Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2nd Mount Vernon Assembly More

2nd Mount Vernon Assembly

Comments Filter:

  • I am in full support of a new constitutional convention of representatives elected by the people.

    You want reform? Then reform.

    Schedule it for 2017 and get to work.

    • If he wanted reform, I would be standing right there beside him, but he doesn't. He merely wants to turn back the clock, back to the 1850s, when property rights were respected and certain people knew their place and kept their mouths shut.

      • Strawman.

        • Cop out

          • Get stuffed. I stand in the tradition of individual liberty (fine, live with your horse, but don't expect me to call it "marriage"), private property (where you can shag that horse), and rule of law. Actual, balanced budgets. Your antebellum accusation is but a troll.

            • Your antebellum accusation is but a troll.

              As is your stand on "traditional" liberty, which was never, ever applied equally. As you are part of a super majority, you will never comprehend the privileges you enjoy. Hell, you won't even try to comprehend it. It would completely destroy your entire narrative. As such, I understand very well your defensive response of "get stuffed". You have no way of defending the so called "conservative" crap you parrot. So, "get stuffed" is all you got. Too bad, I already am.

    • I am in full support of a new constitutional convention of representatives elected by the people.

      Too bad smitty doesn't want such a thing. A "convention of representatives elected by the people" would inevitably include democrats - at least, until voting laws are rewritten to redirect all their actions straight to /dev/null.

      • I'm so liberal, I'd even extend the vote to conservatives like Barack Obama.

        • I'd even extend the vote to conservatives like Barack Obama.

          Considering Obama has given the conservatives everything that they have ever dared to ask a POTUS for, you should be singing his praises in general.

          That said, as he has a (D) after his name, we know that you would never welcome him in the senate again. If he ran for the US House and won, I expect you would find a reason to deny him a voice there as well.

          • You're so completely make-it-up-as-you-go, I rather expect you to just start throwing out kanji at some point.
            • I'm not making anything up. You have stated you want to revoke the rights of the people to elect their senators. Once the "right" people are appointed as senators there will certainly not be any democrats in the senate.

              • You have stated you want to revoke the rights of the people to elect their senators.

                That is "A" way to phrase it, I suppose. But electing Senators is not a natural right, e.g. life, liberty, self-defense, private property.
                Electing Senators is simply a feature of our political system prior to the 17th Amendment.
                Your errors are among, but not limited to:
                (1) Failure to understand the genius of the 1787 Constitution, which, as written, does a superior job of limiting the federal government.
                (2) Unwillingness to review empirically the abject failure of a century of the Progressive Project, a

                • ...the birth rate is below replacement...

                  Only for one specific group, whose super majority privileged status is dwindling, which brings us back to the crux of your entire spiel and your deepest fears.

                  I find it quite humorous to see you two, who are such exact replicas of each other on opposite sides of your tiny Overton window, battle it out like this.

                  • No, not one specific group; Japanese, Europeans, Russians, Iranians, as well as Americans, all have demographic concerns.
                    How typical of you to try to play a "privilege" card there.

                • You have stated you want to revoke the rights of the people to elect their senators.

                  That is "A" way to phrase it, I suppose. But electing Senators is not a natural right, e.g. life, liberty, self-defense, private property.

                  The first two of those "natural rights" that you describe are at best very exceptionally difficult to define where they begin and end in the realm of your right to them. The second two I presume you tossed out just as part of your seemingly endless mission to troll on behalf of the conservative movement as much as possible.

                  That said, if electing senators is not a natural right, then which elections are? Are house representatives truly elected by "natural right"? After all, in this country that right w

                  • That said, if electing senators is not a natural right, then which elections are?

                    You tell me, wise guy. Why not peruse, say, Akhil Reid Amar's book and learn something? The 1787 Constitution was a delegation of limited powers from the several states to a federal government. The separation of powers acted vertically between states and DC, as well as between the branches. Until Wilson set the stage for our gradual collapse, which seems to please the unreflective ones in the crowd.

                    if you were not simultaneously looking to expand the size of the federal government by adding more representatives to the house.

                    You are such a laughable lickspittle. You make the House work as originally intended, and you can blow away ar

                    • That said, if electing senators is not a natural right, then which elections are?

                      You tell me, wise guy.

                      I am asking you that question because you are specifically advocating for the revocation of voting rights that were extended by constitutional amendment. Reduction of voting rights - while a significant pillar in the GOP playbook - is not something that people call for very often and more significantly is not something that has ever actually been formally performed on the federal level.

                      The separation of powers acted vertically between states and DC, as well as between the branches

                      Which really doesn't have anything to do with the direct election of senators. US Senators are members of the federal g

                    • Reduction of voting rights - while a significant pillar in the GOP playbook

                      This is a lie. Protecting the ballot, and having valid elections, is foundational. Not wasting further time here.

                    • Reduction of voting rights - while a significant pillar in the GOP playbook

                      This is a lie. Protecting the ballot, and having valid elections, is foundational

                      Did you not claim before that as a proud member of the tea party, your views are as much at odds with the GOP as they are with the democrats? If that is the case, then my statement about the GOP should not bother you at all.

                      Not wasting further time here.

                      That is a shameful dodge, there. I remember when we used to have respectful discussions between us. Now you primarily dodge questions, and the feign insult once you're tired of that act.

                    • I recall you prior to engaging in deliberate lying.
                    • The Pudge tactic does not look any better on you than on him.

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close