Repeal the Bill of Rights

[magnifier661]

define

Don't vote for someone of something without actually knowing about that thing or person?

 

[lawai'a]

I support that right. But what about those that decide to have them and ruin the lives of innocent children?

that is danegerously close to a democratic position on that issue. would not want the job of judging others choices and trying to decide what their motivations were, the old walk a 100 miles in his shoes thing. who would we put in charge of such a judgement and how would you punish them if indeed it were deemed a punishable offense?

 

[magnifier661]

that is danegerously close to a democratic position on that issue. would not want the job of judging others choices and trying to decide what their motivations were, the old walk a 100 miles in his shoes thing. who would we put in charge of such a judgement and how would you punish them if indeed it were deemed a punishable offense?

Neither should be the job of the government. People should have common sense to be responsible. Just like voting rights. They have the right to be a complete fucking idiot and vote for someone or something just because the party they support is pro on it.

 

[lawai'a]

Don't vote for someone of something without actually knowing about that thing or person?

again how and who judges this edict? the party controlling the white house, or congress or maybe the reverend's wife so only those understanding their point of view, cause to do otherwise would be not knowing about the issue? see the slippery slope yet? only our kind know and understand the issue otherwise they would naturally vote our way

 

[lawai'a]

Neither should be the job of the government. People should have common sense to be responsible. Just like voting rights. They have the right to be a complete fucking idiot and vote for someone or something just because the party they support is pro on it.

sometimes it can and does come down to a single stance on a single issue that decides how someone votes across party lines, often it is a social issue, more feelings than rational , logical progression to a conclusion, examples could and do include gay marriage, or abortion . could and does include the second amendment(which I believe in and have voted to exclusion in past elections but no longer have as a high priority in issue consideration - candidates stance)

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I am all for repealing it. IF that means that girl with the pink top at 2:50 is around for the pillaging and plundering.

Wasn't there a third thing that goes with those two? I'm sure I'll remember shortly.

 

[magnifier661]

again how and who judges this edict? the party controlling the white house, or congress or maybe the reverend's wife so only those understanding their point of view, cause to do otherwise would be not knowing about the issue? see the slippery slope yet? only our kind know and understand the issue otherwise they would naturally vote our way

Um, I'm talking shit about them. I don't want the government to do anything about it.

 

[magnifier661]

sometimes it can and does come down to a single stance on a single issue that decides how someone votes across party lines, often it is a social issue, more feelings than rational , logical progression to a conclusion, examples could and do include gay marriage, or abortion . could and does include the second amendment(which I believe in and have voted to exclusion in past elections but no longer have as a high priority in issue consideration - candidates stance)

That's fine for u but let's get real here. I would say there are only a small percentage of people that will vote cross party. @barfo , @Rastapopoulos and @MarAzul are prime examples of people that defend their party to the death.

 

[lawai'a]

agreed many won't, but independent's or those that claim to be, are making up a larger and larger proportion of the electorate. the parties messaging and appeals to emotional issues to woo voters tend to be more to their base before a primary, then trying to appeal to the uncommitted voter. forgive me ,but usually messaging about greed and fear and exclusion(THEY are coming for your...fill in the blank guns, money, children, jobs, home,family values) I tend to associate with republican positions. conversely inclusion, social freedoms, and disadvantaged opportunity I think democratic. that's me but like most other some self serving will probably go into the final descission as well. after all we are all human, and the constitution allows us to descide which message appeals to which individual. Freedoms are a tricky thing, and as a document we cannot pick and choose which parts of it we want enforced, or deleted

 

[magnifier661]

agreed many won't, but independent's or those that claim to be, are making up a larger and larger proportion of the electorate. the parties messaging and appeals to emotional issues to woo voters tend to be more to their base before a primary, then trying to appeal to the uncommitted voter. forgive me ,but usually messaging about greed and fear and exclusion(THEY are coming for your...fill in the blank guns, money, children, jobs, home,family values) I tend to associate with republican positions. conversely inclusion, social freedoms, and disadvantaged opportunity I think democratic. that's me but like most other some self serving will probably go into the final descission as well. after all we are all human, and the constitution allows us to descide which message appeals to which individual. Freedoms are a tricky thing, and as a document we cannot pick and choose which parts of it we want enforced, or deleted

I agree. It just pisses me off when people vote because of party support. If I don't know enough about a person or bill, I just leave it blank. I try and vote responsibly

 

[MARIS61]

That's fine for u but let's get real here. I would say there are only a small percentage of people that will vote cross party. @barfo , @Rastapopoulos and @MarAzul are prime examples of people that defend their party to the death.

