Mainstream Media: "There Are Still THREE Republicans In This Race"

OutOfBreath

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

the citizens you are claiming to be disenfranchised by the caucaus process are the same citizens that have to show up by the thousands in a state of any size and sit through a process of some rigor (ie more than just pushing a button) ... you are arguing in favor of direct democracy which is something i'm pretty sure your country doesn't have ... nor most any country in the modern west ... but hey, you said it, i don't read much and i'm uninformed, so prove me wrong ...

AND YOU are missing the point.

Direct democracy at the national level is something ANTITHETICAL to the Republic. It is something which the founding fathers of America HATED! [although we do have direct democratic processes at the state and local level]

The idea that a bunch of stupid people could ruin it for the few that realy understood liberty was the VERY REASON they picked a constitutional representative republic over the dumb idea the masses know best.

"That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity…". -- Alexander Hamilton


So answer that.

What you want me to do is scrap the very political virtues that my founding fathers fought to establish and protect.

I don't want to overturn the ideas this country was founded on, i want to restore them. What i want to overturn is the ESTABLISHMENT that has gained power and perverted our system.

Answer what exactly? You are flat out supporting elitism, which is what I argue against. Your elitism may be "informed, intellectual elitism" as prescribed by the founding fathers. That they hated direct democracy is no wonder.

And I am not necessarily advocating direct democracy, particularly not concerning so many people. What I dont see the need for is the intermediary level between the people, and the office, unless it is for avoiding big, popular changes as long as possible until they are inevitable. If there is to be representational democracy, then people should directly choose their candidate or party.

Should democracy be direct then it should be in small local units.

You want to go back to the republic of 1776, meaning elite rule. The elite may be as enlightened, understanding and ideal as you want, but it will still be elite rule. Representational elite rule where the people can choose who from the elite should rule. That is the republic of 1776, and that is what you are advocating here. A "good elite" is still just as much an elite.

Me, I'm stuck on one man, one vote, I'm afraid. And concerned that "stupid sheep" should most definitely be involved.

Peace
Dan

DriftingByTheStorm

Well.
I don't think we will be reaching consensus anytime this century, dan.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep disputing the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

You either don't agree that the individual is more important than the masses ... as in, if i don't believe in god i shouldn't be forced to pray in school by the "godly" masses ... or you just don't accept that the US Republic was properly designed to protect the individual.

And i am plenty aware of the tenents of modern day socialist theory. As far as i'm concerned it is a way for the patricians & central planners to subisidize the businesses and interestes that THEY deem fit, after being voted in to power by the deliberately misinformed plebians.

The Ron Paul people are PROVING you wrong as well, Dan. You are sitting here acusing me of supporting the elite, and acusing the design of the delgate system of supporting the elite, but it is currently proving to be the ONLY REASON RON PAUL HAS A CHANCE AT WINING.

Do you not see the ireconcilable discrepancy in that line of thought? You say it is a system designed to protect the elite, and yet it is the very thing that stands to bring the elite to their knees!

The vote they can buy is the vote of the mass of idiots in front of the TV. THOSE ARE THE BOUGHT VOTES, because THEY OWN the box!

The people going out to caucaus and organizing to get "our" guys to the national convention are the ones proving that a constitutional republic was the right choice!

So sorry, i don't see that to be the case at all.
In fact, Romney has been widely accused by the Ron Paul supporters of BUSING IN VOTERS FROM OTHER STATES ... which is why there is a belief that he does so poorly at the delegate selection stage ... because the out of state voters can not legaly be delegates, but they can in some states vote without showing proof of reisdency!

Now THAT is buying the vote, my friend!

:cool:

OutOfBreath

double post

OutOfBreath

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Well.
I don't think we will be reaching consensus anytime this century, dan.

Oh, no surprises there. I'll just comment the following:

The Ron Paul people are PROVING you wrong as well, Dan. You are sitting here acusing me of supporting the elite, and acusing the design of the delgate system of supporting the elite, but it is currently proving to be the ONLY REASON RON PAUL HAS A CHANCE AT WINING.

