So, on Thursday the new GOPBaggers will read the entire constitution out loud. Observations/thoughts:
1) That's a long fucking document to read out loud.
2) What will they do when they get to the parts they don't agree with, like the first, 4th, 16th, and 17th amendments, or the parts about regulating interstate commerce, or even the part about slaves (I mean, if you're gonna read the whole thing, you have to read the whole thing)?
If anything else, it should be fun to hear a Teabagger read out Article 1 section 9, or perhaps Article 4 section 1.
I haven't seen the "platform" of the tea party, but are they against he 1st, 4th (16th I can see them being against) and 17th?
also, what part of Article 1 section 9?
article 4, section 1: each state to honor all others?
As far as I can tell, a broad sketch of the teabaggers include:
Wants US to follow Christian values (1st)
Wants cops to Profile smudgy people (4th)
Wants state legislatures to appoint senators (17th) [don't believe me? see for yourself (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/04/is-any-part-of-the-constitutio)]
and I'd like to see what Auto tune the News does with a teabagger talking about Habeas Corpus, or which ones get the implications of Art 4 sec 1 when it comes to gay marriage.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 03:41:53 PM
As far as I can tell, a broad sketch of the teabaggers include:
Wants US to follow Christian values (1st)
Wants cops to Profile smudgy people (4th)
Wants state legislatures to appoint senators (17th) [don't believe me? see for yourself (http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/04/is-any-part-of-the-constitutio)]
and I'd like to see what Auto tune the News does with a teabagger talking about Habeas Corpus, or which ones get the implications of Art 4 sec 1 when it comes to gay marriage.
Yeah, but you know thanks to Bubba the national definition of marriage overrules Art 4, Sec 1. :roll:
True, true.
I guess I'm just amused at all the potential unfortunate implications (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications) that may arise if they read the entire thing, or what it implies if they leave something out.
If Fox News covers it live, that is when they will cut to commercial.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 03:00:35 PM
So, on Thursday the new GOPBaggers will read the entire constitution out loud.
Cheap theater. BORING cheap theater. Needless to say, the NASCAR crowd will eat it all up.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 03:00:35 PM
(I mean, if you're gonna read the whole thing, you have to read the whole thing)
What on EARTH leads you to believe that, LMNO? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see pamplet versions show up, that are slightly different than the original. You wouldn't even need to worry about it being refuted, because ~ 49% of the country will believe it over any copy of the original, because it will be what they WANT to believe. The only evidence you need to understand this is the "conservative bible project".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
True, true.
I guess I'm just amused at all the potential unfortunate implications (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications) that may arise if they read the entire thing, or what it implies if they leave something out.
Oh, I agree completely. It's sure to be horrormirthy as hell either way. I want to see the apologetics of their misinterpretations, too.
Plays to the ignorant masses. (which is redundant of what TGRR said I know). It's entirely based upon a premise that the Democrats haven't read, don't understand, or plain hate the Constitution. The GOP are back in charge and THEY are the only ones who love and understand the Constitution.
And of course people eat that premise up.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 05, 2011, 05:10:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
True, true.
I guess I'm just amused at all the potential unfortunate implications (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications) that may arise if they read the entire thing, or what it implies if they leave something out.
Oh, I agree completely. It's sure to be horrormirthy as hell either way. I want to see the apologetics of their misinterpretations, too.
That assumes they would acknowledge misinterpretations.
Even if they read it, that doesn't mean they'll actually comprehend it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 05, 2011, 05:13:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 05, 2011, 05:10:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 05, 2011, 03:52:11 PM
True, true.
I guess I'm just amused at all the potential unfortunate implications (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnfortunateImplications) that may arise if they read the entire thing, or what it implies if they leave something out.
Oh, I agree completely. It's sure to be horrormirthy as hell either way. I want to see the apologetics of their misinterpretations, too.
That assumes they would acknowledge misinterpretations.
I said I wanted to see it, didn't say it would happen. :lulz:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/06/house-gop-won-t-read-entire-constitution.aspx
QuoteInstead of reading the Constitution in its entirety, House members will read an "amended version" that only includes the sections and amendments that were not changed at a later date. The decision in part will allow members to avoid reading less pleasant sections, like the clause in Article 1, Section 2, which counted black slaves as three-fifths of a person.
"We're reading the amended version with all amendments that are currently part of the Constitution," said Kathryn Rexrode, a spokesman for Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who spearheaded the reading. "It will not include any amendments that were in the original but later amended."
Quote from: Cain on January 06, 2011, 05:09:38 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/06/house-gop-won-t-read-entire-constitution.aspx
QuoteInstead of reading the Constitution in its entirety, House members will read an "amended version" that only includes the sections and amendments that were not changed at a later date. The decision in part will allow members to avoid reading less pleasant sections, like the clause in Article 1, Section 2, which counted black slaves as three-fifths of a person.
