Instead we should have a single government that swings like a pendulum and makes gay marriage illegal and legal every 4-8 years. Please. You're operating under the fallacy that if there was one big central government that it would believe and act the way you want it to. There's way more opportunity for abuse under a unitary government than under our federalist one. The odds of you receiving the utopia you desire would be nil. At least with a federalist system you are one voice among <9 million instead of one voice among 330 million.Macbeth wrote:
50 little arbitrarily divided governments that must be maintained so that some of those little governments can make gays and blacks miserable. Really something to fight for.
Because it was the point of bringing up the cherry tree in the first place. American conservatives hold up the founding fathers as ideals in order to defend the constitution and American liberals try to tear them down in order to justify rewriting the constitution. Keep up.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
jay how did you leap from people saying the myth-making about the cherry tree is kind of weird, after all, when you think about it, etc. to "socialists that want to install their own government"? d&st reads like a youtube comment sometimes.
i don't think anyone here was proposing rewriting the constitution by pointing out that the founding fathers are not demi-gods that should be bowed to in high-schools every morning and taught in history classes as prophet-like figures...Jay wrote:
Because it was the point of bringing up the cherry tree in the first place. American conservatives hold up the founding fathers as ideals in order to defend the constitution and American liberals try to tear them down in order to justify rewriting the constitution. Keep up.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
jay how did you leap from people saying the myth-making about the cherry tree is kind of weird, after all, when you think about it, etc. to "socialists that want to install their own government"? d&st reads like a youtube comment sometimes.
Last edited by Macbeth (2013-07-28 16:05:09)
You don't know what you're talking about. It was Spearhead that brought it up.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i don't think anyone here was proposing rewriting the constitution by pointing out that the founding fathers are not demi-gods that should be bowed to in high-schools every morning and taught in history classes as prophet-like figures...Jay wrote:
Because it was the point of bringing up the cherry tree in the first place. American conservatives hold up the founding fathers as ideals in order to defend the constitution and American liberals try to tear them down in order to justify rewriting the constitution. Keep up.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
jay how did you leap from people saying the myth-making about the cherry tree is kind of weird, after all, when you think about it, etc. to "socialists that want to install their own government"? d&st reads like a youtube comment sometimes.
They wrote the Constitution to be able to be AMENDED as the country needed. The whole idea of constitutional originalism is absurd because of this. We can't be expected to survive if we are stuck in 1787. If people revere (HA! I GET IT!) the Founding Fathers, they'll never want to change the perfect document they worship even when it needs it.Jay wrote:
Because it was the point of bringing up the cherry tree in the first place. American conservatives hold up the founding fathers as ideals in order to defend the constitution and American liberals try to tear them down in order to justify rewriting the constitution. Keep up.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
jay how did you leap from people saying the myth-making about the cherry tree is kind of weird, after all, when you think about it, etc. to "socialists that want to install their own government"? d&st reads like a youtube comment sometimes.
You're wrong. Who are the biggest block of voters? Independents. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. If it was just Democrat vs Republican then sure, registered Dems outnumber Republicans by about 2:1. Swing voters win elections, and they're liable to vote for charisma rather than ideology. If they gave a crap about ideology they would've registered for a party.Macbeth wrote:
I disagree. Social issues are the only thing I care about and the numbers show things are going my way. GOP already lost the house by a few million votes in the last election. In terms of presidential elections things the numbers are even worse. If it wasn't for our screwy system of government we would have had democrat governments since 2000.
The constitution is largely an artifact from history at this point anyway. Because we have the Common Law system, every law we have is based on case law, including interpretations of the constitution. What was written on parchment 200+ years ago is very different from what is the law today because of precedents set over the centuries. The original intent was important though, and it is still something worthy of praise.DesertFox- wrote:
They wrote the Constitution to be able to be AMENDED as the country needed. The whole idea of constitutional originalism is absurd because of this. We can't be expected to survive if we are stuck in 1787. If people revere (HA! I GET IT!) the Founding Fathers, they'll never want to change the perfect document they worship even when it needs it.Jay wrote:
Because it was the point of bringing up the cherry tree in the first place. American conservatives hold up the founding fathers as ideals in order to defend the constitution and American liberals try to tear them down in order to justify rewriting the constitution. Keep up.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
jay how did you leap from people saying the myth-making about the cherry tree is kind of weird, after all, when you think about it, etc. to "socialists that want to install their own government"? d&st reads like a youtube comment sometimes.
Among 18-35 year olds Republican registration is at an all time low of less than 25. Democrat hasn't declined nearly by much. Swing voters are mostly a myth. Most people call themselves independent but still vote only one way.Jay wrote:
You're wrong. Who are the biggest block of voters? Independents. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. If it was just Democrat vs Republican then sure, registered Dems outnumber Republicans by about 2:1. Swing voters win elections, and they're liable to vote for charisma rather than ideology. If they gave a crap about ideology they would've registered for a party.Macbeth wrote:
I disagree. Social issues are the only thing I care about and the numbers show things are going my way. GOP already lost the house by a few million votes in the last election. In terms of presidential elections things the numbers are even worse. If it wasn't for our screwy system of government we would have had democrat governments since 2000.
Seriously though, single issue voters are the worst. Ignoring the forest for the tree leads to terrible government.
