It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CNN's Fareed Zakaria says Dump the Constitution!!

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The question should be asked why does CNN allow an obvious fascist person without one iota of American since of Nationalism on their show


Has this mainstream news agency took the turn from being a fair and balanced source of information, into a far right fascist spin machine: my vote is in any war time scenario- language speaking against our Constitution it is the duty of our CONGRESS to spot aggressors that could violate this great Nation-State.

Congress do your job, it is more than obvious that this man is in contempt

edit on 23-6-2011 by allprowolfy because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Mr. Zakaria has attended quite a few Bilderberg Meetings and happens to be a member of the long secret Council On Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission so the truth is now out there that all 3 want to end and destroy the Constitution!

Time to picket this Anti American swine and expose him for what he really is!

A little hidden video of CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" which discusses Bidlerberg Group and The Trilateral Commission :
www.youtube.com...

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE PEOPLE AND THEY CAN NO LONGER CONTAIN NOR HIDE IT!
edit on 23-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon
Fareed would like to write the constitution on an iPad with his fingers. This guy wants something he can edit and change to better serve his personal agenda and interests.

Our Founding Fathers new wise guys like Fareed would try and do this. That's why they set it up the way they did.


If thats the case, why did they put this part in:


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;
(Article V, Amending the constitution)

?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
If you were watching CNN might of had five viewers.

Have you ever tried to watch this guy?

Sorry, I am not ripping up my Constitution for a guy named Fareed.


What if his name was Barrack Hussain Obama?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by annonymous1234

Originally posted by whyamIhere
If you were watching CNN might of had five viewers.

Have you ever tried to watch this guy?

Sorry, I am not ripping up my Constitution for a guy named Fareed.


What if his name was Barrack Hussain Obama?


Quit using his middle name and simply refer to him using his last name? Why the emphasis on his full name for? What are you trying to prove and what is your angle? Anyone who does instantly loses any and all credibility when they do!


edit on 23-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by annonymous1234

Originally posted by whyamIhere
If you were watching CNN might of had five viewers.

Have you ever tried to watch this guy?

Sorry, I am not ripping up my Constitution for a guy named Fareed.


What if his name was Barrack Hussain Obama?


Quit using his middle name and simply refer to him using his last name? Why the emphasis on his full name for? What are you trying to prove and what is your angle? Anyone who does instantly loses any and all credibility when they do!


edit on 23-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


The guy I quoted was saying he wouldn't rip up his constitution for a guy named Fareed. All I did was ask how he would feel if his President was the one he was ripping up his constitution for.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by annonymous1234

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by annonymous1234

Originally posted by whyamIhere
If you were watching CNN might of had five viewers.

Have you ever tried to watch this guy?

Sorry, I am not ripping up my Constitution for a guy named Fareed.


What if his name was Barrack Hussain Obama?


Quit using his middle name and simply refer to him using his last name? Why the emphasis on his full name for? What are you trying to prove and what is your angle? Anyone who does instantly loses any and all credibility when they do!


edit on 23-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


The guy I quoted was saying he wouldn't rip up his constitution for a guy named Fareed. All I did was ask how he would feel if his President was the one he was ripping up his constitution for.


Just don't use Obama's full name please and hit the dude on facts and logic!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by annonymous1234

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1

Originally posted by annonymous1234

Originally posted by whyamIhere
If you were watching CNN might of had five viewers.

Have you ever tried to watch this guy?

Sorry, I am not ripping up my Constitution for a guy named Fareed.


What if his name was Barrack Hussain Obama?


Quit using his middle name and simply refer to him using his last name? Why the emphasis on his full name for? What are you trying to prove and what is your angle? Anyone who does instantly loses any and all credibility when they do!


edit on 23-6-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


The guy I quoted was saying he wouldn't rip up his constitution for a guy named Fareed. All I did was ask how he would feel if his President was the one he was ripping up his constitution for.


Just don't use Obama's full name please and hit the dude on facts and logic!


I will do as I please and no one who claims to be illuminated shall have any influence on my actions.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Oh he has every right to dump the constitution, by moving back to somewhere modern and enlightened.. like an Islamic country. He was born in Mumbai to a Konkani Muslim family. So he leaves Mumbai and comes here to attend Yale.. in order to tell everyone to dump the constitution because its not "modern".
How about this : Go BACK to Mumbai and modernize it.. make it into his own enlightened image of the NWO. He can get back to me later and tell me all about it.

