Why would the media bother to understand what they're saying? Their best bet is to produce more junk with less effort & time. Most viewers are satisfied with what they hear, since anything said by news must be true. Demand is for quantity, not quality. They supply what we demand.
@TWSceptic By "we" I don't mean you & me. I mean news viewers in general. News gets views, so obviously, somebody - our fellow Americans - demand low-quality news. I think consumers contribute to the problem.
@qwexas Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
Politians don't get their power from the constitution. They get their power from people with guns (cops) willing to use them against you if you don't do as they say.
@twn5858 Cops really? cops serve the government..not the people...the whole purpose of the second amendment is so that we, as a people can rise up and quelch tyranny. The Cops have no constituional bearing to protect us...we are on our own...
@0122358 I think you missed the point. If a politician came up to me and said, “You need to do this and this piece of paper gives me the power to tell you to do this.” I would laugh in his face. If a politician came up to me and said, “ You can’t do this and if you do these men with guns are going to kidnap you and throw you in jail, or shoot you.” Then I would do as he says. That is what government is. A gun pointed at your head saying, “Do this or else.”
The argument they are putting forth demonizing the Constitution holds as much water as people who say the Confederate flag can only be interpreted as a flag supporting an institution that has been dead for hundreds of years and would require the descendants in order for it to be reinstated to gain insane sums of money and buy up large plots of land to support such a system again.
@Luigi84289 It's complete lunacy nobody living today is pro slavery or flying any flag because they hate a certain group of people. That is ludicrous. The flag flies because people are proud of their ancestors, proud of the spirit of rebellion against authority that has continued to flow onwards to the current generation. The Confederate flag on The dukes car wasn't a "fuck black people" flag. It's just another American flag. To attack and demonize people who cherish it is wrong.
Where are Liberal Viewers comments? I just looked through 450 comments and could not find his/her comments, I saw all the responses, but none of the comments!This is my second posting of this question, Lee Doran, where are the comments, I read most of them , when I am interested in the debaters.
I think our culture tends to make gods and saints out of our founding fathers. They were not perfect nor were they seers.
This is the importance of the allowance of ammendments. The founders understood that future generations would encounter new circumstances and, I think, they knew that issues like slavery would have to be handled.
Does this excuse racism? Absolutely not. But let us not paint the authors of the Constitution as absolute evil or good.
Very nice and informative. I have a question though. Are you STILL unable to figure out why the media is the way it is? You should extend your historical research to include Soviet Russia and National Socialist Germany. Corporate control is certainly a factor. But corporations don't "think". Corporations don't have political views. HOWEVER, THE PEOPLE WHO OWN AND CONTROL THE CORPORATIONS DO.
The 3/5 Compromise was the first time the Federal Government recognized black slaves as PEOPLE. Before hand they were seen as property by the North and the South. The 13th Amendment made them free. Racism exists because of bitterness and pride from the Europeans who founded this nation. Slavery was around bfore the Romans were a Republic. Any student of History would know this to be true. It is human arrogance to think we "know better" than our forefathers. We are just as foolish as they were.
Section 9, paragraph 1 of the constitution addresses the issue of taxation upon the "Importation of such Persons." This means slaves. It is the second clause that pertains to slavery beyond the 3/5ths compromise.
I agree that it does leave voting rights to a state by state basis.
To deny that racism was not present among many of the founding fathers and behind much of the rational for slavery is silly. To claim that it's not racists because it doesn't "compel" people to own slaves is also a poor argument.
Why does it really matter however whether the constitution was racist? The extent of racism in the north and south, as well as sexism, is very well documented. Why are you so concerned about arguing it didn't influence the constitution?
@AHBritton If the Founding Fathers were alive today, and tried to draft THE EXACT SAME DOCUMENTS, you would have their "extremist" group broken up and you would be yelling "NAZI!!" at them. Today it is de-facto illegal for white men to associate exclusively. That's your freedom and equality, huh? You're for equal rights for all... BUT NOT FOR RACISTS!! I bet you wouldn't want any "racists" moving in next door to you, huh? Could lower the property value.
It's ironic that you insinuate that the media is acting as the propoganda wing of a Soviet or National Socialist movement, then decry using the terms "extremist" and "Nazi" in your very next post.
Furthermore, racists do have equal rights. They can spout thier ignorance all they want.
I, and everyone else, have the right to call them bigotous fools.
Lastly, I would not want racists to move in next door, though they have every right to live where they want to.
@83niteowl I fail to see the irony. Only the most deluded cannot see that the western media is completely "controlled".
And regarding equal rights for "racists" (read any white men who stand up for their culture or right to political enfranchisement), you are quite wrong about that. "Hate-speech" "laws" are being used world-wide to attack anyone who so much as sneezes in favor of white people. Demand that illegal immigration cease... NAZI!!!!! HITLER LOVER!!! RACIST!!!! It is psych-warfare.
I notice that your "avatar" is a maple leaf. If you are Canadian, perhaps you have a point about hate speech. However, as far as I know, hate speech is not illegal in the US. It's just that no one wants to here that drivel and no tv station will air it.
@83niteowl Right, no TV station will air "hate" speech... And those who own the TV networks get to define what is "hate" and what isn't, now don't they?
"As I said, the media is ridiculous and motivated by owners' political whims."
Ok, so we're on the same page then, right? I know it isn't "brown people" who are ACTIVELY taking my freedom away. Last time I checked, it wasn't Mexicans perched atop all the major media outlets.
Media Nazis? More likely communists. Both are COLLECTIVIST, BIG GOV.
Furthermore, I think it is funny that you say "western" media is controlled. As though eastern media is prefferable or more free. As I said, the media is ridiculous and motivated by owners' political whims.
The irony is that political media outlets, for which there is representation for at least the reps and dems, are associated with Nazis in your mind, but "white men standing up for thier culture"(sounds like racists) are unfairly tagged as such.
I think that is a gross exageration. I hope you meant it to be such. There are caucasion philanthropists just as there are dictators of all ethnicities (North Korea/ sub-Saharan Africa/ cartels in South America). I don't want to start a debate about all the terrible injustices perpetrated by white men (there are too many to count).
But blaming the white man for the worlds woes is counter productive. Let us instead focus on the good we can do from our position of priveledge.
"No, the glory days weren't all that terrible, they're just painted that way by socialists."
Tell that to the black men and women who suffered under the tyranny of white masters, to the black men and women who suffered an apartheid system in the south long after the Civil War. What about the people terrorized by lynchings and burning crosses? Imagine the first half of the 20th century through their eyes.
That "apartheid system" was a result of the war. Let's say you have a spoiled child, and he doesn't want to play with little brother. You spank him hard, and tell him he *must* play with little brother. How do you think the now-resentful child will act?
We're so much better off now that we have people being terrorized by gangbangers raping, robbing and murdering.
@Hiraghm Life is a game of power. Black people know this and are now instead of trying to co-exist with other native inhabitants that look different they are using hatred and selfishness to try to kill them all. Killing a killer doesn't make the act right. All life is precious. Whites are not subhuman. If the racial makeup was switched and blacks were the ones who implemented apartheid I wouldn't want the ones who were there extinct. You make things right and get along.
@Hiraghm Some masters used the task system in which if the slaves finished the task in say 2 hours he was done for the week. Slaves could request a transfer just like at any job today and were moved of their own volition on more than one occasion due to disagreements with the master or any number of other reasons. Everything that most people think they know about it is propaganda promoted by the North to justify it's actions. The slave narratives explain the system quite plainly.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
We've achieved the equal sharing of misery. Black, whites, blues, greens, we're all swimming in the cultural sewer we've created. But, at least our misery is shared. We didn't give blacks the white's cultural experience, as appeared to be the goal. if anything, it did the opposite. Destroyed black culture. And then the white.
@Hiraghm Life is unequal. Some people are retarded and some people are geniuses. the inherent unequal nature of the mind and life in general is the cause of all disparaties. (fuck the spelling) Trying to make what is inherently unequal equal is insanity. Capitalism while not perfect is the fairest system when the market is free. (which ours isn't)
My point to 1776Matthew was that I observe a perception among some white people in this country that we caucasians are being oppressed or that Christians are being persecuted. These are the same people that wish for the US's "glory days" and believe that the 60's were when all the trouble began.
They don't seem to understand that they (WASPs) are so thoroughly in charge. Nor do they understand that those glory days were terrible for so many that lived them.
Caucasians aren't being oppressed, but they are by and large being repressed. Christians are being persecuted.
The trouble did begin in the 60s... the 1860s when the Constitution was trashed and States were demoted to provincial status. 100 years later the downhill slide became a plunge off a cliff.
No, the glory days weren't all that terrible, they're just painted that way by socialists.
Am I missing something? At one moment you say white men cause all the problems, then you say caucasians are being repressed. Where are you going with this?
As to your statement that the 1960's were a plunge off the cliff, are you implying that the civil rights movement was a problem? In the 1860's did the southern states have the right to hold slaves? to secede? Do you mean to say that leaving the nation as a loose federation would be preferable to the solidarity of a nation?
