Ya don’t have to be a racist to dislike the Obama’s

[Larrymc]

Obama sympathizers, "Please Read"
http://connect.freedomworks.org/news/view/367724?destination=gac%2Fhome

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

obama sympathizers, "please read"
http://connect.freedomworks.org/news/view/367724?destination=gac%2fhome ha, every person that opposes obama for any reason is a racist! Deny that and you are racist too. ;)--tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

Cue Jessie Jackson to call the author an 'Uncle Tom', and whisper under his breath how he'd like to cut his balls off.

[glockmail]

Every time an apostrophe is used to make a word plural, a puppy dies. :(

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Every time an apostrophe is used to make a word plural, a puppy dies. :(
And --cat's-- lose one of their nine lives --- it's just a sad reality. ;)--Tyr

[jafar00]

The Obama's what?

[Larrymc]

And --cat's-- lose one of their nine lives --- it's just a sad reality. ;)--Tyr Don't hurt my feelings none we are over run with those critters. Just trying to be funny, no animal rights attacks please:laugh:

[aboutime]

We've all heard, right from the Literal Horse's mouth in the White House. EVEN THE OBAMA'S DISLIKE the OBAMA'S.

So. When the Mrs. says she feels like a prisoner, and reminds us how UN-PROUD she is, and was about being an American.

Does that make Michelle Obama a racist against her own husband, and family too?

Let's ask Jesse Jackson. The man who once admitted he would like to "CASTRATE" Obama...on an open microphone.

When it comes to identifying RACISTS....Two places to start. The White House, and the Congressional Black Caucus.

And let's not forget the NAACP. Where qualifications to be a member includes making RACIST statements.

[logroller]

You don't have to be racist to dislike the obamas. Sorta like you don't have to be ignorant to misuse the written language...it just helps.

[Larrymc]

You don't have to be racist to dislike the obamas. Sorta like you don't have to be ignorant to misuse the written language...it just helps.HaHaHa Grammar cope I had you pig before the conversation started.

[aboutime]

HaHaHa Grammar cope I had you pig before the conversation started.


Larrymc. Aren't you thrilled that the master of such has spoken to you?
Looks like that Forest Gump line is true for fj, and log.."Stupid is..."

[Larrymc]

Larrymc. Aren't you thrilled that the master of such has spoken to you?
Looks like that Forest Gump line is true for fj, and log.."Stupid is..."You've heard me use the term Educated Idiots. Well we have a candidate, if its not written in a book or other wise written, they are clueless, total lack of common sense.

[jimnyc]

Well, my IQ is 'well over 140', so I can edumecate ya'll on apostrafees if ya like!! :beer:

[jimnyc]

Oh, and one doesn't need to be racist to dislike the idiots in the White House - one need only love their country and believe in the freedoms afforded to us for 232 years before it started going downhill. :)

[fj1200]

Oh, and one doesn't need to be racist to dislike the idiots in the White House - one need only love their country and believe in the freedoms afforded to us for 232 years before it started going downhill. :)

137 years. :slap: Repeal the 17th.

[jimnyc]

137 years. :slap: Repeal the 17th.

Obama wasn't even born by that time, ya filthy liberal!! :poke:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Well, my IQ is 'well over 140', so I can edumecate ya'll on apostrafees if ya like!! :beer:

Now James... do I have to swat you down on that too?:poke:

[glockmail]

137 years. :slap: Repeal the 17th.Why do you hate the 17th?

[fj1200]

Why do you hate the 17th?

It removes the original intent of having the States directly represented in Congress. Granted that many states had already allowed their Senators to be chosen by popular vote but it still removes the representation of the State legislatures.

[glockmail]

It removes the original intent of having the States directly represented in Congress. .... That's just your interpretation. The 17th merely required all states to use a uniform method of selection to fill the senate seats. In reality it brings the Senate one step closer to the People.

[fj1200]

That's just your interpretation. The 17th merely required all states to use a uniform method of selection to fill the senate seats. In reality it brings the Senate one step closer to the People.

How is that my interpretation?


The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof...

But yes, it does bring the Senate closer to the people by eliminating the representation of the state legislatures.


The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof

[glockmail]

It is your interpretation that having state legislatures select senators is "having the States directly represented in Congress", while having senators chosen directly by the people (who also choose their state legislature) is not. That is your argument, isn't it?

[fj1200]

It is your interpretation that having state legislatures select senators is "having the States directly represented in Congress", while having senators chosen directly by the people (who also choose their state legislature) is not. That is your argument, isn't it?

It's not really an interpretation IMO when the constituency of the Senate changes from the legislature, which is charged with state business, to the people, which is not.