So, the legitimacy of the system depends on Paul's chances of winning? As long as the dicrepancies are in Paul's favour, they must be good and proves that the system works? I somehow dont think you'd be cheering that part too much if it was McCain who was looking to benefit from it.

Which is pretty much your reasoning it seems. That system looks to benefit Paul disproportionally, Paul is a great constitutionalist, hence if he gets the edge there, the system works! Nevermind that if it turns out that with 5% of votes and 10% of delegates (for instance) he is getting more than he should, and does not represent as much of america as his delegates can make. If you are in favour of zealous people counting more than others, you are being elitist.

You are still not adressing how this delegate business is not taking power further away from the "disinformed plebs". And frankly the position you take is elitist to the core. As long as you consistently refer to the uninformed "sheep" and how the system must work around their "uninformedness". This is precisely why you are in the position you are and have the elite you do have, that constant disregard for the public at large. You just want a new Ron Paul elite to replace the Clinton/Bush elite. A new elite to uphold the republic of 1776.

Whereas I say fuck the elite and let people run things themselves democratically either through representation or directly, and preferably in small local units that are close to people and their concerns.

But enough of this. You could also read up on what various groups on the left actually stand for today, but I dont think you're gonna. You are happy enough to read some slander and take it as truth it seems. You have the inklings of a start further up in the thread if interested.

Peace
Dan

dangerboy

all primaries and caucuses should be held on the same day, just like the general election. that way, the media has no chance to spin the polls and exit polls and state by state and day by day. let them all campaign until day X, then have everybody vote on day X + 1. i believe this would yield a truer result, and guys like ron paul would have a more equal chance...

the primary/caucus system as it stands is stupid, imho

OutOfBreath

I agree. I dont see why it's split up like that either. If not to slant in favour of major candidates since other candidates drop out along the way after some states with no results.

Peace
Dan

dangerboy

OutOfBreath wrote:

I agree. I dont see why it's split up like that either. If not to slant in favour of major candidates since other candidates drop out along the way after some states with no results.

Peace
Dan

...leaving many people without the chance to even vote for their preferred candidate. why should the results of iowa, new hampshire, michigan, south carolina and florida determine who the rest of us even get a chance to consider?

ron paul could be finished by tomorrow night, leaving half of america without the chance to vote for him. or not. not a paul supporter myself, but i don't think he should be out of the race before the majority of america can voice their opinion on him, or anyone else who's out by now (thompson, giuliani, edwards).

baraka

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Or they are genuinely unconcerned about the destruction of the constitution and personal rights. They don't get this way intentionaly, i think they are actualy so ignorant they aren't really even sure what they are saying.

Ok, I'm very sick and running a fever, but I felt compelled to respond. Just because someone does not share your views on the matter, it does not mean they are 'genuinely unconcerned about the destruction of the constitution and personal rights.' This is an ad hominem if I've ever seen one and does nothing to help your 'cause.'

The best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution, to look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. Now this isn't to say that it doesn't beg the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the possible justices, but you and other libertarians seldom get this far.

I've posted this before, but here's a little something from one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

But i have been in so many "discussions" on this board where the person responding to my argument basicaly tells me that i'm an idiot for caring about the constitution, or for being concerned with the loss of our soverign rights. Or to even get all stupid-philosophic (by the way, i think philosophy is for the birds, by and large, be pragmatic about life folks, don't spend it on the couch with a pipe analysing it to your own satisfaction, pfft) about it, telling me ... "huh huh ... actualy, huh ... you don't have any natural rights." Well fuck off with that mess. If there is anything real and of worth in this world that i will fight tooth and nail for ... it is that you and I as people fundamentaly have a natural right to be free, and to determin the course of our own destiny so long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Who is telling you you are an idiot for caring about the constitution? Could it be they only disagree with your 'plain meaning?' Well intentioned people can disagree on 'plain meaning' endlessly, as we can see in any non-unanimous court decision. Just because one does not agree with you doesn't mean they don't care about it.