1776Matthew said "The brown people aren't taking your freedoms away. "
To which I replied, "No, the white people are".
Of course they had the right to hold slaves. Either the South had the right to separate and provide new guards for its own security, or the colonies had no such right to separate from England and the DoI is so much toilet paper.
What happened in the process of freeing of the slaves is what trashed the Constitution.
@Hiraghm Right. You have to look at history as history. Our moral standards of today cannot be applied during a time when the need for human labor was high and free labor was accessible and profitable enough where some men (only 6% of the wealthy) utilized it. Nobody even wanted slavery when we had it but it was a result of being a British colony and it's own profitability. African slavery (there was white slavery too) was implemented by the crown and forcibly thrust onto all the colonies.
@Hiraghm There were Black slave owners who made up while an infinitesimal portion of the overall 6% of rich slave holders took part in it nonetheless. Louisiana had some of the largest numbers of free blacks. If you look at photos of the 1861 national guard over 50% is black. Slavery was used like George tried to use it during the Revolution, to make the population less able to rebel. If not for slavery the south never would have been conquered. They would have had to kill all of us.
@Hiraghm Like Brazil it's time on the world was ending as new technology and the abolitionist mindset was gaining more and more ground. Most people don't know this but most of the abolitionist societies were in the south. Southerne whites were Americans and like all whites were not and are not uniquely evil.
A confederation would have been better than what resulted from the Secession War. Precedents were set that echoed down the years. The offenses against the freed slaves and their descendants can be laid at the feet of the war and Reconstruction.
I'm not implying, I'm saying the "civil rights movement" was nothing but a cover for the encroachment of socialism on the nation. It led to the gov't violating the Constitution, and set precedent for further violations.
The white community has suffered nothing like these injustices. Some abuses from affirmative action, or media outlets that demonize caucasians (while employing predominitely white emolyees) come nowhere near the systematic brutalization of black Humans in the civilized world.
White people are no more Reid or Pelosi than black people are Idi Amin. But to paint pre-60's US as a utopia full of individual freedom is foolishness.
Irish immigrants, fleeing the Starvation, came to America. Men, women and children were put to work in northern factories, in some cases worked to death in inhuman conditions, raped, beaten, starved; underpaid or not paid and left to their own devices for survival. And the factory owner had no cause to care; he didn't pay for them, and they could be replaced with bodies fresh off the boat. A slave owner, at least, has his monetary investment to consider.
@Hiraghm Exactly. If you read the slave narratives taken in the 30's by FDR from the last surviving pre-1865 slaves you can learn what chattel slavery in the south was actually like. The slaves almost all the time were treated just as good or better than the master's own blood dependents. They had their own land, their own homes and could make extra money to do what they pleased outside of work normally consisting of anywhere from 20-40 hours per week. Most slaves had it better than poor whites
Then there are the countless thousands of white people who died of hunger, thirst, exposure, massacre and disease while spreading west and building this civilization we enjoy, with nobody weeping for their suffering.
1571, Battle of Lepanto... fifteen THOUSAND Christian galley slaves freed. SLAVES.
1801 - After centuries of predation in which Europeans were kidnapped and sold into slavery, Jefferson sends the marines in to deal with the Barbary Pirates.
Do you think the Moors were *invited* to invade, conquer Spain and impose Islam on nearly half of Western Europe?
I won't entertain a conversation of comparing attrocities. In fact, I've made remarks acknowledging that white men are not fundamentally evil and that they have suffered injustices (even at the hands of other ethnicities).
Of course none of that excuses the abuses perpetrated by slave owners (European, American, African, Cherokee).
@Hiraghm Right in the past slavery was common place. It still is in some areas. The more developed we become the less dependent we are on human labor and the freer everyone is.
Two days ago, iirc, the paper had an article about how freedmen were to be legally considered part of the Cherokee tribe. That's right, the poor, picked-on Cherokees kept black saves. (Of course, the "Native Americans" kept slaves long before Europeans got here).
Slavery continues today, in non-white countries, with oppression and butchery the plantation owners would have blanched at.
Ah, so your point is that slavery was okay because white men have suffered injustice.
My favorite parts of your tirade was this:
"That "apartheid system" was a result of the war. Let's say you have a spoiled child, and he doesn't want to play with little brother. You spank him hard, and tell him he *must* play with little brother. How do you think the now-resentful child will act?"
Of course we should feel sorry for the white slave owners. They were spanked too hard.
One has nothing to do with another. I answered your question: did the South have the right to keep slaves? The counter-question I should have asked was, "Did the North have the right to impose its social values on the South?"
Giving up slavery was no hardship for the industrial north; they already had a better system of wage-slaves.
It isn't about pity. Had slavery been allowed its inevitable death in a decade or so, the resentment wouldn't have existed.
Let's not perpetrate another myth. The vast, vast, VAST majority of Southerners did NOT own slaves. In "spanking" the slave owners, the North destroyed an entire, worthwhile (if alien to them) culture.
If your neighbor's 8 year old comes over and spanks your 8 year old for not sharing his toy, is that right? Nobody gave the Union the right to impose its values on a sovereign nation.
When you assert that society would be better served with segregation, I have to face the fact that I am arguing with a blatant racist who would strip another man of his rights.
And while I would never impede your right to say such things, I choose now to ignore you.
I am not religious, but I'll borrow some Christian words:
"Peace be with you."
But I will also add that I am glad you are a part of a dying breed and that your attitudes are increasingly unpopular in our country.
@Hiraghm When you assert that society would be better served with segregation, I have to face the fact that I am arguing with a blatant racist who would strip another man's rights.
And while I would never impede your right to say such things, I choose now to ignore you.
I am not religious, but I'll borrow some Christian words:
"Peace be with you."
But I will also add that I am glad you are a part of a dying breed and that your attitudes are increasingly unpopular in our country.
Where did I assert that the nation would be better served with segregation? You are suggesting that the only path to desegregation was the one imposed upon us by the social engineers. Had slavery been allowed to die its death by natural causes, the resentment would not have been present, the "civil rights movement" would not have been necessary, and the socialists couldn't have co-opted it for their agenda.
@83niteowl Everyone has had their share of racial injustice. That's all in the past. My ancestors were italian slaves at one point. Doesn't mean I eternally hate all the white people in italy and want it overrun by other whites or people of color. Slavery is natural whether we're referring to mental, political or chattel just to name a few. Living under a single government is being a slave. The miracle is that we have come so far and are able to move past chattel slavery in the west and east.
Blaming the "white man" is essentially racist. It implies that a white man cannot handle any possition of power without becoming a raging bigot. This perception comes with familiar dangers. It blinds us truth and makes us slaves to prejudices founded on fallacies.
So soon after MLK day, I hope we can reflect on the fact that all white men are not greedy tyrants, that all black men are not lazy criminals and that race is just a couple of genes, as important as eye color.
@83niteowl I agree with most of that. The Government demonizes us because we're the majority. You could look at any people's history as the other teams. Mexico's history isn't that much different than Americas. Many different powers were all fighting over North American land. That is normal. Humans are competitive. The only problem I have is with people who won't allow white people and only white people to have their own communities. Every other race gets this but everyone is afraid of whitey.
First off, there are no communities made specifically for any race, at least no in the US. Certainly any community devoted to a particular culture is not government sponsored. For instance, a white man can live in Chinatown or Harlem for that manor.
Also, I would like to point out that the communities you are referring to are generally ghettos. People were essentially forced to live there. If you want to live in a white ghetto, go to an Alabama trailer park.
I am appalled that you suggest this. You make it sound as though different ethnicities have been granted beautiful land to colonize as they see fit; when in fact these communities exist because of a history of racial prejudice that white men shouldn't have to share the suburbs.
The whole concept of creating different communities for different races is fundamentally RACIST!
And that undermines everything you said about a flag invariably linked with racism.
Lee, you are arguing with people who are Democrats (in the term of people who want Democracy only, not in the party). People who want this country to be a democracy, not a Republic. Small 'r' republicans like you and I will never see eye to eye with Democrats who want democracy. The reason why they don't like (and I'll even go so far to say despise) our Constitution is because it is an anti-democracy or anti-majority rules document. They are skilled demagogues and want total control.
I need examples to cite when I talk about this. Are there any Amendments to the Constitution that were proposed by conservatives? That would strengthen the argument that conservatives want to keep the Constitution a living, evolving document.
You know why people consider the three fifths compromise racist? Because, as far as I'm aware, only blacks were slaves, and it was agreed to make "slave" a special class of person for the purpose of census.
@Macaii The 3/5 compromise definitely limited the power of the slave states. If they could claim their slaves as a full person they would have had more clout in the legislature. It was far from perfect, but was an effort to fight the power of slave owners.
@averagejoe040 The fact that there was a compromise at all, however, was an indication that racist institutions were given representation in the Constitution, though, and thus, the document itself has a history of racism. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.
