alleghany

Rose, that's the best part. A convention probably would not agree. The issue is to get the country to talking about the issues and hopefully goad high ranking elected folk into remembering who they work for.

Minus the seven month date issue that we addressed earlier, of course.

Gowilkes can't even agree on this subject. How the hello could a convention ever amount to anything good?

I insinuated that if you had your way we'd still be operating under the A of C.

I base that on your silly fear of an Article V Convention today.

I stand by that bold statement.

Here is what I said:

Let's review Umpire's scholarly response from last evening. He notes that the 1787 Convention was called and resulted in a complete rewrite of the Articles of Confederation. I take that to mean that he believes there were 18th century umpires pleading with their contemporaries to stop this thing in its tracks because the Articles were functioning well and any changes were unnecessary and dangerous. Hmmmm....

As you know, the Articles of Confederation were not working. The country was dysfunctional, so much so that Congress called the Convention for the express purpose of a rewrite. The 1787 draft was consented to by its delegates and forwarded by the Continental Congress to the states. Ratification was largely complete by September 1788. Interestingly, umpire's ancestors kept North Carolina from ratifying the new constitution till May 1790.

I think most folk would agree that the Constitution has been a huge success. Its existence is testimony that change should be considered and can be embraced. When it needs attention we amend it. The process works. If umpire had his way we'd still operate under the Articles of Confederation. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that failed policy of the past.

Umpire, you're still an idiot. Now you're idiotic in three centuries.

NORTH CAROLINA RATIFIED ON NOVEMBER 21, 1789 BY A VOTE OF 194-77.

AS FOR INSINUATION, YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND CHECK WHAT YOU SAID.

As penance for missing the date, I withdraw my Mexico Annexation Plan (for now).

Still, I insinuated nothing about intent.

The Wikipedia article stated that North Carolina and Rhode Island ratified by May 1790.

Actually, I did get the date wrong. I stand corrected.

I insinuated no such thing. You, sir, are a liar. As for the date, check out Wikipedia for yourself. It is a well known and highly quotable reference source. Now, okay nice or I will block your nomination to serve as delegate from NC to the Great Constitution Restoration Convention.

Just say no to a convention.

I WASN'T THE ONE WHO STATED THAT NORTH CAROLINA DIDN'T APPROVE THE CONSTITUTION UNTIL MAY, 1790 WHEN THEY ACTUALLY APPROVED IT IN NOVEMBER 1789.

ALSO YOU INSINUATED THAT NORTH CAROLINA WANTED TO KEEP THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, WHEN THE FACT IS NC AND RHODE ISLAND REFUSED TO RATIFY UNTIL CONGRESS PASSED AND SENT TO THE STATES THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

NOW, WHY DON'T YOU DO A LITTLE RESEARCH BEFORE YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT ON HERE.

But, would there be any taxable residents?

You know what else I want yo do, yugo? I want to annex Mexico. We're looking after bunches of their people anyway.

If you think listing all your qualifications is too much, just list the most important two or three.

Come on, don't be so modest.

Please list some of the many qualifications that would recommend you to such a position.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED.

Sparkling Water has the right.idea. Stick it to the Yankees