Why it is important to doubt the gatekeepers....

[ll74]

So it's not that there shouldn't be gatekeepers.... it's that the gatekeepers need to be aligned with the side of his god and ideology and such.

Is there ever a thread that he doesn't do this on?

 

[JaySecrets]

Technology is an “old and tired argument”?

Really? You don’t recognize how sharply the curve of development has become? Machines design, build, and program machines. Fewer and fewer people are needed to build greater wealth than ever before. We drove horses and steam engines a few generations ago. AI and autonomous robotics have just begun to scratch the surface of what they will become.

What manufacturing, material harvesting and handling, what transportation jobs will still be needed?

Armies are about to become robotic. The war in Ukraine has been pushing drone technology beyond what was commonly in use two years ago.

The internal combustion engine, the steam drill, and the internet had their impact but they have only had an effect for a relatively short amount of time. The newer technologies are so much more advanced, capable and able to go so much further toward replacing humans than the things you mentioned. If you don’t see this you’re a fool. An “old and tired” fool.

Have you paid any attention to modern technology? Do you have no concept of how rapidly the rate of development has been increasing?


Our forefathers were men, not gods or oracles, yet they gave us a constitution and bill of rights with mechanisms to allow it to be changed and amended in order to serve the purpose it was designed for.

What was the purpose of the constitution? It’s written in the preamble. That’s not just empty words, it describes what the framers intended it to do.

Demanding that it not be able to change is counter to its design and defeating of its purpose.

 

[JaySecrets]

Technology is an “old and tired argument”?

Really? You don’t recognize how sharply the curve of development has become? Machines design, build, and program machines. Fewer and fewer people are needed to build greater wealth than ever before. We drove horses and steam engines a few generations ago. AI and autonomous robotics have just begun to scratch the surface of what they will become.

What manufacturing, material harvesting and handling, what transportation jobs will still be needed?

Armies are about to become robotic. The war in Ukraine has been pushing drone technology beyond what was commonly in use two years ago.

The internal combustion engine, the steam drill, and the internet had their impact but they have only had an effect for a relatively short amount of time. The newer technologies are so much more advanced, capable and able to go so much further toward replacing humans than the things you mentioned. If you don’t see this you’re a fool. An “old and tired” fool.

I have a very close friend who builds and programs AI, and is very good at it. In fact, I got to be part of one of his projects helping train his program. I am VERY aware of how far things advance. I also know that the most dire, dystopian predictions, the ones your side is so fond of bringing to scare people into voting for you (remember the, "Grandma will be eating dog food" one?), never happen. This one won't either.

Have you paid any attention to modern technology? Do you have no concept of how rapidly the rate of development has been increasing?

And the age of Terminator is coming too. Where is Sarah Conner when you need her?

Our forefathers were men, not gods or oracles, yet they gave us a constitution and bill of rights with mechanisms to allow it to be changed and amended in order to serve the purpose it was designed for.

Yes, they were men. But they were men with e more intellect, wisdom, and moral integrity and fundamental courage, with a higher view of both man and God, than most men today. And they didn't design the core of the Constitution to be changeable. In fact they said that if the governing body of America ever starts violating the Constitution as written, and becomes overreaching in its scope and dangerous in its power, the people have a responsibility to take up arms and overthrow that government, and restore it to a government in line with that original document. That is what THEY said. That is, in fact, the fundamental reason for the right to bear arms. They didn't see the Constitution as a changing and changeable document. They saw it as the highest governing law of the land and a fixed point. That's what THEY said. I'm not really interested in your options on this, because your opinion on what they intended doesn't matter when they WROTE DOWN their intentions.

What was the purpose of the constitution? It’s written in the preamble. That’s not just empty words, it describes what the framers intended it to do.

Demanding that it not be able to change is counter to its design and defeating of its purpose.

The concept of a changing and evolving document did not come from the founders. It came from a much later Supreme Court Justice who was a first generation product of a new concept in law schools: Social Darwinism. That was applied, with zero regard to the Founders' explicit statements, to the Constitution, and that's how we get here today. The "living, breathing, evolving document" theory didn't come from the Founders' wisdom, it came from a horrible Justice's foolishness.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I have a very close friend who builds and programs AI, and is very good at it. In fact, I got to be part of one of his projects helping train his program. I am VERY aware of how far things advance. I also know that the most dire, dystopian predictions, the ones your side is so fond of bringing to scare people into voting for you (remember the, "Grandma will be eating dog food" one?), never happen. This one won't either.

And the age of Terminator is coming too. Where is Sarah Conner when you need her?