Kochan (2003) p.1053 Donald J. Kochan, for an article in the Albany Law Review (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_Law_Review), analyzed the effect of the Seventeenth Amendment on Supreme Court decisions over the constitutionality of state legislation. He found a "statistically significant difference" in the number of cases holding state legislation unconstitutional before and after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, with the number of holdings of unconstitutionality increasing sixfold. Besides the 17th Amendment, decline in the influence of the states also followed economic changes. Zywicki observes that interest groups of all kinds began to focus efforts on the federal government, as national issues could not be directed by influencing only a few state legislatures of with Senators of the most seniority chairing the major committees. He attributes the rise in the strength of interest groups partially to the development of the U.S. economy on an interstate, national level. See Zywicki (1997) p.215. Ure also argues that the Seventeenth Amendment led to the rise of special interest groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Interest_Group) to fill the void; with citizens replacing state legislators as the Senate's electorate, with citizens being less able to monitor the actions of their Senators, the Senate became more susceptible to pressure from interest groups, who in turn were more influential due to the centralization of power in the federal government; an interest group no longer needed to lobby (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying) many state legislatures, and could instead focus its efforts on the federal government. See Ure (2007) p.293

[Marcus Aurelius]

It's not really an interpretation IMO when the constituency of the Senate changes from the legislature, which is charged with state business, to the people, which is not.

the state legislature does business of the state, on behalf of the people. They are elected by the people, and serve the people.

[Kathianne]

There were reasons that the FF wanted democratic features to the government, while building in some precautions against the worst of democracy. The 17th amendment defeated one of the basic precautions.

Yes, it led to 'more democracy,' and the increase in partisanship that carries with it.

I'd be glad to see it repealed, but it won't happen.

Just so we're all on the same page, this has to do with Senators at the federal level and how they were chosen prior to the 17th.

[fj1200]

the state legislature does business of the state, on behalf of the people. They are elected by the people, and serve the people.

Yes... and originally to choose their Senators.

[aboutime]

There were reasons that the FF wanted democratic features to the government, while building in some precautions against the worst of democracy. The 17th amendment defeated one of the basic precautions.

Yes, it led to 'more democracy,' and the increase in partisanship that carries with it.

I'd be glad to see it repealed, but it won't happen.


Kathianne. Too much Democracy. Unchecked. Is one of the dangers the founding father's warned all of us to fear.

True Democracy is dangerous because it is MOB RULE.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. Too much Democracy. Unchecked. Is one of the dangers the founding father's warned all of us to fear.

True Democracy is dangerous because it is MOB RULE.

Which is what I said, without the hyperbole of 'mob rule.'

[fj1200]

There were reasons that the FF wanted democratic features to the government, while building in some precautions against the worst of democracy. The 17th amendment defeated one of the basic precautions.

Yes, it led to 'more democracy,' and the increase in partisanship that carries with it.

I'd be glad to see it repealed, but it won't happen.

Just so we're all on the same page, this has to do with Senators at the federal level and how they were chosen prior to the 17th.

Repeal? Right, never happen. But I think the 17th also partially defeated the idea of checks and balances; no longer do the states have a check against the people.

[aboutime]

Which is what I said, without the hyperbole of 'mob rule.'


Kathianne. MOB RULE is Not Hyperbole.

[Kathianne]

Repeal? Right, never happen. But I think the 17th also partially defeated the idea of checks and balances; no longer do the states have a check against the people.

Again, one of the safeguards put in, removed. Total agreement.

Since the beginning of this political experiment, people in the US and around the world have clamored for more 'democracy.' Truth is, the ff found democracy dangerous and self-destructive even in small, ancient, homogeneous Athens.

However, upon consideration of the best of Roman republic and some democratic features from ancient Athens, they hoped to strike a balance. Much of the debate on 'states rights' revolve around the same issues. When the 17th, along with the 16th were enacted, federal powers grew.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Kathianne http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=655515#post655515)
There were reasons that the FF wanted democratic features to the government, while building in some precautions against the worst of democracy. The 17th amendment defeated one of the basic precautions.

Yes, it led to 'more democracy,' and the increase in partisanship that carries with it.

I'd be glad to see it repealed, but it won't happen.

Just so we're all on the same page, this has to do with Senators at the federal level and how they were chosen prior to the 17th.


Repeal? Right, never happen. But I think the 17th also partially defeated the idea of checks and balances; no longer do the states have a check against the people.

Democracy is a person votes on all issues.

When did this country do that?

At the Fed level? Nope.
At the state level. Don't recall any states doing that.
At the city level? I tend to doubt that too.

