Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[eagle1462010]

The key element to an Amendment is choosing the battles to fight were most Americans agree.

I believe most of the Country is sick and tired of Career Politicians. Hell whats the approval rating of Congress now..................10%

Putting up Term Limits on them when 90% of the nation thinks they are all a bunch of F.... Ups anyway....................................

This is an area that could be Amended.

prop 8 passes in Cali................A very Liberal State................Then it could be passed nation wide.....

17th Amendment would be a very tough sell. As most would listen to the Liberal Trash Media on this matter anyway. As it was started by a Liberal Trash man named Wilson. A man that also gets credit for the Federal Reserve which is a different topic.

Term limits force voters to elect candidates they do not want. If that career politician does a great job representing his district and the people are satisfied, why deny the people the right to vote for him?

For the same reason we have term limits on the POTUS.

I personally don't have issues with my current State Senators, but I simply don't believe in having them there forever. Somewhere down the line they tend to forget the reason they came there to begin with. That doesn't make them bad people, but that doesn't make them right either.

Most people are tired of Special Interests buying off Senators and Congress as a whole. While Special Interest will buy new ones, it would make the task more difficult.

In aspect to State legislatures to appoint a Senator, they'd have to buy off the majority of the State Legislature and Governors to get their way, which would make it much harder to buy a Senator.

 

[FA_Q2]

Riddle me this..............................

A neighborhood association has a set of rules in place to live in that particular neighborhood. aka You can't have a junkyard on your property or whatever. Under your position THEY ARE THE MOB................ but they are a LOCAL MOB............... yet they mostly agree that the association does more good than harm in their particular case.

But another neighborhood across the country believes they are wrong to impose these rules. In that neighborhood there is no association. So does that neighborhood have the right to enforce it's ideals on a neighborhood on the other side of the country?

Libs might think so, but I certainly don't. Which is the exact reason State Rights should handle local issues locally. But the Feds don't want this. They want to tell States what they can and can't do. While they do have this authority under the Constitution, they Have ABUSED IT.

So, the States have the right to say enough is enough and fight back. Problem being it would have to be on an issue both neighborhoods agree on.

As mentioned earlier, term limits do nothing to address the real problem of party corruption. Just because the particular bought and paid for politicians names changes does not make the system any better.

Also, prop 8 passed in a very short window on time. If addressed today not only would it fail in CA, it would fail across the entire nation. There are states where it would pass but put out as a direct popular vote I am confident that it would fail.

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• A July 10-14 poll by Gallup found support for gay marriage at 54%, a record high, and double the support of 27% Gallup first measured when the question was asked in 1996.
  
• A July poll by USA Today found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.
  
• A May 9 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 55% of Americans supported gay marriage while 40% did not.
  
• A March 20–24 CBS News Poll found that 53% of Americans supported same-sex marriage, 39% opposed it, and 8% were undecided. The same poll also found that 33% of Americans who thought same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry said they once held the opposite view and had changed their opinion.
  
• A March 7–10 Washington Post-ABC News[17] poll found that 58% of Americans support same-sex marriage while 36% opposed. The poll indicated that 52% of GOP-leaning independents under 50 years old supported gay marriage.
  
• A March Quinnipiac University poll of voters found 47% supported same-sex marriage and 43% were opposed.

It seems to me that public opinion has slipped pretty far recently. People are accepting gay marriage and that is not going to change. I have been saying this for about 6 months now – gay marriage was coming and it is going to be here to say.

 

[rightwinger]

The key element to an Amendment is choosing the battles to fight were most Americans agree.

I believe most of the Country is sick and tired of Career Politicians. Hell whats the approval rating of Congress now..................10%

Putting up Term Limits on them when 90% of the nation thinks they are all a bunch of F.... Ups anyway....................................

This is an area that could be Amended.

prop 8 passes in Cali................A very Liberal State................Then it could be passed nation wide.....

17th Amendment would be a very tough sell. As most would listen to the Liberal Trash Media on this matter anyway. As it was started by a Liberal Trash man named Wilson. A man that also gets credit for the Federal Reserve which is a different topic.

Term limits force voters to elect candidates they do not want. If that career politician does a great job representing his district and the people are satisfied, why deny the people the right to vote for him?

For the same reason we have term limits on the POTUS.

