Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Consent of the governed


  • Please log in to reply
278 replies to this topic

#51 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:47 AM

good thread, tim.

i was chastised for chiming in on a political thread after making it clear i hadn't voted.

i consistently hear people speak about their dislike of both candidates within the two party system yet they say that they will be voting for one of them anyway. this mentality seems to only perpetuate the system we hate and continues to disempower the american voter (son, would you prefer to be beaten with the the belt or the wrench?). i, personally, think we do more damage by voting for the "lesser of two evils" (the candidate who promises you the belt) than by opting out of the two-party system all together.

but i certainly understand why people feel the lesser of the two evils is better than (what has been assigned) a wasted vote. it's tragic that we've allowed ourselves to be so disempowered that these have become our only options though. it's tragic that we have a media and corporate system that has furthered this disempowerment

until 3rd party candidate viability surfaces, well... I'm not going to vote for goldman sachs, monsanto, more debt, continued deaths of those in the middle east, and having my civil rights eroded.

won't get fooled again.


Is there any reason you (as well as Tim and anyone else who might opt out) wouldn't vote a third party just to send the message you're fed up with the "two party" system?

I believe if enough people do this then maybe they'll start to realize we've had enough of the same old bullshit from the two. Also, if others see that there is a large segment of voters NOT voting Dem/Rep it might change the thinking that if people don't vote for either of the 2 their vote is just wasted.

It's for this reason that I probably wouldn't vote for RP even if he was the Rep. nominee.

#52 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,037 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:53 AM

TEO started it. neeners

EWTN or not, are the facts accurate? If so, matters not who publishes them.

#53 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,772 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:05 AM

The facts may be accurate, but does that necessarily imply a "eugenics" agenda? Or the fact that minorities in this country are underprivileged on many fronts and, thus, more susceptible to being in the unfortunate position to have to consider and choose an abortion?

anyway, this isn't an abortion thread and I have no desire to turn it into one, so I'll leave it at that...

#54 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,037 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:17 AM

Is there any reason you (as well as Tim and anyone else who might opt out) wouldn't vote a third party just to send the message you're fed up with the "two party" system?

I believe if enough people do this then maybe they'll start to realize we've had enough of the same old bullshit from the two. Also, if others see that there is a large segment of voters NOT voting Dem/Rep it might change the thinking that if people don't vote for either of the 2 their vote is just wasted.

It's for this reason that I probably wouldn't vote for RP even if he was the Rep. nominee.


Wait, if he wins the nomination you won't vote for him solely because he ran as republican? But, if he wasn't a republican you would vote for him? if so, that seems silly. If a candidate's views align with mine, I don't care under what ticket s/he runs.

aside from that, you pose a good question. third party candidates won't ever be viable if those of us (who hate the 2 candidates otherwise offered) won't even bother to vote for them.

i won't vote for a 3rd party candidate just for the sake of voting though, the candidate must align with my views on some core issues. if there is one who does, s/he would have my vote.

#55 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:28 AM

When people truly vote their conscience without considering their second choice, what you end up getting is a bell curve with Democrats and Republicans squarely in the middle of the bell.

It's my opinion that voting for other candidates besides the big two is a way for them both to receive feedback that guides them more to the right, more to the left, or more to the center.

Some people, especially those in swing states, don't think it's worth the risk to vote for their first choice if it means that their second choice might lose. I consider this rational decision making.

I think all of this is pretty much common sense, but over the years people have gotten confused by all the talk of "the two party system" (which is a big misnomer, yes, there are two major parties, but calling it a two party system implies there are no others besides the two)

If you're really fed up with it being that way, we should figure out a way to change the way we vote to a preferential or ranked ballot because until that happens, the 2 most centrist political parties will always be the strongest. Again, it's just my opinion, but to me it is common sense.

#56 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:30 AM

Is there any reason you (as well as Tim and anyone else who might opt out) wouldn't vote a third party just to send the message you're fed up with the "two party" system?


Call it jadedness on my part, I guess. With very few exceptions, I've been voting for 3rd party candidates for all of my electoral life. The problems we're seeing aren't new (though they're intensifying), and I viewed 20 years ago as the time to throw the GOP and the DNC to the curb. Hoped that my voting for other parties would be part of some sort of groundswell.

