[FantasyGod]

Originally Posted by BDA116

That's a nice mess of B.S., but that is ALL it is. Do you even KNOW what the founding father laid out in the Constitution? Your verbal diarrhea has nothing to do with what they intended or stated. Here, just to help you remedials out: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. "
The number of Senators from each state has never changed. The power each Senator had has never changed. The way in which they got the power and to whom they are beholden HAS changed.

Yes, pass the salad. We're sure you can toss salad with a hint of diarrhea. WTF are you talking about? I am well aware of the constitution's 3rd section of its 1st article and any amendments that go with the constitution. I have a political science and business law textbook for reference from my classes this semester. The intent of the authors of the constitution were based upon economic and politcal factors of the 1790s. You would be ignorant and a fool not to recognize the shifts in the political atmosphere. The powers of politics represented have slightly shifted as more votes of the present are valid in comparison that political scene of the 1790s where groups among the masses were discounted. Don't feed me any of that bullshit where only the elite or the "culturally enlightened" should have valid votes. Remember that this is a time when the masses were largely illiterate and "uncultured", hence the elite colonial aristocracy did not wish the masses to control the senate. The authors of the constitution(the "living" law of the land) had intended for this document to be adaptable because they were wise enough to envision changes in the future political atmosphere. Which was precisely why these authors intended for the state legislatures the ability to amend the constitution when and where necessary. You are correct in your assumption that the founding fathers had used wording to empower the state legisture to determine senators but you are foolish to not take into account that the founding fathers had also specifically given the state legislatures the rights to amend our constitution. In essense, our state legislatures in 1913 permitted the ratification of the 17th amendment. Again, the 17th Amendment change took place in 1913, right before WWI and the advent of mass propaganda machines. Now that the public or people at large no longer have the mass illiteracy of the 1790 even though some groups were still underrepresented in 1913. The amendment took place because the politics of 1913 felt that the 17th amendment was appropriate. And today, where illiteracy is almost minimal relative to the literacy rates of 1790s and 1913, the application of the original text would be literally taking words out of temporal context. Had similar authors exist in the current day and age, their wording would likely be different.

Originally Posted by BDA116

In all reality the way the power shifted has gone to HURT smaller states and HELP large population areas, which is why the dems are so against changing back. The original way is better for conservative states by far.

Are you out of you mind? In 2000, the Republicans lost the popular votes but won enough electoral votes! Large populations have lots of people you love to label a leftist liberals. And because these densely populated areas are usually in a only few states such as Califoria or New York, these majorities are vastly underrepresented in the Senate. Contrarily, the relatively sparsely populated states of the Midwest have contributed heavily to the success of the Republican vote. I still find it amazing how wrongly the Republican elite misrepresent the conservative vote. The majority of the Midwestern population are NOT a part of the wealthy social elite that rule the Republican politics. The social elite that control the Republican party care about MONEY and WEALTH NOT CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY.

Originally Posted by BDA116

The 17th didn't change how many senators a state had, genius, nor did it have anything to do with whom can vote. Nice little try for left wing propaganda spin, but it doesn't hold any water at all.
And if you want to get into civil rights, you obviously need a history lesson there as well.

No **** "Genius"! But who could vote did influence the proposal and ratification of the 17th amendment to alter the specific language of the founding fathers. Left wing propaganda accusions can only be used to move away the subject matter. Stop deviating from the point at hand with history lessons from the Civil Rights movement.

On a side note, if you do intend to debate of the Civil Rights movement and its purpose or history, create a separate thread and I will be more than happy to spar with you. I have finals this coming week but I will find time on this forum, just for your cocky demeanor.

[Mojave954]

They should re-comission him then Court-Martial his ass. Sure the Marines would love to CODE RED his ass in Quantico.


If would of gotten in, there would of been "nothing" done. Like his buddy Clinto, a tomahawk here a tomawk there.

Nice to know our soldiers are terrorist, real nice. Boyz are only doing their job, nasty one but, its got get done.

