pennylane100
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:35 PM
Original message |
Every time I see some dumb female moron holding up a sign saying "I want my constitution back" |
|
it makes me want to puke. I was not born in this country and maybe I have misunderstood the constitution, but I thought that it did not grant women to vote, and their property rights were not clearly defined. It was the subsequent amendments that gave them their rights.
So, if I am right and if they want their constitution back, tell them to live with the consequences.
|
Fresh_Start
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:38 PM
Response to Original message |
1. the Constitution includes the right for women to vote |
HopeOverFear
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. that's what pennylane said. |
Skeeve
(87 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:40 PM
Response to Original message |
Arkana
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:50 PM
Response to Original message |
4. It's not "their" Constitution. |
|
Mainly since "their" Constitution would omit those pesky amendments that allow women and minorities to vote.
|
Drunken Irishman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
Drunken Irishman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:53 PM
Response to Original message |
5. What exactly has Obama done to revoke THEIR constitution? |
|
God knows they're still allowed to look stupid in front of the world.
|
davidpdx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 09:59 PM by davidpdx
He was elected... :sarcasm: LOL
|
robo50
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
25. They liked "THEIR" Constitution when only white boys got elected President! |
|
That was the way the white founding fathers intended, (I guess they think).
|
kestrel91316
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
28. "Damn uppity n---r is squatting in the White House, dammit. |
|
And he brung his damned welfare queen wife and those damned little pickaninnies with him. Gonna have to fumigate the place after we done hauled 'em out and lynched 'em."
Seriously. I guarantee there are a good many people who have said that exact thing about him. The bottom-feeding 15% don't consider blacks to be human.
|
Democrats_win
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:53 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Phrase refers to things like the Patriot act not constitutional amendments. |
|
Edited on Fri Oct-16-09 09:57 PM by Democrats_win
Most people consider the constitutional amendments as being a part of the constitution.
The phrase, "I want my constitution back" was really popular during the George W. Bush presidency because so much of what he and his congress did seemed to be against the constitution. It includes the idea that took us to war without a constitutionally mandated declaration of war by the congress.
The phrase is used by right wing groups too especially involving tax issues or regulation of businesses. They believe the constitution is against such things. Additionally, gun rights people use the phrase.
Basically the phrase can be used for anything the government does that people perceive as being against the constitution.
|
Drunken Irishman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. I want my constitution back... |
|
I lost it the other night while drinking.
If anyone finds it, call me...
|
Cleita
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 10:12 PM
Response to Original message |
10. So how do you feel about some dumb moron male holding up stupid |
|
signs like, "I want my freedoms back"? Actually, amendments to the Constitution do grant rights to women that women fought for, not men. So I don't get your point that those amendments aren't part of the Constitution.
|
Garam_Masala
(711 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Oct-16-09 10:59 PM
Response to Original message |
11. So you can clearly understand the US constitution.... |
|
The word "constitution" does NOT refer to the original document adopted by the states. It refers to the Entire document INCLUDING Amendments. Constitution is not fixed and cast in concrete. It can be amended any time if ratified by majority of states and elected officials as stipulated in the constitution.
The real question is, how exactly has Pres. Obama violated the constitution! Just declaring he has on a placard is totally meaningless. Just part of free speech I suppose.
|
AlinPA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
20. I was told by some of those T baggers that they wanted the constitution to go back to what the |
|
founding fathers wrote. That means no amendments. That means women can't vote. That would mean that african-americans are not 100% citizens of the US.
|
Garam_Masala
(711 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. Those Teabaggers are out of their gourd! |
|
We either follow the constitution in its entirety or not follow it at all. I prefer the former.
|
winyanstaz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
24. Well then they are just wrong . We will never go back... |
|
and the Amendments are the law of the land.
|
yourout
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 12:13 AM
Response to Original message |
12. Sounds like we should make one that says....If you want your Constitution back....go see Dick Cheney |
|
He is the one that shredded it.
|
TexasObserver
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 12:38 AM
Response to Original message |
13. They really want 1787 back, when blacks were chattel. |
Orsino
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. I think they're further evolved than that. |
|
I suspect they'd be content with merely a little more Jim Crow.
|
winyanstaz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 06:24 AM
Response to Original message |
15. The Constitution includes all properly ratified amendments... |
|
And yes, from your post..you don't understand the Constitution. People holding signs like that are talking about all the laws such as the Patriot Acts that are unconstitutional as well as the signing statements etc that are unconstitutional..such as the spying on Americans or to kidnap people and hide them away without trials or torturing people. We lost a whole lot of civil and constitutional rights under Bush..maybe they just want them back.
It sounds like to me that you just don't like women as I don't read you bitching about the men holding signs.
|
DemBones DemBones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
22. I think you missed the OP's point |
|
granted, they may not have worded it perfectly as they focused on voting rights and such, but that aside, the underlying issue is a bunch of women standing around glorifying a constitution which STILL doesn't give us equal rights.
When the ERA passes, it'll be a different story. For now, a bunch of women bemoaning the loss of any document which treats them as second class citizens makes about as much sense as gays being nostalgic for pre-1967 marriage laws.