Nothing happened.

If I saw a candidate from any party whom I believed had a chance at changing things, I would entertain voting for him or her.

But I'm sick of condoning a system as broken as ours is.

#57 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:34 AM

BTW, something I'd love to see is the rest of the states adopting a runoff voting scheme like the one Maine has...gives folks the chance to vote for someone they really believe in, with the backstop of a vote for a second choice if the first doesn't win. Or that's my understanding of it.

#58 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,772 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:35 AM

There's something to be said for the concept of instant run-off voting. Then you could vote for your #1 and #2 choice. Then you could vote for the candidate of your choice, even if they didn't have much of a chance, and have a fall back 2nd choice to avoid the possibility that your vote for the 1st choice swings it to a 3rd candidate that you don't desire. The two-party politicians will never go for this, though. Than they'd have to defend themselves on multiple fronts - not just attack one person.

#59 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:38 AM

BTW, something I'd love to see is the rest of the states adopting a runoff voting scheme like the one Maine has...gives folks the chance to vote for someone they really believe in, with the backstop of a vote for a second choice if the first doesn't win. Or that's my understanding of it.


yes, this is what's called a preferential or ranked ballot. There are numerous websites which explain the process in detail. Also, there are different variations with subtle differences.

#60 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:39 AM

And yes, seany, that's correct. If you, personally, were winning right now, you might not want to change the system that allowed you to win in the first place. I'm sure I'd have to think more than twice about it if it were me winning.. .just human nature to want to keep winning.

#61 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,037 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:40 AM

The facts may be accurate, but does that necessarily imply a "eugenics" agenda, or the fact that minorities in this country are underprivileged on many front and, thus, more susceptible to being in the unfortunate position to have to consider and choose an abortion.

anyway, this isn't an abortion thread and I have no desire to turn it into one, so I'll leave it at that...


seeing as the black population is only 11%, I would gather there are more underprivileged whites than blacks in this country? focus on aborting the offspring of poor blacks, more so than aborting the offspring of poor whites (even though there are, statistically, more poor whites) could be perceived as racist. Given their history, this perception is plausible.

I know you "left it at that," but given their reprehensible origins, i think it naive to say they have eradicated all remnants of eugenics philosophy, especially when those in positions of power within PP are fully aware of it and have yet to condemn Sanger's views.

and, i'll leave it at that

#62 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,037 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:44 AM

There's something to be said for the concept of instant run-off voting. Then you could vote for your #1 and #2 choice. Then you could vote for the candidate of your choice, even if they didn't have much of a chance, and have a fall back 2nd choice to avoid the possibility that your vote for the 1st choice swings it to a 3rd candidate that you don't desire. The two-party politicians will never go for this, though. Than they'd have to defend themselves on multiple fronts - not just attack one person.


initial response: love this idea but i haven't thought it through

what are the potential downfalls?

#63 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,772 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 03:56 AM

The potential downfall is that it makes the final race a cluster-fuck of candidates and complicates the balloting, vote tallying, challenges, etc.

Basic concept: you rank your choices for a position (example: 1. lolPaul, 2. Obrama, 3. Lolmney). If your 1st choice doesn't claim a majority in the first round of tallying, your vote defaults to your second choice, and so on until someone wins a clear majority (and that may be a set threshold of >45%).

But if you do this for every position up for election, it could be a bit of a nightmare unless you're relying soley on computers to do all the tallying and iterations to determine a winner.

#64 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,037 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:01 AM

"Lolmney" :lol: paulbots :lol: on and on it goes

omg, it's only going to get funnier in the next few months. at least there will be some entertainment :Phishfolk:

#65 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:02 AM

there's actually all sorts of variations on the same theme, you can look it up on wikipedia, but that's the basic concept

#66 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,772 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:14 AM

Yes, there's all sorts of variations. But you'd need to agree on some variation. And that alone would give those in power the opportunity to fight over it for years to put off enactment. Except, perhaps, in states w/ ballot initiatives. That might be one way to bypass the establishment.

#67 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,037 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:24 AM

great guest on the daily show right now. author of Republic Lost

#68 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,037 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:25 AM

side note: The laugh track on this show is almost unbearable. christ :rolleyes:

#69 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:19 PM

Yes, there's all sorts of variations. But you'd need to agree on some variation. And that alone would give those in power the opportunity to fight over it for years to put off enactment. Except, perhaps, in states w/ ballot initiatives. That might be one way to bypass the establishment.


