In Theory Liberals Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Office In America.

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It's always been my position that the respective letters D & R and catagorized ballots should be banned.

Make the people vote on knowledge not the fucking alphabet.

Let the people vote for whatever stupid reason they come up with and make it so easy that there is no reason not to cast a vote. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest and shows a lack of faith in the rabble to choose their leaders. That Idea sounds OK at first until you realize it would favor name recognition, in other words, incumbents. I thought you were in favor of unseating incumbents.

I am in favor of term limits too. But my opinion is that if the "know nothing" partisans lose a purpose to vote then we will at least get leaders based on their positions. And who gives a fuck if the morons who litterally know nothing about what they're voting on lose interest?

It's why parties have platforms, so you are not ignorantly voting. I see no problem with anyone voting a straight ticket if they so choose.

If you are implying that even half of the people who vote know why they're voting as they do beyond the letter you're more naive than I thought. A straight ticket based on knowledge is one thing. A straight ticket because of a letter is damaging to our nation.

I have NEVER voted a straight ticket because if I'm not familiar with either candidates I simply don't vote. My ignorance should not impact or outweigh a voter with knowledge

Trying to change voting laws to get better politicians is futile, People who decide to get into politics are all pretty much the same, self-serving narcissists looking for some power and prestige without having to actually do anything productive.

Some yes but some no.

We've had a few TEENAGERS win elections in recent years and you know their ambitions are fairly pure. Naive, perhaps but combine that energy with term limits and ballot changes and the sky is the limit.

 

[regent]

the framers of the Constitution, the framers created a much larger stronger government than existed before they sat down to revise the articles and end up with a new Constitution..

a silly liberal lie. Most wanted to stick with Articles and the govt they created was about 1% the size of todays on a per capita inflation adjusted basis. Did Washington or Jefferson talk about creaqting a liberal nanny state or the exact opposite??

See why we are positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?

If most wanted to stick with the Articles why didn't they? Jefferson was in France, and Washington did not engage much in the debates taking place. True, Washington would announce the convention as a committee of the whole and he might talk but he still did not say much. For every Louisiana state that was admitted to the union the government grew and not by two senators and one representative. As Jefferson wrote in 1788 the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Teri, you are crazy.

 

[occupied]

Let the people vote for whatever stupid reason they come up with and make it so easy that there is no reason not to cast a vote. Trying to make sure only the right people vote is dishonest and shows a lack of faith in the rabble to choose their leaders. That Idea sounds OK at first until you realize it would favor name recognition, in other words, incumbents. I thought you were in favor of unseating incumbents.

I am in favor of term limits too. But my opinion is that if the "know nothing" partisans lose a purpose to vote then we will at least get leaders based on their positions. And who gives a fuck if the morons who litterally know nothing about what they're voting on lose interest?

It's why parties have platforms, so you are not ignorantly voting. I see no problem with anyone voting a straight ticket if they so choose.

If you are implying that even half of the people who vote know why they're voting as they do beyond the letter you're more naive than I thought. A straight ticket based on knowledge is one thing. A straight ticket because of a letter is damaging to our nation.

I have NEVER voted a straight ticket because if I'm not familiar with either candidates I simply don't vote. My ignorance should not impact or outweigh a voter with knowledge

Trying to change voting laws to get better politicians is futile, People who decide to get into politics are all pretty much the same, self-serving narcissists looking for some power and prestige without having to actually do anything productive.

Some yes but some no.

We've had a few TEENAGERS win elections in recent years and you know their ambitions are fairly pure. Naive, perhaps but combine that energy with term limits and ballot changes and the sky is the limit.

Trying to change human nature through legislation is usually a failure, there is no route to a better class of politician and tinkering with people's ability to vote would be counter-productive.

 

[bripat9643]

. It's only since Reagan they got all monolithic and unreasonably ideological.

how is the ideology of freedom from big liberal govt unreasonable when it is the purpose of the Constitution??

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

True, they wouldn't want you or your ilk anywhere near the levers of government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"In Theory Liberals Should Not Be Allowed To Hold Office In America."

That you would seek to deny American citizens access to elected office simply because you disagree with their political beliefs is typical of most authoritarian conservatives.


What you advocate is of course un-Constitutional, it's also consistent with the fear and disdain that you and most on the right have for diversity, dissent, and change – as well as your contempt for the Constitution and its case law.


And your post succeeds in only illustrating why conservatives are unfit to hold public office, as no 'liberal' would seek to subject conservatives to a similar restriction.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I am in favor of term limits too. But my opinion is that if the "know nothing" partisans lose a purpose to vote then we will at least get leaders based on their positions. And who gives a fuck if the morons who litterally know nothing about what they're voting on lose interest?