I look forward to the death of both parties, as neither is anything more than an organized crime syndicate preying on the lifeblood of Real Americans.

 

[magnifier661]

I look forward to the death of both parties, as neither is anything more than an organized crime syndicate preying on the lifeblood of Real Americans.

100% agree

 

[stampedehero]

Before the media editted vids, the newspapers spread outright lies.

 

[stampedehero]

100% agree

100% Agree. We need a five party system for more confused "democracy".

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I am all for repealing it. IF that means that girl with the pink top at 2:50 is around for the pillaging and plundering.

Wasn't there a third thing that goes with those two? I'm sure I'll remember shortly.

I believe the word you're seeking is "looting".

 

[MarAzul]

MarAzul are prime examples of people that defend their party to the death.

No Mags, I will not defend the party. In fact I think the Republican leadership is a mess. Both the speaker and Senate majority leader are gutless. I my opinion now that they have the majority,
they have failed to do their job, abrogated their responsibility.

I tend to think of myself as an independent even though I only voted for the Democrat twice. Once for John Kennedy and I would again, I always thought Nixon was a crook. Then I did it again,
voting for Bill Clinton the first time he ran, but it didn't take long before I was embarrassed by the guy. Bad mistake.

I actually think this system has outgrown it's usefulness It is rather idiotic to let people vote their will based more on their character type or race rather than logic. Running a country by selecting the most popular cheerleader by their stance on the emotional issues of the day is ridiculous.

Well come to think of it, I did vote for another Democrat, Senator Wayne Morris, he switch from Republican to independent, and then to Democrat. As I recall he was the only Senator
to vote against going to war in Vietnam. He was correct and I appreciated his lonely stance.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I believe the word you're seeking is "looting".

Uh, no. That falls in the pillaging category. Hmm, I know if I forward to 2 minutes and 50 seconds in I'll think of it.

 

[magnifier661]

100% Agree. We need a five party system for more confused "democracy".

Or maybe no parties at all? Voting based on individual merits and ideology.

 

[lawai'a]

Uh, no. That falls in the pillaging category. Hmm, I know if I forward to 2 minutes and 50 seconds in I'll think of it.

Uh, no. That falls in the pillaging category. Hmm, I know if I forward to 2 minutes and 50 seconds in I'll think of it.

if it is the pink top, perhaps Ravage works for you

 

[stampedehero]

Or maybe no parties at all? Voting based on individual merits and ideology.

+> For politicians that would be the absence of special interest groups and departure from their secret self serving world. Its all about them and little about us.

 

[GriLtCheeZ]

"Repeal the bill!"

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

if it is the pink top, perhaps Ravage works for you

That's not the common word I associate with those terms but works for me.

 

[crandc]

Two Senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolutin, Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening of Alaska. Neither won another election.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/democratic-national-convention-chicago-1968.html

But thousands of protesters -- anti-war, anti-establishment, anti-old-timers running everything, anti-rules, anti-you-name-it -- also assembled there. And they were rowdy and dirty and foul-mouthed and had long hair and were looking for a fight.

(Those protesters joined the Democratic party and are now very pro-establishment. Hypocrites.)

 

[Mediocre Man]

Isn't this pretty much what Obama has been trying to do?

 

[stampedehero]

Two Senators voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolutin, Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening of Alaska. Neither won another election.

1965 The armed forces had to test their toys and scatter our boys into death along the way 55000+ dead for bull shit politicians .

 

[dviss1]

Exhibit A of the problem with real democracy. People are fucking ignorant!

That guy is a fucking troll...

 

[MARIS61]

State by State, Democratic Party Is Erasing Ties to Jefferson and Jackson
By JONATHAN MARTINAUG. 11, 2015

WASHINGTON — For nearly a century, Democrats have honored two men as the founders of their party: Thomas Jefferson, for his visionary expression of the concept of equality, and Andrew Jackson, for his populist spirit and elevation of the common man.
Political candidates and activists across the country have flocked to annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, where speeches are given, money is raised, and the party celebrates its past and its future.

