Fire Pit Constitution

Tim,

The reading of the Constitution was a good idea, but they left out 2 amendments one of which was the 18th on Prohibition and the other was the 13th ammendment about slavery. Why did these not get read?

I don't know "Skippy" or anyone else on here, but it seems to me, as a member blogger, that what goes on your blog is up to you, and you alone. P.S. Thanks Tim for keeping the fires of freedom, without PC, burning!

Dear Skippy,

Since this blog site belngs to Tim, he has a say in what is said on it. He is the Dictator. Since Tim is benevolent, he allows free speech, but without vindictiveness, profanity, or lies. Sounds pretty fair to me. Now, knit-picking like you are doing wasn't covered in the constitution, but it is annoying.

Hey Skippy: Did you even READ this blogs constitution? It's his, he can do whatever he wants! You don't like it? LEAVE!

Skippy (Stephen R.), why don't you establish your own blog, like Tim suggests, so you can dominate the conversation there? You don't sound respectful at all and it gets in the way of those enjoying the comments others leave here. I don't believe Tim deletes comments he doesn't agree with. He welcomes everyone's point of view, as long as it is said with respect for others, and if citing facts, that you back them up. I have read a lot of comments from people Tim doesn't agree with, but they are not deleted.

If you think property rights are an important right with respect to the individuals right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness --and so on, then you must support Tim's 'Constitution'.

Now it seems to me that Tim's "Constitution' is really just a cute way of stating a 'Terms of Use' for his blog.

It is his blog, after all.

I doubt he would bother to have it at all unless he wanted to have his say and hopefully find some like minded people --not much point otherwise (yelling in an empty field is not going to accomplish much).

So to Tim I say "All Hail Tim Carter, Benevolent Dictator for life, of THIS blog".

He's shown the only part of "Benevolent" that matters in a free society -> he's not restricted your right to go elsewhere, or to start your own blog.

So enjoy your time here --I will.

Just my 2 cents.

Excellent work Tim - it appears the only thing left is to deport skippy.

Though Tim has taken to reference of the US Constitution in drafting one for his blog, I take issue with one thing. That is, "Just like the US Constitution, the Fire Pit Constitution is going to be a living, breathing document." That is exactly what OUR government officials have said for years...and that is just WRONG. The US Constitution is neither "living" nor "breathing" and not subject to change...PERIOD, the end. Amendments may from time to time be added/deleted BUT the US Constitution shall not change.

Tim,
This is my first comment on your "Fire Pit" blog. I was hoping to find some worthwhile comments about the sorry state of affairs that exist in the U.S. today, but instead I found a bunch of fourth grade quality sniping and finger pointing.
I'd like to see your blog succeed for the extra editorializing that can serve a purpose for those who are bent on helping in a small way to improve our country.

COMMENT BY Tim Carter:

Richard,

Thanks for stopping by. I sincerely apologize about the lack of substance at the top of the comments in this post of mine.

What you're seeing in this particular post is an enormous amount of frustration being released from other Fire Pit participants directed at another person who came here over the past week and was bloviating.

Because he violated Article Two Section Two of my Constitution, he's been banned. All of his posts are gone and any future comments he attempts to make here at the Fire Pit will be blocked. What's that old saying about a rotten apple spoiling the bunch?

Try as he will, he'll never again post here unless he re-enters once again telling a lie by misidentifying himself. He's already lied on three different occasions trying to re-enter the Fire Pit. If he does somehow slip by - he's emailed begging me to let him back in, but when I ignored him - as I continue to do, he ratcheted up the rhetoric. He's promised me he'll continue to try to sneak in. My crack team will eventually root him out and remove any of those posts.

What's more, based on the comments you saw, he's well aware that he's not welcome by others. If he continues to comment, it tells us everything we want to know about his character.

I welcome robust debate here, but lies, excessive bloviating and hate comments are simply unacceptable.