[Mojave954]

Originally Posted by FantasyGod

Yes, pass the salad. We're sure you can toss salad with a hint of diarrhea. WTF are you talking about? I am well aware of the constitution's 3rd section of its 1st article and any amendments that go with the constitution. I have a political science and business law textbook for reference from my classes this semester. The intent of the authors of the constitution were based upon economic and politcal factors of the 1790s. You would be ignorant and a fool not to recognize the shifts in the political atmosphere. The powers of politics represented have slightly shifted as more votes of the present are valid in comparison that political scene of the 1790s where groups among the masses were discounted. Don't feed me any of that bullshit where only the elite or the "culturally enlightened" should have valid votes. Remember that this is a time when the masses were largely illiterate and "uncultured", hence the elite colonial aristocracy did not wish the masses to control the senate. The authors of the constitution(the "living" law of the land) had intended for this document to be adaptable because they were wise enough to envision changes in the future political atmosphere. Which was precisely why these authors intended for the state legislatures the ability to amend the constitution when and where necessary. You are correct in your assumption that the founding fathers had used wording to empower the state legisture to determine senators but you are foolish to not take into account that the founding fathers had also specifically given the state legislatures the rights to amend our constitution. In essense, our state legislatures in 1913 permitted the ratification of the 17th amendment. Again, the 17th Amendment change took place in 1913, right before WWI and the advent of mass propaganda machines. Now that the public or people at large no longer have the mass illiteracy of the 1790 even though some groups were still underrepresented in 1913. The amendment took place because the politics of 1913 felt that the 17th amendment was appropriate. And today, where illiteracy is almost minimal relative to the literacy rates of 1790s and 1913, the application of the original text would be literally taking words out of temporal context. Had similar authors exist in the current day and age, their wording would likely be different.



Are you out of you mind? In 2000, the Republicans lost the popular votes but won enough electoral votes! Large populations have lots of people you love to label a leftist liberals. And because these densely populated areas are usually in a only few states such as Califoria or New York, these majorities are vastly underrepresented in the Senate. Contrarily, the relatively sparsely populated states of the Midwest have contributed heavily to the success of the Republican vote. I still find it amazing how wrongly the Republican elite misrepresent the conservative vote. The majority of the Midwestern population are NOT a part of the wealthy social elite that rule the Republican politics. The social elite that control the Republican party care about MONEY and WEALTH NOT CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY.




No **** "Genius"! But who could vote did influence the proposal and ratification of the 17th amendment to alter the specific language of the founding fathers. Left wing propaganda accusions can only be used to move away the subject matter. Stop deviating from the point at hand with history lessons from the Civil Rights movement.

On a side note, if you do intend to debate of the Civil Rights movement and its purpose or history, create a separate thread and I will be more than happy to spar with you. I have finals this coming week but I will find time on this forum, just for your cocky demeanor.

Blah, blah, blah....

A lot crap coming from someone's whose town just voted to oust the recruiting stations AND guns within the city limits. Gov't needs to pull your federal funding and on send the National Guard to contain the unrest.

You attending BERKLEY??????

[djice929]

The Libertarian Party is the only party that follows the Constitution to the letter and believes in true freedom the way the founding fathers of this country wanted. The Right and the Left both violate the constitution, but the Left is the most guilty. Our Constitution was made as a restraint on government, which the left wants to trample over with all their big government ideas. After all, they say its for your own good, their philosophy is that you as an individual aren't smart enough to take care of or think for yourself, and that the government can do it better for you, with your money.
They react with emotion, instead of logic.. makes me sick.. the right wants to cram morality down your throat, but that can be ignored for the most part. In lib states, everything is against the law and most things are regulated somehow by the government. Take CA for example, look at the size of the penal code. Their are laws governing everything here. The funny part is that the left says the right wants a police state, that Bush is a fascist, and then theywant to give the government all sorts of power over them. They believe in a socialist utopia, where everyone works for the good of society and no one is materialistic anymore, kinda like on Star Trek.. its a fantasy.

[luvtolean]

Bush/congress have created a police state with the Patriot act.

Bush is nowhere near a small government conservative. He's ballooned the size of the government, and increased spending enormously. EVEN OUTSIDE the war in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I'll agree the liberals are further from the founding principles of our government, but the conservatives are getting further and further away. Bush has led us further than ever.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by FantasyGod

The social elite that control the Republican party care about MONEY and WEALTH NOT CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY.

And all the liberals care about is their money/wealth and power. Not social rights, or any other feel-good bullshit one might dream up. They just see a different group of people to get them there.

IMO, the liberals are far more elitist than the republicans nowadays.

[BDA116]

Cracks me up when you extremists actually think you know something.
Just for kicks, try to re-read your verbal diarrhea without shaking your head at the horrible education you have had to go through.

