https://www.nola.com/national_politics/2019/01/i-never-said-there-was-no-collusion-between-trump-campaign-and-russia-rudy-giuliani-says.html

lmao.

Well, until there's evidence of collusion, there no evidence of collusion. Regardless of what Giuliani said, to date there's been absolutely nothing uncovered to suggest Trump acted in concert with Russia to manipulate the election. Meuller has had two years and counting. If something hasn't manifested itself by now, its just not there. The actors involved in this ongoing production simply aren't that smart to have hidden something like collusion so well as to keep it buried so long. No one is. Something would've come out by now. Im going to continue to wait for the process to play out.

Are you going to present the collusion proof? This is so far over your head. You cannot produce any proof or even a description of what exactly Trump is supposed to have done because it was and still is all a lie. You are aware that yesterday that an article was published that proved irrefutable verifyable proof the the FBI and DOJ knew that Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the dossier before the first FISA application was filed. Do you understand what that means? I'm sure you don't because you continue to carry on like an infant like Trump actually colluded even though you have zero to go on.
Since you like links, let me help you out.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/20/fbi-counterintelligence-trump

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/in-the-news/tom-fitton-deep-state-is-targeting-trump-with-an-illicit-investigation/

ZZTIGER said:

---

Are you going to present the collusion proof? This is so far over your head. You cannot produce any proof or even a description of what exactly Trump is supposed to have done because it was and still is all a lie. You are aware that yesterday that an article was published that proved irrefutable verifyable proof the the FBI and DOJ knew that Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the dossier before the first FISA application was filed. Do you understand what that means? I'm sure you don't because you continue to carry on like an infant like Trump actually colluded even though you have zero to go on.
Since you like links, let me help you out.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/20/fbi-counterintelligence-trump

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/in-the-news/tom-fitton-deep-state-is-targeting-trump-with-an-illicit-investigation/

---

That sound I just heard must've been your mic hitting the floor. Lol

Mansura is so triggered by trump he cant look at anything else. Dont expect an intelligent response from him. And to think he claims to be a lawyer. Then again I'm sure all real lawyers need a runner to get coffee. Of course I doubt he does that correct also. Could be why he was ran out of New Orleans

ZZTIGER said:

---

Are you going to present the collusion proof? This is so far over your head. You cannot produce any proof or even a description of what exactly Trump is supposed to have done because it was and still is all a lie. You are aware that yesterday that an article was published that proved irrefutable verifyable proof the the FBI and DOJ knew that Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the dossier before the first FISA application was filed. Do you understand what that means? I'm sure you don't because you continue to carry on like an infant like Trump actually colluded even though you have zero to go on.
Since you like links, let me help you out.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/20/fbi-counterintelligence-trump

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/in-the-news/tom-fitton-deep-state-is-targeting-trump-with-an-illicit-investigation/

---

. Citing right wing fake news doesn't work as a counter argument

Mansura said:

---

ZZTIGER said:

---

Are you going to present the collusion proof? This is so far over your head. You cannot produce any proof or even a description of what exactly Trump is supposed to have done because it was and still is all a lie. You are aware that yesterday that an article was published that proved irrefutable verifyable proof the the FBI and DOJ knew that Hillary Clinton's campaign paid for the dossier before the first FISA application was filed. Do you understand what that means? I'm sure you don't because you continue to carry on like an infant like Trump actually colluded even though you have zero to go on.
Since you like links, let me help you out.

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/20/fbi-counterintelligence-trump

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/in-the-news/tom-fitton-deep-state-is-targeting-trump-with-an-illicit-investigation/

---

. Citing right wing fake news doesn't work as a counter argument

---

Lol @ the biggest poster of left wing fake news in order to make an argument. Do you even proofread your posts before hitting send? Lolol

You are such a dumbass. This story was also in the New York Times. No wonder you're so stupid. Do you even know what Judicial Watch is and what their purpose is? Do you have any idea of their history. You can bet your vigina that what they have on their site is factual.
I don't know that I've run into a more misinformed person than you. All you care about is winning an arguement. You can't debate a single point because you have no clue what you're talking about.