I ask that you go poke around here looking at past posts of mine. There are quite a few that have generated lots of good spirited discussion. Many of the comments left by folks like you are respectful, meaningful and give me lots of hope.

Two pages were overlooked at the initial reading of the Constitution. These have now been read to our Congress.

Food for thought. When having discussions in text form, it sometimes is hard to discern the emotional intent of a comment or entire post. Text does not convey emotions well - particularly when we are "arguing" politics. :)

I've noticed over the years in many emails and blogs of this sort, than comments are often inaccurately inferred to be negative, when there was no negative intent implied. Just because you disagree with the meaning of a comment doesn't necessarily mean the comment was intentionally rude. If the same conversation was happening in person, the person might have a smile on his face and the tone of his or her voice would convey a light hearted meaning.

But it happens frequently from my experience, that people will assume that someone was "yelling at them", so to speak, in a post. So a person then fires back a reply that reflects his or her indignation at those comments. And the person who wrote the original is then put on the defensive - thinking to him or her self "I didn't mean it that way, why is that person being mean and saying that?". So s/he fires back with an equally intense comment, and the discussion can go downhill from there.

Now in the specific case of Skippy, I have read his comments (at least the ones that have not been deleted) and I've seen nothing that has been offensive.

I suggest to Tim - in the spirit of freedom of speech, that in the case where he is tempted to delete someone's comments - and that person thinks there was nothing in those comments that justified the deletion, the post in question should then be re-posted and allowed to remain, and people can vote on whether or not the comments were offensive.

It should be an interesting exercise in tolerence. Are people voting that a given post was offensive - simply because they disagree with the point of view, or was the post particularly nasty and rude?

I think you'll find that there would be disagreement even on that kind of thing. It's the tricky nature of free speech. It should be fairly straight forward when a generally accepted curse word is used. But how about in the instance when - for example, in a recent thread here, someone called me a "blowhard"? Is that acceptable? :)

The key question one has to be honest with themself is: am I voting for deleting a comment because it's inappropriately rude, or because I happen to disagree with the message?

That also then begs the question: how does one define "inappropriately rude"? It's a slippery slope from free speech to totalitarianism, folks. And, isn't totalitarianism - as in government control, what most people here, including Tim, seem to be complaining about?

Unless, Tim only wants people here who agree with his point of view? I suggest that this blog is a microcosm of the national discourse on politics, and therefore should remain open to all points of view. But - it's not my blog. :)

COMMENT BY Tim Carter:

Lou,

I'm going to be very brief here with my comments because you're making some serious allegations and inferences. Others may not respond to your comment above with as much restraint as I'm about to exercise.

Skippy has been banned because he didn't tell the truth. It's that simple.

You can clearly see how others feel about his bloviating. I suggest that the person who called you a blowhard feels that way about you. I've received private emails from others here who are worn out by your long posts.

Have I deleted your posts that have disagreed with me? No. That answers your other question and allegations. And please, the cute smiley faces don't do a great job of masking what you're really saying. We're not that stupid here.

I openly invite respectful, concise points of view. This blog is full of people who don't agree with me. There are many who have posted long comments, but they don't do it day in day out and multiple long comments on the same blog post of mine.

Do long posts and frequent posts by one person dampen discussion? You bet they do.

That's why I've suggested to you in past posts that you start your own blog. I don't want you or anyone else to inhibit debate here at the Fire Pit. It's no different in a public gathering. No one likes a person that dominates the conversation.

I'm going to ask you one more time to take very seriously Article Three Section 1. It's your decision. I've asked you nicely to do this on more than one occasion. I highly recommend you go start your own free blog and write all you want there, and invite others to come there to debate with you.

You're welcome to comment here if you abide by the Constitution. In the future I expect to see shorter posts that link to your new blog. If you don't want to do this, then ........