"We're reading the amended version with all amendments that are currently part of the Constitution," said Kathryn Rexrode, a spokesman for Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who spearheaded the reading. "It will not include any amendments that were in the original but later amended."
HAHAHAHAHA!
They're gambling that nobody has ever read article V. A pretty good bet, I'll say. :lulz:
My, that's an extremly steep slope. What's that you say? You greased it? Now why would you ever...
BWAHAHAHA! Nice. :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on January 06, 2011, 05:09:38 PM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/06/house-gop-won-t-read-entire-constitution.aspx
QuoteInstead of reading the Constitution in its entirety, House members will read an "amended version" that only includes the sections and amendments that were not changed at a later date. The decision in part will allow members to avoid reading less pleasant sections, like the clause in Article 1, Section 2, which counted black slaves as three-fifths of a person.
"We're reading the amended version with all amendments that are currently part of the Constitution," said Kathryn Rexrode, a spokesman for Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who spearheaded the reading. "It will not include any amendments that were in the original but later amended."
Oh boy. :lulz:
Might be fun to prevent to be a tea bagger who didn't get the memo and dress up in a powdered wig and read the entire thing in a public space
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/05/republicans-change-the-house-rules/
Apparently not content with letting the Supreme Court do it's job, House Republicans have instituted a new rule requiring any bill brought to the floor to carry an explanation of it's Constitutionality.
OH BOY HERE WE GO :lulz:
Fucking cowards!
We are about to experience the most hysterical 2 years of our lives.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on January 06, 2011, 08:09:26 PM
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/05/republicans-change-the-house-rules/
Apparently not content with letting the Supreme Court do it's job, House Republicans have instituted a new rule requiring any bill brought to the floor to carry an explanation of it's Constitutionality.
OH BOY HERE WE GO :lulz:
But wait...isn't violating checks and balances also unconstitutional?
is the House being unconstitutional to attempt to be constitutional?!!!
Call today to get your squeaky clean Constitution!!!! That's right, no more embarrasing passages about black people being 3/5 of a real person. Frame it, mount it on your wall, your friends will enjoy your new found Patriotism!!!!
Call in the next 30 minutes and we'll throw in a fresh and friendly version of Huck Finn! Just pay separate processing and handling.
The bridge between Bureaucracy and Aftermath cometh. :horrormirth:
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 06, 2011, 09:07:39 PM
Call today to get your squeaky clean Constitution!!!! That's right, no more embarrasing passages about black people being 3/5 of a real person. Frame it, mount it on your wall, your friends will enjoy your new found Patriotism!!!!
Call in the next 30 minutes and we'll throw in a fresh and friendly version of Huck Finn! Just pay separate processing and handling.
But wait, THERE'S MORE!
Add a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin to your order and we'll throw in To Kill a Mockingbird, ABSOLUTELY FREE!
Quote from: Suu on January 06, 2011, 09:30:27 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on January 06, 2011, 09:07:39 PM
Call today to get your squeaky clean Constitution!!!! That's right, no more embarrasing passages about black people being 3/5 of a real person. Frame it, mount it on your wall, your friends will enjoy your new found Patriotism!!!!
Call in the next 30 minutes and we'll throw in a fresh and friendly version of Huck Finn! Just pay separate processing and handling.
But wait, THERE'S MORE!
Add a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin to your order and we'll throw in To Kill a Mockingbird, ABSOLUTELY FREE OF NASTY THINGS LIKE RACISM AND BAD WORDS!
fixt
Guys, I've found a rough draft of a "cleaned up" summary of
Uncle Tom's Cabin:
Quote
There once was a kindly Afro-American gentleman by the name of Uncle Tom. He was owned employed by a struggling farmer in Kentucky, until one day, when Mr Shelby couldn't afford to pay off his debts he was forced to sell lay off Tom. Tom was sold got a job down the River. His new owner employer, St. Clare, was kindly man who promised to free him.... let him live on welfare (Ed. Note: Think of something less offensive). However, St. Clare is killed, causing Tom to be sold at auction recommended for employment by St. Clare's wife to a man named Simon Legree. Legree is not a kind master boss, and due to his harsh treatment of his slaves employees, Tom is killed by order of Legree in a tragic work related accident.
Evidently, Eliza's story has been completely removed for teaching the wrong values.
Christ motherfucking shitfuckdamn.
Ok, here's a more complete analysis of what was left out, and the problems with doing that.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280249/
QuoteRep. Bob GoodlatteThe House's public reading of the Constitution today opened with a brief but meaningful hiccup. When it became clear that the Constitution would be read in its "most modern, amended form", several House Democrats raised objections to what was—quite literally—a constitutional whitewash.
Serwer noted that reading a sanitized Constitution does violence to the very idea of an imperfect document drafted by imperfect men: "The reason to include the superseded text is to remind us that the Constitution, while a remarkable document, was not carved out of stone tablets by a finger of light at the summit of Mount Sinai. It was written by men, and despite its promise, it possessed flaws at the moment of its creation that still reverberate today."
