@TheChief And that spirt is to limit the will of the people and protect the wants of wealthy elites. That is why the founders hated democracy so much, they feared losing their power and status.
And no one has to buy your, probably based on religious nonsense, definition either. The thing is, marriage is in fact a legal institution and with it come certain privileges, and to deny these to gay couples is flagrant discrimination and a violation of the 14th amendment, hence why the S.C. ruled the way it did, that plus it is a social acceptable ruling now.
Well lots of torture has been going on, as well as just invading nations with no real provocation, and a history of overthrowing democracy after democracy and replacing them with right wing dictatorships, bombing campaigns that kill civilians more often than they do terrorists, economic sanctions that result in the deaths of 400,000 children, etc. while some may not be strictly criminal, they are still obvious affronts to humanity.
How was the genocide of Native Americans helping protect anyone? I said most times the gov tramples people rights it is to protect those interests, not necessarily every time.
There is no irony, I'm saying the constitution is a worthless document that fails to do what you want it to. I care about the abuses I mentioned for actual humanitarian reasons, not legal ones. And as stated obviously, the courts decision didn't violate the constitution. Nice try at misrepresentation.
Because you were talking about Trump and Cruz, and Trump is the more aggressive one when it comes to the military.
So the constitution protects us from the oligarchical tyranny (this is what the founders clearly wanted when you see why the objected to democracy) less obvious? The founders hated democracy and wanted power in the hands of a few elites, and your defense of this is "oh well democracy is just used to defend tyrannical oligarchy."? I mean your defends of this is false, but even if we ignore that it is still absurd. Democracy is an idea, an idea that the powerful fear. An idea that threatens current power structures.
You've also never addressed that fact that the system we have now, minus the poor and women and racial minorities being able to vote, is what the founders would want. The only difference is that the founder's vision was slightly worse.
19
@TheChief And that spirt is to limit the will of the people and protect the wants of wealthy elites. That is why the founders hated democracy so much, they feared losing their power and status.
And no one has to buy your, probably based on religious nonsense, definition either. The thing is, marriage is in fact a legal institution and with it come certain privileges, and to deny these to gay couples is flagrant discrimination and a violation of the 14th amendment, hence why the S.C. ruled the way it did, that plus it is a social acceptable ruling now.
Well lots of torture has been going on, as well as just invading nations with no real provocation, and a history of overthrowing democracy after democracy and replacing them with right wing dictatorships, bombing campaigns that kill civilians more often than they do terrorists, economic sanctions that result in the deaths of 400,000 children, etc. while some may not be strictly criminal, they are still obvious affronts to humanity.
How was the genocide of Native Americans helping protect anyone? I said most times the gov tramples people rights it is to protect those interests, not necessarily every time.
There is no irony, I'm saying the constitution is a worthless document that fails to do what you want it to. I care about the abuses I mentioned for actual humanitarian reasons, not legal ones. And as stated obviously, the courts decision didn't violate the constitution. Nice try at misrepresentation.
Because you were talking about Trump and Cruz, and Trump is the more aggressive one when it comes to the military.
So the constitution protects us from the oligarchical tyranny (this is what the founders clearly wanted when you see why the objected to democracy) less obvious? The founders hated democracy and wanted power in the hands of a few elites, and your defense of this is "oh well democracy is just used to defend tyrannical oligarchy."? I mean your defends of this is false, but even if we ignore that it is still absurd. Democracy is an idea, an idea that the powerful fear. An idea that threatens current power structures.
You've also never addressed that fact that the system we have now, minus the poor and women and racial minorities being able to vote, is what the founders would want. The only difference is that the founder's vision was slightly worse.