This guy posseses a level of stupid I don't believe I've seen before. He says my information is wrong but makes no arguement as to what exactly was wrong. Judicial Watch got this information from a court ruling ordering that it be made available. He has no interest whatsoever in finding the truth. He only cares about winning an arguement. Pathetic !!

ZZTIGER said:

---

This guy posseses a level of stupid I don't believe I've seen before. He says my information is wrong but makes no arguement as to what exactly was wrong. Judicial Watch got this information from a court ruling ordering that it be made available. He has no interest whatsoever in finding the truth. He only cares about winning an arguement. Pathetic !!

---

But he never wins one! Lolol

It's painfully obvious mansura doesn't do any research, just links articles from your typical leftist, discredited media. I'm no lawyer, but many times before I post articles, I look at several features about the same topic just to make sure that what I'm posting is a real, ongoing story rooted in facts. Routine research. He doesn't do that. Just more of the same regurgitation from the usual suspects.

I'm an admittted conservative but I look at Libral websites like CNN, MSNBC, Huffington post everyday so I can understand the angle the Liberal Left is coming from so I can properly gauge what is being presented on the conservative right side of any issue. I don't ever assume that Fox News or Drudge or Breitbart is telling me the truth. With that being said, Fox News absolutley "CRUSHES" any Left leaning news outlet when it comes to credibility and legitamacy. Are they a Right Leaning organization? Certainly they are. Yes, they are biased without question in some of their opinion programs and they make no effort to hide that. However, they do not ever fabricate stories the way CNN and other Liberal Left outlets do routinely. Today, Robert Mueller's team came out and said Buzz Feed fabricated a story about Trump that every Liberal Left news outlet ran with all day today. All day long today the Liberal Left media lied to America. Now they have to eat crow.

ZZTIGER said:

---

I'm an admittted conservative but I look at Libral websites like CNN, MSNBC, Huffington post everyday so I can understand the angle the Liberal Left is coming from so I can properly gauge what is being presented on the conservative right side of any issue. I don't ever assume that Fox News or Drudge or Breitbart is telling me the truth. With that being said, Fox News absolutley "CRUSHES" any Left leaning news outlet when it comes to credibility and legitamacy. Are they a Right Leaning organization? Certainly they are. Yes, they are biased without question in some of their opinion programs and they make no effort to hide that. However, they do not ever fabricate stories the way CNN and other Liberal Left outlets do routinely. Today, Robert Mueller's team came out and said Buzz Feed fabricated a story about Trump that every Liberal Left news outlet ran with all day today. All day long today the Liberal Left media lied to America. Now they have to eat crow.

---

Spot on. And the Buzz Feed drivel is a prime example of why most media today is discredited and not trusted by many Americans. Like you, I firmly believe in checking several sources of news before forming an opinion.

The difference between myself and a collossal dumbass like Mansura is that when I see a story on a Liberal Left news organization I don't automatically dismiss it. I am always skeptical when the story represents a clear advantage politically for one side or the other; but I never dismiss it automatically. Like I've said before, Mansura has no ability to see any position he takes to its logical end. He will never see the danger to himself and his family to blindly believe everything he reads from the Liberal Left side of the spectum; or so it seems.

Seriously, what I would really like to know when I run into someone like Mansura, who thinks they are a Democrat is if they are aware that much of the Democrat party is aligned with the radical Liberal Left that wants our country to become a socialist nation. I want to ask if he's actually ever read the Declaration of Independence and understood why the document was created and how it correlates to today. Does he understand who the Declaration of Independence is speaking to? Does he not understand the danger of giving all of the power to the government.

I'd also like to know if he really understands what "Socialism" is and what that means to his rights and his freedoms. Does he understand that in a socialist society the government takes your money and spends it for you and shares it with evryone else? Where in US history has government ever, even one time, run a government program that was efficient and didn't lose money badly? Socialist countries tax their citizens as high as 60% to 80%. It's beyond me why anyone would see it wise to give almost all of their rights, money and decision making ability to their government. It is without question that the maximum number of economic choices exists in a capitalist society. Obviously, there are always improvements that can be made.

Say what you want about our constitution. If you are one to take issues with some of the verbiage that some on the left have in regards to slavery etc. I can appreciate that. However, the document was ingenious in the way it was written and it's ability to be changed by the people. The United States Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allowed a black man to be elected president. The Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allows these same people the right to openly express their opinions. What an amazing documet.

