The Republican Party celebrates and endorses racism and evil as expressed in the constitution

[Ludovic]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

That is even worse.

It is. It is tacitly admitting that they are a bunch of big hypocrites. The whole point of reading aloud the constitution is a backhanded swipe at all the previous Congresses, implying that they were either ignorant or selectively dismissive of Constitutional principles. But by reading it aloud, they are trying to say “hey, unlike all the other half-assed Congresses, we pledge to follow all the Constitution.”

Choosing to ignore certain parts of the Constitution shows that they are also selectively dismissive of it. And also admitting that they consider it in no higher esteem than the other Congresses did, since they felt free to alter it.

[stpauler]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

Today the Republican Party read the entire US constitution. They claim that the framers created a great document that was a force for good.

I say that the constitution, as it was passed, was evil and racist. Not only did it fail to outlaw racially-based slavery (thus condemning millions to lives of pain and misery), it PROTECTED SLAVERY.

SNIP
We can only conclude that they knew exactly what they were celebrating. The Republicans have taken the first step to bringing more racism and evil back into the world.

@Sam_Stone

Just to be clear, are you saying that anyone who supports or endorses the constitution is racist and evil?

@waterj2

Actually, they cut the parts about slavery out when reading it out loud today.

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

That is even worse.

OK, I’m confused at what you’re getting at especially since you skipped **Sam Stone’s **question. Are they racist because they support the constitution?

[KSO]

@waterj2

Actually, they cut the parts about slavery out when reading it out loud today.

Damn them for reading the operative version of the document that articulates their powers. Racist bastards. :rolleyes:

[Odesio]

@Pierrot_Le_Fou

Today the Republican Party read the entire US constitution. They claim that the framers created a great document that was a force for good.

I say that the constitution, as it was passed, was evil and racist. Not only did it fail to outlaw racially-based slavery (thus condemning millions to lives of pain and misery), it PROTECTED SLAVERY.

The funny thing about the real world is just how complicated things can be. You know what, the Constitution was a force for good while at the same time being evil and racist.

Our current form of government was racist and evil from the start.

I am also tired of the evils of freedom of speech, religion, the right to be secure in my own home, the right against self-incrimination, the right to not be deprived of liberty without due process, etc., etc. Those evils have got to go!

The Republican Party cannot claim they did not know the constitution protected slavery since they read the entire document.

Why focus on the Republicans? I haven’t heard many Democratic members of the House or Senate claiming they don’t care for the Constitution. In the 1990s when the Republicans had their Contract with America I remember one Democratic member of the House saying “The Constitution is my contract with America.”

We can only conclude that they knew exactly what they were celebrating. The Republicans have taken the first step to bringing more racism and evil back into the world.

Flawed as it was/is I will certainly celebrate the Constitution as well.

Odesio

[BrainGlutton]

@Quartz

Simply not true: you’re forgetting Africa, Asia (particularly China), and India. And possibly Russia (granted they were called serfs by that time).

And the Caribbean. And Brazil.

India? I always thought the caste system left no room for chattel slavery.

China? Women were sold, as wives or as concubines, but that was just part of the universal subjection of women.

The Ottoman Empire, certainly. (Every sultan was the son of a slave.)

[Der_Trihs]

@Baboonanza

I think he meant that dogs should be free also, not that women should be enslaved.

I don’t think so. He seemed to be playing the old extreme cultural relativism card.

@Odesio

Why focus on the Republicans?

Because the Republicans are the ones who are presently flaunting their allegedly superior patriotism by making a point of reading the Constitution.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Pierrot Le Fou]
Huck Finn publishers cannot bring back Jim Crow. The Republican Party can, and now that they aligned with the Tea Party*, bringing back Jim Crow is clearly one of their plans.

• its been clear since Nixon and the Southern Strategy.
  [/QUOTE]

Clearly it’s one of their sooper sekrit plans. I’ve heard that they are also planning to re-institute the Blue Laws from coast to coast, round up all the gays and put then in ‘concentration camps’ (and we know what comes after that), make having an abortion a capital offense, make Christianity the official US religion, take that nasty Evolution stuff out of the school curriculum and teach the difference…bible literalism vs CD.

And that’s just what they plan to do THIS year. Wait until you see all the stuff they have planned for next year!