Yes, they were men. But they were men with e more intellect, wisdom, and moral integrity and fundamental courage, with a higher view of both man and God, than most men today. And they didn't design the core of the Constitution to be changeable. In fact they said that if the governing body of America ever starts violating the Constitution as written, and becomes overreaching in its scope and dangerous in its power, the people have a responsibility to take up arms and overthrow that government, and restore it to a government in line with that original document. That is what THEY said. That is, in fact, the fundamental reason for the right to bear arms. They didn't see the Constitution as a changing and changeable document. They saw it as the highest governing law of the land and a fixed point. That's what THEY said. I'm not really interested in your options on this, because your opinion on what they intended doesn't matter when they WROTE DOWN their intentions.

The concept of a changing and evolving document did not come from the founders. It came from a much later Supreme Court Justice who was a first generation product of a new concept in law schools: Social Darwinism. That was applied, with zero regard to the Founders' explicit statements, to the Constitution, and that's how we get here today. The "living, breathing, evolving document" theory didn't come from the Founders' wisdom, it came from a horrible Justice's foolishness.

Moral integrity? How many of them owned slaves? Or advocated for women to be able to vote?

They actually built in a process to change it, but somehow didn’t want it to change?

It doesn’t appear you’ve actually read it or have an understanding of it.

 

[ll74]

The concept of a changing and evolving document did not come from the founders. It came from a much later Supreme Court Justice who was a first generation product of a new concept in law schools: Social Darwinism. That was applied, with zero regard to the Founders' explicit statements, to the Constitution, and that's how we get here today. The "living, breathing, evolving document" theory didn't come from the Founders' wisdom, it came from a horrible Justice's foolishness.

Yes, the founders didn't want things to change, which is why they added the ability to change their document.

 

[AlexBailey]

I have a very close friend who builds and programs AI, and is very good at it. In fact, I got to be part of one of his projects helping train his program. I am VERY aware of how far things advance. I also know that the most dire, dystopian predictions, the ones your side is so fond of bringing to scare people into voting for you (remember the, "Grandma will be eating dog food" one?), never happen. This one won't either.

And the age of Terminator is coming too. Where is Sarah Conner when you need her?

Yes, they were men. But they were men with e more intellect, wisdom, and moral integrity and fundamental courage, with a higher view of both man and God, than most men today. And they didn't design the core of the Constitution to be changeable. In fact they said that if the governing body of America ever starts violating the Constitution as written, and becomes overreaching in its scope and dangerous in its power, the people have a responsibility to take up arms and overthrow that government, and restore it to a government in line with that original document. That is what THEY said. That is, in fact, the fundamental reason for the right to bear arms. They didn't see the Constitution as a changing and changeable document. They saw it as the highest governing law of the land and a fixed point. That's what THEY said. I'm not really interested in your options on this, because your opinion on what they intended doesn't matter when they WROTE DOWN their intentions.

The concept of a changing and evolving document did not come from the founders. It came from a much later Supreme Court Justice who was a first generation product of a new concept in law schools: Social Darwinism. That was applied, with zero regard to the Founders' explicit statements, to the Constitution, and that's how we get here today. The "living, breathing, evolving document" theory didn't come from the Founders' wisdom, it came from a horrible Justice's foolishness.

You are 100% wrong about the founders and their intentions regarding making changes.


See article V of the US Constitution:



“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…”



You failed a fact check and damaged your credibility. Your comments are not reliable nor factually accurate.

 

[JaySecrets]

You are 100% wrong about the founders and their intentions regarding making changes.


See article V of the US Constitution:



“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…”



You failed a fact check and damaged your credibility. Your comments are not reliable nor factually accurate.

The amendment process was never intended to alter the Constitution as designed, to change the principles or core. It was intended to apply the unchanging principles the highest law of the land, to specific situations as needed. And even on the intentions here, the founders were clear in their own statements. The stated, for example, the the Constitutional government they applied was for "a religious people". They gave us the Federalist Papers. They corresponded on the various topics in lengthy letters and essays, and many of those are preserved today. You can give your opinion all you want. The founders direct statements about the documents they gave us are there in black and white. At that point, any other opinion is a moot point.

 

[JaySecrets]

You are 100% wrong about the founders and their intentions regarding making changes.


See article V of the US Constitution:



“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…”



You failed a fact check and damaged your credibility. Your comments are not reliable nor factually accurate.

https://wallbuilders.com/resources/

Feel free to search here to find many, many of the founders own documents and statements on various subjects. Unless you think you are wiser than they.... In which case you are an idiot.

 

[ll74]

The amendment process was never intended to alter the Constitution as designed, to change the principles or core. It was intended to apply the unchanging principles the highest law of the land, to specific situations as needed. And even on the intentions here, the founders were clear in their own statements. The stated, for example, the the Constitutional government they applied was for "a religious people". They gave us the Federalist Papers. They corresponded on the various topics in lengthy letters and essays, and many of those are preserved today. You can give your opinion all you want. The founders direct statements about the documents they gave us are there in black and white. At that point, any other opinion is a moot point.

