E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-11-2013, 11:18 PM   #61
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post

Aren't you late for a shearing appointment?
To your sheep comment, I find it quite amusing, especially coming from you. One who regurgitates a prevailing view and can't think for himself as evidence by continuously beating the same drum. When challenged, you just beat the drum more feverishly and resort to sheep comments.

Look, our founding documents are intricate and imbedded in them are complex theories of rights, morals, liberty, and law.

Let me ask you this, where did the idea of innate rights come from? Some would say they can trace back to the Magna Carta. But why is that? Was it because of conditions back then? Mistreatment of people? If so, then why is it that innate rights didn't exist before then? Additionally, if they are innate, why is it only applicable mostly in the Western world?

Also, why didn't these "innate" rights exist hundreds or thousands of years ago? Or is it relatively a new idea?
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 11:28 PM   #62
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cornwallis had his final ass kicking
Posts: 4,892
My Ride: E46 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
To your sheep comment, I find it quite amusing, especially coming from you. One who regurgitates a prevailing view and can't think for himself as evidence by continuously beating the same drum. When challenged, you just beat the drum more feverishly and resort to sheep comments.

Look, our founding documents are intricate and imbedded in them are complex theories of rights, morals, liberty, and law.

Let me ask you this, where did the idea of innate rights come from? Some would say they can trace back to the Magna Carta. But why is that? Was it because of conditions back then? Mistreatment of people? If so, then why is it that innate rights didn't exist before then? Additionally, if they are innate, why is it only applicable mostly in the Western world?

Also, why didn't these "innate" rights exist hundreds or thousands of years ago? Or is it relatively a new idea?
Could be a newly discovered idea in the past few centuries. Perhaps religious societies and ways of thinking prevented individuals from claiming otherwise? Who's to say humans don't have innate rights?
__________________


Quote:
"I think it's very important to have a feedback loop, where you're constantly thinking about what you've done and how you could be doing it better. I think that's the single best piece of advice: constantly think about how you could be doing things better and questioning yourself."
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 11:44 PM   #63
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
Could be a newly discovered idea in the past few centuries. Perhaps religious societies and ways of thinking prevented individuals from claiming otherwise? Who's to say humans don't have innate rights?
I'm of the opinion that the idea of "innate" rights is a human construct that evolved over time due to various conditions impressed upon mankind (deemed injustices) and philosophers, etc. As time went on, it became a more popular idea and imbedded in government institutions and founding documents.

To your last question, you touched on my point. If you read through this thread, which I'm assuming you have, I asked JJ to prove innate rights exist - which he firmly believes they do. The point is, you can't prove it, nor can you disprove it. Hence my comment about it's like asking to prove God exists. JJ's retort about saying there's nothing to prove and by taking away an innate right doesn't negate the right is a circular argument. It's akin to saying because you can't prove God doesn't exist it therefore does not negate the fact he does exist.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2013, 11:47 PM   #64
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
To add, as I stated previously, I'm not religious. Therefore I'm inclined to believe there can't be innate rights because innate rights you are a) born with b) therefore a natural right c) natural rights are divine d) Divinity comes from God.


But I can't prove it. Nor can others on e46 OT disprove it - so far

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-11-2013 at 11:50 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 12:06 AM   #65
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
I, for one, praise the generosity of our government that graciously grants us our privileges such as free speech and protection from unreasonable search and seizure. I will do anything for the government to make sure they don't repeal these, but would completely understand if they chose to do so in order to make me safer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonJon View Post
as funny as that was to read... MANY live their lives in that view
I don't see it like that. JJ, I agree with you that government should fear their people because it's the people that allows the government to govern. However, it is also the people, through representation in government, that by popular vote pass laws, and in this context of this thread, rights. Why else would the states demand the BoR if they were not concerned? Was it not the states' representatives representing the interests of their people and what they thought should be rights and codified as such as the BoR? Was there not an agreement on what these rights should be, that oh by the way, some of which derived from English Common Law and perhaps the Magna Carta? Ergo the idea "innate" rights is not unique to America and it evolved? And I mentioned in the post above, it is my opinion that innate rights is an idea that evolved over time? A human construct even?