As CBS News Capitol Hill Correspondent Bob Fuss pointed out, the "redacted" version as read this morning had no coherent logic. They skipped over the three-fifths compromise but included the constitutional clause referring to the preservation of voting rights only for males over the age of 21—a provision superseded by the 26th Amendment. They skipped the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) then read the 21st (repealing Prohibition).
Andrea Stone at AOL News picked up on the fact that they "read 14 words from Article I, Section 9 about taxation. Under a strict reading of the ground rules, though, it likely should have been excised because of the later passage of the 16th Amendment that legalized the federal income tax."
In other words, in addition to taking it upon themselves to whitewash past constitutional errors, House Republicans today compounded the sin by inventing a choose-your-own-ending document they tried to pass off as official.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 07, 2011, 02:55:39 PM
Ok, here's a more complete analysis of what was left out, and the problems with doing that.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280249/
QuoteRep. Bob GoodlatteThe House's public reading of the Constitution today opened with a brief but meaningful hiccup. When it became clear that the Constitution would be read in its "most modern, amended form", several House Democrats raised objections to what was—quite literally—a constitutional whitewash.
Serwer noted that reading a sanitized Constitution does violence to the very idea of an imperfect document drafted by imperfect men: "The reason to include the superseded text is to remind us that the Constitution, while a remarkable document, was not carved out of stone tablets by a finger of light at the summit of Mount Sinai. It was written by men, and despite its promise, it possessed flaws at the moment of its creation that still reverberate today."
As CBS News Capitol Hill Correspondent Bob Fuss pointed out, the "redacted" version as read this morning had no coherent logic. They skipped over the three-fifths compromise but included the constitutional clause referring to the preservation of voting rights only for males over the age of 21—a provision superseded by the 26th Amendment. They skipped the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) then read the 21st (repealing Prohibition).
Andrea Stone at AOL News picked up on the fact that they "read 14 words from Article I, Section 9 about taxation. Under a strict reading of the ground rules, though, it likely should have been excised because of the later passage of the 16th Amendment that legalized the federal income tax."
In other words, in addition to taking it upon themselves to whitewash past constitutional errors, House Republicans today compounded the sin by inventing a choose-your-own-ending document they tried to pass off as official.
Saw it coming. :lulz:
All of Twain's books are public domain, aren't they?
In the US at least. Why?
So they read a redacted version of it. I hate them all.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 08, 2011, 05:54:42 AM
In the US at least. Why?
Well, it wold be worse if someone controlled it, and only allowed the "new" version.
This is just some people who printed a modified version of a book that anyone can do anything with. Any of us could print a version that calls him "Spaceman Jim" if we wanted to.
Not "Earthworm Jim", though. That's right out.
Has the copyright on the Constitution expired?
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2011, 03:55:01 PM
Has the copyright on the Constitution expired?
It was copyrighted? :?
If it wasn't, this means America's government is opensource.
Quote from: Jerry_Frankster on January 08, 2011, 11:37:14 AM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 08, 2011, 05:54:42 AM
In the US at least. Why?
Well, it wold be worse if someone controlled it, and only allowed the "new" version.
This is just some people who printed a modified version of a book that anyone can do anything with. Any of us could print a version that calls him "Spaceman Jim" if we wanted to.
Not "Earthworm Jim", though. That's right out.
The people publishing the book aren't interested in censoring it for the sake of censoring it, they're meeting a demand created by the American People (specifically, that both the N word not be used in public school texts, and the Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer be read in public schools).
The American PeopleTM are the stupidest collective of human beings on the planet.
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 08, 2011, 10:41:48 PM
The American PeopleTM are the stupidest collective of human beings on the planet.
Post of the year.....
Quote from: Earthbound Spirit on January 09, 2011, 05:57:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 08, 2011, 10:41:48 PM
The American PeopleTM are the stupidest collective of human beings on the planet.
Post of the year.....
You're such a puddle of sunshine and unicorns with rainbows flying out of their butts, EBS.
Your whole sigline and title scream LOVE ME LOVE ME.
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2011, 04:09:42 PM
If it wasn't, this means America's government is opensource.
:mittens:
Quote from: Jenne on January 10, 2011, 01:25:29 AM
Quote from: Earthbound Spirit on January 09, 2011, 05:57:54 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 08, 2011, 10:41:48 PM
The American PeopleTM are the stupidest collective of human beings on the planet.
Post of the year.....
You're such a puddle of sunshine and unicorns with rainbows flying out of their butts, EBS.
Your whole sigline and title scream LOVE ME LOVE ME.
OH GAWD TEH DRAMAZ!
Quote from: Cain on January 08, 2011, 03:55:01 PM
Has the copyright on the Constitution expired?
It's got a creative commons license, but apparently people are ignoring the "atribution-no derivatives" clause and the enclosed restrictions thereof...