shirt it's very much base on the truth.

Westmoreland was winning but the peace protesters and the response to them did more harm than good ,way more harm , Abrams was dealing more with the after mass of Kent state than fighting the enemy. Have never seen any peace proteting that did not couse more lifes lost and saved any all it does is give comfort to your enemy and draw out the process giving them more time to devolope themselfs

 

[Turtle]

From a Wall Street Journal [FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel who served on the general staff of the North Vietnamese army and the government ministry:

Q: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

A: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, "We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support for the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Bookman Old Style,Arial]
[/FONT]

 

[Pilgrim]

I wonder if our Islamo-fascist adversaries have read that article? It doesn't really matter since Barack Hussein Obama has already announced our timetable for "withdrawal" from both Iraq and Afghanistan, which will certainly be portrayed in the Arab world as surrender.

 

[layoutshooter]

I wonder if our Islamo-fascist adversaries have read that article? It doesn't really matter since Barack Hussein Obama has already announced our timetable for "withdrawal" from both Iraq and Afghanistan, which will certainly be portrayed in the Arab world as surrender.

No, we are NOT going to learn from this. That piece did not quite go far enough or tell the entire truth. It does not say just how much the Soviets were instigating the so-called "Peace Movement". From the marxist professors in the schools to the "professional protesters" to the KGB agents inflitrating "peace groups". Let us not forget William Ayers either. Our Buddies buddy!! And as a result of all that Soviet work? OBAMA and Co!!

 

[greg334]

Instigated?

I think they were funding it.

I blame the older generation, the "greatest" generation for breeding these people. They do one thing right in their lives but mess everything else up for the rest of us.

 

[layoutshooter]

Instigated?

I think they were funding it.

I blame the older generation, the "greatest" generation for breeding these people. They do one thing right in their lives but mess everything else up for the rest of us.

HEY!!! Not all of use baby boomers messed up!!! I thought my kids right! The schools did not back that up no matter how much a jumped in their stuff!!! Sorry scumbags that they are!! Oh well, what else can you expect from a bunch taught by commies!!!

 

[greg334]

OH! So you pushing 80?

I'm talking about the people who raised us boomers, not the boomers themselves.

I won't get into the problems they caused, we won the war but lost the peace.

 

[layoutshooter]

OH! So you pushing 80?

I'm talking about the people who raised us boomers, not the boomers themselves.

I won't get into the problems they caused, we won the war but lost the peace.

Well, in that case, you can bet your boots that my parents were not into all that socialist mumbo jumbo!! I was taught to work hard, stand on my own two feet and EARN my way through life!!

I was taught not to be a welfare leech, sucking off of others hard work and success. I was taught that if you don't earn it you are not going to get it or be entitled to it!!

Too bad Obama and Co. never learned those lessons!!

 

[greg334]

Layout,
See I don't think you understand.

When the war ended, we have a huge population who were conditioned not to be leaders but to be followers. This opened the door for 'experts' (Dr. Spock comes to mind) which further caused us to have a change in everything we did or thought. All of it allowed the foundation that Roosevelt, Wilson and Roosevelt laid down to be expanded in the 50's and 60's.

It was this "greatest" generation that caused the problems, it was their collective need not to be involved that shaped our world. Your upbringing wasn't the point, nor was my parents but the lax attitude towards fighting against changes which is the point.

 

[layoutshooter]

Ok, now I see what you were driving at. That makes sense.