The thing is, the Republican party has actually been taken over by time traveling space lizards, and it’s really this group who is controlling all this stuff. They NEED human slaves both to act as snack food for their intergalactic marble games AND to work in the fields picking cotton (it’s a psychic thing…plus they really like the songs). Those are the things we really need to be worried about…the Republicans are just the tip of the iceberg!

(I can’t believe this is in GD :rolleyes:)

-XT

[stpauler]

@Der_Trihs

Because the Republicans are the ones who are presently flaunting their allegedly superior patriotism by making a point of reading the Constitution.

But it’s not just Republicans reading it.

Some 135 lawmakers from both parties participated in the reading of the document approved in 1787 and in operation since 1789. Leading off was new House Speaker John Boehner, who recited the “We the People” preamble. He was followed by outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who read Article I, Section 1 that gives legislative powers to Congress.

[BrainGlutton]

@stpauler

But it’s not just Republicans reading it.

Well, the Dems can’t very well refuse to join in, how would that look? But when they were in the majority they would never, on their own, have thought of making such a silly gesture.

[stpauler]

@BrainGlutton

Well, the Dems can’t very well refuse to join in, how would that look? But when they were in the majority they would never, on their own, have thought of making such a silly gesture.

It’s no more a silly gesture than the opening prayer.

[BrainGlutton]

@stpauler

It’s no more a silly gesture than the opening prayer.

Less so, if it comes to that. But the prayer is hallowed by time and custom and a very long tradition of American non-denominational “Potomac Piety”. Taking the initiative to introduce a new silly thing adds its own element of silliness.

[stpauler]

@BrainGlutton

Less so, if it comes to that. But the prayer is hallowed by time and custom and a very long tradition of American non-denominational “Potomac Piety”. Taking the initiative to introduce a new silly thing adds its own element of silliness.

And I would disagree stating that at least the constitution should take part in the decisions to be made whereas the prayer is…well, that’s a whole different can of worms.

[running_coach]

@BrainGlutton

Less so, if it comes to that. But the prayer is hallowed by time and custom and a very long tradition of American non-denominational “Potomac Piety”. Taking the initiative to introduce a new silly thing adds its own element of silliness.

Next thing you know, we’ll have a Ministry Of Silly Gestures.

[Chessic_Sense]

@BrainGlutton

Less so, if it comes to that. But the prayer is hallowed by time and custom and a very long tradition of American non-denominational “Potomac Piety”. Taking the initiative to introduce a new silly thing adds its own element of silliness.

Perhaps, but the accusation leveled here isn’t “Congress is being silly!” It’s “The Republican party is racist and evil!”

You seem to be defending that charge on the basis of their having done something silly.

[stpauler]

January 19, 2009

In an event hosted by the People for the American Way to celebrate tomorrow’s inauguration, a cast of 35 that included politicians, actors, veterans, folk singers, and Obama Girl herself Leah Kauffman read the Constitution, each putting their own spin on the words of the nation’s founding document.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.) led off via a recording of him reciting the preamble, gesturing with his personal copy of the Constitution for emphasis.

Was that racist and evil too ?

[Marley23]

This is probably destined for the Pit, but I’ll give it a little time in case a real debate develops in spite of the tone of the OP.

[Little_Nemo]

Getting back to the OP. Pierrot, are you arguing that the Republican party (which was founded in 1854) is responsible in 2010 for the fact that the Constitution allowed slavery in 1787?

Are you aware that the Constitution prohibits slavery in 2010? (It was banned in 1865 - mostly by the Republicans.) So supporting the Constitution in 2010 is not supporting slavery.

If you want to condemn contemporary Republicans for their racial policies, have at it. There’s plenty of ground for an argument to be made there. By try to stay focused in reality.

[Drunky_Smurf]

So if one supports the constitution then they are evil and racist? So apparantly Obama is also evil and racist as he swore to “…preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” in his Presidential Oath.

[XT]

Just to go along with what Little Nemo said, the Republican party wasn’t even formed when the Constitution was written…neither was the Democratic party either. The Republican party was, in fact, part of the abolitionist movement to stop slavery originally. So, it’s a bit ironic that the OP would hammer the Republicans reading the Constitution…

-XT