Before anyone carelessly chooses to change it or eliminate it they would be wise to consider that that document is the device that has allowed us to get to where we are today. Be careful what you ask for. You can't be a socialist nation and adhere to the United States Constitution at the same time. I wonder if aomeone like Mansura even thinks that deeply. If he really wants to know whee this country came from he should take the time to read "The Federalist Papers"; as should we all.

Great post above

ZZTIGER said:

---

The difference between myself and a collossal dumbass like Mansura is that when I see a story on a Liberal Left news organization I don't automatically dismiss it. I am always skeptical when the story represents a clear advantage politically for one side or the other; but I never dismiss it automatically. Like I've said before, Mansura has no ability to see any position he takes to its logical end. He will never see the danger to himself and his family to blindly believe everything he reads from the Liberal Left side of the spectum; or so it seems.

Seriously, what I would really like to know when I run into someone like Mansura, who thinks they are a Democrat is if they are aware that much of the Democrat party is aligned with the radical Liberal Left that wants our country to become a socialist nation. I want to ask if he's actually ever read the Declaration of Independence and understood why the document was created and how it correlates to today. Does he understand who the Declaration of Independence is speaking to? Does he not understand the danger of giving all of the power to the government.

I'd also like to know if he really understands what "Socialism" is and what that means to his rights and his freedoms. Does he understand that in a socialist society the government takes your money and spends it for you and shares it with evryone else? Where in US history has government ever, even one time, run a government program that was efficient and didn't lose money badly? Socialist countries tax their citizens as high as 60% to 80%. It's beyond me why anyone would see it wise to give almost all of their rights, money and decision making ability to their government. It is without question that the maximum number of economic choices exists in a capitalist society. Obviously, there are always improvements that can be made.

Say what you want about our constitution. If you are one to take issues with some of the verbiage that some on the left have in regards to slavery etc. I can appreciate that. However, the document was ingenious in the way it was written and it's ability to be changed by the people. The United States Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allowed a black man to be elected president. The Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allows these same people the right to openly express their opinions. What an amazing documet.

Before anyone carelessly chooses to change it or eliminate it they would be wise to consider that that document is the device that has allowed us to get to where we are today. Be careful what you ask for. You can't be a socialist nation and adhere to the United States Constitution at the same time. I wonder if aomeone like Mansura even thinks that deeply. If he really wants to know whee this country came from he should take the time to read "The Federalist Papers"; as should we all.

---

Your post should be pinned to the front page of TB. It's that good.

Reading the last two paragraphs reminded me of why we should oppose with vigor any attempt at a Con Con. Those who advocate for one say a convention can be limited to only that which said convention may be called for. Thats not necessarily true. Who's to say an entirely new constitution wouldn't come out of a Con Con? The Founders did exactly that with the Articles of Confederation. Simply put, there is no precedent that a Con Con can be limited. The American people can't take the real risk that rogue delegates could remove and/or alter any amendments they don't like, especially those in the Bill of Rights. It's even conceivable the methods of ratification could be changed in order to pass such amendments.

Bottom line is the Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. The document is without doubt the best blueprint for the self government of people that man can muster. Never before or since has a document affirmed the freedom and liberty of a people like the one that governs us. Let's be real careful and suspicious of this Con Con movement. If we need an amendment, let's do it through Congress and the states. This process has served us well for 230 years. Im rambling here, but wanted to say this about the Constitution after reading your post.

Mag Tiger said:

---

ZZTIGER said:

---

The difference between myself and a collossal dumbass like Mansura is that when I see a story on a Liberal Left news organization I don't automatically dismiss it. I am always skeptical when the story represents a clear advantage politically for one side or the other; but I never dismiss it automatically. Like I've said before, Mansura has no ability to see any position he takes to its logical end. He will never see the danger to himself and his family to blindly believe everything he reads from the Liberal Left side of the spectum; or so it seems.