Yeah, ok.Macbeth wrote:
Among 18-35 year olds Republican registration is at an all time low of less than 25. Democrat hasn't declined nearly by much. Swing voters are mostly a myth. Most people call themselves independent but still vote only one way.Jay wrote:
You're wrong. Who are the biggest block of voters? Independents. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. If it was just Democrat vs Republican then sure, registered Dems outnumber Republicans by about 2:1. Swing voters win elections, and they're liable to vote for charisma rather than ideology. If they gave a crap about ideology they would've registered for a party.Macbeth wrote:
I disagree. Social issues are the only thing I care about and the numbers show things are going my way. GOP already lost the house by a few million votes in the last election. In terms of presidential elections things the numbers are even worse. If it wasn't for our screwy system of government we would have had democrat governments since 2000.
Seriously though, single issue voters are the worst. Ignoring the forest for the tree leads to terrible government.
The only issues you care about is how much money your fat greedy ass can get so don't pretend to be enlightened.
except for all those judges on the supreme court (many installed during bush's neo-con romp) who apply the interpretive framework of originalism...Jay wrote:
The constitution is largely an artifact from history at this point anyway. Because we have the Common Law system, every law we have is based on case law, including interpretations of the constitution. What was written on parchment 200+ years ago is very different from what is the law today because of precedents set over the centuries. The original intent was important though, and it is still something worthy of praise.DesertFox- wrote:
They wrote the Constitution to be able to be AMENDED as the country needed. The whole idea of constitutional originalism is absurd because of this. We can't be expected to survive if we are stuck in 1787. If people revere (HA! I GET IT!) the Founding Fathers, they'll never want to change the perfect document they worship even when it needs it.Jay wrote:
Because it was the point of bringing up the cherry tree in the first place. American conservatives hold up the founding fathers as ideals in order to defend the constitution and American liberals try to tear them down in order to justify rewriting the constitution. Keep up.
Nothing wrong with that. It had gone too far the other way.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
except for all those judges on the supreme court (many installed during bush's neo-con romp) who apply the interpretive framework of originalism...Jay wrote:
The constitution is largely an artifact from history at this point anyway. Because we have the Common Law system, every law we have is based on case law, including interpretations of the constitution. What was written on parchment 200+ years ago is very different from what is the law today because of precedents set over the centuries. The original intent was important though, and it is still something worthy of praise.DesertFox- wrote:
They wrote the Constitution to be able to be AMENDED as the country needed. The whole idea of constitutional originalism is absurd because of this. We can't be expected to survive if we are stuck in 1787. If people revere (HA! I GET IT!) the Founding Fathers, they'll never want to change the perfect document they worship even when it needs it.
every president tries to appoint judges based on their political alignment.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
except for all those judges on the supreme court (many installed during bush's neo-con romp) who apply the interpretive framework of originalism...Jay wrote:
The constitution is largely an artifact from history at this point anyway. Because we have the Common Law system, every law we have is based on case law, including interpretations of the constitution. What was written on parchment 200+ years ago is very different from what is the law today because of precedents set over the centuries. The original intent was important though, and it is still something worthy of praise.DesertFox- wrote:
They wrote the Constitution to be able to be AMENDED as the country needed. The whole idea of constitutional originalism is absurd because of this. We can't be expected to survive if we are stuck in 1787. If people revere (HA! I GET IT!) the Founding Fathers, they'll never want to change the perfect document they worship even when it needs it.
Not all of them did.Cybargs wrote:
every president tries to appoint judges based on their political alignment.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
except for all those judges on the supreme court (many installed during bush's neo-con romp) who apply the interpretive framework of originalism...Jay wrote:
The constitution is largely an artifact from history at this point anyway. Because we have the Common Law system, every law we have is based on case law, including interpretations of the constitution. What was written on parchment 200+ years ago is very different from what is the law today because of precedents set over the centuries. The original intent was important though, and it is still something worthy of praise.
its kinda funny the founding fathers were omg badass' in american history text book but nobody really wanted to talk about their slave owning history.
Do you think voters are static? That the way they vote doesn't change over the course of their lives? Those 18-35 year olds will get older, have kids, get a mortgage etc and they'll lose the idealism of youth and replace it with pragmatism and cynicism. They will become more conservative. Have you ever heard the expression "There's nothing quite as pathetic as a middle aged Marxist"?Macbeth wrote:
Among 18-35 year olds Republican registration is at an all time low of less than 25. Democrat hasn't declined nearly by much. Swing voters are mostly a myth. Most people call themselves independent but still vote only one way.Jay wrote:
You're wrong. Who are the biggest block of voters? Independents. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. If it was just Democrat vs Republican then sure, registered Dems outnumber Republicans by about 2:1. Swing voters win elections, and they're liable to vote for charisma rather than ideology. If they gave a crap about ideology they would've registered for a party.Macbeth wrote:
I disagree. Social issues are the only thing I care about and the numbers show things are going my way. GOP already lost the house by a few million votes in the last election. In terms of presidential elections things the numbers are even worse. If it wasn't for our screwy system of government we would have had democrat governments since 2000.
Seriously though, single issue voters are the worst. Ignoring the forest for the tree leads to terrible government.
The only issues you care about is how much money your fat greedy ass can get so don't pretend to be enlightened.
It's not universal, obviously, but people do tend to become more conservative as they age. They find god or have kids or just get sick of politics in general and tune out. Most people just want to be left alone and the republicans tend to stay away from social engineering or dicking around in the economy too much.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's a pretty authoritative statement considering I vote for more Democrats than I ever did when I was first voting. Also my grandparents were once staunch Republicans but then turned Democrat after their retirement.