Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dude, you're on crack. My two senators, and the one who retired a few years back, were all local politicians who rose through the ranks to run for congress, and moved on when senate opening emerged.
They might have been, but they didn't "rise" so much as they were tapped by the party. Party bosses in D.C. decide who is most beneficial to national party goals, and that is who is appointed. They pick from various pools - one of the larger being local politicians. But that doesn't alter anything, once the national part appoints them to the Senate, they are beholden to the National party, not to their state.
Exactly. Thank you.And why the 'party system' is dangerous, and needs to be broken up...just as the same politicians like to break up 'monopolies' in the private sector.
Good gosh, man, the 'party system' is not analogous with a monopoly. Dictatorship is. Like in a ONE party system.
There is little real difference between a monopoly and a duopoly.
Unrelated post. If you want to discuss your class warfare agenda, start a thread on that subject.
Stay on point.
My post IS ON POINT. Your not being able to see that is the problem.
Thomas Sowell wrote about these.
These ivory tower intelligentsias have the arrogance to believe that everything they write is True until proven False, or each point they make is Relevant until proven Irrelevant.
And even if you prove them false, or expose that which is irrelevant, they make 10 more assertions to "support" their claim, that must also be assumed true until proven false, or relevant until proven irrelevant.
Let not the Big Government histories of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pott, Hilter, Mussolini, Castro or the bankruptcies of Cyrus, Greece and Detroit worry you, or the rampant violence, rape and murder in "gun-free" Chicago, Camden or California trouble you, Libtards don't go by facts, but pure emotion.
For the kids!
You don't get to call a person a jerk and that's that.Like you, I rarely agree with g5000. And like you, I think he started a good thread here. Partly because of the topic, and partly because it taught me a lot about why 75% of the time I think g5000 needs therapy.
With the exception of Ron Paul, there is no bigger unhinged loon than Mark Levin. As pretty much everyone on this board knows, I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. Levin is not a conservative - he is a lunatic and a quasi-anarchist. He's actually gone on rants that Ron Paul is a "fake Republican". Dude, when Ron fucking Paul isn't far enough off the political scale to the right for you, you've got serious fucking issues.
When you go beyond the Constitution to the right, you are every bit as disturbed and dangerous as progressives who go beyond the Constitution to the left. I can handle less than 3 minutes off Levin before I have to turn the channel - and I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who listens to him.
Don't often disagree so much with Rotty. But when it comes to Mark Levin, he couldn't be more wrong.
Levin is a PURE conservative. He is not a lunatic at all.
His objections to Ron Paul go to his objections with libertarian political philosophy and a few finer points about the security of the nation.
But Mark is so clear-eyed and level-headed in his focused analysis that he almost seems like he's "too" narrow. He is actually quite brilliant.
Levin may be brilliant, but he's not the genius he purports himself to be. He's also a warhawk and a jerk.
My post IS ON POINT. Your not being able to see that is the problem.
Thomas Sowell wrote about these.
These ivory tower intelligentsias have the arrogance to believe that everything they write is True until proven False, or each point they make is Relevant until proven Irrelevant.
And even if you prove them false, or expose that which is irrelevant, they make 10 more assertions to "support" their claim, that must also be assumed true until proven false, or relevant until proven irrelevant.
Let not the Big Government histories of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pott, Hilter, Mussolini, Castro or the bankruptcies of Cyrus, Greece and Detroit worry you, or the rampant violence, rape and murder in "gun-free" Chicago, Camden or California trouble you, Libtards don't go by facts, but pure emotion.
For the kids!
So you quote Thomas Sowell, a one percenter with something to sell. You truly are a sheep!
You don't get to call a person a jerk and that's that.Don't often disagree so much with Rotty. But when it comes to Mark Levin, he couldn't be more wrong.
Levin is a PURE conservative. He is not a lunatic at all.
His objections to Ron Paul go to his objections with libertarian political philosophy and a few finer points about the security of the nation.
But Mark is so clear-eyed and level-headed in his focused analysis that he almost seems like he's "too" narrow. He is actually quite brilliant.
Levin may be brilliant, but he's not the genius he purports himself to be. He's also a warhawk and a jerk.
Explain why you think he is a jerk.
Give examples of Levin acting like a jerk.
Like you, I rarely agree with g5000. And like you, I think he started a good thread here. Partly because of the topic, and partly because it taught me a lot about why 75% of the time I think g5000 needs therapy.
With the exception of Ron Paul, there is no bigger unhinged loon than Mark Levin. As pretty much everyone on this board knows, I am a die-hard constitutional conservative. Levin is not a conservative - he is a lunatic and a quasi-anarchist. He's actually gone on rants that Ron Paul is a "fake Republican". Dude, when Ron fucking Paul isn't far enough off the political scale to the right for you, you've got serious fucking issues.
When you go beyond the Constitution to the right, you are every bit as disturbed and dangerous as progressives who go beyond the Constitution to the left. I can handle less than 3 minutes off Levin before I have to turn the channel - and I'm genuinely concerned about anyone who listens to him.
Don't often disagree so much with Rotty. But when it comes to Mark Levin, he couldn't be more wrong.
Levin is a PURE conservative. He is not a lunatic at all.
His objections to Ron Paul go to his objections with libertarian political philosophy and a few finer points about the security of the nation.
But Mark is so clear-eyed and level-headed in his focused analysis that he almost seems like he's "too" narrow. He is actually quite brilliant.
Levin may be brilliant, but he's not the genius he purports himself to be. He's also a warhawk and a jerk.
My post IS ON POINT. Your not being able to see that is the problem.
Thomas Sowell wrote about these.