As for 'getting all philosophical'..........one can't really avoid that when discussing libertarianism, esp when concepts such as 'natural rights' or 'negative rights' are being discussed. ffg and I had a good debate on this very issue. You see, you have to get to the meat of the matter because Libertarianism, though morally austere, has a certain plausibility. But is my opinion that once you look at the philosophical arguments, it is mistaken. Communism looks plausible on the surface as well.

As far as your negative rights, I would argue that libertarianism limits liberty. Like I mentioned above, I have had extensive debates with ffg about this. I'd be willing to discuss this with you (or find old threads with ffg and I) if you are interested.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

People who can't even ackowledge something that inherent in the human experience, imho, shouldn't even bother with philosophy. They are so lost in their own ability to think, that they have lost sight of real truth ... they take the study as little more than just some silly semantic game to be played for the delight of their own reason.

There is really no reason for the ad hominem attacks. I (and I'm sure others) listen to you and others like you and consider your case. The attacks are counter productive. Trust me, I get as frustrated as you, but that doesn't mean we can't all have a reasonable debate on the issue. It is much more fun that way.

jlew24asu

baraka wrote:

Ok, I'm very sick and running a fever,

I hope you feel better :(

baraka

jlew24asu wrote:

I hope you feel better :(

Me too! Thanks Jlew.

Blind3

The media brain surgeons who can't count to four are probably graduates of the no child left behind program. Or , members of the vast right wing conspiracy.

I guess I must be an idiot too. No only do I care about the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, I carry them. Seriously , in paperback form . I also care enough to know the two party system wouldn't know either document if they were smacked in the face with them. The two parties want REAL CHANGE ? How about living according to the laws our country was founded upon.

Sludge Factory

Regarding the argument over the one man one vote vs. the vote for representatives who then vote for you argument. One point that I feel should've been brought up that wasn't is that one of the reasons the US has the electorate, from my understanding, is due to the fact that if it were a direct vote the heavily populated areas such as California and New York would be pandered to by the politicians running for office and other states in the Midwest such as Minnesota and even Ohio would be disregarded (not that that doesn't currently happen). The electorate system is supposed to work such that the voices from those less populated areas are heard. You go to a direct vote and you basically have a handful of states deciding who the next leader could be even if a majority of the states dissent but have less of a population overall.

That's just one of the reasons I've heard, anyway.

OutOfBreath

Sludge Factory wrote:

Regarding the argument over the one man one vote vs. the vote for representatives who then vote for you argument. One point that I feel should've been brought up that wasn't is that one of the reasons the US has the electorate, from my understanding, is due to the fact that if it were a direct vote the heavily populated areas such as California and New York would be pandered to by the politicians running for office and other states in the Midwest such as Minnesota and even Ohio would be disregarded (not that that doesn't currently happen). The electorate system is supposed to work such that the voices from those less populated areas are heard. You go to a direct vote and you basically have a handful of states deciding who the next leader could be even if a majority of the states dissent but have less of a population overall.

That's just one of the reasons I've heard, anyway.

That's all fine, but I dont see why these delegates should be free to vote their opinion, if they essentially have been chosen in order to vote for one particular candidate. Or for that matter why delegates are even needed. You could just have a point system pr state or something.

My beef is with the impression I get from drifting, that the delegates semmingly can do as they please after being elected. If delegates are to be used they should be bound to their candidate, at least up to the point where it is clear at the meeting that he's not going to win.

As for states being counted seperately and weighed differently, that I have no problem with in itself.

Peace
Dan

DriftingByTheStorm

baraka wrote:

Ok, I'm very sick and running a fever, but I felt compelled to respond. Just because someone does not share your views on the matter, it does not mean they are 'genuinely unconcerned about the destruction of the constitution and personal rights.' This is an ad hominem if I've ever seen one and does nothing to help your 'cause.'