So, where has one of the many governments of the USA been a democracy?

OK on Athens. They did pretty well with one man one vote on the issues. Though they had a less warrior structure vs Sparta, Sparta was generally in check and over time declines.

Athens was so important, it became a model in many ways for various things. I can't recall who copied Sparta.

[Kathianne]

Again, one of the safeguards put in, removed. Total agreement.

Since the beginning of this political experiment, people in the US and around the world have clamored for more 'democracy.' Truth is, the ff found democracy dangerous and self-destructive even in small, ancient, homogeneous Athens.

However, upon consideration of the best of Roman republic and some democratic features from ancient Athens, they hoped to strike a balance. Much of the debate on 'states rights' revolve around the same issues. When the 17th, along with the 16th were enacted, federal powers grew.

For the reading impaired, a bit of clarity. Some reading of the Federalist papers, especially those of Madison and Hamilton, enumerate the checks they put in to prevent from over-utilization of democratic features to the new government. Many of these were in response to the fears put forward in the anti-Federalist papers.

The amendment eliminated one of those protections.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Democracy is a person votes on all issues...

Not exactly. That is an 'extremely' simplistic view of democracy. It's considerably more involved that that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Democracy is a form of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_government) in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law).

For someone with an alleged 'well over140' IQ, you're not showing it very well.

[Robert A Whit]

For the reading impaired, a bit of clarity. Some reading of the Federalist papers, especially those of Madison and Hamilton, enumerate the checks they put in to prevent from over-utilization of democratic features to the new government. Many of these were in response to the fears put forward in the anti-Federalist papers.

The amendment eliminated one of those protections.

Not sure who you think has read the entire Federalist papers, I confess to owning them and reading a number yet not all of them.

States playing a role in the operation of the government they formed lost that role when the public took over electing senators. (17th amendment)

I agree we lost a vital protection.

A footnote. I used to correspond with a man determined to remove the 17th amendment and he did a professional job and took it to Congress. His efforts were futile despite promises he got from various members of congress.

[Kathianne]

:lame2:

[Robert A Whit]

I won't play your taunting or insulting games Marcus but tell us all this.

What do you claim your IQ is?

So, you put all your faith in Wikipedia huh?

[Kathianne]

Not exactly. That is an 'extremely' simplistic view of democracy. It's considerably more involved that that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy


For someone with an alleged 'well over140' IQ, you're not showing it very well.

The 'closer' the people are to direct election of representatives or on laws or repeal of said laws, the more 'democratic' is the process.

Direct democracy was never envisioned by the FF, they would be appalled at just how 'democratic' CA has become as an extreme example.

http://www.economist.com/node/18586520

[Larrymc]

Not sure who you think has read the entire Federalist papers, I confess to owning them and reading a number yet not all of them.

States playing a role in the operation of the government they formed lost that role when the public took over electing senators. (17th amendment)

I agree we lost a vital protection.

A footnote. I used to correspond with a man determined to remove the 17th amendment and he did a professional job and took it to Congress. His efforts were futile despite promises he got from various members of congress.No say its not true, Members of Congress didn't follow through.:laugh:

[Marcus Aurelius]

I won't play your taunting or insulting games Marcus but tell us all this.

What do you claim your IQ is?

So, you put all your faith in Wikipedia huh?

I responded to Jim's comment about IQ, not to you, so I'm not sure what you're on about this time. Let's stick to the topic dumb ass, shall we?

GOOGLE 'define democracy', and you'll see literally hundreds of sources who state the same thing I posted from the Wiki site... so stop whining.

[Robert A Whit]

The 'closer' the people are to direct election of representatives or on laws or repeal of said laws, the more 'democratic' is the process.

Direct democracy was never envisioned by the FF, they would be appalled at just how 'democratic' CA has become as an extreme example.

http://www.economist.com/node/18586520

Elections by the public are democratic. What the representatives decide to do is where it ends.

CA does not vote on each issue. But following the law, a few things get put on our ballots and we directly vote on only those. The bulk of the effort in Sacramento still is by representatives.

[Robert A Whit]

So tell us

Marcus, what is your IQ?

[Kathianne]

When citizens can determine which laws will pass or be rescinded, outside of their elected representatives, the process is more democratic than if the representatives make those decisions.

When a representative or a government executive can be removed directly by the people, rather than a process provided for in the constitution, there is more democracy.

When the 17th amendment was passed, it was to 'clean up' corruption and the temptation of bribery. Now we have a system where Senate elections are financed by the wealthy across the country, some foreign money too seeps in. I wonder which senators were more responsive to their state constituents, those before the 17th or since? But it is 'more democratic' as an election device.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by glockmail http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=655485#post655485)
Why do you hate the 17th?