It's great we can share whatever opinion we may have regarding the events around us. This blog-spot is one of SO many opportunities to do this. Even what seems to be "harsh" or "brash" by some, is still a wonderfull opportunity to shape or direct our community (in a strange way)! Just inviting comments and opinions ,(to me), seems to be one of the finest ways for our voices to be heard, ideas to be shared, and opportunities to "release" pent-up frustrations.
"Kudos", to Tim for his bold step to provide an outlet for many of us!
May we ALL enjoy the freedeom of expression while we have it!!
Thanks Tim!

Like T, I take exception to your characterization of the US Constitution as a "living, breathing document." That is precisely what the Constitution is NOT, and what makes it such a powerful basis for our system of government. A living breathing constitution is no constitution at all, and that's why amendments to the US Costitution are so rare and so difficult to approve. What you have proposed, Tim, is a set of bylaws by which your Fire Pit will operate and which may be changed whenever you wish. I might also take this opportunity to point out that you seem to have missed the most important purpose of the US Constitution, and that is to limit the powers of the federal government.

I would like to congratulate the late George Washington for being such a fine British army officer.......

Got a kick out of your constitution Tim! I always enjoy your site.

@ Lou - don't you think it's a lot of time to waste voting on the validity or constitutionality of a post on a blog? This isn't, after all, a country. And although I did not see the post in which you were referred to as a blowhard, your is the longest post here at the moment, which fits half the definition......

blow-hard   
[bloh-hahrd] Show IPA
–noun Slang .
an exceptionally boastful and talkative person.

Not trying to be rude, just informed.

I have to agree with Richard Sims, I too was hoping to see some worthwhil comments here, but right now I'm not seeing any !!!!!!

Sorry, I left the e off of worthwhile.....I should have reviewed it first, then I could have made my corrections......

Restriction of free speech in any form is a slippery slope. I agree that lies and profanity and even perhaps rudeness,should be cause for deletion of the specific item containing the offending text, but not of anyones ongoing access. As you have posted specific rules for your blog, all users should read the conditions before they choose to participate. I for one have already decided that this blog is not for me, as a result without any offence intended. It appears to me however that what it has become, is a forum for Tim to promote his own ideological beliefs and to encourage only like minded people that will swell his own community of "believers". That is hardly a debating forum which is after all the original purpose of any blog that allows unrestricted comment?

In the spirit of Tims constitution I meant to add that you will find no such restrictions on subject matter at my sites comments section. www.jamesconvey.com, although I do frown on bad language, rudeness and "disingenuous facts" (lies).

Tim, thanks for not deleting my posts. I get your point. I'll be more concise in my future posts.

I hope you continue to allow freedon of speech on your blog. If I get my own blog created, I'll let you know.

COMMENT BY Tim Carter:

Lou,

I suggest you go read my last message to you once more. I said, "I expect to see shorter posts that link to your new blog."

The word "if" in your last sentence should have been "when".

I just want to be perfectly clear.

Tim, this IS your blog, plain and fancy.
I've noticed that disagreements are not deleted but 'flaming' is.
Bravo for intellegent discourse and contrary views!
I might not agree with any of you but will die for your right to speak your mind.
(maybe a lot that's said here should start, "In my opinion...)

The people who claim that the US Constitution is not a living document are ignoring the reason the original signers put an amendment process in it. I once had someone ask me if the Supreme Court had ever ruled on the constitutionality of an amendment. That has never and will never happen, because amendments, once adopted, ARE the Constitution. The idea that our Constitution isn't supposed to change is just plain wrong.

Hi, Tim, nice job on the constitution. I suggest that in Article Two, sections two and four are essentially identical and could be combined. You might consider replacing Section four with a statement about civility.

Interesting how many show up to YOUR blog and then act all offended and won't come back because you have and enforce rules. Also interesting how many take what I think was meant to be a lighthearted to establish a few very reasonable rules and treat it as a personal attack. I think if we all step back from assuming everything said is an attack, and recast our thinking to consider those statements as merely an expression of another's thinking, we perhaps could keep the dialog more civil.