But these time-honored rituals are colliding with a modern Democratic Party more energized by a desire for racial and gender inclusion than reverence for history. And state by state, Democratic activists are removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from party gatherings, saying the two men no longer represent what it means to be a Democrat.

The Iowa Democratic Party became the latest to do so last weekend, joining Georgia, Connecticut and Missouri. At least five other states are considering the same change since the massacre in June at an African-American church in Charleston, S.C.
“The vote today confirms that our party believes it is important to change the name of the dinner to align with the values of our modern-day Democratic Party: inclusiveness, diversity and equality,” said Andy McGuire, the Iowa Democratic chairwoman.

For all the attention this summer to the fight over the Confederate battle flag, the less noticed moves by Democratic parties to remove Jefferson and Jackson from their official identity underscore one of the most consequential trends of American politics: Democrats’ shift from a union-powered party organized primarily around economic solidarity to one shaped by racial and sexual identity.

The parallel forces of class and identity, at times in tension and at times in unison, have defined the Democratic Party in recent decades. But the country’s changing demographics, the diverse nature of President Obama’s coalition and the animating energy of the Black Lives Matter movement have also thrust fundamental questions about race, gender and economic equality to the center of the Democratic presidential race.
...
The move to erase Jefferson and Jackson is not being welcomed by all Democrats. Some of them fear the party loses what has long been its unifying philosophy by removing the names of founders, whose virtues and flaws illuminated the way forward. And they worry that as the labor movement declines, cultural liberalism is beginning to eclipse a fundamental message of economic equality that brought about some of the party’s most important achievements, from the New Deal to Medicaid.

“What does the Democratic Party stand for?” asked Andrei Cherny, a Democratic writer and a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton. “Jefferson and Jackson and the ideas they stood for, spreading economic opportunity and democracy, were the beginnings of what was the Democratic Party. That is what unified the party across regional and other lines for most of the last 200 years. Now what unites everybody from Kim Kardashian to a party activist in Kansas is cultural liberalism and civil rights.”

Still, the motions have passed easily in the state parties that have considered them, with activists arguing that the two men no longer fit the party’s essential principles. Thomas Jefferson, while writing that “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, owned over 600 slaves during his life, and it was slave labor that built and tilled the land at his Virginia estate, Monticello. He freed only a handful of them upon his death.

Andrew Jackson was also a slave owner and did not seem to wrestle with the morality of the institution, as Jefferson did at times. As president, he also consigned thousands of Native Americans to death by removing them from their homes in the South and pushing them west on what became known as the Trail of Tears.

...
It is partly because of the efforts of Democratic presidents that Jefferson and Jackson enjoy the standing they do. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the father of modern economic liberalism, was particularly devoted to elevating the two men, rushing to complete the Jefferson Memorial so his party could have a monument to compete with the Republicans’ Lincoln Memorial. And it was the house intellectual of the Kennedy clan, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who did so much to restore Jackson with his seminal biography, “The Age of Jackson.”

In more recent times, Bill Clinton memorably began his presidency with a pre-inaugural trip to Monticello and Mr. Obama took the president of France there last year and declared: “Thomas Jefferson represents what’s best in America,” while noting Jefferson’s “complex” relationship with slavery.
...
The paradox, Mr. Cherny noted, is that the two Democratic icons are being cast aside at a time when anger about racial inequality and anger toward financial institutions are two of the most stirring forces on the left.
“This is a moment where the issues Jefferson raised around equality of opportunity and the populism that Andrew Jackson brought to American politics for the first time are more salient now than they’ve ever been in decades,” he said.

The Jefferson-Jackson dinners — “JJs” in the shorthand of political operatives and insiders — are a staple of the political calendar.
It was at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa where Mr. Obama delivered one of his best speeches in the 2008 campaign, putting himself on a path to win the state’s caucuses and break the presidential color barrier.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/u...asing-ties-to-jefferson-and-jackson.html?_r=0

 

[dviss1]

State by State, Democratic Party Is Erasing Ties to Jefferson and Jackson
By JONATHAN MARTINAUG. 11, 2015

WASHINGTON — For nearly a century, Democrats have honored two men as the founders of their party: Thomas Jefferson, for his visionary expression of the concept of equality, and Andrew Jackson, for his populist spirit and elevation of the common man.
Political candidates and activists across the country have flocked to annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners, where speeches are given, money is raised, and the party celebrates its past and its future.