It removes the original intent of having the States directly represented in Congress. Granted that many states had already allowed their Senators to be chosen by popular vote but it still removes the representation of the State legislatures.

It is seldom mentioned and virtually never by Democrats what the impact of the 17th amendment turns out to have done.

To remove our State Government from any role in what happens in DC was a tragedy. Congress has been well informed over this issue yet take no action to correct it.

[Kathianne]

More on the problem of 'too much' democracy, another from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/when_too_much_democracy_threat


...Voter initiatives, referendums and recalls were introduced a century ago during the Progressive era, for good reasons—frontier politics were corrupt and direct democracy was a way to circumvent venal legislatures. Since the 1970s, however, direct democracy has become something very different and sinister.


Starting with California's infamous "Prop 13", which capped property taxes and also required two-thirds majorities in both houses of the state legislature to raise any future taxes, voter-initiative industries sprang up in various states that now churn out ballot measures as though by conveyor belt. Getting enough signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot is easy for sponsors with lots of money, who can afford to pay college students a dollar or more for each signature they collect in a mall.


California, where relatively few (and disproportionately old, white and rich) people vote but many (young and brown) people live, requires only 8% of the votes in the last gubernatorial election, fewer than 700,000 signatures, for an initiative that would amend the state constitution. As a result California's constitution has been amended more than 500 times. (America's constitution has had only 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights in 1791.) A former justice of the United States Supreme Court, Hugo Black, liked to carry the federal constitution in his pocket. Ronald George, the chief justice of California's Supreme Court, jokes that (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/speech101009.htm) "I certainly could not emulate that practice with California's constitutional counterpart", since it would not fit.


The result is dysfunction. States with excessive direct democracy, such as California, Oregon and Arizona, now face daunting budget deficits because the recession has exposed the cumulative legacy of past voter initiatives. Voters love schools, hospitals, prisons, and trains. They also hate the taxes that pay for them. Recessions are often triggers of fiscal chaos, whereas ballot-box budgeting is the cause.


But the problems with democracy go beyond budgeting. By usurping the job that the founding fathers envisioned for elected (and informed!) representatives, voters infringe upon and impair representative democracy. In California voters have regulated Indian casinos, set prison terms, banned wildlife traps and gay marriage, given chickens bigger coops and much else. In many cases, there is no evidence that voters have studied the issues or even comprehend the initiative text (which can run to thousands of words). Instead, those who vote are likely to rely on attack ads by special interests or sponsors on television, or celebrity endorsements. ...



As I posted before, I think even these 'reforms' were mistakes...

[Robert A Whit]

When citizens can determine which laws will pass or be rescinded, outside of their elected representatives, the process is more democratic than if the representatives make those decisions.

When a representative or a government executive can be removed directly by the people, rather than a process provided for in the constitution, there is more democracy.

When the 17th amendment was passed, it was to 'clean up' corruption and the temptation of bribery. Now we have a system where Senate elections are financed by the wealthy across the country, some foreign money too seeps in. I wonder which senators were more responsive to their state constituents, those before the 17th or since? But it is 'more democratic' as an election device.

The Federal operation was intended to differ from states or cities. The purpose of the Feds is to promote the agenda of the states who had Senators representing them. We are represented by representatives and to give the public a better break, spending bills have to come from their house.

There was this notion that The operations of the Federal Government was of vital interest to each state thus Senators performed a vital function. It seems to me that Senators care very little what the states legislatures desires are.

[Kathianne]

Robert, for crying out loud, speak of the 17th, go back to the original premise of the thread if you wish, but please do not start with your mini-lesson on our system of government. From what you've written you are uniquely unqualified for that task.

[Robert A Whit]

Source Economist presented by Kathianne
California, where relatively few (and disproportionately old, white and rich) people vote but many (young and brown) people live, requires only 8% of the votes in the last gubernatorial election, fewer than 700,000 signatures, for an initiative that would amend the state constitution. As a result California's constitution has been amended more than 500 times. (America's constitution has had only 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights in 1791.) A former justice of the United States Supreme Court, Hugo Black, liked to carry the federal constitution in his pocket. Ronald George, the chief justice of California's Supreme Court, jokes that (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/speech101009.htm) "I certainly could not emulate that practice with California's constitutional counterpart", since it would not fit.


