Fight the good fight. It is worth it.

[rightwinger]

I think the biggest fight is getting ALL of us to agree and talk. We are all soooo divided in this country. So many can't even imagine agreeing with the other side on anything.

We need to start working toward what's best for all of us. But can that happen? The last few months we spent screaming, cussing, putting down other Americans because we don't think the same way. Many, both sides, voted Party instead of People.

One of the biggest problems i see is some people will not admit when they're wrong. They won't use their own brains and study a problem and see both sides and make their own decision. They wait for some news person to tell them how to think. They'll suck up lies without really looking into it and will never admit if they screwed up.

Hell, I'd like to hear Obama say ONE TIME "I was wrong", or "I made the wrong decision"...SOMETHING! I have no respect for anyone that knows they're wrong and won't admit to it, or throws someone else under the bus to make himself look good. He is no "Honest" Abe like he thinks he is. This president has divided this country more than any other. I can't believe that people don't see this.

What would you like to see Obama apologize for?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would love a viable third party.

Socially moderate, fiscally conservative.

So this is what I want from the federal goverment:

What I want the federal government to do:

1. Keep me safe from enemies, foreign and domestic.
2. Follow the original intent of the Constitution
3. Implement sufficient regulation to prevent others from infringing on my unalienable rights and/or doing violence to each other and accomplish efficient cooperation between the states and other countries, and then leave me alone to live my life as I choose.

Would that fit the platform you could support in a third party effort?

2. Follow the original intent of the Constitution

According to whom and by what authority?

And what exactly does that mean?

Otherwise, there is no evidence that ‘originalism’ or ‘strict constructionism’ in any way reflect the Framers’ original intent.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would love a viable third party.

Socially moderate, fiscally conservative.

Once upon a time that was the GOP.

 

[AmyNation]

Thread burp

 

[Foxfyre]

I would love a viable third party.

Socially moderate, fiscally conservative.

So this is what I want from the federal goverment:


Would that fit the platform you could support in a third party effort?

2. Follow the original intent of the Constitution

According to whom and by what authority?

And what exactly does that mean?

Otherwise, there is no evidence that ‘originalism’ or ‘strict constructionism’ in any way reflect the Framers’ original intent.

The Founders left us a wealth of formal statements, transcripts of speeches, letters, notes, and other documents expressing their rationale in the wording of the Constitution. There was a time that the education system didn't consider somebody properly educated without a solid grounding in those concepts. These days too many people have never read a single Federalist or Anti-federalist paper and have no concept of the debates and thought processes that went into the original Constitution, or for that matter, many of the amendments that have been added to it.

I don't require people these days to be experts on the founding documents, but I do want those elected to high office to have a strong sense of and respect for what the Founders intended the federal government to be and to strictly stick to that concept.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So this is what I want from the federal goverment:


Would that fit the platform you could support in a third party effort?

Yes

At this point, I would support any candidate who I believed would reduce the deficit, limit the government and repeal the Patriot Act.

If we go with original intent, there will be no deficits, except in very short term and manageable instances, as the Founders would see the federal government having no right or purpose in forcing the people to take on debt obligations.

The original intent of the Constitution was strictly limited government--it could do only what the Constitution explicitly allowed and it did not allow the federal government to order what sort of society the people chose to have.

The Patriot Act, however, falls within the duty of government to provide the common defense and we would have to negotiate on that one. There are some who say most provisions were necessary to provide defense against America's enemies who are determined to do the most horrific violence to hurt us as much as possible. Think 9/11. And there are others who believe it goes too far in giving government power to restrict freedoms. So that one is defnitely worthy of discussion and negotiation.

Again, you base this ‘original understanding’ of the Constitution on what?

And the bolded is incorrect, the Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied. See: McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Congress’ regulatory authority is the cornerstone of our great and successful Nation, without which we’d be relegated a third-world backwater failure.

 

[LoneLaugher]

So this is what I want from the federal goverment:


Would that fit the platform you could support in a third party effort?

2. Follow the original intent of the Constitution

According to whom and by what authority?

And what exactly does that mean?

Otherwise, there is no evidence that ‘originalism’ or ‘strict constructionism’ in any way reflect the Framers’ original intent.

The Founders left us a wealth of formal statements, transcripts of speeches, letters, notes, and other documents expressing their rationale in the wording of the Constitution. There was a time that the education system didn't consider somebody properly educated without a solid grounding in those concepts. These days too many people have never read a single Federalist or Anti-federalist paper and have no concept of the debates and thought processes that went into the original Constitution, or for that matter, many of the amendments that have been added to it.

I don't require people these days to be experts on the founding documents, but I do want those elected to high office to have a strong sense of and respect for what the Founders intended the federal government to be and to strictly stick to that concept.

Really?

Speak to that, please. In light of the Presidential candidate you just voted for.

Man, you are a fucking blowhard.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, LL, if making a civil and reasoned, and I might add accurate, response to your question is being a blowhard, we can scratch you off the list of those we're looking for to be constructive on this thread. But thanks for stopping by.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You never wanted the honest discussion.

Go ahead. Speakmto Mitt's proven track record that leads you to believe that he is an originalist. You want that in a candidate for high office. You voted for him. Explain.

 

[Greenbeard]

So far Obama has not shown us much that he is not a dictator and he has not given up his soft Marxist rhetoric.

The saddest thing about Tuesday was finding out that you guys really aren't just fucking with us. This isn't wink-and-a-nudge stuff.

When you set up an alternative universe in which the polls are re-configured to give the results you want, you're not needling us. You actually make yourself believe in that universe. When you say Barack Obama is a Marxist dictator, I now suspect with a high degree of confidence that you actually believe that.

It isn't just trash talk and attempted psych outs, your delusions are genuine. This stuff reflects an actual world view.

I didn't fully appreciate or understand that before Tuesday, when so many were inexplicably shocked by an easily predictable electoral outcome. This has been intensely disheartening, to say the least. Frankly, I'm not even sure where the fun is anymore. It's one thing to spar with William F. Buckley, it's quite another to be subjected to the delusional rants of a crazy guy in a bus station. Loss of touch with reality is becoming endemic to the modern American right and everyone with a healthy interest in public affairs is poorer for it.

 

[EriktheRed]

I don't require people these days to be experts on the founding documents, but I do want those elected to high office to have a strong sense of and respect for what the Founders intended the federal government to be and to strictly stick to that concept.

Really?

Speak to that, please. In light of the Presidential candidate you just voted for.

Man, you are a fucking blowhard.

Which is why I stand by what i said earlier:

You act like you're above it all, but you're as big a wingnut as some of the more shrill ones on here with your rhetoric.

 

[Immanuel]

Yes

At this point, I would support any candidate who I believed would reduce the deficit, limit the government and repeal the Patriot Act.

I believe you supported Obama this year. Did you do so because you believed that he would do these things or did you do so because you believed neither he nor Romney would do these things, but you believed Obama was the lesser of two evils?

If I am incorrect in my believe about who you supported, please forgive me.
Immie

Nope. Obama didn't earn my vote.

I voted third party this year, because it was the only palpable choice for me.

Ditto.

Immie

 

[Samson]

And think about this folks. Nothing much has changed since yesterday. Obama is in the White House. The Senate is controlled by Democrats and the House is controlled by Republicans. Nobody has changed their minds about much of anything. . . .yet..

I disagree.

Queers can get married in Maryland.

Pot-heads can flock to Colorado.




I expect Del and Elvis to move in nextdoor any day.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So far Obama has not shown us much that he is not a dictator and he has not given up his soft Marxist rhetoric.

The saddest thing about Tuesday was finding out that you guys really aren't just fucking with us. This isn't wink-and-a-nudge stuff.

When you set up an alternative universe in which the polls are re-configured to give the results you want, you're not needling us. You actually make yourself believe in that universe. When you say Barack Obama is a Marxist dictator, I now suspect with a high degree of confidence that you actually believe that.

It isn't just trash talk and attempted psych outs, your delusions are genuine. This stuff reflects an actual world view.

I didn't fully appreciate or understand that before Tuesday, when so many were inexplicably shocked by an easily predictable electoral outcome. This has been intensely disheartening, to say the least. Frankly, I'm not even sure where the fun is anymore. It's one thing to spar with William F. Buckley, it's quite another to be subjected to the delusional rants of a crazy guy in a bus station. Loss of touch with reality is becoming endemic to the modern American right and everyone with a healthy interest in public affairs is poorer for it.

It’s also likely the right’s focus will shift from ‘getting rid of Obama’ to ‘defining his legacy,’ where conservatives hope Obama suffers the same humiliating fate as GWB at the end of his second term. The goal is different but the insane rhetoric remains the same.

 

[Vast LWC]

Well, here's my proposal, though I'm sure the vast majority of the population of this message board wouldn't be interested.

I'd like to form a viable centrist 3rd party, with very slight Liberatarian leanings, meaning only that if there's a question, I'd err on the side of individual rights.

The party would have NO platform stances concerning polarizing issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. If someone asks a party member for a stance, the correct answer will be "I don't care enough about that issue to have an opinion one way or the other".

The entire point of the party would be to get things done, and concentrate on constructive compromise toward that end.

Sure, I have some strong opinions about what the role of government should and shouldn't be. But in my opinion, it's crazy to strictly adhere to ideology if it's going to stop the government from doing it's job altogether, as has been the case for the past decade or so.

To me, the welfare of the country trumps partisanship every time.

And compromise is the true heart of Democracy.

 

[Vast LWC]

Just the very existence of such a 3rd party, if it's viable, would break the 2 party stranglehold on our political system, instantly.

Both the current major parties would have to compromise, or risk losing to a coalition of the 2 other parties.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just the very existence of such a 3rd party, if it's viable, would break the 2 party stranglehold on our political system, instantly.

Both the current major parties would have to compromise, or risk losing to a coalition of the 2 other parties.

That is an interesting concept. Many Romney supporters think he would have won if the third party people had not ganged up on him and joined with the Obama people to demonize him. The third party people were mostly attacking Romney, not Obama. But had Romney won, no doubt many Obama supporters miay have thought the third party took enough votes from him to pull out the win.

But then there are those who describe the Democratic Party as center right; others who see it as extreme left. There are those who see the Republican Party as extreme right and others who see it as center left.

Those who opposed Obama still do for all the same reasons. Nothing has changed there. And those who opposed Romney still do for all the same reasons. Nothing has changed there.

And I agree that the third party we put together will have no stance on social issues because the third party I envision would not see social issues as the prerogative of the federal government to address. I wouldn't expect people to stop caring about social issues because we all do so when asked about that the proper response would be that such things should be managed at the state and local level so the party takes no position on them at the federal level.

But what is the chance of that concept passing muster with those who now think we should all be willing to pay for contraceptives for everybody who wants them?

 

[LoneLaugher]

That post was almost entirely bullshit.

 

[Foxfyre]

Lone Laugher, I know what your opinion of me is and that you consider it all bullshit. I accept that. But I would respectfully request that you find something else to do rather than to continue to troll a thread where others are attempting to have a civil discussion.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I am not trolling. I am telling it like it is. Stop bullshitting and I will stop calling you out on it.