Seriously, what I would really like to know when I run into someone like Mansura, who thinks they are a Democrat is if they are aware that much of the Democrat party is aligned with the radical Liberal Left that wants our country to become a socialist nation. I want to ask if he's actually ever read the Declaration of Independence and understood why the document was created and how it correlates to today. Does he understand who the Declaration of Independence is speaking to? Does he not understand the danger of giving all of the power to the government.

I'd also like to know if he really understands what "Socialism" is and what that means to his rights and his freedoms. Does he understand that in a socialist society the government takes your money and spends it for you and shares it with evryone else? Where in US history has government ever, even one time, run a government program that was efficient and didn't lose money badly? Socialist countries tax their citizens as high as 60% to 80%. It's beyond me why anyone would see it wise to give almost all of their rights, money and decision making ability to their government. It is without question that the maximum number of economic choices exists in a capitalist society. Obviously, there are always improvements that can be made.

Say what you want about our constitution. If you are one to take issues with some of the verbiage that some on the left have in regards to slavery etc. I can appreciate that. However, the document was ingenious in the way it was written and it's ability to be changed by the people. The United States Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allowed a black man to be elected president. The Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allows these same people the right to openly express their opinions. What an amazing documet.

Before anyone carelessly chooses to change it or eliminate it they would be wise to consider that that document is the device that has allowed us to get to where we are today. Be careful what you ask for. You can't be a socialist nation and adhere to the United States Constitution at the same time. I wonder if aomeone like Mansura even thinks that deeply. If he really wants to know whee this country came from he should take the time to read "The Federalist Papers"; as should we all.

---

Your post should be pinned to the front page of TB. It's that good.

Reading the last two paragraphs reminded me of why we should oppose with vigor any attempt at a Con Con. Those who advocate for one say a convention can be limited to only that which said convention may be called for. Thats not necessarily true. Who's to say an entirely new constitution wouldn't come out of a Con Con? The Founders did exactly that with the Articles of Confederation. Simply put, there is no precedent that a Con Con can be limited. The American people can't take the real risk that rogue delegates could remove and/or alter any amendments they don't like, especially those in the Bill of Rights. It's even conceivable the methods of ratification could be changed in order to pass such amendments.

Bottom line is the Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. The document is without doubt the best blueprint for the self government of people that man can muster. Never before or since has a document affirmed the freedom and liberty of a people like the one that governs us. Let's be real careful and suspicious of this Con Con movement. If we need an amendment, let's do it through Congress and the states. This process has served us well for 230 years. Im rambling here, but wanted to say this about the Constitution after reading your post.

---

I am not sure I understand clearly how a Constitutional Convention works and what limitations there are. I've heard compelling arguements on both sides. It concerns me that some feel strongly that a Constituional Convention could open up Pandora's Box and potentially allow the Liberal Left to introduce damaging law in ways you described above. I don't believe the process necessarily puts limits on one side or the other. It would seem that it all comes down to votes. It sounds like if you go down this path and you have the backing of the American people that you better make damn sure your party has the votes to close the deal. I'd like to learn more about it before I form an opinion. I find it really interesting but you don't hear it discussed much. However, there is a movement afoot. It's quite an ordeal to get 38 states to ratify.

Article V
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, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

ZZTIGER said:

---

Mag Tiger said:

---

ZZTIGER said:

---

The difference between myself and a collossal dumbass like Mansura is that when I see a story on a Liberal Left news organization I don't automatically dismiss it. I am always skeptical when the story represents a clear advantage politically for one side or the other; but I never dismiss it automatically. Like I've said before, Mansura has no ability to see any position he takes to its logical end. He will never see the danger to himself and his family to blindly believe everything he reads from the Liberal Left side of the spectum; or so it seems.

Seriously, what I would really like to know when I run into someone like Mansura, who thinks they are a Democrat is if they are aware that much of the Democrat party is aligned with the radical Liberal Left that wants our country to become a socialist nation. I want to ask if he's actually ever read the Declaration of Independence and understood why the document was created and how it correlates to today. Does he understand who the Declaration of Independence is speaking to? Does he not understand the danger of giving all of the power to the government.