The result is dysfunction. States with excessive direct democracy, such as California, Oregon and Arizona, now face daunting budget deficits because the recession has exposed the cumulative legacy of past voter initiatives. Voters love schools, hospitals, prisons, and trains. They also hate the taxes that pay for them. Recessions are often triggers of fiscal chaos, whereas ballot-box budgeting is the cause.


But the problems with democracy go beyond budgeting. By usurping the job that the founding fathers envisioned for elected (and informed!) representatives, voters infringe upon and impair representative democracy. In California voters have regulated Indian casinos, set prison terms, banned wildlife traps and gay marriage, given chickens bigger coops and much else. In many cases, there is no evidence that voters have studied the issues or even comprehend the initiative text (which can run to thousands of words). Instead, those who vote are likely to rely on attack ads by special interests or sponsors on television, or celebrity endorsements. ...

When I subscribed to the Economist, I expected it to be non partisan yet it appeared to me to be pretty much a organ to present views of the left. If you were a Paul Krugman, it could be easily a very good magazine but a Milton Friedman might find it disingenuous. I know I felt that way.

What was the opening comment snipped above from the entire article? Even if true, it has nothing to do with the initiative. All sorts of them get put on the ballot and I suspect as many that represent the left show up as those for the right wingers.

I vote on all of them. It is my only chance to vote on very important things that in a million years, never would I get a chance to direct vote my views.

Proposition 13 saved many homeowners from the far too high taxes then imposed on people for merely owning a home. As with all laws, it has warts. But something had to be done or too many of the state could not have afforded to live here and would have bailed out. Many were bailing out and heaven help the woman with kids who got the house in the divorce and had a husband who simply did not pay a dime to the woman. Her family and her were soon put out by high property taxes as were the old on fixed incomes.

[Robert A Whit]

Robert, for crying out loud, speak of the 17th, go back to the original premise of the thread if you wish, but please do not start with your mini-lesson on our system of government. From what you've written you are uniquely unqualified for that task.

I forgot. Per you, you are the most qualified.

When do you quit your mini lessons?

[Kathianne]

I picked up this thread when discussion had somehow morphed from the OP to the 17th amendment and someone, (fj?) arguing for repeal of said amendment.

Whether this was a hijack or not? In any case, since then several have been discussing the amendment and the natural offshoot of 'more or less' democratic features in our system of government.

Unlike Robert's last attempt to accuse me of 'mini-lessons' I've brought up instances, with links, on how increasing democratic features, ala 17th amendment and others since then, have brought more chaos, expense, and bad government to the country.

If Robert wishes to argue THAT point or bring up something actually related to that or the original point of the thread, fine. Bringing up IQ and false issues between state involvement with FED via the 17th is just total derails of conversations/discussions that were previously flowing nicely.

[Marcus Aurelius]

...The purpose of the Feds is to promote the agenda of the states who had Senators representing them...

That is the single most unintelligent thing you've ever said, and that is in itself, impressive (in a negative way).

The purpose of the Federal Government is spelled out in the preamble to the Constitution.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America".

Not one of these could even remotely to mean the federal government is there to promote the agenda of individual states, based on senatporial representation.

COMMON defense... GENERAL welfare... etc. etc. etc.

It's the Federal Governments role, or is supposed to be, for them to do that for EVERYONE in this country.

[jimnyc]

So tell us

Marcus, what is your IQ?

He replied to this question already and there's no need to continue it.

Both of you, please cease the back and forth. If you guys can't figure out how to place one another on ignore, and choose to engage one another and ruin threads... Well, I don't need to say it, as I've stated it and pleaded it endlessly already.

[Jeff]

He replied to this question already and there's no need to continue it.

Both of you, please cease the back and forth. If you guys can't figure out how to place one another on ignore, and choose to engage one another and ruin threads... Well, I don't need to say it, as I've stated it and pleaded it endlessly already.

Dam Jim always yelling at someone :laugh:

I guess being a teacher at romper room is out for you :laugh:

[Robert A Whit]

He replied to this question already and there's no need to continue it.

Both of you, please cease the back and forth. If you guys can't figure out how to place one another on ignore, and choose to engage one another and ruin threads... Well, I don't need to say it, as I've stated it and pleaded it endlessly already.

Thanks Jim.

What did he say his IQ is?

[jimnyc]

Thanks Jim.

What did he say his IQ is?

I guess you can't read what you just quoted. You won't be reading this either as you're now gone from this thread. Now can the rest please get back on topic.

[Jeff]

I guess you can't read what you just quoted. You won't be reading this either as you're now gone from this thread. Now can the rest please get back on topic.

:laugh:Temper temper :laugh:

Jim are you getting one of those headaches ya get when there are to many kids in the house screaming and yelling running all around ? :laugh: