Thread: Presidential speech to our children.

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

I've apologized to the OP and I'll recommed we get back to the topic at hand.

Funny, I don't remember getting an apology or asking for one. Thanks for the thought though but no apology is needed.


Maybe Brad might give me one and I'd be happy.

Originally Posted by honedright

Well, maybe that's true in Belgium.

It's true in the US as well. A 2/3 majority is all you need to change the constitution. IF you can find a 2/3 majority which is backed by their constituency (to prevent another civil war) then you can change the constitution to something completely different. A theocracy for example. Or a monarchy.

Theorectically, the states could secede (not sure on the details per state) but if there was a public backing (as I describe in the previous paragraph) then that would be unlikely.

Originally Posted by honedright

Bruno - are you serious??

Yes, I am.
We can discuss morality and 'inalienable rights', not to mention God(s/dess/desses) all day, and that could be an interesting discussion. However, for all practical purposes, the only rights you have are those that you hang on to and don't let go.

Assuming for a moment you are a christian, your holy book is the NT and you believe in the christian God. Both have been around for a very long time, yet the rights of the people under either have changed dramatically over time.
The only reason that western people now enjoy relatively decent rights is because we took them for ourselves and hung on to them. The bible and most definitely God (in his representation by the clergy) had nothing to do with that.

Ok guys, we are indeed getting off topic. I'll split off this tangent if there is any interest in continuing. Otherwise let's get back to the topic... ehrm... oh yeah, the presidential speech

All I know is I had to listen to Regan, Bush I, and Bush II before school started every year and yes I feel that all 3 were pure evil, but they were president and they had the right to speak to the children.

This has never been a problem until now and I'm beginning to feel as if white conservatives are scared that the big mean black president will ruin their kids. ( sadly enough, yes I think its a race thing but nobody will ever admit it.)

Originally Posted by Bruno

It's true in the US as well. A 2/3 majority is all you need to change the constitution. IF you can find a 2/3 majority which is backed by their constituency (to prevent another civil war) then you can change the constitution to something completely different. A theocracy for example. Or a monarchy.

Theorectically, the states could secede (not sure on the details per state) but if there was a public backing (as I describe in the previous paragraph) then that would be unlikely.

Not without violating Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution. That along with the Supremacy Clause, I think, would constitute a violation of the law if what you describe above were attempted.

Originally Posted by detroyt

All I know is I had to listen to Regan, Bush I, and Bush II before school started every year and yes I feel that all 3 were pure evil, but they were president and they had the right to speak to the children.

Pure evil? Wow. So maybe the Presidential line is really just a continuing incarnation of Satan (sorry, getting religiously off topic again)

Originally Posted by detroyt

This has never been a problem until now and I'm beginning to feel as if white conservatives are scared that the big mean black president will ruin their kids. ( sadly enough, yes I think its a race thing but nobody will ever admit it.)

I don't think that's it at all

1. White conservatives are just as fearless as they are fearful. You can't lump them all in a bunch according to fears.
2. He's not big.
3. He's not mean.
4. He's not black.
5. It's not a race thing.
6. If it was a race thing, many political analysts would happily admit it.
7. It's just a political thing. I did not hear any politically liberal people decrying the speech.

I get the feeling that many local people I have heard talk about the speech who were worked up about it were only worked up because they heard other people tell them they needed to be. I have not heard much of an outcry afterward from parents. I think sometimes people just like to have something to gripe about

Originally Posted by honedright

Not without violating Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution. That along with the Supremacy Clause, I think, would constitute a violation of the law if what you describe above were attempted.

With the backing of the states, that section can probably be removed.
Besides, even it that would not be possible, with a full majority backing from the public, a new constitution could be drafted. Remember: this is assuming a majority backing by the entire population.

After all, that would not be different from what the founding fathers did to get from under the British yoke.

I love lamp!

Originally Posted by JMS

Funny, I don't remember getting an apology or asking for one. Thanks for the thought though but no apology is needed.


Maybe Brad might give me one and I'd be happy.

Mark... It was an edit, but I promise the edit was from before I said I apologized later on .

http://straightrazorpalace.com/conve...tml#post450651