Ted Kennedy dies.

[The T]

exactly, if we have direct election of the senate, might as well merge them into the house

Exactly. It's an affront to the original intent, and why I stated the 17th Amendment was a start, and a mistake, and why we are in the pickle we are now, and well our way to MOB RULE...and this didn't happen overnight...but piecemeal, and by DESIGN, by those that crafted it.

It has been a long hard march for the Statists, and they aren't gonna give up.

Is the 19th Amendment an affront to the original intent?

And in that context? What has it to do with Troop movement in Afghanistan? Or for that matter? A bowel movement anywhere?

Deflection isn't your strong suit, is it?

 

[DiveCon]

partisan bub, why can americans vote for the president? why don't kill the xvii amendment, and then let congress appoint a president? would be even better, right? direct line of responsibility.

they dont
they vote for electoral college members who then elect the POTUS
or have you forgotten that

kind of. the electoral college is a strange beast. and i don't like your winner takes it all election rules.

and your senate kind of sucks too. great compromise, lol. wyoming, california.

i like our (german) election system, and still there is a lot of clamoring for MORE direct democracy, so i truly cannot understand this "let's repeal the XVII amendment" (apart from the governor's ability to appoint in case of vacancy, see blagojevich, haha). especially with the health care reform talk everywhere, everyone wants to get their voices heard, i guess a lot would like a public referendum (see california, gay marriage stuff).
but in this case you want to disenfranchise yourself and hand over the power to the authoritay!

i don't get it.

its not MY winner take all
it should be one vote per congressional district, but the states were given the authority to dole them out as they see fit
talk to your legislators and tell them to follow the Nebraska/Maine system

 

[DiveCon]

Eloquently stated. Kudos.

Glad to have been of some help in the "let me think of something clever" department.

i didnt want you to feel left out
lol

 

[paperview]

Is the 19th Amendment an affront to the original intent?

And in that context? What has it to do with Troop movement in Afghanistan? Or for that matter? A bowel movement anywhere?

Deflection isn't your strong suit, is it?

You seem so caught up in Original Intent, I was just wondering.

I had a feeling you wouldn't answer that one.

 

[L.K.Eder]

they dont
they vote for electoral college members who then elect the POTUS
or have you forgotten that

kind of. the electoral college is a strange beast. and i don't like your winner takes it all election rules.

and your senate kind of sucks too. great compromise, lol. wyoming, california.

i like our (german) election system, and still there is a lot of clamoring for MORE direct democracy, so i truly cannot understand this "let's repeal the XVII amendment" (apart from the governor's ability to appoint in case of vacancy, see blagojevich, haha). especially with the health care reform talk everywhere, everyone wants to get their voices heard, i guess a lot would like a public referendum (see california, gay marriage stuff).
but in this case you want to disenfranchise yourself and hand over the power to the authoritay!

i don't get it.

its not MY winner take all
it should be one vote per congressional district, but the states were given the authority to dole them out as they see fit
talk to your legislators and tell them to follow the Nebraska/Maine system

come on dude, sloppy wording on my part, but it should be clear that i am talking about the "who gets more votes in the state gets all electoral votes). i will look up the Nebraska/Maine thing.

 

[paperview]

i heard statists really really liked direct democracy (=mob rule), that is why THEY cooked up the XVII amendment, right The T?

 

[The T]

i heard statists really really liked direct democracy (=mob rule), that is why THEY cooked up the XVII amendment, right The T?

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.

Boo-Hoo. So a State went without Representation. So what? The Tenth still applied as written for that particuliar State that "went without Representation via the Senate choice.

The TENTH Amendment was STILL in force...

Regard?

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So exactly whats the problem? See the word "OR"? The intent was CLEAR. (Obviously NOT to SOME of you, as I address YOU)...Some distinctions are difficult...and it is understandable WHY you didn't see the distinction.

The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests.

So? This is Different how so from what we see happening today?

The result is the SAME.

So I put it to you...

Or rather ASK...do you see ANY distinction here and WHY the 17th was ill advised, and why the Amendment process, should be seldonm used?

They screwed the pooch with this one in my view. Again? The result is the same and what we see NOW.

 

[The T]

i heard statists really really liked direct democracy (=mob rule), that is why THEY cooked up the XVII amendment, right The T?