It's why parties have platforms, so you are not ignorantly voting. I see no problem with anyone voting a straight ticket if they so choose.

If you are implying that even half of the people who vote know why they're voting as they do beyond the letter you're more naive than I thought. A straight ticket based on knowledge is one thing. A straight ticket because of a letter is damaging to our nation.

I have NEVER voted a straight ticket because if I'm not familiar with either candidates I simply don't vote. My ignorance should not impact or outweigh a voter with knowledge

Trying to change voting laws to get better politicians is futile, People who decide to get into politics are all pretty much the same, self-serving narcissists looking for some power and prestige without having to actually do anything productive.

Some yes but some no.

We've had a few TEENAGERS win elections in recent years and you know their ambitions are fairly pure. Naive, perhaps but combine that energy with term limits and ballot changes and the sky is the limit.

Trying to change human nature through legislation is usually a failure, there is no route to a better class of politician and tinkering with people's ability to vote would be counter-productive.

...and un-Constitutional.

 

[occupied]

. It's only since Reagan they got all monolithic and unreasonably ideological.

how is the ideology of freedom from big liberal govt unreasonable when it is the purpose of the Constitution??

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

True, they wouldn't want you or your ilk anywhere near the levers of government.

Since they only wanted white male protestant slave owners to be in office you are probably right about that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am in favor of term limits too. But my opinion is that if the "know nothing" partisans lose a purpose to vote then we will at least get leaders based on their positions. And who gives a fuck if the morons who litterally know nothing about what they're voting on lose interest?

It's why parties have platforms, so you are not ignorantly voting. I see no problem with anyone voting a straight ticket if they so choose.

If you are implying that even half of the people who vote know why they're voting as they do beyond the letter you're more naive than I thought. A straight ticket based on knowledge is one thing. A straight ticket because of a letter is damaging to our nation.

I have NEVER voted a straight ticket because if I'm not familiar with either candidates I simply don't vote. My ignorance should not impact or outweigh a voter with knowledge

Trying to change voting laws to get better politicians is futile, People who decide to get into politics are all pretty much the same, self-serving narcissists looking for some power and prestige without having to actually do anything productive.

Some yes but some no.

We've had a few TEENAGERS win elections in recent years and you know their ambitions are fairly pure. Naive, perhaps but combine that energy with term limits and ballot changes and the sky is the limit.

Trying to change human nature through legislation is usually a failure, there is no route to a better class of politician and tinkering with people's ability to vote would be counter-productive.

Human conduct, however, can be regulated and that is appropriate in certain situations.

 

[occupied]

It's why parties have platforms, so you are not ignorantly voting. I see no problem with anyone voting a straight ticket if they so choose.

If you are implying that even half of the people who vote know why they're voting as they do beyond the letter you're more naive than I thought. A straight ticket based on knowledge is one thing. A straight ticket because of a letter is damaging to our nation.

I have NEVER voted a straight ticket because if I'm not familiar with either candidates I simply don't vote. My ignorance should not impact or outweigh a voter with knowledge

Trying to change voting laws to get better politicians is futile, People who decide to get into politics are all pretty much the same, self-serving narcissists looking for some power and prestige without having to actually do anything productive.

Some yes but some no.

We've had a few TEENAGERS win elections in recent years and you know their ambitions are fairly pure. Naive, perhaps but combine that energy with term limits and ballot changes and the sky is the limit.

Trying to change human nature through legislation is usually a failure, there is no route to a better class of politician and tinkering with people's ability to vote would be counter-productive.

Human conduct, however, can be regulated and that is appropriate in certain situations.

Certainly, but that was not the thrust of my comments. People who seek a career in politics have very similar personality traits regardless of party. I recall reading political writings from ancient Rome and complaints about politicians too busy having to run for office every year(!!) to get anything accomplished.

 

[bripat9643]

how is the ideology of freedom from big liberal govt unreasonable when it is the purpose of the Constitution??

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

True, they wouldn't want you or your ilk anywhere near the levers of government.

Since they only wanted white male protestant slave owners to be in office you are probably right about that.

I guess we can put you down as one who doesn't believe 18th Century liberalism had any connection with modern liberalism.

 

[occupied]

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

True, they wouldn't want you or your ilk anywhere near the levers of government.

Since they only wanted white male protestant slave owners to be in office you are probably right about that.

I guess we can put you down as one who doesn't believe 18th Century liberalism had any connection with modern liberalism.