The best way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution, to look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. Now this isn't to say that it doesn't beg the question of how to judge the interpretive philosophies of the possible justices, but you and other libertarians seldom get this far.

I've posted this before, but here's a little something from one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."



Who is telling you you are an idiot for caring about the constitution? Could it be they only disagree with your 'plain meaning?' Well intentioned people can disagree on 'plain meaning' endlessly, as we can see in any non-unanimous court decision. Just because one does not agree with you doesn't mean they don't care about it.

As for 'getting all philosophical'..........one can't really avoid that when discussing libertarianism, esp when concepts such as 'natural rights' or 'negative rights' are being discussed. ffg and I had a good debate on this very issue. You see, you have to get to the meat of the matter because Libertarianism, though morally austere, has a certain plausibility. But is my opinion that once you look at the philosophical arguments, it is mistaken. Communism looks plausible on the surface as well.

As far as your negative rights, I would argue that libertarianism limits liberty. Like I mentioned above, I have had extensive debates with ffg about this. I'd be willing to discuss this with you (or find old threads with ffg and I) if you are interested.




There is really no reason for the ad hominem attacks. I (and I'm sure others) listen to you and others like you and consider your case. The attacks are counter productive. Trust me, I get as frustrated as you, but that doesn't mean we can't all have a reasonable debate on the issue. It is much more fun that way.

Those weren't ad hominems those were accurate descriptions of debates i've had on here. I've had more than a few people tell me essentialy "Its just a goddamn piece of paper" and that it was outdated ... writen by old white men who were elitists and therefore it was a bad text to even support ... that it didn't matter what the constitution said because you can just ammend it ... that we should scrap it and rewrite it all together ...

i've heard all these arguments and more, and i think its fair for me to say in the context of the discussion concerning political opinions that i don't realy place much value in those of people who do not even support the basic tenants of our system of governance.

Look at Outofbreath ... i'm taking heat for defending the very process our founders intended to PROTECT liberty, and he arguing we should abandon it in favor of a system that they knew to be one of the greatest threats to true liberty! Why do I, as a patriotic american, have to assign value to that? Isn't it fair for me to comment that the people who are acusing me of being wrong-minded are in fact not in agreement on the basic ideals our country was founded on?

Anyhow.
BACK TO THE SUBJECT:
National Ledger Article -- "Ron Paul and How the Media Pick the Candidates" ... all about how Ron Paul is being UNFAIRLY treated by the media ... and deliberately so.

Again, this isn't a fault of the system we have set up, it is a fault of corporate corruption, in bed with an entrenched group of neer-do-wells within the government itself. The system does guarantee liberty only so long as the people are informed on the true meaning of liberty and get off their ass to actualy secure it.

I think that is the process we are seeing take place with the Ron Paul "Revolution", and it is the reason the establishment is so fucking freaked out. They may be losing their grip! Ron Paul is a sign of the apocalypse as far as they are concerned! If he wins, ALL IS LOST! Over 100 years of ploting and scheming will be for not!

Concerning the constitution and Jefferson and progress, yeah yeah sure. of course. The ammendment process stands for a reason. I'm talking about people who actualy think that the whole thing is junk and not worth keeping, i take EXTREME exception to that line of thought. In fact, i think some of the ammendments themselves are what need to be pulled\rewritten more so than any original texts. The 14th ammendment now incetivises illegal immigrants with citizenship rights for their children, when all it was intended to do was give slaves' children citizenship! The 16th ammendment, best i can make from history was glaringly misinterpreted by the courts to the deliberate advantage of the statists, when the original intent as per President Taft's Letter To Congress was simply to CLARIFY the Federal Governments EXISTING taxation authority ... although he does seemingly imply that he hopes the courts WILL misinterpret it someday in the future to grant them previously unconstitutional powers. Pretty fucked up if you ask me.

