RayR wrote:So you don't like anybody quoting those wurds in the Constitution, wurds that had specific meanings to those dead guys in the 18th Century, meanings that do not jive exactly with their corrupted progressive interpretations today?
I think what really bothers you is the original meaning and intent of those wurds.
When are you going to realize that POLITICAL PROGRESSIVISM doesn't lead to PROGRESS, but only to societal decay and the eventual demise of the perpetual indivisible union? I think the Chicoms as well as their progressive counterparts in the U.S. like AOC and her Bolshevik friends mentioned in my previous post are cheering for that day, assuming they still exist also then, which is hard to believe since their progressive societies are also in a state of decay.
The original words as I remember reading them were intended to be malleable... hard to do so, and rightfully so, but malleable none the less.
You can't control what it turns in to... if we're going to just let the next generation come in and say, nah... we don't like that one, we're going to go back and undo it... and anything else we don't like.
Then we no longer have a country, not for real anyway... maybe an abstraction of one... at least while the façade holds up.
Again, that's what you want, no large system. Localized systems only that work in isolation of each other. That's what you want. Everyone to fend for themselves, f*ck everyone who doesn't think like me.
Back to the age of conquerors and raping and looting and pillaging.
To think it would devolve into anything other than that is naivety... it's devolved into that every time throughout history.
What makes this time different?