@Macaii that is so far from the truth that it is almost criminal. When you twist and pervert the truth as often and as badly as you progressives do, it becomes a crime against your fellow citizens... especially if you use those lies to propagate truly enslaving and violent legislation in the name of "equality" and "fairness". Everything you liberals preach turns into liberty stealing laws and acts that by any measure are wholly unconstitutional and deserving of contempt.
@Macaii You insist on seeing only one side. Yes, there was slavery in America. There were also some who fought against slavery. We fought a great Civil War to end slavery. Must we suffer for this forever? This nation could never have been formed without leeway to the slave states. Blacks in Colonial times were enslaving each other in Africa. Do they feel they must pay for this? Hell no they don't! They are still enslaving each other - when they are not whacking heads off with a machete.
@averagejoe040 All I want to know is, how did you go from "The Constitution has historical roots in racism" to "We must suffer for that fact forever", or really, suffer for it at all?
@Macaii We do suffer from the one time slavery in this country. It seems we can never move past it. Just recently black so called farmers were awarded a huge settlement because the government supposedly discriminated against them. A total bullshit case but we had to pay. Blacks are always special, always victims. On a personal level it would be like being blackmailed all your life for something you did when you were 5 years old.
@averagejoe040 Even if what you are saying (that blacks are exploiting victim-status) is true, it doesn't change the truth-value of my statement. I don't see why you're going on this tangent.
@Macaii Your statement that the constitution is rooted in racism? I disagree. The constitution abolished slavery and does not permit racism. The constitution in it's original form made a compromise with slave states in order to form the Union. That is long over with. It was corrected nearly 150 years ago.
@averagejoe040 So let me get this straight: the fact that we needed a three fifths compromise to begin with when writing the Constitution isn't an indication that racism had clout in our society at the time of its writing? Really?
@averagejoe040 So if racism had clout in society, and the Constitution was based on then-status quo society, I don't see how it's a huge issue to say that the Constitution was based on, among other things, racism.
Sigh. The Doc Fix will happen regardless of the healthcare law. That is like attaching my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying my dinner was really expensive.
how about those bastards giving no cola for 2yrs straight. i'll bet none of those crimminals will get a paycut....let them live on under 10k a year. fat damn pigs need to rot in jail...
@rednxrule See...I have a hard time giving sympathy. I assume you are a government worker, correct? Thus, you feel ENTITLED to a cost of living increase. The fact that public sector workers are paid double that of a private sector employee and are literally bleeding this country dry doesn't even register with most government workers like yourself. Government workers are paid by selling the US populace and its unborn into debt slavery to foreigners but you don't care - you just want more.
"It's not a show."? It absolutely is, it's a showy stall tactic. What will come out of the reading of the constitution on the floor? Will anyone actually learn from the recital? However, I do agree with the overall message of this video. So, good job on that.
So if gay people, for instance, wanna protect THEIR RIGHT to sexual privacy, rather than go to the SCOTUS, they should ask Congress to pass an amendment and wait for 3/4ths of the states to pass it?? That's insane! That would take up WAYY too much time and further cause gridlock in our already-broken Congress. If the only "alternative" to conservative originalism is the amendment process, we need a new Constitution, or the originalists are dead wrong!
So-called "originalism" is no more "original" than loose constructionism! They're 2 ideological sides of the constitutional debate. All told, I happen to lean towards the less-originalist side because to pretend like the document is almost totally static, or at least as static as the most recent amendment and all others passed before it, is absurd! Times change, and the amendment process is wayy too complex to keep doing it every fucking year or month for something you wanna change.
It shouldn't be THAT fucking hard to protect our rights as Americans. The Founders certainly didn't want to make it extremely difficult for Americans to keep their precious freedoms! They wanted to curtail the power of government. I mean, how can ANYONE say that an individual freedom is "unconstitutional", esp. when it doesn't hurt or affect anyone else? Someone else practicing sodomy, as gross or weird as you may think it is, doesn't affect you. That's just one example.
What SHOULD be ruled unconstitutional are VIOLATIONS of our civil liberties and freedoms as Americans. That's part and parcel. The fact that we still have justices on the Supreme Court who think the document DOESN'T protect freedoms like the right not to be discriminated against is ABSURD. Original intent, meaning or whatever you subscribe to, doesn't work. It's not capable of moving us forward in 2010. Only knuckle-dragging right-wing ideologues who hate progress like it.
And it's not like THEY don't change the Constitution for activism in their own ways. The Roberts court has been deemed perhaps THE MOST corporatist and pro-business Court in HISTORY! So many of their rulings hinge on the "freedom" of certain big corporations do whatever the fuck they please, no matter how much it reduces worker freedom, pollute the environment, etc. I wasn't a huge opponent of the Citizens United ruling, but it WAS a big stretch in interpretation from the original meaning.
I don't think Jefferson or Madison thought that big business were protected by the First Amendment when they wrote the document. Did originalists who LOVE the CU ruling think about THAT, for all their silly braying on about "judicial activism"?
In the long run, though, what's best for society is probably a mixture of originalism AND loose construction. Neither of them in isolation are good enough to move us forward. Certain cases deem different ways of interpretation. There's no one interpretation method that can apply to ALL situations. Why should judges be restricted to one o the other, anyhow? Why should Senators REQUIRE them to state where they will stand on interpretation ALL THE TIME?
To say that every aspect of the Constitution should be interpreted EXACTLY the same as when it was written in 1789 is to deny how much society has changed since then, how much the world as changed. New threats and challenges require a broader interpretation, I'm sorry to say. As much as you right-wingers think that's "judicial fiat" or "activism," it's the truth. Even Scalia in one of his court rulings said that law system where meaning rather than what the law actually says should rule..
WHOO: Your comment beginning with "to say that every aspect" is quite silly. You can amend the Const. it has been done several times. If the Framers' intention was a pliable Const. then why did they make it so hard to amend & why did they list Enumerated Powers? The 14th Amendment was and is not intended to give amnesty to people who essentially just waltz in expecting something--that's quite different from slaves & if an Ambassador had a kid while in the US, it doesn't make that child a citizen
If we pretend like what the documents and laws ACTUALLY say doesn't matter and just try to guess what the original meanings were, we might as well NOT have laws at all! If a law's creator can just say, "Well, I wrote this in the law, but the law actually says THAT", we might as well live in an oligarchy where our rulers just hand out verbal decrees on what to do. We have LAWS and written legal documents for a reason.
Take the 14th Amendment. You can't write an amendment which seems so clear in purpose, and then over 100 years later have some jackass like Steve King claim, "Well, the amendment doesn't ACTUALLY say what it says. Its meaning is totally different." That's not how a nation of laws runs. That's a nation of MEN.
If originalists wanna get the interpretation "correct", why don't THEY pass a serious of amendments to CLEAR UP the language and/or replace it with THEIR interpretation?? Put your money where your mouths are, originalists. Don't claim we all have it "wrong", and only you, in your infinite "wisdom", can somehow know what the constitution actually means. If you don't want confusion and judicial misinterpretation, CLEAR UP THE LANGUAGE. Do the amendment process yourself. What say you
The Slave holding states wanted to count them as a whole for Representation but as none for Taxation. The inverse was true for the non-slave holding states.
From the beginning of the healthcare debate they have lied because the CBO score is on 10 year of revenues that off set only 6 years of spending. So from the start the score was a lie. Those who scored it from 2014 to 2024 found it will cost double and add to the deficit not reduce it. To repeal it right now would actually save $540 billion in spending.
This should be interesting. So before anyone comments oh lib I'm an independent I see stupid everywhere. So far this video is a waste of my time really. I checked the links and unless I am missing something the claims your making are outright false. Wrong links maybe?
If slaves were counted as property with no rights and one whole vote and forced to vote for pro-slavery candidates what do people who advocate the constitution is racist think would happen to slaves becoming free? It may have very well been decades later before the constitution was amended. Not to mention many signers of the constitution were not in favor of the entirety of it, but felt it necessary to pass it. For the betterment of the whole nation which was in debt and most cities devastated.
people who say the constitution is racist might as well say "believing in the concept of law is racist". you clearly dont understand what the constitution is. there is a process to amend the constitution and the process can be tedious because it is the fucking constitution and if it could be amended easily, you can kiss your sorry 1st amendment goodbye, then again, we're watching it be chipped away slowly but surely by liberals and flag waving republicans.
I pointed out your error on the "doc fix" in a comment I posted to a previous video, but you deleted it. Deleting the comment, however, did not change the logical flaw in your argument and the CBO just said the GOP proposed repeal of PPACA will cost $230 billion. Why can't GOP give the CBO assumptions showing no cost from repeal?
You also forgot Art I, Sec 9. Clause 1 of the Constitution and did not explain how arguing about whether slaves = 0 or 3/5 persons is not racist.
@LiberalViewer If the health care bill they want to repeal would actually increase the deficit, how exactly would repealing it increase the defecit? I don't get that at all.