Tim,
I just read on one of Patriot Action Networks blogs that a bill was introduced to severely limit the actions of the 39 czars appointed by Obama. The bill apparently was introduced in the last session, but was sidelined by the democrats. Now it appears that we'll finally get rid of some of these apple polishing liberal socialists.

A little off the subject but, you asked for predictions on the new congress. Here's mine:
The republicans will start off full or fire and brimstone, but the Washington cocktail circle will soon tame them down. They will soon start saying things like "Well, to solve our deposit maybe we'll have to raise a few taxes." Then they will screw the voters and not cut one damn thing. least of all their blotted paychecks. Does anyone think that while ramming a minimal health care system on us they will drop out of their personal gold plated system or demand that if it's good enough for the majority them it's good for the unions too...... Cynical yes, realist yes. disgusted with our greedy congress yes.....

Thanks Tim, for the opportunity to comment and enter the fray.

As to the Constitution being a ‘living and breathing document’, one must define those terms or at least explain how they are being used in a given context.

IMHO, the Constitution is a document that the Founding Fathers knew would not meet every exigency and condition that might arise, and therefore, they included a mechanism by which it might be modified. They were smart enough to make this process arduous to prevent the haphazard & whimsical changing one might think the current politicians desire. Because of this ability to enact amendments (with proper ratification), our Constitution is a living document that can be altered to meet ever-changing conditions.

IMO, it was not the intent of the Founding Fathers to create a document that could or should be interpreted in a variety of ways, depending upon one’s personal political bent. They had very specific intentions for including every word in that document and an analysis of the writing’s of the individuals involved there and elsewhere can usually divulge their intent. Our Supreme Court is charged with doing that analysis (and not in implementing their own personal desires). To this extent, it is not a living and breathing document but is fixed and cast in stone at any given instant.

Skippy, the text of the Constitution that you refer to is below. The 13th ammendment after the Civil war made the 3/5ths compromise a moot point. I suggest you STUDY what led to the 3/5ths compromise in the context as to why James Wilson and Roger Sherman felt it needed to be introduced if we were to have any Constitution at all. Their attitude was "Hey, you're (the southern states) NOT going to get credit for all of these people that YOU hold in slavery and don't allow to vote".
--------------------------------------------------
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct."

I grew up thinking that the Constitution was a “Living Document” until I read an article similar to this.

http://conwayhwong.blogspot.com/2007/11/originalism-vs-living-constitution.html

I believe its another way of rewriting history . We can't say Merry Christmas, we can't say certain words or else we offend somebody. Baloney if we are truly FREE then lets not censure or omit anything. Let us tell the TRUTH for a change. Ulgy or pretty that's just OUR history. Maybe we learn from it or maybe not. We should never change the words in Huck Finn or try to clean up our history in school books. Let us be truthful and honest and just try to be a better place to live regardless of the past.That is Freedom. Period

Wow - i just came back to this page to skim the comments and a lot of folks seem to be missing the point.

First - can't we view the firepit constitution with a little levity? It's a couple of rules for a blog presented in a fun and patriotic way. Have a little more fun with this!

Second - The U.S. constitution is amendable. Therefore it breaths. Relax - it breaths slowly - faster than geology, slower than trees.

Less coffee, more fun.

Best

FSP

Nice Constitution, Tim!! but, I knew Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson was a friend of mine...and you, Tim Carter are no Thomas Jefferson. Great Work, Mate!!!

Tim, I read The Fire Pit Constitution and I agree with the terms set in The Fire Pit Constitution.

November 2012 is just around the corner!!

RE: T on January 7, 2011 10:44 AM
It is true T. The Constitution is not a living document. The Democraps would love us to agree to that so they can modify it into their own leftist manifesto. That would make WE THE PEOPLE serfs to them, who think they're elites. Victory or death; I'll stand with the Constitution, even Tim's! :) Nice job Tim. You are the man here and that's that.