Cute. Educate yourself, rather than post cutsie pictures that have zero meaning to me.

 

[L.K.Eder]

i heard statists really really liked direct democracy (=mob rule), that is why THEY cooked up the XVII amendment, right The T?

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.

Boo-Hoo. So a State went without Representation. So what? The Tenth still applied as written for that particuliar State that "went without Representation via the Senate choice.

The TENTH Amendment was STILL in force...

Regard?

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So exactly whats the problem? See the word "OR"? The intent was CLEAR. (Obviously NOT to SOME of you, as I address YOU)...Some distinctions are difficult...and it is understandable WHY you didn't see the distinction.

The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests.

So? This is Different how so from what we see happening today?

The result is the SAME.

So I put it to you...

Or rather ASK...do you see ANY distinction here and WHY the 17th was ill advised, and why the Amendment process, should be seldonm used?

They screwed the pooch with this one in my view. Again? The result is the same and what we see NOW.

the bolded part you stole from here:

Repeal The 17th Amendment by Bruce Bartlett on National Review Online

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence

you filthy little plagiarizing fool, tsk, tsk, tsk.

i did not bother with the rest, tell me how does your "statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?

and tell me also, are you completely full of shit, or are there some parts of you who have value for recycling? huh?

 

[paperview]

i heard statists really really liked direct democracy (=mob rule), that is why THEY cooked up the XVII amendment, right The T?

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.

Boo-Hoo. So a State went without Representation. So what? The Tenth still applied as written for that particuliar State that "went without Representation via the Senate choice.

The TENTH Amendment was STILL in force...

Regard?

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So exactly whats the problem? See the word "OR"? The intent was CLEAR. (Obviously NOT to SOME of you, as I address YOU)...Some distinctions are difficult...and it is understandable WHY you didn't see the distinction.

The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests.

So? This is Different how so from what we see happening today?

The result is the SAME.

So I put it to you...

Or rather ASK...do you see ANY distinction here and WHY the 17th was ill advised, and why the Amendment process, should be seldonm used?

They screwed the pooch with this one in my view. Again? The result is the same and what we see NOW.

the bolded part you stole from here:

Repeal The 17th Amendment by Bruce Bartlett on National Review Online

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence

you filthy little plagiarizing fool, tsk, tsk, tsk.

i did not bother with the rest, tell me how does your "statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?

and tell me also, are you completely full of shit, or are there some parts of you who have value for recycling? huh?

Ouch.

And he's a thief to boot.

tsk indeed.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.

Boo-Hoo. So a State went without Representation. So what? The Tenth still applied as written for that particuliar State that "went without Representation via the Senate choice.

The TENTH Amendment was STILL in force...

Regard?

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So exactly whats the problem? See the word "OR"? The intent was CLEAR. (Obviously NOT to SOME of you, as I address YOU)...Some distinctions are difficult...and it is understandable WHY you didn't see the distinction.

The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests.

So? This is Different how so from what we see happening today?

The result is the SAME.

So I put it to you...

Or rather ASK...do you see ANY distinction here and WHY the 17th was ill advised, and why the Amendment process, should be seldonm used?

They screwed the pooch with this one in my view. Again? The result is the same and what we see NOW.

the bolded part you stole from here:

Repeal The 17th Amendment by Bruce Bartlett on National Review Online

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence

you filthy little plagiarizing fool, tsk, tsk, tsk.

i did not bother with the rest, tell me how does your "statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?

and tell me also, are you completely full of shit, or are there some parts of you who have value for recycling? huh?

Ouch.

And he's a thief to boot.

tsk indeed.

he is also vewy qwuiwet for now. probably looks for something to cut and paste.

 

[bodecea]

i heard statists really really liked direct democracy (=mob rule), that is why THEY cooked up the XVII amendment, right The T?

Eloquently stated. Kudos.

 

[bodecea]

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.

Boo-Hoo. So a State went without Representation. So what? The Tenth still applied as written for that particuliar State that "went without Representation via the Senate choice.

The TENTH Amendment was STILL in force...

Regard?

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So exactly whats the problem? See the word "OR"? The intent was CLEAR. (Obviously NOT to SOME of you, as I address YOU)...Some distinctions are difficult...and it is understandable WHY you didn't see the distinction.

The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests.

So? This is Different how so from what we see happening today?

The result is the SAME.

So I put it to you...

Or rather ASK...do you see ANY distinction here and WHY the 17th was ill advised, and why the Amendment process, should be seldonm used?

They screwed the pooch with this one in my view. Again? The result is the same and what we see NOW.

the bolded part you stole from here:

Repeal The 17th Amendment by Bruce Bartlett on National Review Online

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence

you filthy little plagiarizing fool, tsk, tsk, tsk.

i did not bother with the rest, tell me how does your "statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?

and tell me also, are you completely full of shit, or are there some parts of you who have value for recycling? huh?

Ouch.

And he's a thief to boot.

tsk indeed.

Throw Syncophant in there for good measure.

 

[The T]

i heard statists really really liked direct democracy (=mob rule), that is why THEY cooked up the XVII amendment, right The T?

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.

Boo-Hoo. So a State went without Representation. So what? The Tenth still applied as written for that particuliar State that "went without Representation via the Senate choice.

The TENTH Amendment was STILL in force...

Regard?

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So exactly whats the problem? See the word "OR"? The intent was CLEAR. (Obviously NOT to SOME of you, as I address YOU)...Some distinctions are difficult...and it is understandable WHY you didn't see the distinction.

The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests.

So? This is Different how so from what we see happening today?

The result is the SAME.

So I put it to you...

Or rather ASK...do you see ANY distinction here and WHY the 17th was ill advised, and why the Amendment process, should be seldonm used?

They screwed the pooch with this one in my view. Again? The result is the same and what we see NOW.

the bolded part you stole from here:

Repeal The 17th Amendment by Bruce Bartlett on National Review Online

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence

you filthy little plagiarizing fool, tsk, tsk, tsk.

i did not bother with the rest, tell me how does your "statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?

and tell me also, are you completely full of shit, or are there some parts of you who have value for recycling? huh?

The intent of the 17th is well known. And the source is none other than Senator ZELL Miller. The intent of what was crafted was still protected via the Tenth Amendment.

So what that a State didn't have representation by their indecision?

The force of representation of the people was still intact.

So why change it?

The entire charge by me is still intact as well by the march of those that portend to state the will of the people, but vote on the side of STATIST control of the Government is still the same, and why Article 1, Section 3 was changed, because the intent of the Politicians was of more import than the WILL of the people.

In short? A popularity CONTEST rather than REAL representaion as intended.

That is what I mean by what I said. Your attempt to browbeat me into submission means zero.

""statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?" I explained it to you. I cannot help that YOU are so dense, that you cannot see it.

We are dealing with people that are INTENT on control...over everything, rather than the intent of Liberty that they were sworn to uphold.

It would seem to me that YOU are in their camp, and don't care a wit of Liberty.

The words I repeated hold true, and there's NOTHING you can do to change it.

 

[bodecea]

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.

Boo-Hoo. So a State went without Representation. So what? The Tenth still applied as written for that particuliar State that "went without Representation via the Senate choice.

The TENTH Amendment was STILL in force...

Regard?

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So exactly whats the problem? See the word "OR"? The intent was CLEAR. (Obviously NOT to SOME of you, as I address YOU)...Some distinctions are difficult...and it is understandable WHY you didn't see the distinction.

The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests.

So? This is Different how so from what we see happening today?

The result is the SAME.

So I put it to you...

Or rather ASK...do you see ANY distinction here and WHY the 17th was ill advised, and why the Amendment process, should be seldonm used?

They screwed the pooch with this one in my view. Again? The result is the same and what we see NOW.

the bolded part you stole from here:

Repeal The 17th Amendment by Bruce Bartlett on National Review Online

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence

you filthy little plagiarizing fool, tsk, tsk, tsk.

i did not bother with the rest, tell me how does your "statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?

and tell me also, are you completely full of shit, or are there some parts of you who have value for recycling? huh?

The intent of the 17th is well known. And the source is none other than Senator ZELL Miller. The intent of what was crafted was still protected via the Tenth Amendment.

So what that a State didn't have representation by their indecision?

The force of representation of the people was still intact.

So why change it?

The entire charge by me is still intact as well by the march of those that portend to state the will of the people, but vote on the side of STATIST control of the Government is still the same, and why Article 1, Section 3 was changed, because the intent of the Politicians was of more import than the WILL of the people.

In short? A popularity CONTEST rather than REAL representaion as intended.

That is what I mean by what I said. Your attempt to browbeat me into submission means zero.

""statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?" I explained it to you. I cannot help that YOU are so dense, that you cannot see it.

We are dealing with people that are INTENT on control...over everything, rather than the intent of Liberty that they were sworn to uphold.

It would seem to me that YOU are in their camp, and don't care a wit of Liberty.

The words I repeated hold true, and there's NOTHING you can do to change it.

OOooooo! Zell Miller. Watch out boys! He may challenge you to a duel!

Hey brainiac, what makes Zell Miller an expert?

 

[paperview]

...

The words I repeated hold true, and there's NOTHING you can do to change it.

Even if you did steal them and claim them as your own.



Tommy: Didn't you learn in school it's wrong to plagiarize?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence.

Boo-Hoo. So a State went without Representation. So what? The Tenth still applied as written for that particuliar State that "went without Representation via the Senate choice.

The TENTH Amendment was STILL in force...

Regard?

Amendment 10:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So exactly whats the problem? See the word "OR"? The intent was CLEAR. (Obviously NOT to SOME of you, as I address YOU)...Some distinctions are difficult...and it is understandable WHY you didn't see the distinction.

The second problem involved a perception that the election of senators by state legislatures made them more susceptible to corruption by special interests.

So? This is Different how so from what we see happening today?

The result is the SAME.

So I put it to you...

Or rather ASK...do you see ANY distinction here and WHY the 17th was ill advised, and why the Amendment process, should be seldonm used?

They screwed the pooch with this one in my view. Again? The result is the same and what we see NOW.

the bolded part you stole from here:

Repeal The 17th Amendment by Bruce Bartlett on National Review Online

Two factors led to enactment of the 17th amendment. First was the problem that many state legislatures deadlocked on their selections for the Senate. The upper house and the lower house could not agree on a choice, or it was prohibitively difficult for one candidate to get an absolute majority in each house (as opposed to a plurality), which was required by federal law. Some states went without representation in the Senate for years as a consequence

you filthy little plagiarizing fool, tsk, tsk, tsk.

i did not bother with the rest, tell me how does your "statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?

and tell me also, are you completely full of shit, or are there some parts of you who have value for recycling? huh?

The intent of the 17th is well known. And the source is none other than Senator ZELL Miller. The intent of what was crafted was still protected via the Tenth Amendment.

So what that a State didn't have representation by their indecision?

The force of representation of the people was still intact.

So why change it?

The entire charge by me is still intact as well by the march of those that portend to state the will of the people, but vote on the side of STATIST control of the Government is still the same, and why Article 1, Section 3 was changed, because the intent of the Politicians was of more import than the WILL of the people.

In short? A popularity CONTEST rather than REAL representaion as intended.

That is what I mean by what I said. Your attempt to browbeat me into submission means zero.

""statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?" I explained it to you. I cannot help that YOU are so dense, that you cannot see it.

We are dealing with people that are INTENT on control...over everything, rather than the intent of Liberty that they were sworn to uphold.

It would seem to me that YOU are in their camp, and don't care a wit of Liberty.

The words I repeated hold true, and there's NOTHING you can do to change it.

look, here you are. and totally glossing over your plagiarism. zell miller would not approve.

at long last have you no decency?

you are pathetic. out of one side of your definitely fat and ugly mouth you are arguing for less democracy, out of the other side you rail against Statists controlling everything, stealing your LIBERTY, (dumbass code words).

i bet you are sleeping in a stars-spangled banner pyjama and feel all patriotic while pissing into your FREEDOM diapers.

and no i don't feel guilty for posting this shit in a Ted Kennedy thread, this thing was derailed long ago, and i have zero respect for plagiarizers who can't admit their mistake and apologize for it, so **** you.

 

[The T]

the bolded part you stole from here:

Repeal The 17th Amendment by Bruce Bartlett on National Review Online
you filthy little plagiarizing fool, tsk, tsk, tsk.

i did not bother with the rest, tell me how does your "statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?

and tell me also, are you completely full of shit, or are there some parts of you who have value for recycling? huh?

The intent of the 17th is well known. And the source is none other than Senator ZELL Miller. The intent of what was crafted was still protected via the Tenth Amendment.

So what that a State didn't have representation by their indecision?

The force of representation of the people was still intact.

So why change it?

The entire charge by me is still intact as well by the march of those that portend to state the will of the people, but vote on the side of STATIST control of the Government is still the same, and why Article 1, Section 3 was changed, because the intent of the Politicians was of more import than the WILL of the people.

In short? A popularity CONTEST rather than REAL representaion as intended.

That is what I mean by what I said. Your attempt to browbeat me into submission means zero.

""statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?" I explained it to you. I cannot help that YOU are so dense, that you cannot see it.

We are dealing with people that are INTENT on control...over everything, rather than the intent of Liberty that they were sworn to uphold.

It would seem to me that YOU are in their camp, and don't care a wit of Liberty.

The words I repeated hold true, and there's NOTHING you can do to change it.

look, here you are. and totally glossing over your plagiarism. zell miller would not approve.

at long last have you no decency?

you are pathetic. out of one side of your definitiley fat and ugly mouth you are arguing for less democracy, out of the other side you rail against Statists controlling everything, stealing your LIBERTY, (dumbass code words).

i bet you are sleeping in a stars-spangled banner pyjama and feel all patriotic while pissing into your FREEDOM diapers.

and no i don't feel guilty for posting this shit in a Ted Kennedy thread, this thing was derailed long ago, and i have zero respect for plagiarizers who can't admit their mistake and apologize for it, so **** you.

Ideas are NOT palagerized. And does NOT make it any less relevant as you portend. I repeated words from another person, as anyone would do, as I subscribe to them.

This is a history lesson. And what I fronted is correct, and right, no matter HOW you characterize it, in YOUR attempt to asassinate the words, much less the idea. I am on the mark.

Your feeble attrempt to discount them. is noted, and IGNORED for posterity.

 

[bodecea]

The intent of the 17th is well known. And the source is none other than Senator ZELL Miller. The intent of what was crafted was still protected via the Tenth Amendment.

So what that a State didn't have representation by their indecision?

The force of representation of the people was still intact.

So why change it?

The entire charge by me is still intact as well by the march of those that portend to state the will of the people, but vote on the side of STATIST control of the Government is still the same, and why Article 1, Section 3 was changed, because the intent of the Politicians was of more import than the WILL of the people.

In short? A popularity CONTEST rather than REAL representaion as intended.

That is what I mean by what I said. Your attempt to browbeat me into submission means zero.

""statist long march bullshit" jive with the XVII amendment?" I explained it to you. I cannot help that YOU are so dense, that you cannot see it.

We are dealing with people that are INTENT on control...over everything, rather than the intent of Liberty that they were sworn to uphold.

It would seem to me that YOU are in their camp, and don't care a wit of Liberty.

The words I repeated hold true, and there's NOTHING you can do to change it.

look, here you are. and totally glossing over your plagiarism. zell miller would not approve.

at long last have you no decency?

you are pathetic. out of one side of your definitiley fat and ugly mouth you are arguing for less democracy, out of the other side you rail against Statists controlling everything, stealing your LIBERTY, (dumbass code words).

i bet you are sleeping in a stars-spangled banner pyjama and feel all patriotic while pissing into your FREEDOM diapers.

and no i don't feel guilty for posting this shit in a Ted Kennedy thread, this thing was derailed long ago, and i have zero respect for plagiarizers who can't admit their mistake and apologize for it, so **** you.

Ideas are NOT palagerized. And does NOT make it any less relevant as you portend. I repeated words from another person, as anyone would do, as I subscribe to them.

This is a history lesson. And what I fronted is correct, and right, no matter HOW you characterize it, in YOUR attempt to asassinate the words, much less the idea. I am on the mark.

Your feeble attrempt to discount them. is noted, and IGNORED for posterity.

LOL, I don't think that would fly with any teacher or professor. You gave no credit until caught and tried to pass words off as your own.

Must say, I'm not surprised tho. Original thought seems beyond your reach.

 

[paperview]

Whoa.

That has to be one of the most glorified defenses of plagiarism I think I have seen in a while.

Way to go Tommy!

Excelsior!