Slavery that existed in America was a racist institution. As you know, the Federal government had no means of stopping it at the time absent some 5th Amendment Taking and "Just Compensation" creative move. An absence of power to stop something evil doesn't make the Constitution itself evil. Abolitionists tried, but failed to stop slavery by limiting the South's power with the 3/5 compromise.
The GOP likely will, but I don't think either party should game the CBO.
@HowTheWorldWorks Although you are correct in your assessment about the three-fifths compromise, you are dead wrong in saying that the constitution did not endorse slavery (arguing the federal government was merely prevented from prohibiting it). On the contrary, slavery was protected in a way that other property was not. Take Art. 4 Sec. 2 which mandates fugitive slaves must be returned to their masters, even if in free. Slaves were not allowed to be citizens and had no federal rights either.
@HowTheWorldWorks The republicans do not want to repeal the 'doc fix' so how can you count the savings of it when they will not repeal it? And what has the 'doc fix' got to do with weather the healthcare reform goes ahead or not.
@LiberalViewer The 3/5 compromise was the attempt by the North, which wanted to abolish slavery, to limit the power of the South by limiting those states' representation in Congress. By you argument, the southern states, which considered people as property weren't racist since they wanted to count slaves as a whole person for the purpose of reprensentation.
Yeah with your argument you'd be the racist and have the south count their slaves as voters without giving them freedom or citizenship. Either you were trying to pull a spin job on history or you really just don't know enough about it.
You liberals are also trying to spin this CBO thing as well. People finally find out that Obama Care will raise the deficit with things like the "Doc fix" included into it & you point out that it will cost $230 billion to repeal the mess & u smile
@LiberalViewer Because they were talking of SLAVES and how they were to be counted for taxation and representation in Congress, this was PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE and had NOTHING to do with RACE or HUMAN RIGHTS. Let me ask you this LV, would it have made a bit of difference to the slaves on the plantation how they were counted for taxation and representation? They owned NO property, were paid NO income, and could NOT VOTE anyway.
@LiberalViewer The northern states wanted slaves to count as no people so that the southern state would technically have fewer people in the house and the northern states would have more power. The southern states wanted more people in their states so they'd have a higher population and more power in the house of reps. In my opinion, this had nothing to do with racism, both sides of the argument were displaying an avarice for power. 3/5 was just the compromise, slightly in favor of the south.
@LiberalViewer - The CBO's $230 Billion number is only a projection. There's no way to know at this point.
The 3/5th clause was put in by the Founders because if a slave was seen as 100% human there would have been no way to end slavery. You have to read the original drafts of the Constitution by Jefferson. Iy had even more clauses to abolish slavery outright. Jefferson took them out and added the 3/5th clause because it was more of a neutral position than his previous clauses.
@LiberalViewer What was racist was not counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, it was counting them at all. Slave owning states got to increase their representation on the basis of OWNING SLAVES! People who could not vote. I am disgusted that they were counted for purposes of representation at all. If you don't let them vote, you shouldn't get representation on the basis of their residence in your state.
@LiberalViewer Do you think the government has the right to force US citizens to fund programs such as the health care reform under the Constitution? If so, could you please explain your rationale and show documentation showing why you think the Constitution was orginally intended to be interpreted so broadly? If not, could you please explain why you think Congress gets this authority outside the Constitution? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Do you consider yourself a socialist or Marxist?
@LiberalViewer Also, do you feel that there is a difference between involuntary altruism and theft? Do you think we derive our rights from our human nature, a deity, or the government? Thanks in advance for answering my questions and please don't be offended - I'm merely trying to understand your viewpoint and rationale. :)
@Kougeki1000 Did your mommy forget to tell you she loves you when she left for work this morning? You know its the people from the left that say conservatives have the hate speech, where the love?
@LiberalViewer Wow I'm actually very impressed you check out other video channels like this one. I may not always agree with your stance but your comments are measured and thoughtful. Please keep it up!
Oh and Tedbanned. Get a life and stop trolling on this brave person's video. Get out of your parents' basement and enjoy some sunlight and social company
I'm a Canadian who has adopted more worldly views. I am amazed at your bravery and cheekiness, both of which are qualities I admire. People like you with the courage too speak up are becoming a rarity in these times. If you want email me @ ehero8@hotmail.com.
That is exactly the reason why Nancy Pelosi was arm-twisting ALL congressional democrats to donate heavily to the congressional democrat legal defense fund before the November elections. Not only because the democrats were governing against the will of the majority of the American people but also violating the Constitution by thier actions and legislation. For the last four years the democrat majority in congress have shown nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution!
@bryphi77 oh ok I understand now. But even when you described slavery as shoving taxes down our throat, dont you remember them REVOLTING against the taxes king George pushed upon them? So they didn't collect taxes to live like kings, but you're exactly right, otherwise. The Obama administration is doing exactly what you're describing, and it's pathetic and despicable.
3:12 I am an eight grader and an expert on the Constitution ()in large part to my History teacher, but I already knew a lot about it before).
42Severus 1 week ago
thank god you are hear to catch that Polesi what would we do without you
chsfilmschool 8 months ago
You work is fantastic Lee. Thank you.
tigerhop 8 months ago
Lee, thank you for continuing the debunk all the lies in this crazy country.
tigerhop 8 months ago
Why would the media bother to understand what they're saying? Their best bet is to produce more junk with less effort & time. Most viewers are satisfied with what they hear, since anything said by news must be true. Demand is for quantity, not quality. They supply what we demand.
qwexas 1 year ago
@qwexas "what we demand."
No.
TWSceptic 1 month ago
@TWSceptic By "we" I don't mean you & me. I mean news viewers in general. News gets views, so obviously, somebody - our fellow Americans - demand low-quality news. I think consumers contribute to the problem.
qwexas 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@qwexas Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 1 week ago
Politians don't get their power from the constitution. They get their power from people with guns (cops) willing to use them against you if you don't do as they say.
twn5858 1 year ago 2
@twn5858 Cops really? cops serve the government..not the people...the whole purpose of the second amendment is so that we, as a people can rise up and quelch tyranny. The Cops have no constituional bearing to protect us...we are on our own...
0122358 1 year ago
@0122358 I think you missed the point. If a politician came up to me and said, “You need to do this and this piece of paper gives me the power to tell you to do this.” I would laugh in his face. If a politician came up to me and said, “ You can’t do this and if you do these men with guns are going to kidnap you and throw you in jail, or shoot you.” Then I would do as he says. That is what government is. A gun pointed at your head saying, “Do this or else.”
twn5858 1 year ago
I am genuinely surprised by some of the comments here about race.
There is a level of fear and hatred I thought reserved only for the most backwards ass hillbillies.
Everyone has the right to free speech and can spew filth as they see fit; but I am under no obligation to respect anyone's warped sense of reality.
So to those who feels the white man is a demon OR that the white man has it rough:
Wake up!
83niteowl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@83niteowl
"backwards ass hillbillies."
That's an ethnic slur. AKA, prejudice, AKA bigotry.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Matthew 7-3
Hiraghm 1 year ago
The argument they are putting forth demonizing the Constitution holds as much water as people who say the Confederate flag can only be interpreted as a flag supporting an institution that has been dead for hundreds of years and would require the descendants in order for it to be reinstated to gain insane sums of money and buy up large plots of land to support such a system again.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 It's complete lunacy nobody living today is pro slavery or flying any flag because they hate a certain group of people. That is ludicrous. The flag flies because people are proud of their ancestors, proud of the spirit of rebellion against authority that has continued to flow onwards to the current generation. The Confederate flag on The dukes car wasn't a "fuck black people" flag. It's just another American flag. To attack and demonize people who cherish it is wrong.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
Where are Liberal Viewers comments? I just looked through 450 comments and could not find his/her comments, I saw all the responses, but none of the comments!This is my second posting of this question, Lee Doran, where are the comments, I read most of them , when I am interested in the debaters.
golden454 1 year ago
@golden454 Sorry Lee Doren, please where are the comments?
golden454 1 year ago
I think our culture tends to make gods and saints out of our founding fathers. They were not perfect nor were they seers.
This is the importance of the allowance of ammendments. The founders understood that future generations would encounter new circumstances and, I think, they knew that issues like slavery would have to be handled.
Does this excuse racism? Absolutely not. But let us not paint the authors of the Constitution as absolute evil or good.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
No, but they were a lot wiser than 90% of the modern American population. When considering only politicians, it rises to 100%.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
Very good!!
o56kid 1 year ago
A lot of people use the racist argument as a way of winning an argument. That's fucking bullshit!
HIMYNAMEISEVAN 1 year ago
Very nice and informative. I have a question though. Are you STILL unable to figure out why the media is the way it is? You should extend your historical research to include Soviet Russia and National Socialist Germany. Corporate control is certainly a factor. But corporations don't "think". Corporations don't have political views. HOWEVER, THE PEOPLE WHO OWN AND CONTROL THE CORPORATIONS DO.