Probably should look up the word "amend"

(We know definitions aren't Jay's strong suit)

 

[InThe312]

Probably should look up the word "amend"

(We know definitions aren't Jay's strong suit)

Anyone with a classical education who is proofread by poets laureate that also is teaching AI systems clearly knows definitions and meanings better than you.

 

[ll74]

Anyone with a classical education who is proofread by poets laureate that also is teaching AI systems clearly knows definitions and meanings better than you.

How awesome for you!

Jay has recently expressed opposition to actual dictionaries when it doesn't align with his meanings....maybe you can assist him with this one (or maybe this is an alt)

 

[InThe312]

How awesome for you!

Jay has recently expressed opposition to actual dictionaries when it doesn't align with his meanings....maybe you can assist him with this one (or maybe this is an alt)

View attachment 2371784

Lol...those were all HIS claims in this thread. Sorry, I'll be better with my sarcasm.

 

[ll74]

Lol...those were all HIS claims in this thread. Sorry, I'll be better with my sarcasm.

I saw that but yes, it made it sound like an alt of his, so didn't want to assume well done

 

[InThe312]

https://wallbuilders.com/resources/

Feel free to search here to find many, many of the founders own documents and statements on various subjects. Unless you think you are wiser than they.... In which case you are an idiot.

Yeah, the musings of David Barton. "Truth is constantly becoming harder to find. We’re here to help. Many “academics”, “professionals” and “intellectuals” deliberately ignore, change, and revise the facts of history to suit their agendas. We share information that does not rely on “expert opinions” but on actual historical documents. We cite the original sources in all our resources."

So, we should dismiss professionals, intellectuals and academics in favor of David Barton deliberately ignoring, changing and revising the facts through his interpretation of historical documents that suit his Christian nationalist agenda. Even Christian scholars dismiss him.

 

[JaySecrets]

Yeah, the musings of David Barton. "Truth is constantly becoming harder to find. We’re here to help. Many “academics”, “professionals” and “intellectuals” deliberately ignore, change, and revise the facts of history to suit their agendas. We share information that does not rely on “expert opinions” but on actual historical documents. We cite the original sources in all our resources."

So, we should dismiss professionals, intellectuals and academics in favor of David Barton deliberately ignoring, changing and revising the facts through his interpretation of historical documents that suit his Christian nationalist agenda. Even Christian scholars dismiss him.

I am not concerned with his theology or issues there. Don't care about that. And, by the way, in large part it is openly liberal"Christian" scholars, who also dismiss absolute authority of the Bible they claim is the basis of their faith, which should tell you just how "Christian" they really are, those are the ones who reject much of what he has to say. But that's not the point here.

The man and his organization has collected an insanely large volume of writings by the founders, has scanned most of them into their systems so you can read them for yourself, and quotes the founders directly on the topics he deals with. In other words, he actually gives the full sources in context, something your sources don't do, so they malign and attack those truth tellers who do. Didn't say you need to look up what he says about subjects, I said you need to read what the founders said about them, and he has an impressive collection of those writings easily available. Why are you afraid of the founders words? Afraid you will be shown wrong in your claims about them?

 

[AlexBailey]

https://wallbuilders.com/resources/

Feel free to search here to find many, many of the founders own documents and statements on various subjects. Unless you think you are wiser than they.... In which case you are an idiot.

If you believe the founders to be wise why do you doubt their wisdom when they wrote in the actual document:

1a: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”


The personal beliefs of some of the Founding Fathers were influenced by Christianity. Their beliefs shaped their views on morality and governance, yet they specifically included:

* art VI c.3 “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”


They gave the office holder the freedom of choice what their beliefs are. The people can elect representatives whose beliefs they share. It doesn’t have to match the beliefs of the founders.

Are you claiming to poses superior values to those of the voting public? What authority have you usurped to enforce your beliefs over those of the voters who elect their representatives?

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were deliberately framed to establish a government that is neutral on matters of religion, protecting the rights of individuals to practice any or no religion. - this is the word the founders as they ratified it, not as they discussed their process. The Federalist Papers are not the law, what is written in the constitution is.

 

[AlexBailey]

https://wallbuilders.com/resources/

Feel free to search here to find many, many of the founders own documents and statements on various subjects. Unless you think you are wiser than they.... In which case you are an idiot.

You posted the link. Show us where it places authority for what religious values a representative must use to frame the positions they take in congress? Pull a relevant quote that has legal authority over how laws and policy must pass your tests?