I personally don't have issues with my current State Senators, but I simply don't believe in having them there forever. Somewhere down the line they tend to forget the reason they came there to begin with. That doesn't make them bad people, but that doesn't make them right either.

Most people are tired of Special Interests buying off Senators and Congress as a whole. While Special Interest will buy new ones, it would make the task more difficult.

In aspect to State legislatures to appoint a Senator, they'd have to buy off the majority of the State Legislature and Governors to get their way, which would make it much harder to buy a Senator.

I think we have a bigger issue with campaign financing than term limits

 

[thereisnospoon]

We had a natural conservative majority for many years.

The breakdown began with the inroads crafted by liberals.

The process of possible correction now would naturally run counter to the "instincts" of lolberal statists chumps like Carby.

And With as well Liberals masquerading as defenders of the Republic with an R by their name...forthwith shall be known as Repubicans with the likes of Boehner, McLame, Lindsay Grahamnesty, to name a couple...leading the parade.

They re sickening...

The old guard GOP establishment reminds me the the 900 year old Knight charged with Guarding the Holy Grail in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
The Knight would fiercely guard the Grail and fend off any would be thief or treasure hunter. He's so old however, he can barely lift his sword. The problem is and read closely, no one has been able to replace the old Knight.
So goes the way of politics here. no one has been able to replace the old guard GOP. A group of people who's only purpose is get re-elected.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The key element to an Amendment is choosing the battles to fight were most Americans agree.

I believe most of the Country is sick and tired of Career Politicians. Hell whats the approval rating of Congress now..................10%

Putting up Term Limits on them when 90% of the nation thinks they are all a bunch of F.... Ups anyway....................................

This is an area that could be Amended.

prop 8 passes in Cali................A very Liberal State................Then it could be passed nation wide.....

17th Amendment would be a very tough sell. As most would listen to the Liberal Trash Media on this matter anyway. As it was started by a Liberal Trash man named Wilson. A man that also gets credit for the Federal Reserve which is a different topic.

Term limits force voters to elect candidates they do not want. If that career politician does a great job representing his district and the people are satisfied, why deny the people the right to vote for him?

That's hogwash. Since when is it a right to have candidates run for office that voters want."
The fact is there are far too many entrenched Beltway politicians who do nothing except make decisions that keep their seat safe for them.
That's not leadership.
The fact that there is a near lock on incumbency would tell any informed person there is a problem.
Look, the election of officials to represent out interests is not intended to be a popularity contest. So what if a 'good guy/gal' can no longer run for office. Then get someone else to fill the seat. This process is not a trip to the mall to shop.
Anyway, the politician that 'is doing a great job' scenario is immaterial.
The Framers set up our government with the intent of having a 'citizen legislature'. Their intent was to have elected officials SERVE the people then go home so that the next person can run for the seat and take his turn representing the people of his district.
We have allowed politics to become too lucrative and allowed those in office to create a system where politics is a career path. That's wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

We had a natural conservative majority for many years.

The breakdown began with the inroads crafted by liberals.

The process of possible correction now would naturally run counter to the "instincts" of lolberal statists chumps like Carby.

And With as well Liberals masquerading as defenders of the Republic with an R by their name...forthwith shall be known as Repubicans with the likes of Boehner, McLame, Lindsay Grahamnesty, to name a couple...leading the parade.

They re sickening...

The old guard GOP establishment reminds me the the 900 year old Knight charged with Guarding the Holy Grail in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
The Knight would fiercely guard the Grail and fend off any would be thief or treasure hunter. He's so old however, he can barely lift his sword. The problem is and read closely, no one has been able to replace the old Knight.
So goes the way of politics here. no one has been able to replace the old guard GOP. A group of people who's only purpose is get re-elected.

The new guard GOP is more frightening than the old guard

 

[rightwinger]

The key element to an Amendment is choosing the battles to fight were most Americans agree.

I believe most of the Country is sick and tired of Career Politicians. Hell whats the approval rating of Congress now..................10%

Putting up Term Limits on them when 90% of the nation thinks they are all a bunch of F.... Ups anyway....................................

This is an area that could be Amended.

prop 8 passes in Cali................A very Liberal State................Then it could be passed nation wide.....