1776Matthew 1 year ago
The 3/5 Compromise was the first time the Federal Government recognized black slaves as PEOPLE. Before hand they were seen as property by the North and the South. The 13th Amendment made them free. Racism exists because of bitterness and pride from the Europeans who founded this nation. Slavery was around bfore the Romans were a Republic. Any student of History would know this to be true. It is human arrogance to think we "know better" than our forefathers. We are just as foolish as they were.
creevy5O 1 year ago 2
Section 9, paragraph 1 of the constitution addresses the issue of taxation upon the "Importation of such Persons." This means slaves. It is the second clause that pertains to slavery beyond the 3/5ths compromise.
I agree that it does leave voting rights to a state by state basis.
AHBritton 1 year ago
To deny that racism was not present among many of the founding fathers and behind much of the rational for slavery is silly. To claim that it's not racists because it doesn't "compel" people to own slaves is also a poor argument.
Why does it really matter however whether the constitution was racist? The extent of racism in the north and south, as well as sexism, is very well documented. Why are you so concerned about arguing it didn't influence the constitution?
AHBritton 1 year ago
@AHBritton If the Founding Fathers were alive today, and tried to draft THE EXACT SAME DOCUMENTS, you would have their "extremist" group broken up and you would be yelling "NAZI!!" at them. Today it is de-facto illegal for white men to associate exclusively. That's your freedom and equality, huh? You're for equal rights for all... BUT NOT FOR RACISTS!! I bet you wouldn't want any "racists" moving in next door to you, huh? Could lower the property value.
1776Matthew 1 year ago
@1776Matthew
It's ironic that you insinuate that the media is acting as the propoganda wing of a Soviet or National Socialist movement, then decry using the terms "extremist" and "Nazi" in your very next post.
Furthermore, racists do have equal rights. They can spout thier ignorance all they want.
I, and everyone else, have the right to call them bigotous fools.
Lastly, I would not want racists to move in next door, though they have every right to live where they want to.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl I fail to see the irony. Only the most deluded cannot see that the western media is completely "controlled".
And regarding equal rights for "racists" (read any white men who stand up for their culture or right to political enfranchisement), you are quite wrong about that. "Hate-speech" "laws" are being used world-wide to attack anyone who so much as sneezes in favor of white people. Demand that illegal immigration cease... NAZI!!!!! HITLER LOVER!!! RACIST!!!! It is psych-warfare.
1776Matthew 1 year ago
@1776Matthew
I notice that your "avatar" is a maple leaf. If you are Canadian, perhaps you have a point about hate speech. However, as far as I know, hate speech is not illegal in the US. It's just that no one wants to here that drivel and no tv station will air it.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl Right, no TV station will air "hate" speech... And those who own the TV networks get to define what is "hate" and what isn't, now don't they?
"As I said, the media is ridiculous and motivated by owners' political whims."
Ok, so we're on the same page then, right? I know it isn't "brown people" who are ACTIVELY taking my freedom away. Last time I checked, it wasn't Mexicans perched atop all the major media outlets.
Media Nazis? More likely communists. Both are COLLECTIVIST, BIG GOV.
1776Matthew 1 year ago
@1776Matthew
Furthermore, I think it is funny that you say "western" media is controlled. As though eastern media is prefferable or more free. As I said, the media is ridiculous and motivated by owners' political whims.
The irony is that political media outlets, for which there is representation for at least the reps and dems, are associated with Nazis in your mind, but "white men standing up for thier culture"(sounds like racists) are unfairly tagged as such.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@1776Matthew
I think you need a bit of a reality check.
I am assuming that you are a white Christian male.
Don't worry you are still in charge.
The brown people aren't taking your freedoms away.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
No, the white people are.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm
Not all of us.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
no, not all of us. Just those in a position to do so.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm
I think that is a gross exageration. I hope you meant it to be such. There are caucasion philanthropists just as there are dictators of all ethnicities (North Korea/ sub-Saharan Africa/ cartels in South America). I don't want to start a debate about all the terrible injustices perpetrated by white men (there are too many to count).
But blaming the white man for the worlds woes is counter productive. Let us instead focus on the good we can do from our position of priveledge.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
Did I miss the memo somewhere, are are Pelosi and Reid not white?
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm
For you statement:
"No, the glory days weren't all that terrible, they're just painted that way by socialists."
Tell that to the black men and women who suffered under the tyranny of white masters, to the black men and women who suffered an apartheid system in the south long after the Civil War. What about the people terrorized by lynchings and burning crosses? Imagine the first half of the 20th century through their eyes.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
That "apartheid system" was a result of the war. Let's say you have a spoiled child, and he doesn't want to play with little brother. You spank him hard, and tell him he *must* play with little brother. How do you think the now-resentful child will act?
We're so much better off now that we have people being terrorized by gangbangers raping, robbing and murdering.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm Life is a game of power. Black people know this and are now instead of trying to co-exist with other native inhabitants that look different they are using hatred and selfishness to try to kill them all. Killing a killer doesn't make the act right. All life is precious. Whites are not subhuman. If the racial makeup was switched and blacks were the ones who implemented apartheid I wouldn't want the ones who were there extinct. You make things right and get along.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Hiraghm Some masters used the task system in which if the slaves finished the task in say 2 hours he was done for the week. Slaves could request a transfer just like at any job today and were moved of their own volition on more than one occasion due to disagreements with the master or any number of other reasons. Everything that most people think they know about it is propaganda promoted by the North to justify it's actions. The slave narratives explain the system quite plainly.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@83niteowl
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
We've achieved the equal sharing of misery. Black, whites, blues, greens, we're all swimming in the cultural sewer we've created. But, at least our misery is shared. We didn't give blacks the white's cultural experience, as appeared to be the goal. if anything, it did the opposite. Destroyed black culture. And then the white.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm
Correction: here's the Churchill quote I was misremembering:
"“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”"
Hiraghm 1 year ago
Comment removed
83niteowl 1 year ago
@Hiraghm Life is unequal. Some people are retarded and some people are geniuses. the inherent unequal nature of the mind and life in general is the cause of all disparaties. (fuck the spelling) Trying to make what is inherently unequal equal is insanity. Capitalism while not perfect is the fairest system when the market is free. (which ours isn't)
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Hiraghm
To be clear:
My point to 1776Matthew was that I observe a perception among some white people in this country that we caucasians are being oppressed or that Christians are being persecuted. These are the same people that wish for the US's "glory days" and believe that the 60's were when all the trouble began.
They don't seem to understand that they (WASPs) are so thoroughly in charge. Nor do they understand that those glory days were terrible for so many that lived them.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
Caucasians aren't being oppressed, but they are by and large being repressed. Christians are being persecuted.
The trouble did begin in the 60s... the 1860s when the Constitution was trashed and States were demoted to provincial status. 100 years later the downhill slide became a plunge off a cliff.
No, the glory days weren't all that terrible, they're just painted that way by socialists.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm
Am I missing something? At one moment you say white men cause all the problems, then you say caucasians are being repressed. Where are you going with this?
As to your statement that the 1960's were a plunge off the cliff, are you implying that the civil rights movement was a problem? In the 1860's did the southern states have the right to hold slaves? to secede? Do you mean to say that leaving the nation as a loose federation would be preferable to the solidarity of a nation?
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
I said no such thing.
1776Matthew said "The brown people aren't taking your freedoms away. "
To which I replied, "No, the white people are".
Of course they had the right to hold slaves. Either the South had the right to separate and provide new guards for its own security, or the colonies had no such right to separate from England and the DoI is so much toilet paper.
What happened in the process of freeing of the slaves is what trashed the Constitution.
continued...
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm Right. You have to look at history as history. Our moral standards of today cannot be applied during a time when the need for human labor was high and free labor was accessible and profitable enough where some men (only 6% of the wealthy) utilized it. Nobody even wanted slavery when we had it but it was a result of being a British colony and it's own profitability. African slavery (there was white slavery too) was implemented by the crown and forcibly thrust onto all the colonies.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Hiraghm There were Black slave owners who made up while an infinitesimal portion of the overall 6% of rich slave holders took part in it nonetheless. Louisiana had some of the largest numbers of free blacks. If you look at photos of the 1861 national guard over 50% is black. Slavery was used like George tried to use it during the Revolution, to make the population less able to rebel. If not for slavery the south never would have been conquered. They would have had to kill all of us.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Hiraghm Like Brazil it's time on the world was ending as new technology and the abolitionist mindset was gaining more and more ground. Most people don't know this but most of the abolitionist societies were in the south. Southerne whites were Americans and like all whites were not and are not uniquely evil.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@83niteowl
A confederation would have been better than what resulted from the Secession War. Precedents were set that echoed down the years. The offenses against the freed slaves and their descendants can be laid at the feet of the war and Reconstruction.
I'm not implying, I'm saying the "civil rights movement" was nothing but a cover for the encroachment of socialism on the nation. It led to the gov't violating the Constitution, and set precedent for further violations.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm
The white community has suffered nothing like these injustices. Some abuses from affirmative action, or media outlets that demonize caucasians (while employing predominitely white emolyees) come nowhere near the systematic brutalization of black Humans in the civilized world.