And this is what we're pretty much left with... a dead end.

#70 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,537 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:24 PM

oh shit, PF is awake

#71 JBetty

JBetty
  • VibeTribe
  • 20,297 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:29 PM

:lol:

#72 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:42 PM

it's getting old

#73 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,772 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:21 PM

Oh the irony... :rotf:

#74 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,638 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:33 PM

[Jabadoodle's] point, although a fatally flawed strawman*, is that there are differences between politicians within the paradigm. Of course, he is correct about that. My point, is that those differences are superficial and minimal to the overwhelming problems the country is facing.


*I insert this because predicting what one might do in a given situation that could never arise in the first place, is weak in the area of argument. That is to say, saying Obama would do X, while McCain would "almost certainly" do Y....you get it...



Yep, I can see how the differences are "superficial and minimal" compared to the big problems. I still think voting to change what we can ... then doing other things about the big issues ... is better than not voting at all. But I can see the idea of not voting at all as a way to show you know the system is flawed. No clear answer on which is more effective.

The argument isn't a stawman. I didn't setup a false version of an opponents argument just so I could knock it down. [In Obi Wan voice] That is not the fallacy you are looking for.

Certainly on any given issue, stating that "X would almost certainly" do Y is somewhat weak. Not sure what the logical name of that poor reasoning is, but it's not stawman. Still, a good point by you.



found this interesting. i guess the way PP helps the poor is by eliminating them?

I concede alternative arguments can be made about the conclusions below, but these facts are worth considering
http://www.ewtn.com/...fe/ppracism.txt



The facts may be accurate, but does that necessarily imply a "eugenics" agenda? Or the fact that minorities in this country are underprivileged on many fronts and, thus, more susceptible to being in the unfortunate position to have to consider and choose an abortion?



Thanks TEO and everyone for the side-discussion about PP. I didn't know any of it's history or that there were controversial views about it. I guess it should stop surprising me how much I become aware of here on this drooog board.

China - on first blush I tend to think what Seany is saying is the right interpretation. Just because the rates-of-something don't correlate to population-percentages doesn't mean necessarily mean that's the reason for it. But you already said that with the "alternative conclusions" sentence. ~ Whatever the causal relationship, they are interesting facts.



Is there any reason you (as well as Tim and anyone else who might opt out) wouldn't vote a third party just to send the message you're fed up with the "two party" system?


Voting 3rd party when you don't like the two major candidates makes sense to me.

No vote at all is an obscure "message" that is easily misinterpreted as voter apathy. As I said before, voting for the one you like a little better is what I usually do. Voting for a "3rd party" is another great alternative that gives a very clear message.


When people truly vote their conscience without considering their second choice, what you end up getting is a bell curve with Democrats and Republicans squarely in the middle of the bell.

It's my opinion that voting for other candidates besides the big two is a way for them both to receive feedback that guides them more to the right, more to the left, or more to the center.

Some people, especially those in swing states, don't think it's worth the risk to vote for their first choice if it means that their second choice might lose. I consider this rational decision making.

I think all of this is pretty much common sense, but over the years people have gotten confused by all the talk of "the two party system" (which is a big misnomer, yes, there are two major parties, but calling it a two party system implies there are no others besides the two)

If you're really fed up with it being that way, we should figure out a way to change the way we vote to a preferential or ranked ballot because until that happens, the 2 most centrist political parties will always be the strongest. Again, it's just my opinion, but to me it is common sense.



Great points and well said.

Ranked ballot is something I've thought of before, but not really looked into much -- would be interested to have a separate thread discussing the pros, cons, and realities in places where this system is used.

#75 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 5,638 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:36 PM

great guest on the daily show right now. author of Republic Lost


Here is a great podcast with Lawrence Lessig speaking.

http://www.commonwea...g-republic-lost


Lawrence Lessig. Author of Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – and a Plan to Stop It
With the influx of private donations and corporate campaign expenditures continuing to balloon, trust in
government is at an all-time low. Lessig discusses the evolution of our “economy of influence,” faulting
both Democrats and Republicans and offering a plan to end corruption and restore our trust in the political
system. Hear his thoughts on how to stop, correct and change the process.This program was recorded in
front of a live audience at The Commonwealth Club's Silicon Valley branch on October 24, 2011

#76 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:36 PM

...would be interested to have a separate thread discussing the pros, cons, and realities in places where this system is used.