17th Amendment would be a very tough sell. As most would listen to the Liberal Trash Media on this matter anyway. As it was started by a Liberal Trash man named Wilson. A man that also gets credit for the Federal Reserve which is a different topic.

Term limits force voters to elect candidates they do not want. If that career politician does a great job representing his district and the people are satisfied, why deny the people the right to vote for him?

That's hogwash. Since when is it a right to have candidates run for office that voters want."
The fact is there are far too many entrenched Beltway politicians who do nothing except make decisions that keep their seat safe for them.
That's not leadership.
The fact that there is a near lock on incumbency would tell any informed person there is a problem.
Look, the election of officials to represent out interests is not intended to be a popularity contest. So what if a 'good guy/gal' can no longer run for office. Then get someone else to fill the seat. This process is not a trip to the mall to shop.
Anyway, the politician that 'is doing a great job' scenario is immaterial.
The Framers set up our government with the intent of having a 'citizen legislature'. Their intent was to have elected officials SERVE the people then go home so that the next person can run for the seat and take his turn representing the people of his district.
We have allowed politics to become too lucrative and allowed those in office to create a system where politics is a career path. That's wrong.

. That's hogwash. Since when is it a right to have candidates run for office that voters want."

Dumbest post of the month and an outrage to all American citizens

 

[Toro]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

Great post. Thanks. I owe you rep for it.

I don't think there is a drive to repeal the 17th amendment. It's just a pipe dream of the anti-democratic extremist right. Such talk makes them look even nuttier. A sure-fire way to lose an election is to tell voters that you are taking away their right to vote.

It is a surprise that the people who claim to be most for freedom would take away an individual's right to choose how to be governed and instead put it in the hands of Big Gubmint.

 

[rightwinger]

Term limits force voters to elect candidates they do not want. If that career politician does a great job representing his district and the people are satisfied, why deny the people the right to vote for him?

That's hogwash. Since when is it a right to have candidates run for office that voters want."
The fact is there are far too many entrenched Beltway politicians who do nothing except make decisions that keep their seat safe for them.
That's not leadership.
The fact that there is a near lock on incumbency would tell any informed person there is a problem.
Look, the election of officials to represent out interests is not intended to be a popularity contest. So what if a 'good guy/gal' can no longer run for office. Then get someone else to fill the seat. This process is not a trip to the mall to shop.
Anyway, the politician that 'is doing a great job' scenario is immaterial.
The Framers set up our government with the intent of having a 'citizen legislature'. Their intent was to have elected officials SERVE the people then go home so that the next person can run for the seat and take his turn representing the people of his district.
We have allowed politics to become too lucrative and allowed those in office to create a system where politics is a career path. That's wrong.

. That's hogwash. Since when is it a right to have candidates run for office that voters want."

Dumbest post of the month and an outrage to all American citizens

I think spoon has cut to the chase on this thread

Conservatives want the ability to force representatives on the people that they dont want

Repeal the 17th amendment and they can do that

 

[P@triot]

Poop, we DON'T have a democracy, nor are we supposed to - in the sense of 100% mob rule. I realize that, because you're an ignorant vagina on legs, you have been duped into believing that democracy, aka mob rule, is a GOOD thing, but it's not.

The one thing you're right about - which is a major improvement over your usual scores, I'll grant you - is that Republicans DO wish to limit and hinder your ideal of democracy, aka mob rule. On the other hand, any thinking person would want to limit ANYTHING the likes of you thought was good, just as a rule of thumb.

Indeed. a Pure Democracy IS MOB Rule and ultimately denies true Liberty to many. The Founders denied Democracy for a reason...and that was to give ALL a voice...even those in the minority, and the unpopular view as not to be run roughshod over.

It's called Rule of LAW, which the left could care less about except when it gives them more power...and thus steps closer to that which IS...mob rule. (MOB being the Political class...the citizen ultimately loses...tyranny...here we are).

The mob? lol, aka women? Poor people? Black people? Native people?

Those are the sorts of people the founders denied a voice to. Denied political power to.

All for the sake of preventing 'Mob Rule'?

The People are the mob. As in a government of the mob, by the mob, and for the mob.

The true oligarchical, elitist face of Conservatism shows itself once again.

"The people are the mob" - folks, I give you the modern day Dumbocrat. Not the least bit ashamed of their radical, unhinged ideology.