As far as OOB\Dan and the legitimacy of a system that denies the plebian people their inherent democratic rights ... man i don't know what the fuck to tell you ... our system is perfectly fair in that if you care about the vote and the process, you are more then welcome to march down to the GOP or DNC and VOLUNTEER to run for the delgate process and directly influence the vote. The process provides you the opportunity to be involved with the delegate process, just as it provides you the opportunity to cast a paper ballot. Your argument that it overextends power to whichever elite happens somehow manipulate it is bogus on the grounds that if there was REAL debate happening right now, Ron Pauls rabid supporters would be MATCHED by someone else's rabid supporters ... "We can't let those damn ron paul folks win!" ... the fact that this is NOT really happening (except in ole Louisiana where the LAGOP tried to pull one over with this Pro Life \ Pro Family delgate slate bullshit) is only demonstrating that there is no real coutnerbalance right now. You have a lot of idiot button pushers who are voting just because they think they should but clearly don't care enough one way or another to go stand up as a delegate nominee ... and then you have the Ron Paul people ... the people who are in a fucking fervor over their liberties ... the very fucking people the system is set up to PROTECT ... imagine a system set up to protectthe liberty of the MINORITY actualy working out to do just that ?!? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Like i said, if there was real adamant opposition to Ron Paul in the PUBLIC realm, that public would be going ape shit trying to get its own delegates. As it stands, Ron Paul people themselves are the only opposition, and what they are opposing are those who want to muder the liberty of the masses!


Any how get well Baraka, and yes i need to work on my temper and tolerance for other POVs. That will probably be a lifelong goal.

I'm going to get my belated good nights sleep now. From 11am until 3pm.

OutOfBreath

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Look at Outofbreath ... i'm taking heat for defending the very process our founders intended to PROTECT liberty, and he arguing we should abandon it in favor of a system that they knew to be one of the greatest threats to true liberty! Why do I, as a patriotic american, have to assign value to that? Isn't it fair for me to comment that the people who are acusing me of being wrong-minded are in fact not in agreement on the basic ideals our country was founded on?

I do not revere the founding fathers all that much, you know. And so any lines of "our founding fathers would have meant" reasoning I find uninteresting. Rich white landowners 200 years past did not nail it for eternity. Not in the US, not anywhere.

As far as OOB\Dan and the legitimacy of a system that denies the plebian people their inherent democratic rights ... man i don't know what the fuck to tell you ... our system is perfectly fair in that if you care about the vote and the process, you are more then welcome to march down to the GOP or DNC and VOLUNTEER to run for the delgate process and directly influence the vote. The process provides you the opportunity to be involved with the delegate process, just as it provides you the opportunity to cast a paper ballot. Your argument that it overextends power to whichever elite happens somehow manipulate it is bogus on the grounds that if there was REAL debate happening right now, Ron Pauls rabid supporters would be MATCHED by someone else's rabid supporters ... "We can't let those damn ron paul folks win!" ... the fact that this is NOT really happening (except in ole Louisiana where the LAGOP tried to pull one over with this Pro Life \ Pro Family delgate slate bullshit) is only demonstrating that there is no real coutnerbalance right now. You have a lot of idiot button pushers who are voting just because they think they should but clearly don't care enough one way or another to go stand up as a delegate nominee ... and then you have the Ron Paul people ... the people who are in a fucking fervor over their liberties ... the very fucking people the system is set up to PROTECT ... imagine a system set up to protectthe liberty of the MINORITY actualy working out to do just that ?!? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Like i said, if there was real adamant opposition to Ron Paul in the PUBLIC realm, that public would be going ape shit trying to get its own delegates. As it stands, Ron Paul people themselves are the only opposition, and what they are opposing are those who want to muder the liberty of the masses!