Simply put, in my opinion we as humans and Americans decide and say what our rights should be (for whatever the reason, e.g. morals, justice, fairness etc) and put it to our government, through our representatives, to make it so and thereby granting and protecting those rights. I do not believe its because they are innate. I think it's because of human intellect, history, and experience.

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-12-2013 at 12:19 AM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 12:24 AM   #66
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
who ever wrote it was from North Carolina too, a traditionally conservative state.

and in before JJ.

Funny how when it comes to the 2nd amendment, conservatives state that the Constitution/BoR gives them the right to bear arms. Then people like JJ turn around and so no, no, the Constitution/BoR doesn't grant rights at all, it is supposed to prevent government from over stepping its authority.

So which is it? Does it, or does it not grant rights? I say it does.
I love how you tried to call out JJ without actually having a clue...the 2nd amendment dictates that the government has NO RIGHT TO INFRINGE on people owning guns....it does NOT give people the right to own guns.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 12:32 AM   #67
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
I think it depends on what you mean equal. In terms of rights?

What I'm getting at is in one context, no I don't think people are born equal. Some people are smarter than others. Some are physically stronger. Some are better at doing A, B, C than the other person.

It is my opinion that one of the roles of the government is to levy rights and laws as to protect people from themselves (such as an unfair advantage).
Quoting this for future reference of libtardism. So lets govern the NBA because it's unfair that Michael Jordan has an unfair NATURAL physical advantage over some fatty, or lets govern the music industry because Beyonce has an unfair vocal advantage...Your opinion is clear...you want the government to control all aspects of everyone's life and attempt to level the playing field. So, no more grades in schools, not fair for the dumb kids, no more sports, not fair for fatties, no more music allowed, not bad for ear bleeding voices, no more movies, not fair for the sh!tty wannabe actors, no more race car driving because it's not fair to the people that fail their driving test, etc. Your post is nothing short of insanity.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 12:35 AM   #68
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 893
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
MDydinanM got it right. My opinion is directly in line with Hobbes. Considering the influence had on the founding fathers I am surprised his work doesn't interest you.

It is such a complicated question and answering yes or no is useless without a discussion. If the nature of man is a state of war and thus seeks dominance over other man can you really say that the weaker individual is born free? Being weaker makes him vulnerable to the strong. How does every man then enjoy these "natural born" rights if he resides in a weaker order?
If there are enough weak people, they will overpower the strong. Freedom isn't granted by a government, it is only taken away, limited, restricted, or destroyed.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 02:14 AM   #69
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Yes, innate rights such as expression and protection are the same as the governments right to levy a tax. #not

Apples and Chevys
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
The constitution does not grant rights. There is no interpretation.
Dear Poser Lawyer,
You did not qualify the types of rights in your statement. You made your asinine statement so it encompassed ALL rights in the constitution.

Not only do you fail to grasp sarcasm. You also fail in rhetoric. (One of the seven Liberal Arts)

I was never arguing about constitutional law. Just your absurd statement.

Most people with a full set of frontal lobes would of clocked that. Obviously someone who went to "one of the most prestigious, private, Liberal Arts universities in the country" can't. Mummie and Daddy really did flush their money away on that one with you.

Now pi$$ off and shut your pie hole, ya wanker.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 02:18 AM   #70
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
Let me ask you this then, if the Constitution/BoR does not grant rights, then why did the states insist that they had rights that were beyond the Constitution and that the states would not ratify unless the federal congress recognized those rights and hence the subsequent creation of the BoR? Which, in my interpretation, granted and protected those rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
Did they not teach you in Law 101 different theories of jurisprudence? That the Constitution is a complex document that tie together different theories and themes from history as such?

Let me ask you this question.