Start a thread. :funny1:

#77 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:51 PM

The argument isn't a stawman. I didn't setup a false version of an opponents argument just so I could knock it down. [In Obi Wan voice] That is not the fallacy you are looking for.

Thanks, Obi Wan. I was unsure of the correct term, so I used the most widely recognized. :smile:

#78 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:52 PM

oh shit, PF is awake


it's getting old


Oh the irony... :rotf:


I kind of get it, because I understand that there are people who find my posts offensive or something, and just wish I would stop posting... hence, my posts are getting old.

but I just don't get what "oh shit, PF is awake" is supposed to mean. Is that your way of saying "good morning?" If so, then hello, good morning to you.

#79 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 01:51 PM

Posted Image

Reading back over this thread, I was shocked to remember there was a time I wasn't in love with china cat.

Or maybe I always was. :funny1:

:catbeepuke:

#80 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,795 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:15 PM

:catbeepuke:

#81 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 02:39 PM

http://www.constitut...fp/pennmi00.htm

The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents

December 12, 1787


After the Pennsylvania Convention ratified the new constitution on December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23, twenty-one members of the minority signed a dissenting address that ap peared in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on December 18, 1787. The address was subsequently reprinted, often in Pennsylvania and other states, becoming in some way a semi-official statement of anti-federalist objections to the new Constitution. The author of the address was probably the same as the author of "Centinel," Samuel Bryan; at least there are notable similarities between the two works, and Bryan later claimed authorship in letters to Jefferson and to Albert Gallatin.
It was not until after the termination of the late glorious contest, which made the people of the United States, an independent nation, that any defect was discovered in the present confederation. It was formed by some of the ablest patriots in America. It carried us successfully through the war; and the virtue and patriotism of the people, with their disposition to promote the common cause, supplied the want of power in Congress....
It was [after the Peace Treaty of 1783] that the want of an efficient federal government was first complained of, and that the powers vested in Congress were found to be inadequate to the procuring of the benefits that should result from the union. The impost was granted by most of the states, but many refused the supplementary funds; the annual requisitions were set at nought by some of the states, while others complied with them by legislative acts, but were tardy in their payments, and Congress found themselves incapable of complying with their engagements, and supporting the federal government. It was found that our national character was sinking in the opinion of foreign nations. The Congress could make treaties of commerce, but could not enforce the observance of them. We were suffering from the restrictions of foreign nations, who had shackled our commerce, while we were unable to retaliate: and all now agreed that it would be advantageous to the union to enlarge the powers of Congress; that they should be enabled in the amplest manner to regulate commerce, and to lay and collect duties on the imports throughout the United States. With this view a convention was first proposed by Virginia, and finally recommended by Congress for the different states to appoint deputies to meet in convention, "for the purposes of revising and amending the present articles of confederation, so as to make them adequate to the exigencies of the union." This recommendation the legislatures of twelve states complied with so hastily as not to consult their constituents on the subject; and though the different legislatures had no authority from their constituents for the purpose they probably apprehended the necessity would justify the measure; and none of them extended their ideas at that time further than "revising and amending the present articles of confederation." Pennsylvania by the act appointing deputies expressly confined their powers to this object; and though it is probable that some of the members of the assembly of this state had at that time in contemplation to annihilate the present confederation, as well as the constitution of Pennsylvania, yet the plan was not sufficiently matured to communicate it to the public....
The Continental convention met in the city of Philadelphia at the time appointed. It was composed of some men of excellent characters; of others who were more remarkable for their ambition and cunning, than their patriotism; and of some who had been opponents to the independence of the United States. The delegates from Pennsylvania were, six of them, uniform and decided opponents to the constitution of this commonwealth. The convention sat upwards of four months. The doors were kept shut, and the members brought under the most solemn engagements of secrecy. Some of those who opposed their going so far beyond their powers, retired, hopeless, from the convention others had the firmness to refuse signing the plan altogether, and many who did sign it, did it not as a system they wholly approved, but as the best that could be then obtained, and notwithstanding the time spent on this subject, it is agreed on all hands to be a work of haste and accommodation.
Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce....
[After explaining the events leading to the ratifying convention, the minority delegates determined to explain themselves to their constituents.] We entered on the examination of the proposed system of government, and found it to be such as we could not adopt, without, as we conceived, surrendering up your dearest rights. We offered our objections to the convention, and opposed those parts of the plan, which, in our opinion, would be injurious to you, in the best manner we were able; and closed our arguments by offering the following propositions to the convention.