You are still essentially saying zealous people count more. Look, if a state with 20 delegates have a vote, and the results indicate 10 for candidate A 5 for B and 5 for C, it is not very democratic that the delegates then can change their mind and instead end up, say 7/6/7 instead. Then the 20 delegates have essentially overruled the vote of thousands of voters. Fucking over candidate A and his voters. Meaning, the politicking elite (who also have to have the time to stand around arguing for hours, I guess) are the true deciders. It is not then fair play for people saying they'll vote for A and get chosen for that, to then turn around and choose C instead. Then a certain amount of thousands have just been fucked over essentially. That is my objection.

Of course, in practice it might not be so bad, but since we're on about principles anyway...

Peace
Dan

DriftingByTheStorm

No Dan, i'm not saying the voices of zealots count more.
I'm saying the voice of ANYONE who gets off their ass and participates in the process counts more than someone who doesn't.

That is how a republic works ... you have to take some action to be heard.

As far as your primary complaint, delegates are either bound or unbound, based on state rules, but usualy MOST of them are bound, and that means that when they get to the national convention -- as i've said on here before -- they must VOTE FOR THE PERSON THEY WERE ELECTED TO VOTE FOR!
UNLESS 50% OF THE VOTE ON THE FIRST GO ROUND DOES NOT END UP GOING TO A SINGULAR MAJORITY! ...

if someone doesn't win with > 50% of the vote on the first National Convention vote, they go to extra voting rounds where ALL DELEGATES ARE RELEASED FROM BINDING.

Does that put you at any more ease?

And to Baraka and the others who questioned my comments concerning those on here who have no taste for the basic tenants of our system of governance, you heard it right here ... just look up one post. The guy flat out says exactly what i said some were saying ... "Rich white men suck, and shouldn't be trusted to do anything of worth" ... :rolleyes: ...

Our founding fathers certainly were not perfect in their belief systems ... but that doesn't mean they weren't real life heros who risked life and limb in a clash with oppressive Monarchial tyranny ... rich white men who had the best interest of their future sons and daughters at hear when they penned our great constitution. Sure they forgot a few things, but they made the process amendable, and for the most part, IMHO, they were on the money.

Clearly there is a bit of a culture difference, me being an American, and you being an Noweigian. I am sorry i don't view Socialism as a solution for Americas woes.

OutOfBreath

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

No Dan, i'm not saying the voices of zealots count more.
I'm saying the voice of ANYONE who gets off their ass and participates in the process counts more than someone who doesn't.

That is how a republic works ... you have to take some action to be heard.

As far as your primary complaint, delegates are either bound or unbound, based on state rules, but usualy MOST of them are bound, and that means that when they get to the national convention -- as i've said on here before -- they must VOTE FOR THE PERSON THEY WERE ELECTED TO VOTE FOR!
UNLESS 50% OF THE VOTE ON THE FIRST GO ROUND DOES NOT END UP GOING TO A SINGULAR MAJORITY! ...

if someone doesn't win with > 50% of the vote on the first National Convention vote, they go to extra voting rounds where ALL DELEGATES ARE RELEASED FROM BINDING.

Does that put you at any more ease?

A little, I suppose. I still don't see the need for delegates at all. But it can perhaps be tolerated as an amusing anachronism from back in the day.

And to Baraka and the others who questioned my comments concerning those on here who have no taste for the basic tenants of our system of governance, you heard it right here ... just look up one post. The guy flat out says exactly what i said some were saying ... "Rich white men suck, and shouldn't be trusted to do anything of worth" ... :rolleyes: ...

That's not what I said actually. I was just outlining how a collection of pretty similar folks should not decide for eternity what is right or not in the world. No women or blacks back then were asked. No small-time farmers, no industrial workers. They feared direct democracy that gives power to the people. They were rich land and slave owners. I see a real connection of real interests here.... That doesnt say that there weren't idealists or good men among them, but be sure that the end result did nothing to hurt these people nor their positions either.