Of course there is a connection but if liberalism didn't change with the times it would be conservatism and therefore at odds with the ideal that democracy must be continually perfected and be as flexible and adaptive as possible.

 

[regent]

. It's only since Reagan they got all monolithic and unreasonably ideological.

how is the ideology of freedom from big liberal govt unreasonable when it is the purpose of the Constitution??

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

occupied is a libtard, they mistakenly believe the founders were liberals.

"For the framers of the Constitution were the most liberal thinkers of all the ages and the charter they produced out of the liberal revolution of their time has never been and is not now surpassed in liberal thought." General Douglas MacArthur

 

[regent]

Might check out the Age of Enlightenment which was a major influence on the writers of the Constitution.
"Liberalism as conservatism have some core beliefs, and from those core beliefs other forms have emerged, but the liberal core beliefs remain the founding of liberalism."
Regent.

 

[bripat9643]

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

True, they wouldn't want you or your ilk anywhere near the levers of government.

Since they only wanted white male protestant slave owners to be in office you are probably right about that.

I guess we can put you down as one who doesn't believe 18th Century liberalism had any connection with modern liberalism.

Of course there is a connection but if liberalism didn't change with the times it would be conservatism and therefore at odds with the ideal that democracy must be continually perfected and be as flexible and adaptive as possible.

So liberalism can morph into virtually anything? In other words, what it was in the past has no connection with what it is today.

The idea that democracy can be perfected is akin to the idea that a ball of shit can be made to taste good by covering it with frosting. The Founding Fathers didn't believe in democracy. That's why turds like you despise them.

 

[bripat9643]

Might check out the Age of Enlightenment which was a major influence on the writers of the Constitution.
"Liberalism as conservatism have some core beliefs, and from those core beliefs other forms have emerged, but the liberal core beliefs remain the founding of liberalism."
Regent.

Modern liberals reject all the core beliefs of 18th Century liberals

 

[rdean]

If I could pass one amendment, it would be to do away with political parties entirely.

why do away with Republicans when they have stood for freedom from big liberal govt since Jefferson?? You make no sense.

Repugnance party has only existed since Lincoln and used to actually have a sizable liberal wing. It's only since Reagan they got all monolithic and unreasonably ideological.

Shhhh, they think Lincoln was a "Confederate".

 

[rdean]

Even attempting to answer that question would force me accept a host of bad conservative "thought" as valid interpretations of how the government is supposed to be.

you mean our Founders really wanted big, ever growing liberal nanny govt?

Jefferson:
That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

"The path we have to pursue[when Jefferson was President ] is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature."

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

True, they wouldn't want you or your ilk anywhere near the levers of government.

Since they only wanted white male protestant slave owners to be in office you are probably right about that.

I guess we can put you down as one who doesn't believe 18th Century liberalism had any connection with modern liberalism.

That's funny since "modern conservatism" hasn't changed since before the 18th century. Even their scientific beliefs are the same.

 

[regent]

Our founders wanted lots of things but I am pretty sure they didn't want people who reject reason itself for blind anti-science political dogma to be the ideological guides of our nation.

True, they wouldn't want you or your ilk anywhere near the levers of government.

Since they only wanted white male protestant slave owners to be in office you are probably right about that.

I guess we can put you down as one who doesn't believe 18th Century liberalism had any connection with modern liberalism.

Of course there is a connection but if liberalism didn't change with the times it would be conservatism and therefore at odds with the ideal that democracy must be continually perfected and be as flexible and adaptive as possible.

So liberalism can morph into virtually anything? In other words, what it was in the past has no connection with what it is today.

The idea that democracy can be perfected is akin to the idea that a ball of shit can be made to taste good by covering it with frosting. The Founding Fathers didn't believe in democracy. That's why turds like you despise them.

No, liberalism and conservatism are based on core beliefs. Some founders were afraid of democracy but as Jefferson said "all men are created equal" and over the years we, as other nations, became more democratic and continue in that regard. Even the framers of the Constitution voted for or against the acceptance of the Constitution, then the Constitution was submitted to "we the people" for ratification. Look at the democratic changes in just your lifetime, with women, Blacks, voting, and other areas.

 

[regent]

Might check out the Age of Enlightenment which was a major influence on the writers of the Constitution.
"Liberalism as conservatism have some core beliefs, and from those core beliefs other forms have emerged, but the liberal core beliefs remain the founding of liberalism."
Regent.

Modern liberals reject all the core beliefs of 18th Century liberals

Can you name a core belief of liberalism or conservatism?