1. The right of conscience shall be held inviolable, and neither the legislative, executive nor judicial powers of the United States shall have authority to alter, abrogate, or infringe any part of the constitution of the several states, which provide for the preservation of liberty in matters of religion.
2. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, trial by jury shall remain as heretofore, as well in the federal courts, as in those of the several states.
3. That in all capital and criminal prosecutions, a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, as well in the federal courts, as in those of the several states; to be heard by himself and his counsel, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses; to call for evidence in his favor, and a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent, he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; and that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.
4. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel nor unusual punishments inflicted.
5. That warrants unsupported by evidence, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his or their property, not particularly described, are grievous and oppressive, and shall not be granted either by the magistrates of the federal government or others.
6. That the people have a-right to the freedom of speech, of writing and publishing their sentiments, therefore, the freedom of the press shall not be restrained by any law of the United States.
7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
8. The inhabitants of the several states shall have liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times, on the lands they hold, and on all other lands in the United States not inclosed, and in like manner to fish in all navigable waters, and others not private property, without being restrained therein by any laws to be -passed by the legislature of the United States.
9. That no law shall be passed to restrain the legislatures of the several states from enacting laws for imposing taxes, except imposts and duties upon goods imported or exported, and postage on letters shall be levied by the authority of Congress.
10. That the house of representatives be properly increased in number; that elections shall remain free; that the several states shall have power to regulate the elections for senators and representatives, without being controled either directly or indirectly by any interference on the part of the Congress, and that elections of representatives be annual.
11. That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree.
That the sovereignty, freedom and independency of the several states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
12. That the legislative, executive, and judicial powers be kept separate; and to this end that a constitutional council be appointed, to advise and assist the president, who shall be responsible for the advice they give, hereby the senators would be relieved from almost constant attendance; and also that the judges be made completely independent.
13. That no treaty which shall be directly opposed to the existing laws of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be valid until such laws shall be repealed, or made conformable to such treaty; neither shall any treaties be valid which are in contradiction to the constitution of the United States, or the constitutions of the several states.
14. That the judiciary power of the United States shall be confined to cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, to cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states_between a state and citizens of different states -- between citizens claiming lands under grants of different states; and between a state or the citizen thereof and foreign states, and in criminal cases, to such only as are expressly enumerated in the constitution, and that the United States in Congress assembled, shall not have power to enact laws, which shall alter the laws of descents and distribution of the effects of deceased persons, the titles of lands or goods, or the regulation of contracts in the individual states.
After reading these propositions, we declared our willingness to agree to the plan, provided it was so amended as to meet these propositions, or something similar to them: and finally moved the convention to adjourn, to give the people of Pennsylvania time to consider the subject, and determine for themselves; but these were all rejected, and the final vote was taken, when our duty to you induced us to vote against the proposed plan, and to decline signing the ratification of the same.
During the discussion we met with many insults, and some personal abuse; we were not even treated with decency, during the sitting of the convention, by the persons in the gallery of the house, however, we flatter ourselves that in contending for the preservation of those invaluable rights you have thought proper to commit to our charge, we acted with a spirit becoming freemen, and being desirous that you might know- the principles which actuated our conduct, and being prohibited from inserting our reasons of dissent on the minutes of the convention, we have subjoined them for your consideration, as to you alone we are accountable. It remains with you whether you will think those inestimable privileges, which you have so ably contended for, should be sacrificed at the shrine of despotism, or whether you mean to contend for them with the same spirit that has so often baffled the attempts of an aristocratic faction, to rivet the shackles of slavery on you and your unborn posterity.
Our objections are comprised under three general heads of &sent, viz.
We dissent, first, because it is the opinion of the most celebrated writers on government, and confirmed experience, that a very extensive territory cannot be governed on the principles of freedom, otherwise than by a confederation of republics, possessing all the powers of internal government; but united in the management of their general, and foreign concerns

#82 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:09 PM

Which is why I prefer this:

Posted Image


To this:

Posted Image

#83 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:39 PM

Which is why I think your onea them domestic terrismers. :funny1:

#84 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:39 PM

And don't try to argue with me about it. The FBI agrees.