If the Constitution only protects rights, how can it protect what it does not grant?

Since I am not religious, nor do I believe that rights are unalienable (refer to my example of the Decl of Independence where if a life can be taken away, it therefore is not unalienable) I believe in a sense that rights cannot come from anything other than mankind, in the form of an individual, state, or government acting as an authoritative body. Kind of along the lines of Legal Realism and Positivism. Additionally, there is no mention of God or higher divine power in our Constitution. Therefore I think rights come from an authoritative body. In the case of our Constitution/BoR my interpretation is that they do grant rights and thereby protect them as well. Additionally, I recognize that its not an exhaustive list and our founding fathers differed to the States and Individuals for things not covered and left a clause in our Constitution to provide for amendments if needed.

This is just my interpretation. I'm not saying its absolute and/or 100% correct.

I'll concede that I could be wrong.
Where rights come from is a philosophical discussion at it's core.

However, there are two important points of context that the framers had in mind when they were forming the US:

- The colonists experience/perspective on governments came from their European (mostly British) homelands. They came from environments where rights WERE GRANTED by the govt and as such, were vulnerable to being TAKEN AWAY by that same govt. A new monarch takes the throne, a new political party gets parliamentary power, the economic situation changes, et cetera, and suddenly people's rights are changed. The framers wanted to establish a legal/political philosophy that secured certain rights as being inalienable, in-born, intrinsic to people (well, white male property owning people at least), whatever you want to call it. It was fundamental to their belief that rights didn't come from the govt, they were only protected by the govt. Because if the govt doesn't give them, the govt can't take them away.

- The colonies/states were diverse and divided at that time. All were wary of giving up power to other states, or to a powerful Federal govt. But a weak Federal govt (a la Arts of Confed) and strong states didn't mix well. The Constitution was intended to create a much more powerful Federal govt.

The Constitution/BofR was written with the mindset that individual's rights must be secured as existing independent of any govt, and the power of the Federal govt must be specifically limited enough to get all 13 states to agree to it.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 06:33 AM   #71
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
More Modern Way of Living (lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I love how you tried to call out JJ without actually having a clue...the 2nd amendment dictates that the government has NO RIGHT TO INFRINGE on people owning guns....it does NOT give people the right to own guns.
Read all my posts please. As well as Badfast's. or re-read them.

I like calling out JJ because I think he's a hypocrite.

But anyways, ok, lets follow that thought. I concede that I could be wrong - as I've stated before and what I'm saying are opinions and interpretations, especially from a Legal Realist/Positivist perspective. I'll also concede that your perspective is the majority and popular view. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it 100% because I'm not sure it's absolute. However, sticking with the 2nd amendment, in terms of guns, it's the people's right to have guns and it's not something the government grants and they cannot infringe on that right. Therefore, as others have said, it is an innate right. Guns, however, are a relatively a modern invention. They did not exist thousands of years ago.

How can one have an innate right to something that didn't previously exist nor could have possibly conceived or thought of the idea (guns) at the time?


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-12-2013 at 04:18 PM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 07:26 AM   #72
MDydinanM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Coast
Posts: 754
My Ride: is a ///M
More Modern Way of Living (lol)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
Where rights come from is a philosophical discussion at it's core.

However, there are two important points of context that the framers had in mind when they were forming the US:

- The colonists experience/perspective on governments came from their European (mostly British) homelands. They came from environments where rights WERE GRANTED by the govt and as such, were vulnerable to being TAKEN AWAY by that same govt. A new monarch takes the throne, a new political party gets parliamentary power, the economic situation changes, et cetera, and suddenly people's rights are changed. The framers wanted to establish a legal/political philosophy that secured certain rights as being inalienable, in-born, intrinsic to people (well, white male property owning people at least), whatever you want to call it. It was fundamental to their belief that rights didn't come from the govt, they were only protected by the govt. Because if the govt doesn't give them, the govt can't take them away.