I'd also like to know if he really understands what "Socialism" is and what that means to his rights and his freedoms. Does he understand that in a socialist society the government takes your money and spends it for you and shares it with evryone else? Where in US history has government ever, even one time, run a government program that was efficient and didn't lose money badly? Socialist countries tax their citizens as high as 60% to 80%. It's beyond me why anyone would see it wise to give almost all of their rights, money and decision making ability to their government. It is without question that the maximum number of economic choices exists in a capitalist society. Obviously, there are always improvements that can be made.

Say what you want about our constitution. If you are one to take issues with some of the verbiage that some on the left have in regards to slavery etc. I can appreciate that. However, the document was ingenious in the way it was written and it's ability to be changed by the people. The United States Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allowed a black man to be elected president. The Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allows these same people the right to openly express their opinions. What an amazing documet.

Before anyone carelessly chooses to change it or eliminate it they would be wise to consider that that document is the device that has allowed us to get to where we are today. Be careful what you ask for. You can't be a socialist nation and adhere to the United States Constitution at the same time. I wonder if aomeone like Mansura even thinks that deeply. If he really wants to know whee this country came from he should take the time to read "The Federalist Papers"; as should we all.

---

Your post should be pinned to the front page of TB. It's that good.

Reading the last two paragraphs reminded me of why we should oppose with vigor any attempt at a Con Con. Those who advocate for one say a convention can be limited to only that which said convention may be called for. Thats not necessarily true. Who's to say an entirely new constitution wouldn't come out of a Con Con? The Founders did exactly that with the Articles of Confederation. Simply put, there is no precedent that a Con Con can be limited. The American people can't take the real risk that rogue delegates could remove and/or alter any amendments they don't like, especially those in the Bill of Rights. It's even conceivable the methods of ratification could be changed in order to pass such amendments.

Bottom line is the Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. The document is without doubt the best blueprint for the self government of people that man can muster. Never before or since has a document affirmed the freedom and liberty of a people like the one that governs us. Let's be real careful and suspicious of this Con Con movement. If we need an amendment, let's do it through Congress and the states. This process has served us well for 230 years. Im rambling here, but wanted to say this about the Constitution after reading your post.

---

I am not sure I understand clearly how a Constitutional Convention works and what limitations there are. I've heard compelling arguements on both sides. It concerns me that some feel strongly that a Constituional Convention could open up Pandora's Box and potentially allow the Liberal Left to introduce damaging law in ways you described above. I don't believe the process necessarily puts limits on one side or the other. It would seem that it all comes down to votes. It sounds like if you go down this path and you have the backing of the American people that you better make damn sure your party has the votes to close the deal. I'd like to learn more about it before I form an opinion. I find it really interesting but you don't hear it discussed much. However, there is a movement afoot. It's quite an ordeal to get 38 states to ratify.

Article V
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, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

---

Here's an interesting and informative article concerning a Con Con .

https://www.cbpp.org/research/states-likely-could-not-control-constitutional-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or

Mag Tiger said:

---

ZZTIGER said:

---

Mag Tiger said:

---

ZZTIGER said:

---

The difference between myself and a collossal dumbass like Mansura is that when I see a story on a Liberal Left news organization I don't automatically dismiss it. I am always skeptical when the story represents a clear advantage politically for one side or the other; but I never dismiss it automatically. Like I've said before, Mansura has no ability to see any position he takes to its logical end. He will never see the danger to himself and his family to blindly believe everything he reads from the Liberal Left side of the spectum; or so it seems.

Seriously, what I would really like to know when I run into someone like Mansura, who thinks they are a Democrat is if they are aware that much of the Democrat party is aligned with the radical Liberal Left that wants our country to become a socialist nation. I want to ask if he's actually ever read the Declaration of Independence and understood why the document was created and how it correlates to today. Does he understand who the Declaration of Independence is speaking to? Does he not understand the danger of giving all of the power to the government.

I'd also like to know if he really understands what "Socialism" is and what that means to his rights and his freedoms. Does he understand that in a socialist society the government takes your money and spends it for you and shares it with evryone else? Where in US history has government ever, even one time, run a government program that was efficient and didn't lose money badly? Socialist countries tax their citizens as high as 60% to 80%. It's beyond me why anyone would see it wise to give almost all of their rights, money and decision making ability to their government. It is without question that the maximum number of economic choices exists in a capitalist society. Obviously, there are always improvements that can be made.