But these time-honored rituals are colliding with a modern Democratic Party more energized by a desire for racial and gender inclusion than reverence for history. And state by state, Democratic activists are removing the names of Jefferson and Jackson from party gatherings, saying the two men no longer represent what it means to be a Democrat.

The Iowa Democratic Party became the latest to do so last weekend, joining Georgia, Connecticut and Missouri. At least five other states are considering the same change since the massacre in June at an African-American church in Charleston, S.C.
“The vote today confirms that our party believes it is important to change the name of the dinner to align with the values of our modern-day Democratic Party: inclusiveness, diversity and equality,” said Andy McGuire, the Iowa Democratic chairwoman.

For all the attention this summer to the fight over the Confederate battle flag, the less noticed moves by Democratic parties to remove Jefferson and Jackson from their official identity underscore one of the most consequential trends of American politics: Democrats’ shift from a union-powered party organized primarily around economic solidarity to one shaped by racial and sexual identity.

The parallel forces of class and identity, at times in tension and at times in unison, have defined the Democratic Party in recent decades. But the country’s changing demographics, the diverse nature of President Obama’s coalition and the animating energy of the Black Lives Matter movement have also thrust fundamental questions about race, gender and economic equality to the center of the Democratic presidential race.
...
The move to erase Jefferson and Jackson is not being welcomed by all Democrats. Some of them fear the party loses what has long been its unifying philosophy by removing the names of founders, whose virtues and flaws illuminated the way forward. And they worry that as the labor movement declines, cultural liberalism is beginning to eclipse a fundamental message of economic equality that brought about some of the party’s most important achievements, from the New Deal to Medicaid.

“What does the Democratic Party stand for?” asked Andrei Cherny, a Democratic writer and a former speechwriter for Bill Clinton. “Jefferson and Jackson and the ideas they stood for, spreading economic opportunity and democracy, were the beginnings of what was the Democratic Party. That is what unified the party across regional and other lines for most of the last 200 years. Now what unites everybody from Kim Kardashian to a party activist in Kansas is cultural liberalism and civil rights.”

Still, the motions have passed easily in the state parties that have considered them, with activists arguing that the two men no longer fit the party’s essential principles. Thomas Jefferson, while writing that “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence, owned over 600 slaves during his life, and it was slave labor that built and tilled the land at his Virginia estate, Monticello. He freed only a handful of them upon his death.

Andrew Jackson was also a slave owner and did not seem to wrestle with the morality of the institution, as Jefferson did at times. As president, he also consigned thousands of Native Americans to death by removing them from their homes in the South and pushing them west on what became known as the Trail of Tears.

...
It is partly because of the efforts of Democratic presidents that Jefferson and Jackson enjoy the standing they do. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the father of modern economic liberalism, was particularly devoted to elevating the two men, rushing to complete the Jefferson Memorial so his party could have a monument to compete with the Republicans’ Lincoln Memorial. And it was the house intellectual of the Kennedy clan, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who did so much to restore Jackson with his seminal biography, “The Age of Jackson.”

In more recent times, Bill Clinton memorably began his presidency with a pre-inaugural trip to Monticello and Mr. Obama took the president of France there last year and declared: “Thomas Jefferson represents what’s best in America,” while noting Jefferson’s “complex” relationship with slavery.
...
The paradox, Mr. Cherny noted, is that the two Democratic icons are being cast aside at a time when anger about racial inequality and anger toward financial institutions are two of the most stirring forces on the left.
“This is a moment where the issues Jefferson raised around equality of opportunity and the populism that Andrew Jackson brought to American politics for the first time are more salient now than they’ve ever been in decades,” he said.

The Jefferson-Jackson dinners — “JJs” in the shorthand of political operatives and insiders — are a staple of the political calendar.
It was at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa where Mr. Obama delivered one of his best speeches in the 2008 campaign, putting himself on a path to win the state’s caucuses and break the presidential color barrier.
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/u...asing-ties-to-jefferson-and-jackson.html?_r=0