Of the rights you thought were guaranteed to you by the Constitution,what will you do if the new goverment decides to take them away?

Exactly.   Trying to spin it as if the Dems haven't  been ignoring the clear speech of the Constitution and trying to take liberties is a lie.
It was the left that has been pushing the idea of a Living Constitution for years and years.  It's hypocrisy  at the highest level.


It's not one,  it's both people.

Yes. Let's just hope Trump follows through and puts Constitutional Judges on the Supreme Court.

I doubt it.   Typically Constitutionality boils down what serves the people deciding and their ultimate goals.

@Glis -- I have a hint for you

Democrat = Leftist is a false construction. Yes, SOME Democrats are leftists, but it is NOT the case all Leftists are Democrats (or vice versa)

So when Arlen Specter votes for a reauthorization of the Patriot Act, that is NOT an example of a leftist trying to take away your liberties.

If you persist in you nonsensical construct, I will start firing "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ" at you in rebuttal.

Somewhat true. 

You should know by now I'm anti-left.  It's spurious though to deny there are toxic elements in both the right and left or that either one doesn't have authoritarian elements in them.  Extremism and authoritarianism isn't owned by one or the other.  It exist in both.


Not all cons are stupid and neither are all libs.  That isn't do deny there are stupid ideas, people, and concepts in both camps either. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 29, 2016 11:02 AM MST

@Glis -- As far as I can tell, you are not anti-left.

What you are is anti-Your Caricature of "The Left" where somehow Elizabeth Warren advocating for universal health care is just a few steps down the continuum from Stalin sending people to the gulags in the name of Communism.

As I said, if you persist in that nonsensical construct, I will criticize and lampoon you for it.

Baseless assumptions, spin doctoring, and putting words in another persons mouth are the epitome of nonsensical constructs.   Strawman statements don't make good points. 

@Glis -- I agree. Whining that,  "TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ IS KUMMING TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!" is the epitome of baseless assumptions, spin doctoring, putting words in others' mouths, and Straw Man construction.

If you continue to do that, instead of providing evidence/examples of what you claim is happening, I will continue to lampoon you.

Dude, you are way too emotionally attached to your opinions and politics.   You act like someone is attacking your first born sometimes for very minor deviations.

This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 29, 2016 11:19 AM MST

@Glis -- No, I refuse to concede the rhetorical space to people who wish to deliberately deceive and have their deceptions accepted through the force of repetition.

It is one of the great failings of the political left in the United States that they don't quite grasp the power of the Big Lie.


This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 29, 2016 11:23 AM MST

Why do you keep bringing up healthcare! That's why I don't even bother satisfying you with a thought out response since you so often make a strawman statement and then try and base it on that.   You try to argue what wasn't said.

I get it.  In your opinion.
Deceptive practices to influence thought is right wing by definition.
Manipulation of liberties and rights is by defintion, right wing.
War is by definition, right wing.
Authoritarianism is by definition, right wing.
The reasoning, way to the conclusion,methods, and logic has no bearing on it.

Some disagree.  Many in fact and in all political camps. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 29, 2016 11:30 AM MST

@Glis -- The point of the Lakoff video wasn't about health care. The point of it was how human cognition actually works, how the political right has been far more successful exploiting how human cognition actually works, and why I refuse to concede the rhetorical space when someone like you says, "Both the Left and the Right are trying to take away your rights!"

There ARE real differences and asymmetries in how the political left and political right address these questions.

Let's consider, for example, the Patriot Act (which I think you'll agree was a horrible rights-abridging piece of legislation). If you look at the voting on it, yes, both Democrats and Republicans voted for the original and the reauthorization.

But if you look at the original vote, NO ONE F***ING REPUBLICAN voted against it, and the few Democrats who did were not centrist establishment "Let's vote for another free trade agreement which will make our Wall Street donors happy and screw over the working class" Democrats, they were the left-wing fringe of the party. When the reauthorization came up, a few GOPers did join the side of angles and vote against it. But again, the vast majority of the opposition to the reauthorization came from the progressive wing of the Democratic party.

That's the REALITY of the situation. There is a real asymmetry there. So if you're going to argue "both sides do it", bring examples. Otherwise, you're just spouting nonsense.

I do and you ignore them.  The examples are in the first two comments before yours.


You're continuing to make it about other things.   Straying from  topic just to rant.

( Q&A, and opinion sites are not the same as debate sites you do realize?) This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 29, 2016 12:10 PM MST

@Glis -- Sorry, I don't see a single concrete example of what you're talking about.

Another AMer brought up the 2nd Amendment, which is a canard. Other than people on the political left having differences about the EXACT FORM restrictions private ownership of firearms should take (compared to people on the political right), there is no broad-based left wing movement "Kummin to Git Yer Gunz!" and you KNOW it.

Similarly, your "Living Consitution" quip is a candard and shows a profound ignorance of constitutional history.  The Consitituion has ALWAYS been interpreted, and those interpretations have ALWAYS changed over time. Or do you really think we should go back to the precedent of the Dred Scott case? How about when the Court said interning Japanese-background citizens was OK?

Your examples are EXACTLY the sort of Straw Man/spinning/caricacturing you were bitching about earlier.

Try again. Or don't. It's up to you. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at November 29, 2016 1:33 PM MST

uh-huh  sure.

If you think interpretation and Living Constitution are the same then you need to go do some reading.
A little refresher on spin and strawman might be in order as well.

This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 29, 2016 1:36 PM MST

@glis -- I did a little reading. Admittedly, it was Wikipedia, but sources were cited and the origins of the phrase "Living Constitution" were noted.

I see little to no distinction between the idea that the Constitution is subject to changing interpretation and the phrase "Living Constitution"

I am disappointed you retreated into the I've Got Nuggets counterargument instead of providing concrete examples of what you claim.

I'm pulling that SKOS. I'm just not indulging your desire to debate ad nauseum on a Q&A/opinion site.

Especially considering it always comes down to "   I see no difference"  and " I disagree that it's left  because it's authoritarian".   Along with your rush to always confuse politics with  politicians.  It's a waste of time to roll in the mud.


Interpretation and the strange and dangerous (IMHO) idea that the text is determined by the current climate and not what the original wording and intent was is worlds apart.  The idea of a Living Constitution that is based not on wording and intent, but the current climate castrates the document and means it totally worthless and of no use or real purpose.  At some point things have to be concrete and literal or their is nothing.

The concept that " These words and rules meant this then, but mean this now because of REASONS"  is flimsy and makes the words and rules meaningless and the rights granted by them of no real promise. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at November 29, 2016 2:11 PM MST

Good luck then. I heard that PET is "contemplating" taking away citizenship and/or incarcerating someone who burns the flag. Free speech? Gone! Thank you for your reply Deaves. You can keep your guns. Worry not. But your freedom to say what you think or congregate in peaceful protest? Maybe not. This post was edited by RosieG at November 29, 2016 11:08 AM MST

Zack? Answerbag Zack? My old pal? Welcome if it's you and welcome to whomever it is if not you. I know.  I keep extrapolating various scenarios, none of which seem impossible to me. Which scares the crap outta me! Thank you for your reply and Happy Tuesday to thee! :)

That's me.

 ((hugs)) Hi honey! Howya been? Good I hope! Thanks for touching base. It's been a really long time! :):):)

The new site looks great. Makes me want to stay.