It's almost June - countdown to the Supreme Court decision on ACA

[Amelia]

Toldja...

Fakey never answers a direct question....

If I shared as much of Obama's world view as Jake does, Obama would have my vote. haring Obama's domestic vision but switching to a Republican president with a Republican congress? Um, sure, that makes sense.

What a bunch of would be liberals. Make up silly questions, run around in circles flapping their hands, and pretending their way is mainstream.

Vote Romney.

"Obama is the best. Vote Romney."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nah, Romney is better than Obama. I like his business model and he won't kow tow to the far right.

 

[dblack]

Take it up with the Founders who created it that way, not your way. For your sake, you better hope you can avoid "all that".

I don't think the Founders created it "that way" at all. I'll take it up with those claiming otherwise.

Then build either an electoral majority or a SCOTUS majority. Those are the only two ways the Founders would have you do it.

No, that's where your majoritarian, mob-rule mentality is obscuring reason. The framers of the Constitution deliberately and specifically created a government that countered pure democratic rule.

As I alluded to earlier, there can come a point where a significant majority dismisses the value of protecting minorities. They can amend the Constitution legitimately to do away with limited government protection, or they can elect leaders who will pack the Court with unscrupulous judges who will do it for them. If and when that happens (and though it hasn't quite yet, we are on the cusp), the plans of the Founders are defunct.

You seem to be of the opinion that we've already conceded to the majoritarian premise. If you believe that's true, then simply lay claim to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and move on. No need to sully the names of historical figures with modern bungling.

 

[Amelia]

"Obama has done nothing wrong. Vote Romney."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Obama has done nothing wrong. Vote Romney."

I guess that's Jakes argument. So if jake thinks obama has done nothing wrong but can't support obama that must make jake a racist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't think the Founders created it "that way" at all. I'll take it up with those claiming otherwise.

Then build either an electoral majority or a SCOTUS majority. Those are the only two ways the Founders would have you do it.

No, that's where your majoritarian, mob-rule mentality is obscuring reason. The framers of the Constitution deliberately and specifically created a government that countered pure democratic rule.

As I alluded to earlier, there can come a point where a significant majority dismisses the value of protecting minorities. They can amend the Constitution legitimately to do away with limited government protection, or they can elect leaders who will pack the Court with unscrupulous judges who will do it for them. If and when that happens (and though it hasn't quite yet, we are on the cusp), the plans of the Founders are defunct.

You seem to be of the opinion that we've already conceded to the majoritarian premise. If you believe that's true, then simply lay claim to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and move on. No need to sully the names of historical figures with modern bungling.

You are loony if you believe that republican representative government as set up by the founders is now a "dictatorship of the proletariat" today. You are protected by the Constitution. And, you better believe, that when We the People amend the Constitution, or elect the President, or the House and the Senate, you have to accept it. You don't pick up your marbles and walk away.

 

[dblack]

You are loony if you believe that republican representative government as set up by the founders is now a "dictatorship of the proletariat" today. You are protected by the Constitution.

Read my post again. I DON'T believe that's happened yet, though by your repeating claims of the supremacy of majority rule, you seem to. I'm still holding out hope we can prevent it.

And, you better believe, that when We the People amend the Constitution, or elect the President, or the House and the Senate, you have to accept it. You don't pick up your marbles and walk away.

We certainly have that option. At which point the 'violence inherent in the system' is sure to raise its ugly head. That will be an unfortunate day, but not as unfortunate as giving up on freedom.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then build either an electoral majority or a SCOTUS majority. Those are the only two ways the Founders would have you do it.

No, that's where your majoritarian, mob-rule mentality is obscuring reason. The framers of the Constitution deliberately and specifically created a government that countered pure democratic rule.

As I alluded to earlier, there can come a point where a significant majority dismisses the value of protecting minorities. They can amend the Constitution legitimately to do away with limited government protection, or they can elect leaders who will pack the Court with unscrupulous judges who will do it for them. If and when that happens (and though it hasn't quite yet, we are on the cusp), the plans of the Founders are defunct.

You seem to be of the opinion that we've already conceded to the majoritarian premise. If you believe that's true, then simply lay claim to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and move on. No need to sully the names of historical figures with modern bungling.

You are loony if you believe that republican representative government as set up by the founders is now a "dictatorship of the proletariat" today. You are protected by the Constitution. And, you better believe, that when We the People amend the Constitution, or elect the President, or the House and the Senate, you have to accept it. You don't pick up your marbles and walk away.

We have too accept unjust laws?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are loony if you believe that republican representative government as set up by the founders is now a "dictatorship of the proletariat" today. You are protected by the Constitution.

Read my post again. I DON'T believe that's happened yet, though by your repeating claims of the supremacy of majority rule, you seem to. I'm still holding out hope we can prevent it.

And, you better believe, that when We the People amend the Constitution, or elect the President, or the House and the Senate, you have to accept it. You don't pick up your marbles and walk away.

We certainly have that option. At which point the 'violence inherent in the system' is sure to raise its ugly head. That will be an unfortunate day, but not as unfortunate as giving up on freedom.

You have no right to ignore constitutional, electoral process. You have no right of violence against the system. That would be an unfortunate day for you, for sure.

You mistake electoral, constitutional republican representative government as somehow taking away your freedoms. You are wrong.

 

[dblack]

You mistake electoral, constitutional republican representative government as somehow taking away your freedoms. You are wrong.

Not at all. I'm saying your "majoritarian" misinterpretation of that form of government takes away freedoms. The Founders recognized that to make popular government possible, it was necessary to strictly limit the power of the majority to bully the minority. You don't seem to get that, and that is where we disagree.

 

[Dr.House]

He won't answer your question....

Toldja...

Fakey never answers a direct question....

If I shared as much of Obama's world view as Jake does, Obama would have my vote.

Sharing Obama's domestic vision but switching to a Republican president with a Republican congress?

Um, sure, that makes sense.

Now you understand why 99% of the people here don't beleive a word written by FakeStarkey...

 

[Dr.House]

"I stand firm with 0bama. Vote Romney!" -FakeStarkey

 

[Amelia]

Toldja...

Fakey never answers a direct question....

If I shared as much of Obama's world view as Jake does, Obama would have my vote.

Sharing Obama's domestic vision but switching to a Republican president with a Republican congress?

Um, sure, that makes sense.

Now you understand why 99% of the people here don't beleive a word written by FakeStarkey...

Yes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You mistake electoral, constitutional republican representative government as somehow taking away your freedoms. You are wrong.

Not at all. I'm saying your "majoritarian" misinterpretation of that form of government takes away freedoms. The Founders recognized that to make popular government possible, it was necessary to strictly limit the power of the majority to bully the minority. You don't seem to get that, and that is where we disagree.

How are the elections of We the People for representatives and senators who govern in a republican form of government threatening in a "majoritarian" fashion your minority rights?

I am not quarreling, merely trying to understand. Give me an example.

Dr. House, pay attention, and you may learn something here.

 

[dblack]

Toldja...

Fakey never answers a direct question....

If I shared as much of Obama's world view as Jake does, Obama would have my vote.

Sharing Obama's domestic vision but switching to a Republican president with a Republican congress?

Um, sure, that makes sense.

Now you understand why 99% of the people here don't beleive a word written by FakeStarkey...

Why not?

Obviously, I disagree with him on most everything, but his rationale for supporting Romney makes much more sense than what I usually hear. The fact that it's difficult to find a strong distinction between his views and Obama's speaks to the strong similarity of the two major-party candidates - not any confusion on Starkey's part. On his assessment of the candidates, he's got it pretty much right. Romney is slightly to the right, and slightly more business friendly than Obama - but the same sort of authoritarian corporatist at his core.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes.

Honey, you all can run around flapping your hands in the air all you want here. It's entertaining to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If I shared as much of Obama's world view as Jake does, Obama would have my vote.

Sharing Obama's domestic vision but switching to a Republican president with a Republican congress?

Um, sure, that makes sense.

Now you understand why 99% of the people here don't beleive a word written by FakeStarkey...

Why not?

Obviously, I disagree with him on most everything, but his rationale for supporting Romney makes much more sense than what I usually hear. The fact that it's difficult to find a strong distinction between his views and Obama's speaks to the strong similarity of the two major-party candidates - not any confusion on Starkey's part. On his assessment of the candidates, he's got it pretty much right. Romney is slightly to the right, and slightly more business friendly than Obama - but the same sort of authoritarian corporatist at his core.

dblack, are you a populist libertarian? Hmmm. That is interesting.

 

[dblack]

How are the elections of We the People for representatives and senators who govern in a republican form of government threatening in a "majoritarian" fashion your minority rights?

It's not the elections of reps, it's the laws they pass.

I am not quarreling, merely trying to understand. Give me an example.

The subject of the thread will do.

 

[Amelia]

Yes.

Honey, you all can run around flapping your hands in the air all you want here. It's entertaining to me.

If you ever decide to share one single thing you think Obama has done wrong which would justify not letting him finish the job he has started, I hope I get to see it. I remain sincerely curious about why you think he should be replaced.

Until then ...




"Obama is the man who understands America's needs. Vote Romney."

"Obama is the man with a heart. Vote Romney."

 

[JakeStarkey]

I did in the other thread on Catholic hospitals less than two minutes ago.

Amelia, you need to pay attention and step out from behind your ideological shield; it stops your brain from working.

You twist your philosophy to the facts and conditions, not the facts and conditions to your ideology.