Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[The T]

Levin's book is so powerful it even compels liberals to try to discuss the basic premises of our Constitutional Republic.

Desired effect/affects? Who knew? Mark did.

 

[The T]

Mark Levin, the replacement for Rush and Billbo, and Hannity? Will people like Liability/Ilar ever learn?

No. They'll always blame liberals for everything.

Boo fuckin' hoo.

Nice levity.

 

[The T]

Mark Levin, the replacement for Rush and Billbo, and Hannity? Will people like Liability/Ilar ever learn?

No. They'll always blame liberals for everything.

Still on that kick eh? Like Booooosh! Even the Founders were LIBERAL in the classic sense. Present day liberalism smacks of Socialism/Marxism.

I AM a Classic LIBERAL. Deal with it.

Enjoy the new moniker. YOU all have well earned it.

 

[rightwinger]

Mark Levin, the replacement for Rush and Billbo, and Hannity? Will people like Liability/Ilar ever learn?

No. They'll always blame liberals for everything.

Still on that kick eh? Like Booooosh! Even the Founders were LIBERAL in the classic sense. Present day liberalism smacks of Socialism/Marxism.

I AM a Classic LIBERAL. Deal with it.

Enjoy the new moniker. YOU all have well earned it.

Founding fathers were indeed classic liberals. Ahead of their time. Charting new territory. Unafraid to try new things

Just like today's liberals

 

[The T]

No. They'll always blame liberals for everything.

Still on that kick eh? Like Booooosh! Even the Founders were LIBERAL in the classic sense. Present day liberalism smacks of Socialism/Marxism.

I AM a Classic LIBERAL. Deal with it.

Enjoy the new moniker. YOU all have well earned it.

Founding fathers were indeed classic liberals. Ahead of their time. Charting new territory. Unafraid to try new things

Just like today's liberals

But what TODAY"S Liberals are doing has failed throughout history, hasn't it? Just new ways to FORCE it to work this time, right?

Try again.

YOU FAIL.

 

[The T]

Rightwingshitflinger (Sewerboy)...you just stay with your notion as old memories of the USSR creep into your psyche...the Roman Empire perhaps is more to your taste?

The Founders absolutely DID something untried...but here YOU are advocating old tired crap that has failed every time it's been tried.

Accept your failure and cease trying to make the Founders' experiment FAIL so you will feel at home.

Got it?

 

[rightwinger]

Still on that kick eh? Like Booooosh! Even the Founders were LIBERAL in the classic sense. Present day liberalism smacks of Socialism/Marxism.

I AM a Classic LIBERAL. Deal with it.

Enjoy the new moniker. YOU all have well earned it.

Founding fathers were indeed classic liberals. Ahead of their time. Charting new territory. Unafraid to try new things

Just like today's liberals

But what TODAY"S Liberals are doing has failed throughout history, hasn't it? Just new ways to FORCE it to work this time, right?

Try again.

YOU FAIL.

No it hasn't

Today's liberals have dragged conservatives out of their 19th century mindset kicking and screaming

Civil rights, women's rights, worker protections, environmental protections gay rights

It is the conservative mindset that doesn't work.....never has

 

[The T]

Founding fathers were indeed classic liberals. Ahead of their time. Charting new territory. Unafraid to try new things

Just like today's liberals

But what TODAY"S Liberals are doing has failed throughout history, hasn't it? Just new ways to FORCE it to work this time, right?

Try again.

YOU FAIL.

No it hasn't

Today's liberals have dragged conservatives out of their 19th century mindset kicking and screaming

Civil rights, women's rights, worker protections, environmental protections gay rights

It is the conservative mindset that doesn't work.....never has

Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?

 

[rightwinger]

Rightwingshitflinger (Sewerboy)...you just stay with your notion as old memories of the USSR creep into your psyche...the Roman Empire perhaps is more to your taste?

The Founders absolutely DID something untried...but here YOU are advocating old tired crap that has failed every time it's been tried.

Accept your failure and cease trying to make the Founders' experiment FAIL so you will feel at home.

Got it?

Sorry, but the United States has not failed

Starting after the Great Depression, we have established ourselves as a modern society. A society that cares about all Americans. Society that is not just for wealthy, white Christians.

 

[rightwinger]

But what TODAY"S Liberals are doing has failed throughout history, hasn't it? Just new ways to FORCE it to work this time, right?

Try again.

YOU FAIL.

No it hasn't

Today's liberals have dragged conservatives out of their 19th century mindset kicking and screaming

Civil rights, women's rights, worker protections, environmental protections gay rights

It is the conservative mindset that doesn't work.....never has

Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?

At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time

All men created equal.....what a liberal concept

 

[francoHFW]

The founders were conservatives- total brainwashed fail LOL. And bought off Levin and his 10% are only an ignorant fringe of the new BS GOP.