Say what you want about our constitution. If you are one to take issues with some of the verbiage that some on the left have in regards to slavery etc. I can appreciate that. However, the document was ingenious in the way it was written and it's ability to be changed by the people. The United States Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allowed a black man to be elected president. The Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allows these same people the right to openly express their opinions. What an amazing documet.

Before anyone carelessly chooses to change it or eliminate it they would be wise to consider that that document is the device that has allowed us to get to where we are today. Be careful what you ask for. You can't be a socialist nation and adhere to the United States Constitution at the same time. I wonder if aomeone like Mansura even thinks that deeply. If he really wants to know whee this country came from he should take the time to read "The Federalist Papers"; as should we all.

---

Your post should be pinned to the front page of TB. It's that good.

Reading the last two paragraphs reminded me of why we should oppose with vigor any attempt at a Con Con. Those who advocate for one say a convention can be limited to only that which said convention may be called for. Thats not necessarily true. Who's to say an entirely new constitution wouldn't come out of a Con Con? The Founders did exactly that with the Articles of Confederation. Simply put, there is no precedent that a Con Con can be limited. The American people can't take the real risk that rogue delegates could remove and/or alter any amendments they don't like, especially those in the Bill of Rights. It's even conceivable the methods of ratification could be changed in order to pass such amendments.

Bottom line is the Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. The document is without doubt the best blueprint for the self government of people that man can muster. Never before or since has a document affirmed the freedom and liberty of a people like the one that governs us. Let's be real careful and suspicious of this Con Con movement. If we need an amendment, let's do it through Congress and the states. This process has served us well for 230 years. Im rambling here, but wanted to say this about the Constitution after reading your post.

---

I am not sure I understand clearly how a Constitutional Convention works and what limitations there are. I've heard compelling arguements on both sides. It concerns me that some feel strongly that a Constituional Convention could open up Pandora's Box and potentially allow the Liberal Left to introduce damaging law in ways you described above. I don't believe the process necessarily puts limits on one side or the other. It would seem that it all comes down to votes. It sounds like if you go down this path and you have the backing of the American people that you better make damn sure your party has the votes to close the deal. I'd like to learn more about it before I form an opinion. I find it really interesting but you don't hear it discussed much. However, there is a movement afoot. It's quite an ordeal to get 38 states to ratify.

Article V
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, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

---

Here's an interesting and informative article concerning a Con Con .

https://www.cbpp.org/research/states-likely-could-not-control-constitutional-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or

---

. It would seem to me, if I'm interpreting the concerns correctly, the only safe path forward would be to create a 28th Ammendment outlining the exact rules that would need to be followed in the event of a Constitutional Convention so that there are limitations to the process such that it wouldn't end up being a run away process heavily influenced by special interests. It sounds like the major concerns is that there are no constraints to the process once it has been allowed to begin and the courts may not have any mechanism to intervene. I'd have to say I think I would have a concern; especially if a collossal dumbass like Mansura was among those in attendance. I could see it now, the topic of a balanced budget ammendment would be on the floor for discussion and Manaura would raise his hand to introduce the topic of the government paying for sexual reasignment surgery.

ZZTIGER said:

---

Mag Tiger said:

---

ZZTIGER said:

---

Mag Tiger said:

---

ZZTIGER said:

---

The difference between myself and a collossal dumbass like Mansura is that when I see a story on a Liberal Left news organization I don't automatically dismiss it. I am always skeptical when the story represents a clear advantage politically for one side or the other; but I never dismiss it automatically. Like I've said before, Mansura has no ability to see any position he takes to its logical end. He will never see the danger to himself and his family to blindly believe everything he reads from the Liberal Left side of the spectum; or so it seems.

Seriously, what I would really like to know when I run into someone like Mansura, who thinks they are a Democrat is if they are aware that much of the Democrat party is aligned with the radical Liberal Left that wants our country to become a socialist nation. I want to ask if he's actually ever read the Declaration of Independence and understood why the document was created and how it correlates to today. Does he understand who the Declaration of Independence is speaking to? Does he not understand the danger of giving all of the power to the government.