- The colonies/states were diverse and divided at that time. All were wary of giving up power to other states, or to a powerful Federal govt. But a weak Federal govt (a la Arts of Confed) and strong states didn't mix well. The Constitution was intended to create a much more powerful Federal govt.

The Constitution/BofR was written with the mindset that individual's rights must be secured as existing independent of any govt, and the power of the Federal govt must be specifically limited enough to get all 13 states to agree to it.
Thank you Xcelratr. I appreciate your well thought out input. It's better than some others on here that throw up a wall.

You touched on something that I've been hinting at this whole time. That rights previously were granted by the govt, and the concept of rights changed over time. But in the grand scheme of things (forget the Constitution for a minute), I'm still not really convinced that rights are innate yet which has been a driving reason of my debate.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app

Last edited by MDydinanM; 08-12-2013 at 07:30 AM.
MDydinanM is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 08:37 AM   #73
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Smyrna
Posts: 127
My Ride: 2005 330cic ZHP
MDydinanM, it is quite simple - if you aren't "religious" as you say, which I assume means you do not believe in a divine creator, then you simply cannot either understand or agree with the most basic and fundamental aspect of our country's founding. That is fine, if that is your position. I just find it amusing that people take the bait and continue to try to persuade you otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
It is my opinion that one of the roles of the government is to levy rights and laws as to protect people from themselves (such as an unfair advantage).
^ I am quite convinced you are just "posting out loud" i.e., like thinking out loud, and haven't really thought this through. But if you really believe this, please explain from where the "government" obtains the power to, as you say, "levy rights?" And just so you know, viewpoints such as this are quite frightening to those of us who do believe that all humans are created equal, and it is only through their willful agreement that humans grant any powers at all to any form of government.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 08:44 AM   #74
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Smyrna
Posts: 127
My Ride: 2005 330cic ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
You touched on something that I've been hinting at this whole time. That rights previously were granted by the govt, and the concept of rights changed over time. But in the grand scheme of things (forget the Constitution for a minute), I'm still not really convinced that rights are innate yet which has been a driving reason of my debate.


Sent from BimmerApp mobile app
You should read up on the Magna Carta for insight into how the concept of rights evolved to most people's current understanding. And I really cannot understand how someone could live and go to school in this country and still have trouble understanding and believing in unalienable rights, without also despising everything about America.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 12:06 PM   #75
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDydinanM View Post
Thank you Xcelratr. I appreciate your well thought out input. It's better than some others on here that throw up a wall.

You touched on something that I've been hinting at this whole time. That rights previously were granted by the govt, and the concept of rights changed over time. But in the grand scheme of things (forget the Constitution for a minute), I'm still not really convinced that rights are innate yet which has been a driving reason of my debate.
They are innate cuz we say so. Lol

When we get into the philosophical aspects of rights, things get a lot murkier.

Relgious folks like to say that human rights come from their deity or deities. That works well for them because in most of their mythologies, the deities have the dual advantages of being the ultimate authority on everything, and usually being morally infallible.

But being given rights by a religious character creates the same problems as being given rights by a govt. A new minister comes to town, the Catholic Pope changes his mind about something, a televangelist needs better ratings, someone revises the translation of an ancient dogmatic text, today's religion falls and is replaced by a new one, and BOOM, your rights are changed.

Freedom of expression? Yes, but if we decide you've committed blasphemy, we'll burn you at the stake.

Freedom of the press? Yes, but publish a picture of a holy figure and we'll stone you in the street.

Freedom of religion? Yes, but try to construct a house of worship somewhere we find unacceptable and we'll surround you with rage and sue you to stop it.

So, since "god-given" rights are just as flimsy as "king-given" or "article 3, subsection 132a" given rights, we're left with establishing something more solid.

The irony is that what we're left with is believing our rights exist simply because they do. It's morally correct from our point of view. It's necessary for people to live life as fully as possible, which we consider a good thing. It is what is required for people to function together in a mostly peaceful society, which we consider a good thing.