Our founding fathers certainly were not perfect in their belief systems ... but that doesn't mean they weren't real life heros who risked life and limb in a clash with oppressive Monarchial tyranny ... rich white men who had the best interest of their future sons and daughters at hear when they penned our great constitution. Sure they forgot a few things, but they made the process amendable, and for the most part, IMHO, they were on the money.

Nor does it mean that they were heroes by default. They were an elite, wanting to shake off another elite back in England. Lot of nice ideas found their way into the document, and it was enormously progressive for it's time. No doubt. But no sense in canonizing them as saints either. They were idealists and looking out for their own interests. Their fear of direct democracy really tells it as far as I'm concerned. They feared the true participation of the people without it being mediated through an elite. Which is pretty much what you too have expressed in several posts here. You may agree with them, but they were no messiahs, no saints and no supernatural insight on their part made the document.

Some insight in history quickly dispells any impulse to glorify the people that made history. History is a dirty struggle, where the winners write it, and their descendants idolize the winners.

Clearly there is a bit of a culture difference, me being an American, and you being an Noweigian. I am sorry i don't view Socialism as a solution for Americas woes.

Clearly there is a difference, and some of it is likely culture. But mostly just completely different understanding of the world and how it is nailed together really. Neither do I see any sense in winding back legal and social evolution of the last 200 years in order to go back to an ideal that never truly existed except in print. I dont necessarily see socialism as a solution either, although I am partial to some of the ideas put forward by socialists.

Peace
Dan

Solat13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Uh.
No conspiracy here, right folks?

WTF.
CNN and FOX are repeatedly broadcasting that there are THREE Republicans left running:
Romney
McCain
HUCKABEE

WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO GOT THREE TIMES MORE VOTES THAN HUCKABEE IN YESTERDAYS MAINE CAUCAUS !?!

WTF WTF WTF
And why would Rupert Murdoch exclude Ron Paul from his Wallstreet Journal "Republican Q4 Fundraising Totals" graph? Gee i don't fucking know. MAYBE BECAUSE RON PAUL GOT MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM!??!

I don't know who makes me more sick.
Them, or those of you who can't even fucking see it.

:(

Well, in reality, I know you support Paul, but it's going to come down to only 2 McCain and Romney. And if things keep going the way they are, they are going to get really interesting. Romney is up 40-32 in California in the latest poll. It might have been a mistake for McCain to campaign in Boston to try and rub in Romney's face last night - especially if he lose California where he was solidly up last week.

know1

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Uh.
No conspiracy here, right folks?

WTF.
CNN and FOX are repeatedly broadcasting that there are THREE Republicans left running:
Romney
McCain
HUCKABEE

WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO GOT THREE TIMES MORE VOTES THAN HUCKABEE IN YESTERDAYS MAINE CAUCAUS !?!

WTF WTF WTF
And why would Rupert Murdoch exclude Ron Paul from his Wallstreet Journal "Republican Q4 Fundraising Totals" graph? Gee i don't fucking know. MAYBE BECAUSE RON PAUL GOT MORE MONEY THAN ALL OF THEM!??!

I don't know who makes me more sick.
Them, or those of you who can't even fucking see it.

:(

Wrong.

There are realistically only 2 candidates left in the race.... Huckabee doesn't stand a chance.

ndv180

The corporate owned media cannot be trusted, period! One of the biggest stories of this generation is unfolding before our eyes and hardly anyone is paying close attention and knows what it's all about. The reason for that is the media has failed to inform the public. When things begin to unravel for the Justice Department and the Bush administration, this will go down as "the greatest fourth-estate failure ever on our soil" [quoting Jim Lampley].

You must understand that I'm posting the link to my thread in attempt to educate an uninformed public. Please read it. There's much knowledge to be gained and little to lose (some of your time) by reading it and following the links that are provided. The House Juduiciary hearings are scheduled to resume this Thursday. Learn what they are all about. Ken Blackwell has been asked to appear before the committee on Friday.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=271695