Remember, these are the same people who hate black and have only "embraced" them over the past 25 years as a way to win elections (after 12 years of having their asses handed to them by Ronald Reagan & George Bush, they simply couldn't take it any longer and had to swallow their fierce racism in order to win - I guess the only thing they embrace more than their hatred if blacks is power). And the minute they have created the oligarchical America that they dream of, you'll see the kind of mob rule they really fantasize about: LYNCH MOB'S for black people. Just like "the good old days" liberals grandparents told them about.

 

[P@triot]

Oh the irony.

Do you realize that the same crowd here that is decrying direct elections of Senators as Mob Rule!!!!!!!!! and evoking of course all the negative images that phrase carries, these are the same people that believe that if the government isn't pleasing the People, aka the Mob, then those People have the God given right to take up arms storm the barricades drag their leaders out into the street and hang them from the nearest tree, preferably the Tree of Liberty, and form a new government!!! That's their sacred right, but being able to vote for a Senator, omg that's Mob Rule!!!!!!!!!!

lol.

So imagine this scenario...your state legislators vote to take your right to vote for senators away from you, and give it to themselves, and in response, the People declare it Tyranny!!!!!! and rise up in revolt!!!!!!!!

Whose side will you nuts be on??? Whose side will God be on???

lolol

And if you weren't so tragically uneducated (which of course is why you vote Dumbocrat - so you can live off of other tax payers due to your lack of education and this ability to provide for yourself), you would know that are founders did exactly that (aka take up arms against a government turned unconstitutional and oppressive) and were adamant that future generations should as well.

You make a conscience effort to live willfully ignorant. As long as your favorite uncle keeps the gravy train flowing in your direction, you're more than happy to surrender EVERY right and freedom that others died to give you (talk about an ungrateful asshole).

However jack-ass, the rest of us are not. We value our rights and freedoms and we are fully aware of the nightmare called our federal government. They essentially operate at 99.9% outside of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that you believe you get a "vote" is beyond comical. U.S. elections have been rigged since Woodrow Wilson (which is also when the first president threw the Constitution in the garbage after wiping his ass with it and then spitting on it).

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives love to complain about direct democracy as being 'mob rule',

but you never hear them complaining about state referendum, which are in fact exercises in direct democracy, such as California's Proposition 13, in 1978, the anti-tax prop, that was in fact a CONSERVATIVE initiative, not to mention Proposition 8, the anti-gay prop, another CONSERVATIVE initiative...

Both were mob rule in action, if you believe the conservatives, and yet where is the conservative objection to them??

Who on the right condemns these actions in the name of preventing 'mob rule'??????

Hey asshole, are you seriously so fuck'n stupid that you can't comprehend the differnece between STATE and FEDERAL?????? What am I saying?!? Of course you are that fuck'n stupid!!!!

Having the people decide directly at the state level and representatives decide at the federal level was exactly the system our founders intentionally set up you fuck'n buffoon!!!

The entire purpose was to allow the people to live exactly as they wanted (ie not live by FORCE as Dumbocrats dream). If assholes like you don't like the "mob rule" elections results of California, you can move to Detroit or New York!!! When the federal government forces me to live how I don't want - I have no where to go. I am an American citizen. I am not permitted to live in Mexico, Canada, or China unless they choose to grant me citizenship you fuck'n asswipe buffoon.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Believing that the Constitution is some kind of Bible is heresy. I think you Biblebangers have been banging it against your heads too long to make you so worship secular entities. The "Founding Fathers" were not the "divinely inspired Evangelists" either. Their political science was no more advanced than the physical science of their time. And as far as your precious Amendments go, this primitive fascist document was written to discourage amending its self-defined overlordship on the people's will.

Translation:

I don't want to have to follow the rules because I'm special.

Translation into what? Klingon?

The rule of law is the law of the rulers. I don't have to respect some oligarchic manifesto written behind closed doors in the 18th Century and ratified by state oligarchies.

 

[PrometheusBound]

But there are those who truly do believe federal power has gone way past the safety limits and who have an honest desire to scale that back. Those voices need to be heard, and the cause articulated. I believe if you have a superior idea and can express it, you will ultimately win out in the end.