Here's the way my heathen brain looks at it. Say you're the only person on the planet. You've got the whole thing to yourself, no other people, no supernatural beings, no legacy of ancestors. You'd be totally and completely free to do, say, think, feel, believe whatever you want. The only limits on you would be your own mind and the forces of the natural world around you. That is the maximum amount of freedom possible, and that's "the ideal situation".

Now, lets say a spaceship arrives with a few dozen other people and you all decide to form a community. Your goal in that community would be to preserve "the ideal situation" for everyone as much as possible. But you recognize that with more than one person, absolute freedom isn't possible, because one person exercising their absolute freedom might impede someone else's ability to do the same.

When you sat down to document the rights you wanted to ensure everyone had in order to preserve as much of "the ideal situation" as possible/practical, what would you cite as the "source" of those rights?
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 01:07 PM   #76
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 561
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmerfan08 View Post
Could be a newly discovered idea in the past few centuries. Perhaps religious societies and ways of thinking prevented individuals from claiming otherwise? Who's to say humans don't have innate rights?
Tell me, what rights do fish in the sea have? In a world without a higher authority/society humans would be very much similar to the fish in the sea. Your rights would be dictated by the size of your teeth. Not everyone can be great whites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
If there are enough weak people, they will overpower the strong. Freedom isn't granted by a government, it is only taken away, limited, restricted, or destroyed.
...look at this liberal. What prevents a member of the "weak group" from becoming one of the strong. It would be a vicious cycle. Your freedoms would be more limited, restricted and destroyed without the government.
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 01:16 PM   #77
badfast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Northern Korea
Posts: 561
My Ride: A Car
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cabrio330 View Post
You should read up on the Magna Carta for insight into how the concept of rights evolved to most people's current understanding. And I really cannot understand how someone could live and go to school in this country and still have trouble understanding and believing in unalienable rights, without also despising everything about America.
Because unalienable rights, like morality, is a man made idea. Through the need of protection provided by society and ensure that society functions morality becomes necessary.

I cannot understand how some people can't see that without the protections in place your rights, freedoms, etc have no guarantees. Without the structure of society and the benefits of a higher authority the world would be a jungle. What rights do humans have in the jungle?
badfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 01:37 PM   #78
Cabrio330
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Smyrna
Posts: 127
My Ride: 2005 330cic ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by badfast View Post
Because unalienable rights, like morality, is a man made idea. Through the need of protection provided by society and ensure that society functions morality becomes necessary.

I cannot understand how some people can't see that without the protections in place your rights, freedoms, etc have no guarantees. Without the structure of society and the benefits of a higher authority the world would be a jungle. What rights do humans have in the jungle?
Lol, humans in the jungle have the same rights as they do anywhere else!

No doubt having a government is one means to protect and preserve these rights, but government doesn't need to exist to establish rights.
Cabrio330 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 01:46 PM   #79
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
There are no inalienable rights in the constitution. The constitutional amendment process makes this the case.

There is a probability greater than zero (not much greater than zero, but, still greater than zero) that the people could amend the constitution to repeal any amendment. This includes the first 10 amendments included in the bill of rights. Since that capacity exists and the probability is greater than zero no rights defined in the constitution can be inalienable.

There is one catch-22 to that. What if the people were to amend the constitution to remove its provision for the people to amend the constitution. Now that is a philosophical question.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2013, 03:45 PM   #80
bimmerfan08
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cornwallis had his final ass kicking
Posts: 4,892
My Ride: E46 M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post

There is one catch-22 to that. What if the people were to amend the constitution to remove its provision for the people to amend the constitution. Now that is a philosophical question.
Overthrow government? Execute individuals responsible for said amendment?
__________________


Quote:
"I think it's very important to have a feedback loop, where you're constantly thinking about what you've done and how you could be doing it better. I think that's the single best piece of advice: constantly think about how you could be doing things better and questioning yourself."
bimmerfan08 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use