Laura Ingraham

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

That old piece of paper, that never breathed a breath nor lived a life, but was always merely and fully law gives us the blueprint for the union of individuals, all equal before it, and under it, and abolishes the problem of race.

It doesn't abolish race. It abolishes the problem of race before the law--only before the law. The crux of the Constitution, and of the founding, is INDIVIDUAL liberty. Not group rights

Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

Our founding rests on the principles in order to correct the foibles of history.

Do you honestly think the founders considered non whites or women when the wrote the constitution ... I say no why would they thats not how the world worked then ... to me this is the issue with originalist he U.S. Constitution is 229 years old the world changes but people still want a 299 year old interpretation in 2018

Our Founders considered individual liberty. They did not all have the same beliefs and convictions about societal norms. Being students of history, they understood that norms change. A contextual originalist does not adhere strictly to "intent." The Founders may have had different intents. But for whomever they intended their Constitution to apply, what matters to the textual originalist is the text and the original meaning of its words. Its principles of equality before the law and of individual freedom are derived from the Constitution's text today, or tommorow.

[spence]

I think she was trying to say people are working, sure, but making ends meet is increasingly harder. This isn't the ranting of a moron. The data on wage growth, inflation and income inequality is pretty clear.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I think she was trying to say people are working, sure, but making ends meet is increasingly harder. This isn't the ranting of a moron. The data on wage growth, inflation and income inequality is pretty clear.

fine then i think laura ingraham was trying to say that legal immigration is good when the immigrants are willing to assimilate. but you won’t guve her the benefit of that doubt, only liberals get that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

zimmy, name one person who said low unemployment means everything is fine? she, like you, doesn’t want to concede the positives about trump, and she’s willing to fabricate jibberish to downplay the benefits of the positive things he’s done. it’s not rational. trump is a scumbag, but he’s helping the economy. why can’t you accept that? bill clinton was also a reptile and boy did he help the economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

zimmy, name one person who said low unemployment means everything is fine? she, like you, doesn’t want to concede the positives about trump, and she’s willing to fabricate jibberish to downplay the benefits of the positive things he’s done. it’s not rational. trump is a scumbag, but he’s helping the economy. why can’t you accept that? bill clinton was also a reptile and boy did he help the economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What a weird response. You distort what she says, then basically admit she is right and everybody knows that what she said is true, then go off kilter in some other direction about me accepting trump is helping the economy? WTH dude?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

What a weird response. You distort what she says, then basically admit she is right and everybody knows that what she said is true, then go off kilter in some other direction about me accepting trump is helping the economy? WTH dude?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t distort anything, how can an exact quote be a distortion. are you distorting what laura ingraham said?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i didn’t distort anything, how can an exact quote be a distortion. are you distorting what laura ingraham said?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you high?
You keep rehashing that she said unemployment was affected by how many jobs people work. I have repeatedly agreed she was wrong about that. That wasn't what I have been discussing here. You are wrong that she said low unemployment is bad. She didn't. You said that those were her words " low unemployment is bad." You lie about that so you change to a different aspect of what she said. She is clearly light years above both of us on the intelligence scale given the amount of time I waste on this insanity with you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

You finally admit it's a waste of time. Very coherent post for a change.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

You finally admit it's a waste of time. Very coherent post for a change.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Inability to understand on your part does not equal in-coherency on my part, small one

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Inability to understand on your part does not equal in-coherency on my part

you've used this one before

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by scottw

you've used this one before

Yes. It is a necessary theme in this bastion of Mensa stars.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device