I tell you... I have to laugh sometimes when I read on here the constant " Americans are arrogant" rhetoric... as if US Americans have the corner of the market on arrogance. You just dont get much more arrogant than this guy.

edit on 23-6-2011 by Advantage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


Then please explain to me what the electoral college is good for, and how removing that part from the election process would destroy the USA.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Apparently this Rag has never read the Constitution. Sounds to me, he is suggesting that the document is a living, breathing entity. And thats his first mistake. Those who believe that it is, your an idiot(s). The framers set out to establish the Supreme law of the land. The Constitution is very clear, and very precise.
It is only those who wish to change its interpretation, to justify their basis of argument.

CNN FAIL!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage
Oh he has every right to dump the constitution, by moving back to somewhere modern and enlightened.. like an Islamic country. He was born in Mumbai to a Konkani Muslim family. So he leaves Mumbai and comes here to attend Yale.. in order to tell everyone to dump the constitution because its not "modern".
How about this : Go BACK to Mumbai and modernize it.. make it into his own enlightened image of the NWO. He can get back to me later and tell me all about it.

I tell you... I have to laugh sometimes when I read on here the constant " Americans are arrogant" rhetoric... as if US Americans have the corner of the market on arrogance. You just dont get much more arrogant than this guy.

edit on 23-6-2011 by Advantage because: (no reason given)



Better yet, why not check to see if his visa/green card has expired. Then jettison his ass!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Realms
 


I ask again: Then *why* is there article V in it?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 


Article V is the process to amend the Constitution. If a law needs to be altered whether that be more lenient or stringent, the amendment process is permitted. But the 5th Article doesn't suggest that its a " living document " that must evolve with the times. That theory suggests ignorance. The framers knew that laws would be passed, and those laws may need to be tweeked from time to time in order to maintain civility.


If you re-read the 5th, you will see that the requirements to amend are rather stringent. Thus the reason very few laws get " amended ".

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


www.usconstitution.net...

Let me guess, your gonna reach back and try to use the General welfare clause as your next basis of argument?
BWAHAHA!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by Advantage
 


Then please explain to me what the electoral college is good for, and how removing that part from the election process would destroy the USA.


What the hell are you talking about? I didnt say it cant be amended, I didnt mention the electoral, and I never mentioned anything destroying the USA. Stop making hysterical posts that have nothing to do with what the person you have addressed has said. Last time I checked there were ways to amend it without "DUMPING" the constitution as this idiot suggests. Huge difference. DUMP vs. AMEND... too totally different things. Sorry you cant see it.

a·mend/əˈmend/Verb
1. Make minor changes in (a text) in order to make it fairer, more accurate, or more up-to-date.
2. Modify formally, as a legal document or legislative bill.

dump/dəmp/
Verb: Deposit or dispose of (garbage, waste, or unwanted material), typically in a careless or hurried way

Imo the electoral college nonsense should be thrown out. But hey, make assumptions. Its your right. Before making silly assumptions again, check out the constitution, article 2, AMENDMENTS 12,14,15,19,20,22,23,24,25,and 16. You see... you can AMEND he constitution without dumping it adn here are the amendments you should be griping about rather than whining at me for something I havent said. WE should have long ago addressed the electoral college nonsense and amended the amendment.

Here.. get to it. usgovinfo.about.com... Just dont dump my constitution.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Realms


 



LOL! Cross posted :p I guess they didnt teach the difference between amending and dumping in some schools. **shrug**



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Realms
 


If it must not evolve with the times why is there a process for amendment?

I have no reason to start a next argument, since you seem to be unable to wrap your head around the fact that if it was carved in stone, there would be no need for article V

But if you want a next argument:
I give you a choice: Should the Import Tax on People not exceed 10 $?
Or:
Stop voting for the Senate! Thats not what the founding fathers envisioned!

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage
reply to post by Realms


 



LOL! Cross posted :p I guess they didnt teach the difference between amending and dumping in some schools. **shrug**



Well thats the problem, the liberal Universities of this country are teaching the " dumping " of the Constitution. ( I would know, I used to be employed with a University.) You would be shocked at some of the " political " rhetoric that is now suggested to our students at the Univ., level. No wonder most students are brain dead. lol
edit on 23-6-2011 by Realms because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


So amending something, (Note that some amendments actually change articles) does not change it?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by debunky
 





process for amendment?


Since you are unable to understand and wrap your head around the fundamental basics ( see how I did that?) of the amendment process, and its need, I wont bother going into a great context with you.

Yeah...I just did that to your argument!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join