This was an opportunity for such people to come forward, put the idea on the table, and then defend it.

Why would any respectable party be supported by the nasty paranoiac fanatics who post here? What you see is what you get. "Spittle COMMNISS!!! sputter SOASHLESS!!! drool LIBTARD!!!

This Libretardian posting frenzy indicates that they are so excited about this opportunity to impose their tyranny over the majority that their eyeballs pop out. Salivating over the possibilities in this scam, they bluster and bloviate and pop out Cracker Jack pixels. Since such dumb jock bullies and their anal-retentive yes men can only succeed through intimidation, they screech out scare stories on how the 17th Amendment caused EVERY NATIONAL DISASTER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY!!! "Run for your lives! Only absolute rule by the 1% can save us from the Zombieland mob!"

I notice that they have rolled away from their original spin that elected senators are beholden to the national parties, those invisible "cabals of socialists or crony capitalists," and not loyal to the senators' own states. As anyone not deafened by these Bootlickers' rhetoric can point out, our senators are no such strawmen. An Iowa senator, for example, will support farmers over the objections of the city snobs in the national party, whom, the Libretardians warn us, he really represents. When this lie didn't fly, the Ayn Randies came up with the angle of glorifying the dumb nobodies in the state legislatures, who, with their secret wisdom, know what their states need (more payoffs to the state legislators?) as opposed to the "mob of mooching fool voters who don't know what is best for them." The exception to that would be Kentucky, where the enlightened voters (probably stoned from sniffing the Derby winner's doped horse manure) elected the Libretardian pope, Paul II.

I would like to remind you that this so called Tyranny was the law of the land until Wilson in 1914. So by your own comments are you stating that the United States up to that date lived in Tyranny?

Then you have the nerve to call our believes a Scam...............So in that light you must believe the Founding Fathers who wrote this up in the beginning were nothing more than a bunch of Tyrants.................................

They did this so the State Legislatures would have a direct input and voice in the Federal Gov't. These individuals are elected by the citizens of their respective state, so the posts that say those in favor of repeal are taking away their vote is utter BS.

Secondly those serving in the States are more privy to the finer details of laws in Congress because it is their job to protect the interest of the... So on page 1000 of ACA it costs the State Budget 500 Million they would be pushing their Senator to say something about it because it could directly impact the States Economic Future. Someone on the couch who doesn't stay informed on the bill and listens to CNN

Now, again the Senator elected is supposed to do this as well, but he's virtually untouchable for 6 years even if he goes against the wishes of the State Gov't. Under the old system they could hold his feet to the fire Now the Senator can appease his Special Interests, go on the take and ignore his own State Gov't.

This allowed the States .[/QUOTE]


As Libretardians spin, the world whirls. But you haven't made the American people dizzy enough to put up with this disenfranchisement. What's next? Letting the governor appoint the state legislators, because the governor is elected by the people and each legislator is elected only by a small district, which "doesn't represent the whole state." Sorry, but trying to anticipate your rhetoric for your next disenfranchisement is giving me vertigo and I better stop or I'll become mentally imbalanced enough to join your cult.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, conservative

commentator, and the host of American syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show. Levin worked

in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General

Edwin Meese. Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia

Meese became Attorney General in February 1985, holding this office until August, 1988, when

he resigned due to his role in the Wedtech scandal.

Edwin Meese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the final years of Reagan's second term, Wedtech's crimes had become too numerous to hide

Wedtech scandal - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia


nuf said

Levin slept with pigs and turned into a hog.

 

[RKMBrown]

Conservatives love to complain about direct democracy as being 'mob rule',

but you never hear them complaining about state referendum, which are in fact exercises in direct democracy,

such as California's Proposition 13, in 1978, the anti-tax prop, that was in fact a CONSERVATIVE initiative,

not to mention Proposition 8, the anti-gay prop, another CONSERVATIVE initiative...

Both were mob rule in action, if you believe the conservatives, and yet where is the conservative objection to them??

Who on the right condemns these actions in the name of preventing 'mob rule'??????

It sort of depends on what the mob is doing. When the mob is protecting people that's a good thing. When the mob is raping people that's a bad thing.

Most liberals are to busy raping people of their assets to do anything good.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Levin is absolutely correct.

We are not now and we have never been a pure "democracy."