White people are no more Reid or Pelosi than black people are Idi Amin. But to paint pre-60's US as a utopia full of individual freedom is foolishness.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
Nonsense.
Irish immigrants, fleeing the Starvation, came to America. Men, women and children were put to work in northern factories, in some cases worked to death in inhuman conditions, raped, beaten, starved; underpaid or not paid and left to their own devices for survival. And the factory owner had no cause to care; he didn't pay for them, and they could be replaced with bodies fresh off the boat. A slave owner, at least, has his monetary investment to consider.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm Exactly. If you read the slave narratives taken in the 30's by FDR from the last surviving pre-1865 slaves you can learn what chattel slavery in the south was actually like. The slaves almost all the time were treated just as good or better than the master's own blood dependents. They had their own land, their own homes and could make extra money to do what they pleased outside of work normally consisting of anywhere from 20-40 hours per week. Most slaves had it better than poor whites
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@83niteowl
Then there are the countless thousands of white people who died of hunger, thirst, exposure, massacre and disease while spreading west and building this civilization we enjoy, with nobody weeping for their suffering.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@83niteowl
Oh, give it a rest.
1571, Battle of Lepanto... fifteen THOUSAND Christian galley slaves freed. SLAVES.
1801 - After centuries of predation in which Europeans were kidnapped and sold into slavery, Jefferson sends the marines in to deal with the Barbary Pirates.
Do you think the Moors were *invited* to invade, conquer Spain and impose Islam on nearly half of Western Europe?
Continued...
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm
I won't entertain a conversation of comparing attrocities. In fact, I've made remarks acknowledging that white men are not fundamentally evil and that they have suffered injustices (even at the hands of other ethnicities).
Of course none of that excuses the abuses perpetrated by slave owners (European, American, African, Cherokee).
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
I think we're on the same page, here.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm Right in the past slavery was common place. It still is in some areas. The more developed we become the less dependent we are on human labor and the freer everyone is.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@83niteowl
Two days ago, iirc, the paper had an article about how freedmen were to be legally considered part of the Cherokee tribe. That's right, the poor, picked-on Cherokees kept black saves. (Of course, the "Native Americans" kept slaves long before Europeans got here).
Slavery continues today, in non-white countries, with oppression and butchery the plantation owners would have blanched at.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@Hiraghm
Ah, so your point is that slavery was okay because white men have suffered injustice.
My favorite parts of your tirade was this:
"That "apartheid system" was a result of the war. Let's say you have a spoiled child, and he doesn't want to play with little brother. You spank him hard, and tell him he *must* play with little brother. How do you think the now-resentful child will act?"
Of course we should feel sorry for the white slave owners. They were spanked too hard.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
One has nothing to do with another. I answered your question: did the South have the right to keep slaves? The counter-question I should have asked was, "Did the North have the right to impose its social values on the South?"
Giving up slavery was no hardship for the industrial north; they already had a better system of wage-slaves.
It isn't about pity. Had slavery been allowed its inevitable death in a decade or so, the resentment wouldn't have existed.
continued
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@83niteowl
Let's not perpetrate another myth. The vast, vast, VAST majority of Southerners did NOT own slaves. In "spanking" the slave owners, the North destroyed an entire, worthwhile (if alien to them) culture.
If your neighbor's 8 year old comes over and spanks your 8 year old for not sharing his toy, is that right? Nobody gave the Union the right to impose its values on a sovereign nation.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Hiraghm
When you assert that society would be better served with segregation, I have to face the fact that I am arguing with a blatant racist who would strip another man of his rights.
And while I would never impede your right to say such things, I choose now to ignore you.
I am not religious, but I'll borrow some Christian words:
"Peace be with you."
But I will also add that I am glad you are a part of a dying breed and that your attitudes are increasingly unpopular in our country.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@Hiraghm When you assert that society would be better served with segregation, I have to face the fact that I am arguing with a blatant racist who would strip another man's rights.
And while I would never impede your right to say such things, I choose now to ignore you.
I am not religious, but I'll borrow some Christian words:
"Peace be with you."
But I will also add that I am glad you are a part of a dying breed and that your attitudes are increasingly unpopular in our country.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl
Where did I assert that the nation would be better served with segregation? You are suggesting that the only path to desegregation was the one imposed upon us by the social engineers. Had slavery been allowed to die its death by natural causes, the resentment would not have been present, the "civil rights movement" would not have been necessary, and the socialists couldn't have co-opted it for their agenda.
Hiraghm 1 year ago
@83niteowl Everyone has had their share of racial injustice. That's all in the past. My ancestors were italian slaves at one point. Doesn't mean I eternally hate all the white people in italy and want it overrun by other whites or people of color. Slavery is natural whether we're referring to mental, political or chattel just to name a few. Living under a single government is being a slave. The miracle is that we have come so far and are able to move past chattel slavery in the west and east.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@83niteowl
Blaming the "white man" is essentially racist. It implies that a white man cannot handle any possition of power without becoming a raging bigot. This perception comes with familiar dangers. It blinds us truth and makes us slaves to prejudices founded on fallacies.
So soon after MLK day, I hope we can reflect on the fact that all white men are not greedy tyrants, that all black men are not lazy criminals and that race is just a couple of genes, as important as eye color.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@83niteowl I agree with most of that. The Government demonizes us because we're the majority. You could look at any people's history as the other teams. Mexico's history isn't that much different than Americas. Many different powers were all fighting over North American land. That is normal. Humans are competitive. The only problem I have is with people who won't allow white people and only white people to have their own communities. Every other race gets this but everyone is afraid of whitey.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289
First off, there are no communities made specifically for any race, at least no in the US. Certainly any community devoted to a particular culture is not government sponsored. For instance, a white man can live in Chinatown or Harlem for that manor.
Also, I would like to point out that the communities you are referring to are generally ghettos. People were essentially forced to live there. If you want to live in a white ghetto, go to an Alabama trailer park.
83niteowl 1 year ago
@Luigi84289
I am appalled that you suggest this. You make it sound as though different ethnicities have been granted beautiful land to colonize as they see fit; when in fact these communities exist because of a history of racial prejudice that white men shouldn't have to share the suburbs.
The whole concept of creating different communities for different races is fundamentally RACIST!
And that undermines everything you said about a flag invariably linked with racism.
83niteowl 1 year ago
The fact that founding fathers allowed a compromise is absurd and allowed racism.
Felix0072 1 year ago
This is like the argument for taking the Bible literally (what a waste of time!)
OrganNLou 1 year ago
Returning to the true roots of the constitution would bring back racism.
OrganNLou 1 year ago
@OrganNLou did you even watch the video?
salmonking007 1 year ago
Republicans know NOTHING about the constitution!
OrganNLou 1 year ago
The 3/5ths Compromise was not an irony it was the hypocrisy and the two-faced actions of the North which the South found insane .
haibane13 1 year ago
Comment removed
haibane13 1 year ago
DECREASING ??
THIS IS SHIITT !!!
CAUSE THEY ARE TO BE BLAMED ..
THAY OWN THE BANKING SYSTEM.. ALSO THEY ARE RULLING THE FED RESERVE !!!
ALSO THEY ARE THOSE WHO ARE GETTING WITH THIS SOLUTTION .. REDUCING !!!
I WONDER WHY TO PAY FOR SOMEONE ELSE MISTAKES ??
WHY TO GET HOMELESS CAUSE SOME BANKERS HAVE SOME ISSUE WITH MONEY SYSTEM ?!
ALSO WHAY IN THE GODS NAME SHOULD I RASE MY CHILD AFTER THEOSE OLD BASTARDS AKNOWLEGE AND ADVISE ???
WHY ??
AM I A BABY or ROBOT MACHINE ??
LORENZZO1983LORENZZO 1 year ago
Lee, you are arguing with people who are Democrats (in the term of people who want Democracy only, not in the party). People who want this country to be a democracy, not a Republic. Small 'r' republicans like you and I will never see eye to eye with Democrats who want democracy. The reason why they don't like (and I'll even go so far to say despise) our Constitution is because it is an anti-democracy or anti-majority rules document. They are skilled demagogues and want total control.
PatriotsRepublic 1 year ago
Well done as usual Lee.
ConservativeResponse 1 year ago
I need examples to cite when I talk about this. Are there any Amendments to the Constitution that were proposed by conservatives? That would strengthen the argument that conservatives want to keep the Constitution a living, evolving document.
andyandymax 1 year ago
@andyandymax See the 13th amendment.
Altimadark 1 year ago
those liberals are absurd
ceasey0xoogurl 1 year ago
You know why people consider the three fifths compromise racist? Because, as far as I'm aware, only blacks were slaves, and it was agreed to make "slave" a special class of person for the purpose of census.
Macaii 1 year ago
@Macaii The 3/5 compromise definitely limited the power of the slave states. If they could claim their slaves as a full person they would have had more clout in the legislature. It was far from perfect, but was an effort to fight the power of slave owners.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@averagejoe040 The fact that there was a compromise at all, however, was an indication that racist institutions were given representation in the Constitution, though, and thus, the document itself has a history of racism. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.
