You can keep harping on the 17th amendment all you want right now.
And you can continue the partial analysis and wonder at the lack of improvement.
I see the 17th amendment itself to be an improvement. You happen to dislike it because you see its repeal as an opportunity to get rid of some of the elected senators that you don't like.
There are more "federalist" countries out there, you know. Why does the rest of the country need to be subjected to your "federalist" fantasy against their will?
the slow collapse into autocracy we've seen over the last century.
Funny how you didn't mind it when your guy was in office. Now there is a different guy on office - and nothing changed - but you can't stand it.
And are you proffering yourself as some paragon of virtue
Staying on topic is not really something I consider to be any kind of high virtue, though I do not hold in high esteem arguments that are based on shifting the topic away from its starting point ASAP.
Wait, are you accidentally agreeing that less regulation might be better?
I'd love to know how you came up with that from what I wrote. I'm asking, but not holding my breath for you to answer.
For that matter, by that logic our country - "The Great Experiment" - should have never started as there was no precedent for a democracy of this size and style to have ever worked for long.
It's really been The Great Hijacking, over the last century, by many measures.
You can keep harping on the 17th amendment all you want right now. I'll bet in a few more years, when more governors' mansions are turned blue, you'll be trying to backtrack on it.
We need a Convention of States, and a more Federalist course,
There are more "federalist" countries out there, you know. Why does the rest of the country need to be subjected to your "federalist" fantasy against their will? You have previously advocated for other people to move to other countries if this one does not meet their political philosophy, have you not? Why can you not follow your own advice? Or what makes your dreams so much more important than the dreams of others?
The burden is on anyone who proposes adding new laws to the many that already exist to show why they would be any more effective than the laws already in place.
By that logic, we can then say that leaving the laws alone is guaranteed recipe for failure as they are not working. For that matter, by that logic our country - "The Great Experiment" - should have never started as there was no precedent for a democracy of this size and style to have ever worked for long.
Even if we set aside the failures of your "logic", the reality is that the most common reform suggestion is to require meaningful background checks for all gun purchases. No person with the ability to actually bring up a bill in government has suggested anything more intrusive than that in the past decade. And what is the actual cost of this? It slows down purchases by a very small amount. I own firearms myself and I know a lot of people who do as well. I have never been in a situation where I have had an urgent need to purchase one, nor has anyone I know. Even if the purchase took another 24 hours for the background check, what's the big deal? Right now background checks usually take a couple minutes at the most, but what's the hurry?
changing the subject
That is certainly an area you have expertise in. If you wanted to surprise me, you could instead try going back to the subject.
If anything Slashdot is Libertarian.
Only in that a large number of slashdot members are paullowers, who like to call themselves "libertarian".
Pro Liberal social policies
You're joking, right? We routinely see front page articles telling us that we should all own more guns. We routinely see discussions dominated by people shouting fact-free nonsense about abortion. We often see front page articles about how evil public schools are.
pro conservative fiscal policies
That part I agree with.
with a fair amount of independent thought.
10-15 years ago there was plenty of independent thought here. Now thought itself has become rare.
The fact is, the whole (D) good (R) bad (Or visa versa) is really getting old. And do not pretend the (D) don't do the very same thing. Blindly following your party is for Sheeple.
I never claimed that the democrats are better in any meaningful way. In fact, if you look at my comment and JE history here you'll find I criticize Obama quite regularly.
Rather, my point is that slashdot is overwhelmingly conservative. Anyone who does not adhere to the conservative agenda is labelled a "socialist" (generally by people who have no clue what socialism actually entails). I haven't decided yet if I like the TPP or not - particularly as we haven't know the full details of the deal yet - but most slashdot members decided long ago simply because they heard it was something that Obama wanted.
For example, when supporters of Bush claim to be "conservatives", you claim that they are not, because you like conservatives.
And yet you cheerfully claim Obama is a conservative, too (?).
And in support of my previous argument, you claim that he is not, because you don't like him but you like conservatives. What happened to the "big tent party" and all that?
I'm curious to know who you think you are referring to now. I understand you yearn to redefine communist and a large number of terms that you want to relate to it. But really, are you expecting to get away with redefining fascist as well?
For "look at the historical wreckage in the wake of self-identifying Communists" values of "redefine".
What you just said is another fascinating case of you applying vastly different realities to people you don't like than you apply to those who you do. For example, when supporters of Bush claim to be "conservatives", you claim that they are not, because you like conservatives. However, when people you don't like - particularly those who have been dead for decades and left with no way to defend themselves - are somehow described as having called themselves something that vaguely resembles "communist", you are more than happy to treat that label as 1,000,000 percent credible.
However your gelatinous definition - and vacuous (to be generous) understanding - of communism is not the point. The real point here is that you just accused someone - particularly the person named in this JE who you so dearly love to hate - of being a fascist. I asked you how on earth you think you can possibly support that claim and you responded by instead reminding me that you don't know shit about communism.
I didn't need to be reminded about that. If you want to surprise me, say something that is factually accurate about communism - I don't recall a time yet when you have done that.
Another megabytes the dust.