 

[The T]

No it hasn't

Today's liberals have dragged conservatives out of their 19th century mindset kicking and screaming

Civil rights, women's rights, worker protections, environmental protections gay rights

It is the conservative mindset that doesn't work.....never has

Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?

At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time

All men created equal.....what a liberal concept

And 1/3rd wanted to stay out of it and bowed at the alter of apathy.

Doesn't matter.

My point is cogent...as they WON...YOU are trying to regress into tyranny they fought against...and openly support the same kind of tyranny. Are YOU claiming to be like the Founders? Really?

HISTORY is against you.

*FAIL*

 

[Wyatt earp]

No it hasn't

Today's liberals have dragged conservatives out of their 19th century mindset kicking and screaming

Civil rights, women's rights, worker protections, environmental protections gay rights

It is the conservative mindset that doesn't work.....never has

Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?

At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time

All men created equal.....what a liberal concept

Rw you are full of poop if you think the founding fathers were liberals. a liberal runs from wars and puts daisys in gun barrels.

 

[The T]

Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?

At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time

All men created equal.....what a liberal concept

Rw you are full of poop if you think the founding fathers were liberals. a liberal runs from wars and puts daisys in gun barrels.

For their time? They were Liberal as they wanted a new way to protect Liberty against tyranny that has plagued man throughout history...it was radical, and not widely supported...1/3rd of the people in the colonies wanted to be left alone (apathy), another 1/3rd were loyalists to tyranny...

Guess where that places RW?

In the lap of tyranny as he claims what is going on has never been tried.

He FAILS at history and excels at being FOR Tyranny coming from that he supports.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?

At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time

All men created equal.....what a liberal concept

And 1/3rd wanted to stay out of it and bowed at the alter of apathy.

Doesn't matter.

My point is cogent...as they WON...YOU are trying to regress into tyranny they fought against...and openly support the same kind of tyranny. Are YOU claiming to be like the Founders? Really?

HISTORY is against you.

*FAIL*

I know it gets big air time on rightwing radio.....

But sorry, a universal healthcare system does not meet the criteria of tyranny

 

[eagle1462010]

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking

. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

Madison's views on the issue at hand.

Are you aware that Madison's argument above is one against less rather than more 'states rights'?

Are you aware in the above that Madison is making the case that tyranny is more likely to occur in small governments than in large ones?

I highlighted it in blue.

And I highlighted the very next line in Green. You left out extending the sphere to a larger area, which is what he was talking about.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives ARE the Founders you nit-wit. What of that don't you understand?

At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time

All men created equal.....what a liberal concept

Rw you are full of poop if you think the founding fathers were liberals. a liberal runs from wars and puts daisys in gun barrels.

God, are you ever brainwashed

Liberals fought our American Revolution
Liberals led us in WWII

Never seen them run from a fight

 

[The T]

At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time

All men created equal.....what a liberal concept

Rw you are full of poop if you think the founding fathers were liberals. a liberal runs from wars and puts daisys in gun barrels.

God, are you ever brainwashed

Liberals fought our American Revolution
Liberals led us in WWII

Never seen them run from a fight

What a brainwashing ATTEMPT RW...LIBERALS from WHAT TIMEFRAME?

YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR.

 

[eagle1462010]

I posted the Federalist papers aka Madison, because he was explaining why they picked a Republic. They were trying to give the rights of the many without taking away rights of the few.

Which is exactly why they compromised on the Senate. Originally they were going to allow Congressional Reps to select Senators, but decided on State Legislatures. Thus the State Gov't could be the watch dog of it's own Senators.

They were very careful to apply as many checks on Gov't as they could come up with. They were some very smart people.

 

[rightwinger]

At the founding of our country, conservatives supported the monarchy. Our founders were the great liberals of their time

All men created equal.....what a liberal concept

Rw you are full of poop if you think the founding fathers were liberals. a liberal runs from wars and puts daisys in gun barrels.

For their time? They were Liberal as they wanted a new way to protect Liberty against tyranny that has plagued man throughout history...it was radical, and not widely supported...1/3rd of the people in the colonies wanted to be left alone (apathy), another 1/3rd were loyalists to tyranny...

Guess where that places RW?

In the lap of tyranny as he claims what is going on has never been tried.

He FAILS at history and excels at being FOR Tyranny coming from that he supports.

You know......

Your side loses all credibility when you wrap yourself in the flag and throw terms around like tyranny, freedom and liberty. You have no concept of what real tyranny is. Millions of people today live under legitimate tyranny. I'm sorry, but nothing in the US today qualifies as tyranny
Guess what? Both sides cherish liberty and freedom and patriotism
The right wing does not have a patent on it