PART of installing a form of checks and balances is the indirect manner in which Senators were to be elected.

It gave more power to the STATES. In a FEDERAL system, that it self serves as a check and as a reminder to the centralized federal government that ITS authority IS limited.

Levin states the obvious and the crown roars? Jesus, it's like a cult around here lately. Who gets to divine the wisdom in Levin's stools?

If it were obvious, you douche bag liar, it would be the way things were.

Douche Bag? Isn't that where Blessed Virgin Mary Cheney's miracle child came from? How much money can you get for that holy relic Douche Bag from the suckers in your cult?

 

[PrometheusBound]

The law of unintended consequences aside, the 17th addressed an issue of the day. Conservatives and others always want to go back to the future. It is what happens when there is a vacuum of leadership and an empty chasm of ideas.

Madison's arguments addressed a reality that existed in a different time politically, economically, socially...you name it.

Thomas Jefferson imagined a past that never existed and he is still quoted as an authority for ideas too. Americans are amusing

I know, right. It is obvious that people living over 200 years ago know nothing about today and their insights border on useless. I mean, what the fuck does Isaac Newton know anyway. We should just disregard anything that he had to say; that was over 400 years ago. The likes of Sun Tzu should really be taken out of study in military academies. That man understood NOTHING about modern warfare as he was dealing with armies that still used swards. Obviously, his knowledge and insight is worthless in today’s world. Adam smith is another one of those relics of the past that have no knowledge worth studying.

Perhaps you should really take a good look at reality and understand that there is a lot about past people that you can learn from and use today. To believe that you are so grates that the minds of yesteryear are worthless is arrogant beyond reason.

The Framers did not speak

The fundamental themes of liberty expressed by the Framers .

We, the people, were framed all right. The Framers' anti-democratic manifesto reminds me of Lenin's promise that the state would "wither away," to trick his victims into thinking the dictatorship was only temporary.

So the original intent of those who framed us was to take away our freedom of speech and our right to have guns, etc. The people were outraged and intimidated their state legislators, who had given themselves the right to be the only ones who could ratify the Constitution, into demanding a bone from the Framers in the form of the Bill of Rights.

One of the most destructive lawyer's tricks of this frame job was to eliminate formal titles, hinting that we wouldn't have a European-style aristocracy. But that was what has ruled us ever since, except we don't have to call the Heirhead guillotine-fodder lords and ladies.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Steny Hoyer: House Democrats won majority of 2012 popular vote
Tuesday, February 12th, 2013

Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives by 33 seats, an advantage Speaker John Boehner once suggested gives them a mandate to block tax increases.

Some House Democrats have countered this idea with their own talking point: GOP members may control more seats, but they did not win the popular vote in 2012.

"House GOP Won 49 Percent of Votes, 54 Percent of Seats." (The story and corresponding chart are accessible to subscribers only.)

By Cook’s calculations, House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201.

It was the second time in 70 years that a party won the majority of the vote but didn’t win a majority of the House seats, according to the analysis.


In Florida 18 11 3,826,522 3,392,402

PolitiFact | Steny Hoyer: House Democrats won majority of 2012 popular vote

Such discrepancies don't happen by chance - its the result of a concerted effort by Republicans at the state level at "gerrymandering" by redrawing congressional districts in 2010 to negate the popular vote.

But conservatives will tell you that somehow that's better for America, because the only good majority is a Republican majority. The People are a mob, therefore, any manipulation of democracy that results in giving the conservative minority some sort of oligarchical power

is for the greater good.

GOPers' secret oath: "What's best for the 1% is best for all those worthless little people too."

GOPers' secret handshake: Patty Cake, Patty Cake--then give the finger to the 99%.

 

[RKMBrown]

Such discrepancies don't happen by chance - its the result of a concerted effort by Republicans at the state level at "gerrymandering" by redrawing congressional districts in 2010 to negate the popular vote.

But conservatives will tell you that somehow that's better for America, because the only good majority is a Republican majority. The People are a mob, therefore, any manipulation of democracy that results in giving the conservative minority some sort of oligarchical power

is for the greater good.

GOPers' secret oath: "What's best for the 1% is best for all those worthless little people too."

GOPers' secret handshake: Patty Cake, Patty Cake--then give the finger to the 99%.

Retard.