Macaii 1 year ago
@Macaii that is so far from the truth that it is almost criminal. When you twist and pervert the truth as often and as badly as you progressives do, it becomes a crime against your fellow citizens... especially if you use those lies to propagate truly enslaving and violent legislation in the name of "equality" and "fairness". Everything you liberals preach turns into liberty stealing laws and acts that by any measure are wholly unconstitutional and deserving of contempt.
PatriotsRepublic 1 year ago
@PatriotsRepublic I'm not a liberal. In fact, according to my friends, I'm quite conservative.
Macaii 1 year ago
@PatriotsRepublic I'm not a liberal. In fact, according to my friends, I'm quite conservative.
Macaii 1 year ago
@Macaii You insist on seeing only one side. Yes, there was slavery in America. There were also some who fought against slavery. We fought a great Civil War to end slavery. Must we suffer for this forever? This nation could never have been formed without leeway to the slave states. Blacks in Colonial times were enslaving each other in Africa. Do they feel they must pay for this? Hell no they don't! They are still enslaving each other - when they are not whacking heads off with a machete.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@averagejoe040 All I want to know is, how did you go from "The Constitution has historical roots in racism" to "We must suffer for that fact forever", or really, suffer for it at all?
Macaii 1 year ago
@Macaii We do suffer from the one time slavery in this country. It seems we can never move past it. Just recently black so called farmers were awarded a huge settlement because the government supposedly discriminated against them. A total bullshit case but we had to pay. Blacks are always special, always victims. On a personal level it would be like being blackmailed all your life for something you did when you were 5 years old.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@averagejoe040 Even if what you are saying (that blacks are exploiting victim-status) is true, it doesn't change the truth-value of my statement. I don't see why you're going on this tangent.
Macaii 1 year ago
@Macaii Your statement that the constitution is rooted in racism? I disagree. The constitution abolished slavery and does not permit racism. The constitution in it's original form made a compromise with slave states in order to form the Union. That is long over with. It was corrected nearly 150 years ago.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@averagejoe040 So let me get this straight: the fact that we needed a three fifths compromise to begin with when writing the Constitution isn't an indication that racism had clout in our society at the time of its writing? Really?
Macaii 1 year ago
@Macaii It's true, as you say, "racism had clout" in our society at the time the constitution was written. It was a compromise - not a root concept.
averagejoe040 1 year ago
@averagejoe040 So if racism had clout in society, and the Constitution was based on then-status quo society, I don't see how it's a huge issue to say that the Constitution was based on, among other things, racism.
Macaii 1 year ago
Sigh. The Doc Fix will happen regardless of the healthcare law. That is like attaching my mortgage to my dinner bill and saying my dinner was really expensive.
Quit repeating nonsense talking points
SPQRomantic 1 year ago
The 'doc fix' has nothing to do with healthcare reform. It would have to happend wether reform was passed or not so is no a cost of healthcare bill.
thecomputergurukid 1 year ago
how about those bastards giving no cola for 2yrs straight. i'll bet none of those crimminals will get a paycut....let them live on under 10k a year. fat damn pigs need to rot in jail...
rednxrule 1 year ago
@rednxrule See...I have a hard time giving sympathy. I assume you are a government worker, correct? Thus, you feel ENTITLED to a cost of living increase. The fact that public sector workers are paid double that of a private sector employee and are literally bleeding this country dry doesn't even register with most government workers like yourself. Government workers are paid by selling the US populace and its unborn into debt slavery to foreigners but you don't care - you just want more.
chuska8383 1 year ago
Check out the idiots blaming Sarah Palin for Giffords getting shot, if you want to read absurd statements.
3mate1 1 year ago
"It's not a show."? It absolutely is, it's a showy stall tactic. What will come out of the reading of the constitution on the floor? Will anyone actually learn from the recital? However, I do agree with the overall message of this video. So, good job on that.
cbdoobie 1 year ago
This video is great. Love the Constitutional explanation.
apocalypse1280 1 year ago
"It makes me want to throw up. -LDoren." That needs to go on a t-shirt!
CZroe 1 year ago
So if gay people, for instance, wanna protect THEIR RIGHT to sexual privacy, rather than go to the SCOTUS, they should ask Congress to pass an amendment and wait for 3/4ths of the states to pass it?? That's insane! That would take up WAYY too much time and further cause gridlock in our already-broken Congress. If the only "alternative" to conservative originalism is the amendment process, we need a new Constitution, or the originalists are dead wrong!
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689
Terrible example. Homosexual people already do have a protected right to privacy, as anyone else.
jevansturner 1 year ago
So-called "originalism" is no more "original" than loose constructionism! They're 2 ideological sides of the constitutional debate. All told, I happen to lean towards the less-originalist side because to pretend like the document is almost totally static, or at least as static as the most recent amendment and all others passed before it, is absurd! Times change, and the amendment process is wayy too complex to keep doing it every fucking year or month for something you wanna change.
whoo689 1 year ago
It shouldn't be THAT fucking hard to protect our rights as Americans. The Founders certainly didn't want to make it extremely difficult for Americans to keep their precious freedoms! They wanted to curtail the power of government. I mean, how can ANYONE say that an individual freedom is "unconstitutional", esp. when it doesn't hurt or affect anyone else? Someone else practicing sodomy, as gross or weird as you may think it is, doesn't affect you. That's just one example.
whoo689 1 year ago
What SHOULD be ruled unconstitutional are VIOLATIONS of our civil liberties and freedoms as Americans. That's part and parcel. The fact that we still have justices on the Supreme Court who think the document DOESN'T protect freedoms like the right not to be discriminated against is ABSURD. Original intent, meaning or whatever you subscribe to, doesn't work. It's not capable of moving us forward in 2010. Only knuckle-dragging right-wing ideologues who hate progress like it.
whoo689 1 year ago
And it's not like THEY don't change the Constitution for activism in their own ways. The Roberts court has been deemed perhaps THE MOST corporatist and pro-business Court in HISTORY! So many of their rulings hinge on the "freedom" of certain big corporations do whatever the fuck they please, no matter how much it reduces worker freedom, pollute the environment, etc. I wasn't a huge opponent of the Citizens United ruling, but it WAS a big stretch in interpretation from the original meaning.
whoo689 1 year ago
I don't think Jefferson or Madison thought that big business were protected by the First Amendment when they wrote the document. Did originalists who LOVE the CU ruling think about THAT, for all their silly braying on about "judicial activism"?
whoo689 1 year ago
In the long run, though, what's best for society is probably a mixture of originalism AND loose construction. Neither of them in isolation are good enough to move us forward. Certain cases deem different ways of interpretation. There's no one interpretation method that can apply to ALL situations. Why should judges be restricted to one o the other, anyhow? Why should Senators REQUIRE them to state where they will stand on interpretation ALL THE TIME?
whoo689 1 year ago
To say that every aspect of the Constitution should be interpreted EXACTLY the same as when it was written in 1789 is to deny how much society has changed since then, how much the world as changed. New threats and challenges require a broader interpretation, I'm sorry to say. As much as you right-wingers think that's "judicial fiat" or "activism," it's the truth. Even Scalia in one of his court rulings said that law system where meaning rather than what the law actually says should rule..
whoo689 1 year ago
WHOO: Your comment beginning with "to say that every aspect" is quite silly. You can amend the Const. it has been done several times. If the Framers' intention was a pliable Const. then why did they make it so hard to amend & why did they list Enumerated Powers? The 14th Amendment was and is not intended to give amnesty to people who essentially just waltz in expecting something--that's quite different from slaves & if an Ambassador had a kid while in the US, it doesn't make that child a citizen
UTubekookdetector 1 year ago
is tyranny.
If we pretend like what the documents and laws ACTUALLY say doesn't matter and just try to guess what the original meanings were, we might as well NOT have laws at all! If a law's creator can just say, "Well, I wrote this in the law, but the law actually says THAT", we might as well live in an oligarchy where our rulers just hand out verbal decrees on what to do. We have LAWS and written legal documents for a reason.
whoo689 1 year ago
Take the 14th Amendment. You can't write an amendment which seems so clear in purpose, and then over 100 years later have some jackass like Steve King claim, "Well, the amendment doesn't ACTUALLY say what it says. Its meaning is totally different." That's not how a nation of laws runs. That's a nation of MEN.
whoo689 1 year ago
If originalists wanna get the interpretation "correct", why don't THEY pass a serious of amendments to CLEAR UP the language and/or replace it with THEIR interpretation?? Put your money where your mouths are, originalists. Don't claim we all have it "wrong", and only you, in your infinite "wisdom", can somehow know what the constitution actually means. If you don't want confusion and judicial misinterpretation, CLEAR UP THE LANGUAGE. Do the amendment process yourself. What say you
whoo689 1 year ago
Comment removed
Altimadark 1 year ago
hey sarah, nice shot.
mpower6428 1 year ago
The Slave holding states wanted to count them as a whole for Representation but as none for Taxation. The inverse was true for the non-slave holding states.