I'd also like to know if he really understands what "Socialism" is and what that means to his rights and his freedoms. Does he understand that in a socialist society the government takes your money and spends it for you and shares it with evryone else? Where in US history has government ever, even one time, run a government program that was efficient and didn't lose money badly? Socialist countries tax their citizens as high as 60% to 80%. It's beyond me why anyone would see it wise to give almost all of their rights, money and decision making ability to their government. It is without question that the maximum number of economic choices exists in a capitalist society. Obviously, there are always improvements that can be made.

Say what you want about our constitution. If you are one to take issues with some of the verbiage that some on the left have in regards to slavery etc. I can appreciate that. However, the document was ingenious in the way it was written and it's ability to be changed by the people. The United States Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allowed a black man to be elected president. The Constitution that the Liberal Left complains about allows these same people the right to openly express their opinions. What an amazing documet.

Before anyone carelessly chooses to change it or eliminate it they would be wise to consider that that document is the device that has allowed us to get to where we are today. Be careful what you ask for. You can't be a socialist nation and adhere to the United States Constitution at the same time. I wonder if aomeone like Mansura even thinks that deeply. If he really wants to know whee this country came from he should take the time to read "The Federalist Papers"; as should we all.

---

Your post should be pinned to the front page of TB. It's that good.

Reading the last two paragraphs reminded me of why we should oppose with vigor any attempt at a Con Con. Those who advocate for one say a convention can be limited to only that which said convention may be called for. Thats not necessarily true. Who's to say an entirely new constitution wouldn't come out of a Con Con? The Founders did exactly that with the Articles of Confederation. Simply put, there is no precedent that a Con Con can be limited. The American people can't take the real risk that rogue delegates could remove and/or alter any amendments they don't like, especially those in the Bill of Rights. It's even conceivable the methods of ratification could be changed in order to pass such amendments.

Bottom line is the Constitution is hard to amend for a reason. The document is without doubt the best blueprint for the self government of people that man can muster. Never before or since has a document affirmed the freedom and liberty of a people like the one that governs us. Let's be real careful and suspicious of this Con Con movement. If we need an amendment, let's do it through Congress and the states. This process has served us well for 230 years. Im rambling here, but wanted to say this about the Constitution after reading your post.

---

I am not sure I understand clearly how a Constitutional Convention works and what limitations there are. I've heard compelling arguements on both sides. It concerns me that some feel strongly that a Constituional Convention could open up Pandora's Box and potentially allow the Liberal Left to introduce damaging law in ways you described above. I don't believe the process necessarily puts limits on one side or the other. It would seem that it all comes down to votes. It sounds like if you go down this path and you have the backing of the American people that you better make damn sure your party has the votes to close the deal. I'd like to learn more about it before I form an opinion. I find it really interesting but you don't hear it discussed much. However, there is a movement afoot. It's quite an ordeal to get 38 states to ratify.

Article V
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, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

---

Here's an interesting and informative article concerning a Con Con .

https://www.cbpp.org/research/states-likely-could-not-control-constitutional-convention-on-balanced-budget-amendment-or

---

. It would seem to me, if I'm interpreting the concerns correctly, the only safe path forward would be to create a 28th Ammendment outlining the exact rules that would need to be followed in the event of a Constitutional Convention so that there are limitations to the process such that it wouldn't end up being a run away process heavily influenced by special interests. It sounds like the major concerns is that there are no constraints to the process once it has been allowed to begin and the courts may not have any mechanism to intervene. I'd have to say I think I would have a concern; especially if a collossal dumbass like Mansura was among those in attendance. I could see it now, the topic of a balanced budget ammendment would be on the floor for discussion and Manaura would raise his hand to introduce the topic of the government paying for sexual reasignment surgery.

---

As it's currently set up, a runaway convention is a real possibility. People like mansura could very well hijack the process and theoretically dismantle the Constitution as we know it. It's simply not worth the chance.That's why, as things are, I cannot affirm support for an Article V Con Con. The mechanism for proposing amendments like the 17 since the Bill of Rights seems to me to be the best way. A limited, orderly process which allows the amendment to be ratified or rejected on it's own. This process has worked since the beginning. At this time, I see no reason to try a Con Con.

I agree, a Con Con sounds like a risky proposition.