These ivory tower intelligentsias have the arrogance to believe that everything they write is True until proven False, or each point they make is Relevant until proven Irrelevant.
And even if you prove them false, or expose that which is irrelevant, they make 10 more assertions to "support" their claim, that must also be assumed true until proven false, or relevant until proven irrelevant.
Let not the Big Government histories of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pott, Hilter, Mussolini, Castro or the bankruptcies of Cyrus, Greece and Detroit worry you, or the rampant violence, rape and murder in "gun-free" Chicago, Camden or California trouble you, Libtards don't go by facts, but pure emotion.
For the kids!
So you quote Thomas Sowell, a one percenter with something to sell. You truly are a sheep!
Levin's brilliance is in NO way undercut by the fact that as an interviewer of some call in guests he can be rude and insufficiently polite.
I often find his schtick in that regard entertaining and yet I also sometimes find it a bit undignified and beneath him.
So fucking what?
What does that have to do with the arguments Levin has made in his new book?
It is possible (stretch your imagination and go with this thought for a moment) that his deficits as a polite radio host have -- oh -- nothing to do with the validity of his thesis?
[MENTION=22983]Flopper[/MENTION]You seem to feel that people just can't be trusted to elect their own representatives
Thomas Sowell wrote about these.
These ivory tower intelligentsias have the arrogance to believe that everything they write is True until proven False, or each point they make is Relevant until proven Irrelevant.
And even if you prove them false, or expose that which is irrelevant, they make 10 more assertions to "support" their claim, that must also be assumed true until proven false, or relevant until proven irrelevant.
Let not the Big Government histories of Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pott, Hilter, Mussolini, Castro or the bankruptcies of Cyrus, Greece and Detroit worry you, or the rampant violence, rape and murder in "gun-free" Chicago, Camden or California trouble you, Libtards don't go by facts, but pure emotion.
For the kids!
So you quote Thomas Sowell, a one percenter with something to sell. You truly are a sheep!
You have no Earthly idea what a 'one percenter' is if you think Sowell is a one percenter, lol.
Ultimately the power and authority of governance rests solely with the people.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Levin's brilliance is in NO way undercut by the fact that as an interviewer of some call in guests he can be rude and insufficiently polite.
I often find his schtick in that regard entertaining and yet I also sometimes find it a bit undignified and beneath him.
So fucking what?
What does that have to do with the arguments Levin has made in his new book?
It is possible (stretch your imagination and go with this thought for a moment) that his deficits as a polite radio host have -- oh -- nothing to do with the validity of his thesis?
So you quote Thomas Sowell, a one percenter with something to sell. You truly are a sheep!
You have no Earthly idea what a 'one percenter' is if you think Sowell is a one percenter, lol.
I am a one percenter. Sowell is a millionaire that make his money fueling the lunatic fringe.
Distinction without a difference in the world today. The people cast their vote and the person that they voted for wins. Then only way that your contention would mean anything is if the EC went against the voters, something that has not happened in a VERY long time and I dont think it has ever changed the outcome of an election.The people have never had the right to elect their president, the electoral college does that.
No, they could not vote them out. Whats your point? The entire point is that the state legislators would be the senators constituents giving the STATE a voice in government once again and allowing the states to exercise their sovereignty once more.If the 17th amendment were repealed the people would lose their right to elect their senators also.
If the people of a state do not directly elect their Senators, they can not vote them out of office. A Senators constituents would be the members of the legislature that elected him, not the people. So as long as a senator pleases his legislative constituency, what the people want is irrelevant because the only way the people can remove the senator is to remove the state legislators that sent him to Washington
If the voters are outside of the senators district they have no say at all right now so, no kidding.and if those legislators are outside their district, they have no say at all.
THATS THE POINT. How can we be this far into the discussion and you not realize that. The point of the senate is NOT to be a vice of the people but rather a voice of the states. You continue to ignore that simple contention. You can disagree with it (as you clearly do) but you are completely ignoring that is the position of those that want to repeal the 17th.Senators would in effect just be proxy voters for the legislative constituency that elected them. The more indirect representation you have the less voice the people have in how their government is run.
And why the 'party system' is dangerous, and needs to be broken up...just as the same politicians like to break up 'monopolies' in the private sector.Utter nonsense.
The national parties decide who to place in the Senate, and will even move Senators around to different states, as they did with Hillary. There is nothing even remotely "local" about it. Party bosses decide in Washington.
Good gosh, man, the 'party system' is not analogous with a monopoly. Dictatorship is. Like in a ONE party system.
Even though I'm not a Democrat (and have never been one), I thoroughly enjoy listening to Levin do more to destroy the Republican Party than any group of partisan Democrats ever could.
He's fanning the flames of an internal GOP insurgency which could leave that party in tatters.
Go, Mark, GO!
You seem to feel that people just can't be trusted to elect their own representatives, better to put that power in hands professional politicians who know what's best for the people. I think we're going have to agree to disagree here.When politicians make the decision as to who will best serve the people what they are really doing is making a decision as to who will best serve their interest.
Because Senators are appointed by the national parties, it is the power brokers of those parties who serve the interests of those Senators. As such, the decisions that they make are based on the good of the national parties, not the good of the states they supposedly represent.
Electing representatives to elect representatives is based on the idea that government is too important to allow the people a direct a voice in who governs them which is how the USSR functioned.
Smarter men designed a system where peoples representatives would be many, and that the voice of competing ideas would be heard. Representatives of the states were also to be heard, they would be few and specifically meant to further the goals of the states.
Such a system made it more difficult to buy Senators - Carnegie complained bitterly of the fact that Western States did not do his bidding - and thus was born the 17th, as a means of placing all the power of the Senate in the hands of New York oligarchs.