I'd go further, but when someone can't even grasp remedial-level civics I can't stand even acknowledging their existence.

[FantasyGod]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

And all the liberals care about is their money/wealth and power. Not social rights, or any other feel-good bullshit one might dream up. They just see a different group of people to get them there.

IMO, the liberals are far more elitist than the republicans nowadays.

I'm not exactly liberal in more than one way. The Social elite exist in both Republican and Democratic parties. Big gov't or not, I'm only for giving the individual a chance where they wouldn't because of financial or social difficulty. I could care less about big gov't because a big portion of funding is wasted on bueracracy anyway.

[FantasyGod]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Cracks me up when you extremists actually think you know something.
Just for kicks, try to re-read your verbal diarrhea without shaking your head at the horrible education you have had to go through.

I'd go further, but when someone can't even grasp remedial-level civics I can't stand even acknowledging their existence.

Extremist? Where have I taken any of this subject matter to any extreme? I am not for the extreme of huge gov't or the extreme of anarchy. I'm just not as close-minded or as unreasonable as you have come across thus far. Begin your you Civics 101 course. I'm listening...

Originally Posted by BDA116

I'd go further, but when someone can't even grasp remedial-level civics I can't stand even acknowledging their existence.

Speaking of education. Your grammar is quite poor. I'm having suspicion of whether or not you have even completed high school.

[Baketech]

And there it is...the cornerstone of liberal elitism in a nutshell, and beautifully illustrated...

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by Baketech

And there it is...the cornerstone of liberal elitism in a nutshell, and beautifully illustrated...

Either that or he's a gifted fisherperson.

[Baketech]

Or Ondablade has returned... or...

[CBRVFR]

Originally Posted by BDA116

I'd go further, but when someone can't even grasp remedial-level civics I can't stand even acknowledging their existence.

Originally Posted by fantasygod

Begin your you Civics 101 course. I'm listening...

Speaking of education. Your grammar is quite poor. I'm having suspicion of whether or not you have even completed high school.

: rotfl:


Oh, the irony........stop, please.

Maybe Composition 101 is in your future.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Bush/congress have created a police state with the Patriot act.

Bush is nowhere near a small government conservative. He's ballooned the size of the government, and increased spending enormously. EVEN OUTSIDE the war in Iraq/Afghanistan.

I'll agree the liberals are further from the founding principles of our government, but the conservatives are getting further and further away. Bush has led us further than ever.

While he has not vetoed anything as he should have (including the campaign finance free speech infringement act) the wild acts of spending should be blamed on the house because all spending bills originate there.

[Smitty929RR]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Cracks me up when you extremists actually think you know something.
Just for kicks, try to re-read your verbal diarrhea without shaking your head at the horrible education you have had to go through.

I'd go further, but when someone can't even grasp remedial-level civics I can't stand even acknowledging their existence.

Good answer Mr. Bush.

[rocket]

Originally Posted by Smitty929RR

Good answer Mr. Bush.

It really hurts you guys to call him President Bush doesn't it?

[Cowboy1600]

BDA, do you actually take yourself seriously? Do you believe the **** you type?

[Mo Noyz]

Originally Posted by LTL

Bush/congress have created a police state with the Patriot act.

LTL, the rest of the post I lifted this quote from is correct.

But this is absolutely outrageous.

[luvtolean]

Mo, I know you disagree strongly with me on the Patriot Act, but I feel VERY strongly that it is true we are well on our way to a police state.

And I do agree, it is an outrage.

[Mo Noyz]

As I've stated previously, the Patriot Act needs to ride off into the sunset, mostly because it was penned in haste while the wounds of September 11th were still fresh.

Revisions need to be made now that there has been some time for sober reflection. I'll grant you that.

But "created a police state"? I'd be willing to wager that those who live/have lived in a police state would disagree.

[luvtolean]

And I'll bet those that created our governmental system would agree with me.

[Baketech]

I have family that have lived and escaped from "police" states...they would find your POV a bit laughable...

Interestingly, you have a lot in common with my Dad. Being part of the elitist industrial class, you frequently travel, and have come to view that as an entitlement. Now there are added inconveniences that you view as persecutorial...this warps your overall perspective on the issue.

Not discounting your POV of course, just pointing out that you are in an elite segment of society, and your v