RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate

RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

rulemylife -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/12/2010 7:43:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife If you can't address the point then just claim you did and the other person is too stupid to understand. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "willful blindness" and "stupid". Firm Nicely done again Firmy!! [sm=candles.gif] Ignore the issue you are unable to argue and divert it to save face. Willfully blind. Too stupid to understand. What does it matter as long as it gives you something to cover your ass?

mnottertail -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/12/2010 7:48:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RacerJim Obama hates the Constitution more than any other politician I've ever known. I know you are old enough to have lived through W. So, lets not involve ourselves with shitheadedness here. quote: He's the one who wants to change it from a document of "negative rights" (his words) to a document of "positive rights" (my words). As it current exists, the Constitution severely restricts what the Federal government can do to the States and/or "We the people...". Obama wants to not only change that but, moreover, actually reverse that. Is there some part of that that's confusing for you? For most of us all yeah, you are totally confusing, because there is absolutely not one shred of evidence to support this view, it might be that you have some chemical imbalance that manifests itself when you pound your pud while reading rabid right blogs while simultaneously listening to rush and tryinjg to shoot your jizz at the tv screen while watching Hannity. quote: The Constitution does indened allow for amendments as times change. That's happened more than just in 1913. Obama and his progressive Democratic cohorts in Congress have already ignored/subverted/violated that Constitutional process more than once (and who knows how many more times they want to). Cite!!!!! quote: Be careful what you say about that which you obviously know very little, if anything at all. Is there some reason that you studiously avoid your own sacred advisories?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/12/2010 7:55:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Representative democracy. We vote for people who represent us. Repeal the 17th, we vote for people who represent us in Senatorial elections. Simple concept. Unfunded mandates= gone. States rights= restored. Constitution= some of its original genius restored. Simple results. No actually it is not so simple. What you are saying is that by eliminating direct voting for Senators we are somehow enhancing democracy. And you are saying that by again using the twisted logic that because we elect those that would then appoint the Senators that this is the true meaning of a representative democracy. One of the main purposes of the original appointment of Senators by the States, rather than by direct popular election was to reign in the ability of the federal government to usurp the rights of "the People" (and the States). Many of us believe that the Federal Government has indeed, over the past 100 years, usurped many rights of both "the People" and the States, taking the inherent sovereignty of both away from them. That is what governments do, if not restrained, and what the Founders recognized. How to return to a better balance is the question. One way is to add some of the balance back by returning the appointment of Senators to the States (which all have directly elected governments, the last time I looked). You are (again) choosing to be "willfully blind" on the issue. You do not seem to have any concept of why we were formed as a "representative republic" rather than a direct democracy. One of the primary reason was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" and allow minorities and minority opinions to retain their rights. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/12/2010 8:06:25 AM)
It would be alot more palatable if concurrently the law was changed for the president to be elected by popular vote.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/12/2010 8:08:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It would be alot more palatable if concurrently the law was changed for the president to be elected by popular vote. Perhaps. Personally, I think the reasons for the Electoral College are still valid. Firm

mnottertail -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/12/2010 8:12:43 AM)
I have never agreed with the electoral college bullshit, popular vote all the way in my view. And leave gerrymandering at the district level in each state where it resides today, don't poke it up and add it to senate as well as house.

rulemylife -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/12/2010 8:36:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY One of the main purposes of the original appointment of Senators by the States, rather than by direct popular election was to reign in the ability of the federal government to usurp the rights of "the People" (and the States). Many of us believe that the Federal Government has indeed, over the past 100 years, usurped many rights of both "the People" and the States, taking the inherent sovereignty of both away from them. That is what governments do, if not restrained, and what the Founders recognized. How to return to a better balance is the question. One way is to add some of the balance back by returning the appointment of Senators to the States (which all have directly elected governments, the last time I looked). You are (again) choosing to be "willfully blind" on the issue. You do not seem to have any concept of why we were formed as a "representative republic" rather than a direct democracy. One of the primary reason was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" and allow minorities and minority opinions to retain their rights. Firm Why do you continually bring up the same arguments as if we had not discussed this before? There is ample evidence, which I've provided to you previously, that the purpose was not to reign in the federal government but to reign in what they thought of as an uneducated, inferior populace. But feel free to continue on with your hero worship. I do have to ask about your last statement though. It is basically the same question I asked Truckin. What do you define as a representative democracy and is it that you feel the 17th Amendment granted too much to the people? If so then how do you reconcile that with your tea party views of "taking the country back".

truckinslave -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/12/2010 2:32:39 PM)
quote: What you are saying is that by eliminating direct voting for Senators we are somehow enhancing democracy. What I said was: "It is clear to anyone who can call himself a student of American history that the federal government is much much more powerful, vis a vis the States, than the founders intended. This imbalance could be rectified in part by the suggested repeal. The most immediate effect might well be an end to unfunded mandates......" You notice you keep on leaving out the word "representative"? We do not run the country by plebiscite. Thank God and the Founders.

rulemylife -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/12/2010 4:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: What you are saying is that by eliminating direct voting for Senators we are somehow enhancing democracy. What I said was: "It is clear to anyone who can call himself a student of American history that the federal government is much much more powerful, vis a vis the States, than the founders intended. This imbalance could be rectified in part by the suggested repeal. The most immediate effect might well be an end to unfunded mandates......" You notice you keep on leaving out the word "representative"? We do not run the country by plebiscite. Thank God and the Founders. I left it out just for the sake of brevity. But you still have not addressed the question I asked, you just keep repeating the same thing that I was questioning.

truckinslave -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/15/2010 12:03:41 PM)
You keep asking a question based on a misrepresentation of what I actually said. Next you'll ask me to cite it for you.

rulemylife -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/15/2010 2:36:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave You keep asking a question based on a misrepresentation of what I actually said. Next you'll ask me to cite it for you. No, I'll ask what I have repeatedly asked. What do you define as a representative democracy? Doesn't a representative democracy mean we elect representatives? Yet you want to take that away from voters based on an outdated notion.

Moonhead -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/16/2010 5:15:19 AM)
I think his issue is more that people who disagree with him get to vote. That'd explain the whole "firing staff who voted for the Kenyan" thing, wouldn't it?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125