That's nothing to do with "not liking women." It's about recognizing that women are celebrating a document that grants the government the right to discriminate against them simply because they are women.
|
winyanstaz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #22 |
23. Sorry if I did but that was not what I got when I read the post. |
|
And with the amendments..which are also the law and part of the Constituion..it doesn't do that any longer. I am a fighter for equal rights for everyone and I want women to be treated as human beings and equals same as everyone else. I also believe the Constitution is the law of the land that protected us all until we allowed these people to destroy it and use it for butt wipe. Since when do the employees get to change the contract they are hired under anyways?
|
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
26. It's not the law of the land that "protected us ALL." |
|
Historically, it's been the law of the land that's protected rich white males. It's been that far longer than a document that protected us "all." All other classes of people have had to fight/are still fighting for equal rights.
(Not sure of the relevance of employees being hired under contracts, is there a discussion here about employment law that I missed?)
|
Honeycombe8
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 08:47 AM
Response to Original message |
17. Many younger women don't understand what the Dem. Party has done for them. |
|
I told a Repub (a total nutcase, Beck-lovin' rightwingnut) that I remembered the days when it was LEGAL to pay women less for the same job, simply because they are women. I told her that I remembered when girls' sports were legally and totally not funded in schools, simply because they were girls. I told her that I remembered when it the norm to believe that women should work only when necessary, and then to take jobs that would not take jobs away from men, who needed those jobs more than women. I told her the only reason she had the job she had now, and was paid decently, was because of efforts by the Dem. Party.
As usual, she said nothing. She is totally brainwashed and believes nothing that Beck doesn't tell her, and everything that he does tell her.
The rightwingnuts are truly brainwashed and hate-filled people. She hates taxes to help pay for those who are less fortunate...they have made their own beds, she thinks. Yet...she sought years ago to get ins. thru SCHIP, when she made less money, and was dismayed to find that SHE didn't qualify. I pointed out that there are some who would take the position that she shouldn't have had kids if she couldn't provide for them. (I didn't mention WHOSE position that would be. It is HERS and other Republicans' position, of course.) I then pointed out that that program has since been expanded to include more of the working poor, so she might qualify now, if she made the same paltry income now that she did then. (I didn't tell her WHO broadened the program; it was the Democrats, of course.)
|
ecstatic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 08:49 AM
Response to Original message |
18. What's sad is that you know that, but they don't nt |
Honeycombe8
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 08:50 AM
Response to Original message |
19. In the old constitutional days, the men passing by would've told her to get back into the kitchen, |
|
where she belonged.
The reason she can leave her "wifely" duties and strut her stuff with protest signs is because Democratic women have made that okay. They paved the way for her.
|
Occam Bandage
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 06:59 PM
Response to Original message |
27. The Constitution contains all amendments. Your conception of the document is foggy. nt |
Juche
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Oct-17-09 10:35 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Political conservatives opposed giving women the right to vote. It was liberal progressives who fought for this right for them.
In 50 years you will see openly transgendered grown men who are the children of mexican immigrants complaining that 'the liberals are destroying America'. Good times.
Spoiled, spoiled, spoiled.
|
omega minimo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-18-09 01:13 AM
Response to Original message |
30. So you're not clear on the concept of the Amendments to the Constitution. |
|
Being from the UK you might tell dumb morons of whichever gender to ask for their MAGNA FUCKING CARTA back. :hi:
|
and-justice-for-all
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-18-09 11:33 AM
Response to Original message |
31. Well when your brain has be reprogramed by Faux and Beckkk.. |
|
morons like that are what you get.
Obama has not done anything but adhere to the Constitution, unlike ShrubCo. who called it "just a god damn piece of paper."
|
Whisp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-18-09 10:12 PM
Response to Original message |
32. I don't like the use of the word 'female'... |
|
might be just me and the some of the mysoginist assholes I grew up with but they used that word with a snarl and hate like a female was just this side of vermin.
just saying. female species, and all that shit, like we aren't human, like we are aliens.
|
astral
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-19-09 09:18 AM
Response to Original message |
33. Ya think the Constitution isn't a good thing??? |
|
I don't get it with some of this 'hot topics' here -- is it it Politically Incorrect to support protecting our Constitution? It is being shredded here from all directions, but does that mean we should be happy with letting it go, is it 'outdated' or something?
|
Garbo 2004
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-19-09 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #33 |
35. Are you genuinely obtuse? The folks currently all "concerned" about the Constitution & protesting |
|
now that they want "their" country and "their" Constitution back now that Obama is President are the same ones that had no problem at all when the Bush Administration consistently violated the Constitution and civil rights. They've now suddenly become ardent "constitutionalists" when there is a Dem black President and they believe "their" country has been taken away from them. Hint: they're right wingers.
You're also the same poster who doesn't "know" the truth of Obama's birthplace.
|
Bad Thoughts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-19-09 09:43 AM
Response to Original message |
34. Apologies, pennylane100 |
|
It seems that the intention of you post is being lost because some of the posters here don't understand the multivalence of "constitution": one being a singular document, one being foundational law, one being the body of practices and interpretations surrounding that foundational, and one referring to the contractual relationship of government and people. A British audience might appreciate this better.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sun May 05th 2024, 07:10 PM
Response to Original message |