Do Progressives sound a lot like Fundies to you?

[dblack]

You do that by voting. And this past election, the candidate who promised to repeal Romneyca er ah Obamacare lost. That means you must live with the consequences. That's how a democratically elected Republic works.

Nah.. we can always fight for our rights, even if the majority disagrees with us. That's what Constitutional limits on government are all about. Majority rule isn't the final word.

I didn't think invading Iraq and Afghanistan were good ideas. I didn't think coddling the rich with special tax rates and loopholes was a good idea. But those were the decisions the elected representatives voted for.

I didn't like these things either. And my interpretation of the Constitution doesn't allow them. Care to reconsider?

What do you mean by 'fight(ing) for your rights"? Open revolution? Armed resistance? Secession?

Oh gawd no. I wouldn't risk my life over it at this point. If we can't talk people into voting for a decent government now, I sort of doubt they'll do much better after a revolution.

No, I'm talking about raising awareness, trying to point out to people why Constitutional limits and minority protections are so important - in the end, even to the majority. Just the usual political tools - the Court when they're not selling us out, public advocacy, voting for candidates that don't suck, etc...

So I ask again, how twisted would you accept the constitution before you get what you want?

Not sure I understand the question.

If the majority doesn't want what you want, if you're not willing to abide by rulings of the Supreme Court, why are you concerned at all about the constitution?

Well, judicial review isn't technically stipulated in the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to limit the power of major rule - which is why I'm concerned about it and don't want to see it watered down or neutered with successive 'reintepretations'.

 

[Nosmo King]

Nah.. we can always fight for our rights, even if the majority disagrees with us. That's what Constitutional limits on government are all about. Majority rule isn't the final word.



I didn't like these things either. And my interpretation of the Constitution doesn't allow them. Care to reconsider?

What do you mean by 'fight(ing) for your rights"? Open revolution? Armed resistance? Secession?

Oh gawd no. I wouldn't risk my life over it at this point. If we can't talk people into voting for a decent government now, I sort of doubt they'll do much better after a revolution.

No, I'm talking about raising awareness, trying to point out to people why Constitutional limits and minority protections are so important - in the end, even to the majority. Just the usual political tools - the Court when they're not selling us out, public advocacy, voting for candidates that don't suck, etc...

So I ask again, how twisted would you accept the constitution before you get what you want?

Not sure I understand the question.

If the majority doesn't want what you want, if you're not willing to abide by rulings of the Supreme Court, why are you concerned at all about the constitution?

Well, judicial review isn't technically stipulated in the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to limit the power of major rule - which is why I'm concerned about it and don't want to see it watered down or neutered with successive 'reintepretations'.

If the constitution was absolutely clear and rigid, there would be no need for interpretations and the amendment process. It was, in fact, drafted to be as elastic as necessary to serve a growing, vigorous nation. In that capacity, it has served us very well.

When folks disagree with an interpretation of the constitution, they are empowered by that constitution to amend it and/or elect representatives who will fulfill their notions of what the document means.

If you cannot get such candidates elected, that should indicate that your views are outside of the main stream of thinking. Does that mean that the citizens should bow to your views and eschew their own? How could such a system serve the majority? Isn't that asking for a tyranny of the minority?

 

[dblack]

What do you mean by 'fight(ing) for your rights"? Open revolution? Armed resistance? Secession?

Oh gawd no. I wouldn't risk my life over it at this point. If we can't talk people into voting for a decent government now, I sort of doubt they'll do much better after a revolution.

No, I'm talking about raising awareness, trying to point out to people why Constitutional limits and minority protections are so important - in the end, even to the majority. Just the usual political tools - the Court when they're not selling us out, public advocacy, voting for candidates that don't suck, etc...



Not sure I understand the question.

If the majority doesn't want what you want, if you're not willing to abide by rulings of the Supreme Court, why are you concerned at all about the constitution?

Well, judicial review isn't technically stipulated in the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to limit the power of major rule - which is why I'm concerned about it and don't want to see it watered down or neutered with successive 'reintepretations'.

If the constitution was absolutely clear and rigid, there would be no need for interpretations and the amendment process. It was, in fact, drafted to be as elastic as necessary to serve a growing, vigorous nation. In that capacity, it has served us very well.

When folks disagree with an interpretation of the constitution, they are empowered by that constitution to amend it and/or elect representatives who will fulfill their notions of what the document means.

If only the court, and the politicians pushing for ever-more power, saw it your way. Unfortunately, they saw the amendment process as too onerous and gave up on using it to change things legitimately. Instead, they sought to amend the Constitution's meaning by manipulating the Court and good old-fashioned sophistry.

If you cannot get such candidates elected, that should indicate that your views are outside of the main stream of thinking. Does that mean that the citizens should bow to your views and eschew their own? How could such a system serve the majority? Isn't that asking for a tyranny of the minority?

Not at all. Under a constitutionally limited government, the minority is limited in exactly the same way the majority is. Regardless of who is driving government policy, they can only exercise that power in certain ways. That protects all of us from tyranny, whether we are in the majority or not.

 

[del]

Is it just me, or do Obamabots revert directly to talks of Romney when they are called out for being hive minded drones?

is it just me or do butthurt losers sound like butthurt losers when they drag out the obamabot line?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

This deserves a bit more response. I agree, that a lot of the Far Left seems to be buying into the Obama Cult of Personality, but before you give the Far Right a pass, Conservatives used to flat out cheer or clap whenever Bush said something they absolutely knew would piss of a Liberal. That kind of crazy euphoria you see in Fundamentals was VERY present in the Bush years, it just had a slightly different trigger.

That pretty much sums up the only real difference I've ever seen between a dedicated Republican voter and a dedicated Democrat voter. The Democrat tends to rally around his candidate and defend him with almost fundamentalist glee. The Republican tends to rally around his candidate and happily join right in on beating the hell out of their political opponents.

The end result is the same. A group of folks that have turned off their brains and will go on the attack against people that agrees with them 90% of the time for being an enemy of America because of that one or two issues they disagree on.

It's different, democrats mostly criticized Bush for his inept unilateral cowboy foreign policy, a warmonger, a big deficit spender, allowing himself to be subverted by Cheney, his stand on torture and Habias, his trickle down policies, etc. They had a lunatic fringe that claimed all kind of crazy shit but it never really became the central tone of the attacks.

Conservatives on the other hand allow their fringe fanatics to lead the charge so the criticism is almost entirely built around a fictional character that is a Communist, Marxist, fascist, Muslim, Kenyan, terrorist sympathizer, bent on the destruction of real Americans. This is what I defend against, there are a lot of fair criticisms of Obama, mostly concerning continuing Bush policies, but I hardly ever hear these.

But you don't criticize Obama for being the biggest deficit spender in human history because that's blasphemy, right?

Lets not forget he has more wars and added new dimensions to the ones he inherited. You wont here a peep about that either. But Occupy is a bitter clinger, a Klingon, a dingleberry...so it isn't really shocking.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Is it just me, or do Obamabots revert directly to talks of Romney when they are called out for being hive minded drones?

is it just me or do butthurt losers sound like butthurt losers when they drag out the obamabot line?

Well, I didn't vote major party so I had no horse in the game. In fact, I think this election proved we're all losers. So I guess we can share a table. I'll look into finding you a graphic novel for discussions.