#85 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 03:57 PM

Of course. The consolidation of powers must not be disagreed upon. But in turn, it destroyed the original intent of the confederacy. Laying to rest for good the invention of the decentralization of powers.

And....here we are. 230 some years later. With a giant federal power that has essentially nullified the state powers, the checks of power and the individual liberties of the people.

#86 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 04:24 PM

Hush up and eat your Big Mac, citizen...

#87 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 04:40 PM

Posted Image

Yes, sir.....

#88 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:11 PM

If you don't vote, you are increasing the value of every other person's vote who does participate.

It is some people's objective to confuse others into not voting, just for this very reason.

By not voting, you are behaving exactly as planned.

And voting for a candidate just because they belong to a third party is actually no different than voting for a candidate just because they are Democrat or Republican.

Use your brain and vote for whomever you think will lead this country best. (and yeah, best is a relative term which means better than all other alternatives)

#89 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,037 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 04:05 PM

Reading back over this thread, I was shocked to remember there was a time I wasn't in love with china cat.

Or maybe I always was. :funny1:

:catbeepuke:


awwwww!

#90 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,037 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 04:05 PM

Hush up and eat your Big Mac, citizen...


:lol:

#91 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:51 PM

If this shmoopieshit keeps up I'm going to have to turn the hose on you two :rolleyes:

#92 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 08:19 PM

If this shmoopieshit keeps up I'm going to have to turn the hose on you two :rolleyes:


Wait til you see it in person in under 3 weeks. :mrgreen:

#93 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 08:21 PM

It puts the lotion on the skin or it gets the hose again!

#94 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,762 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 08:24 PM

It does what it's told!

#95 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 29 June 2012 - 08:27 PM

(((creepy love)))) :lol:

#96 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,353 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 10:46 AM

Posted Image

:funny1:

#97 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 19 September 2012 - 03:54 PM

Wait, if he wins the nomination you won't vote for him solely because he ran as republican? But, if he wasn't a republican you would vote for him? if so, that seems silly. If a candidate's views align with mine, I don't care under what ticket s/he runs.

aside from that, you pose a good question. third party candidates won't ever be viable if those of us (who hate the 2 candidates otherwise offered) won't even bother to vote for them.

i won't vote for a 3rd party candidate just for the sake of voting though, the candidate must align with my views on some core issues. if there is one who does, s/he would have my vote.


Glad you linked this thread, I missed this.

No, I wouldn't have voted for him. I believe there has to be a change in the "two party system" for things to actually have a chance of getting better and voting for either of the two no matter how much my views line up with the a specific candidate a vote for either party just continues the same old, same old and after that candidate is out we're back to square one (plus we've seen how a candidate can say anything to get your vote and then turn around and do the exact opposite once elected)

I've voted for Jill Stein locally in the past and no as the Green Party candidate she'll probably be getting my vote again in this election.

Hopefully others who want real change can find enough common ground to cast a vote her way

http://www.gp.org/index.php

http://www.gp.org/co.../platform/2012/

#98 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 19 September 2012 - 05:38 PM

you're against unions, minimum wages, taxes, entitlements, and abortion, yet you vote green party?

glad you've made sure your ideals align with the candidate you vote for...

#99 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,632 posts

Posted 20 September 2012 - 01:25 PM

you're against unions, minimum wages, taxes, entitlements, and abortion, yet you vote green party?

glad you've made sure your ideals align with the candidate you vote for...

As usual for the village idiot, you're wrong and completely clueless. No surprise at all. :lol:

#100 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 20 September 2012 - 05:05 PM

you've only argued against all those things in defense of Ron Paul... and I'm the village idiot? (only the village idiot would say such a stupid thing, really)

what a classic example of psychological projection. (I mean... look at your avatar...) this should go in a textbook.