CRTV1982 1 year ago
No comment on the nutbar libertarian conspiracy theorist that shot up the Democratic Representative in Arizona?
nick012000 1 year ago
@nick012000
This video was posted on the 7th...the shooting took place a day after
Arcterran 1 year ago
From the beginning of the healthcare debate they have lied because the CBO score is on 10 year of revenues that off set only 6 years of spending. So from the start the score was a lie. Those who scored it from 2014 to 2024 found it will cost double and add to the deficit not reduce it. To repeal it right now would actually save $540 billion in spending.
quizerry 1 year ago
This should be interesting. So before anyone comments oh lib I'm an independent I see stupid everywhere. So far this video is a waste of my time really. I checked the links and unless I am missing something the claims your making are outright false. Wrong links maybe?
knight1b 1 year ago
This should be interesting.
knight1b 1 year ago
you want to vomit a lot. Maybe just get it out? make ya feel better, man
shethewriter 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer: Does slavery have anything to do with race? Or is it merely limited to enslavement of otherwise free people, regardless of race?
jjenkov 1 year ago
If slaves were counted as property with no rights and one whole vote and forced to vote for pro-slavery candidates what do people who advocate the constitution is racist think would happen to slaves becoming free? It may have very well been decades later before the constitution was amended. Not to mention many signers of the constitution were not in favor of the entirety of it, but felt it necessary to pass it. For the betterment of the whole nation which was in debt and most cities devastated.
LokiScoutSniper 1 year ago
Since it is the law of the land, it would be a lot nicer if more people were impeached
for trying to subvert it through specious arguments.
I recommend Capitalism and Slavery as a way to understand the historical basis
of how we got the various forms of slavery in the USA. It was economics, the real
thing not the Marxist version.
tyrbolo 1 year ago
people who say the constitution is racist might as well say "believing in the concept of law is racist". you clearly dont understand what the constitution is. there is a process to amend the constitution and the process can be tedious because it is the fucking constitution and if it could be amended easily, you can kiss your sorry 1st amendment goodbye, then again, we're watching it be chipped away slowly but surely by liberals and flag waving republicans.
abortabraham 1 year ago
I pointed out your error on the "doc fix" in a comment I posted to a previous video, but you deleted it. Deleting the comment, however, did not change the logical flaw in your argument and the CBO just said the GOP proposed repeal of PPACA will cost $230 billion. Why can't GOP give the CBO assumptions showing no cost from repeal?
You also forgot Art I, Sec 9. Clause 1 of the Constitution and did not explain how arguing about whether slaves = 0 or 3/5 persons is not racist.
Thx 4 the video :-)
LiberalViewer 1 year ago 3
@LiberalViewer If the health care bill they want to repeal would actually increase the deficit, how exactly would repealing it increase the defecit? I don't get that at all.
bricool4 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer
Slavery that existed in America was a racist institution. As you know, the Federal government had no means of stopping it at the time absent some 5th Amendment Taking and "Just Compensation" creative move. An absence of power to stop something evil doesn't make the Constitution itself evil. Abolitionists tried, but failed to stop slavery by limiting the South's power with the 3/5 compromise.
The GOP likely will, but I don't think either party should game the CBO.
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago 30
@HowTheWorldWorks Although you are correct in your assessment about the three-fifths compromise, you are dead wrong in saying that the constitution did not endorse slavery (arguing the federal government was merely prevented from prohibiting it). On the contrary, slavery was protected in a way that other property was not. Take Art. 4 Sec. 2 which mandates fugitive slaves must be returned to their masters, even if in free. Slaves were not allowed to be citizens and had no federal rights either.
Libratrack 1 year ago
@HowTheWorldWorks The republicans do not want to repeal the 'doc fix' so how can you count the savings of it when they will not repeal it? And what has the 'doc fix' got to do with weather the healthcare reform goes ahead or not.
thecomputergurukid 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer Obamacare will cost us billions. The CBO's original esitmates were made with BS numbers.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer The 3/5 compromise was the attempt by the North, which wanted to abolish slavery, to limit the power of the South by limiting those states' representation in Congress. By you argument, the southern states, which considered people as property weren't racist since they wanted to count slaves as a whole person for the purpose of reprensentation.
jtkirkfan2002 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer
Yeah with your argument you'd be the racist and have the south count their slaves as voters without giving them freedom or citizenship. Either you were trying to pull a spin job on history or you really just don't know enough about it.
You liberals are also trying to spin this CBO thing as well. People finally find out that Obama Care will raise the deficit with things like the "Doc fix" included into it & you point out that it will cost $230 billion to repeal the mess & u smile
blurbum9 1 year ago
@blurbum9 Spin Job, I doubt he is stupid.
CRTV1982 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer Because they were talking of SLAVES and how they were to be counted for taxation and representation in Congress, this was PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE and had NOTHING to do with RACE or HUMAN RIGHTS. Let me ask you this LV, would it have made a bit of difference to the slaves on the plantation how they were counted for taxation and representation? They owned NO property, were paid NO income, and could NOT VOTE anyway.
CRTV1982 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer As for the repeal of the PPACA, so repealing a bill that SPENDS will increase the deficit? Come on, get some common sense.
CRTV1982 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer The northern states wanted slaves to count as no people so that the southern state would technically have fewer people in the house and the northern states would have more power. The southern states wanted more people in their states so they'd have a higher population and more power in the house of reps. In my opinion, this had nothing to do with racism, both sides of the argument were displaying an avarice for power. 3/5 was just the compromise, slightly in favor of the south.
darebear42 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer - The CBO's $230 Billion number is only a projection. There's no way to know at this point.
The 3/5th clause was put in by the Founders because if a slave was seen as 100% human there would have been no way to end slavery. You have to read the original drafts of the Constitution by Jefferson. Iy had even more clauses to abolish slavery outright. Jefferson took them out and added the 3/5th clause because it was more of a neutral position than his previous clauses.
RocktheStageNYC 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer What was racist was not counting slaves as 3/5 of a person, it was counting them at all. Slave owning states got to increase their representation on the basis of OWNING SLAVES! People who could not vote. I am disgusted that they were counted for purposes of representation at all. If you don't let them vote, you shouldn't get representation on the basis of their residence in your state.
docdamag 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer Do you think the government has the right to force US citizens to fund programs such as the health care reform under the Constitution? If so, could you please explain your rationale and show documentation showing why you think the Constitution was orginally intended to be interpreted so broadly? If not, could you please explain why you think Congress gets this authority outside the Constitution? Have you read the Federalist Papers? Do you consider yourself a socialist or Marxist?
chuska8383 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer Also, do you feel that there is a difference between involuntary altruism and theft? Do you think we derive our rights from our human nature, a deity, or the government? Thanks in advance for answering my questions and please don't be offended - I'm merely trying to understand your viewpoint and rationale. :)
chuska8383 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer Do you ever get tired of Lee schooling you EVERYTIME you try to rebuke his point?
dynamitemike65 1 year ago
@dynamitemike65 hey, dickhead, it's 'every time' not everytime. So how about you go get an education before calling who won the argument, eh?
Kougeki1000 1 year ago
@Kougeki1000 Did your mommy forget to tell you she loves you when she left for work this morning? You know its the people from the left that say conservatives have the hate speech, where the love?
dynamitemike65 1 year ago
@LiberalViewer Wow I'm actually very impressed you check out other video channels like this one. I may not always agree with your stance but your comments are measured and thoughtful. Please keep it up!
sirellyn 1 year ago
Comment removed
LiberalViewer 1 year ago
Oh and Tedbanned. Get a life and stop trolling on this brave person's video. Get out of your parents' basement and enjoy some sunlight and social company
Windblade42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm a Canadian who has adopted more worldly views. I am amazed at your bravery and cheekiness, both of which are qualities I admire. People like you with the courage too speak up are becoming a rarity in these times. If you want email me @ ehero8@hotmail.com.
Windblade42 1 year ago
For once Congress actually read something before they did something
Crisgo3d 1 year ago
That is exactly the reason why Nancy Pelosi was arm-twisting ALL congressional democrats to donate heavily to the congressional democrat legal defense fund before the November elections. Not only because the democrats were governing against the will of the majority of the American people but also violating the Constitution by thier actions and legislation. For the last four years the democrat majority in congress have shown nothing but contempt for the U.S. Constitution!
dantheleo 1 year ago 2
@bryphi77 oh ok I understand now. But even when you described slavery as shoving taxes down our throat, dont you remember them REVOLTING against the taxes king George pushed upon them? So they didn't collect taxes to live like kings, but you're exactly right, otherwise. The Obama administration is doing exactly what you're describing, and it's pathetic and despicable.
The13thCritic 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Can we please just update the f'ucking constitution so anybody can understand it with out a fucking English degree?
Rownery 1 year ago
@Rownery
What?! The Constitution is in plain English. A 4th Grader could read it. "Congress Shall Make No Law"
HowTheWorldWorks 1 year ago 27