All joking aside...

[Etxbuckman]

This country just needs is a good plague. There's too **** many people here with too **** many opinions.

[texansfan]

Absolutely. Every state was never meant to agree on everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What about slavery and allowing women to vote?
States rights issues?
What about the use of stem cells?

[Bayouboy]

What about slavery and allowing women to vote?
States rights issues?
What about the use of stem cells?

I am all for enslaving women come this November on election day so they can't vote. "Unless they are Trump supporters" Then, freeing them the day after.

I am also in favor of using stem cells from cows for breast enhancement vs. silicone.
Would make for extremely productive mammary glands.

[muzzlebrake]

Firm believer that you have to own property and/or pay taxes to cast a vote...if you are on govt assistance, then no. There is no value in a system that has those on the take voting for those in power who in turn reward them for doing nothing.

THIS is our problem...only those that contribute to the tax base should be casting votes.

I have no problem with charity, but those receiving are giving power to lawmakers taking from the tax producers, to empower themselves from votes of the dead beats. It needs to stop.

~~~~~

To the OP...I fear the worst.

I like your way of thinking but then I'm kinda hard core being of a generation that grew up on a farm where everybody worked everyday and went to bed tired at night. Yep them was the good old days.

[Mike D]

What about slavery and allowing women to vote?

States rights issues?

What about the use of stem cells?

1). Really? Ok I'll play. Assuming that we only allow property owner's vote, in local and state elections that could be doable, obviously not in national elections.
I don't even know how to respond to the slavery question. [emoji57]

2). What about the use of stem cells? Why would the government be involved in that at all?


"An honest government has no fear of an armed population".

[HoustonHunter]

I'm not taking sides on this, but I do have a question...

This country was created so that the majority voting block would have primary rule. So, if the left is indeed the majority in this country, shouldn't they be in charge? I see some folks on here saying they are the majority but arguing that they shouldn't be in charge. Just wondering how that works from a Constitutional perspective?

Food for thought as our country was not founded on "majority rule". The founders protected us with the constitution and the bill of rights but what happens when judges start to have a liberal view of the constitution? You get what we are seeing now, all over the country.

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It . . .
by James D. Best

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention, a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.” Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”

Our Constitution created a limited representative republic. A republic is different from a democracy. In a democracy, the majority can directly make laws, while in a republic, elected representatives make laws. Basically, in a pure democracy, the majority has unlimited power, whereas in a republic, a written constitution limits the majority and provides safeguards for the individual and minorities.

In the United States, we actually have both systems. There is no way for Americans to directly enact legislation at the national level, but half of the states allow ballot initiatives which, if passed by a majority of the voters, have the force of law.

The Founders’ intent at the national level was a representative republic. The word democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution. Most of the Founders distrusted pure democracy. Some had been frightened by Shays Revolt and equated democracy with mob rule. Others were convinced by Madison that different factions would come together until they formed a majority, and then take advantage of those who were not members of their coalition. In fact, Madison showed that throughout history, this phenomenon had destroyed every experiment in democracy.

John Adams wrote that “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide,” and James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 that “Democracies have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” The reason pure democracies fail is that majorities learn that they can legally take property and/or liberties away from others. Those subjected to abuse can be anyone outside the majority coalition, and their minority status can be based on race, religion, wealth, political affiliation, or even which city or state they reside in. Demagogic leaders become adept at appealing to the emotions of jealousy, avarice, and entitlement. They also denigrate opponents in order to justify prejudicial actions taken by the majority. Soon, oppression of minority classes causes enough conflicts to collapse the democratic process.

A major difference between a republic and a democracy is immediacy. The Founders wanted laws made by representatives in order to put a buffer between popular passions and legislation. In a democracy, decisions are made in the heat of the moment, while periodic elections in a republic provide a cooling off period. To a great extent, democracies are ruled by feelings, while in a republic, the rule of law governs. In a republic, politicians can take principled actions that go against the will of many of their constituents with the knowledge that they will be judged by all the actions they take during their entire term in office. Political leaders are also given time to explain the reasons for their actions.

Of course, if an elected official does something grievously offensive, then the voters can follow the advice of Alexander Hamilton, who in Federalist 21 wrote, “The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” When the people’s will is thwarted, regular elections give them the opportunity to dismiss their representatives and appoint new ones."

[BoneDigger]

Interesting, and to some extent I agree. The question though is simple, if the majority of this country is left of center, why should the representation for those people not also be left of center?

[HoustonHunter]

Interesting, and to some extent I agree. The question though is simple, if the majority of this country is left of center, why should the representation for those people not also be left of center?

The elected representation can be whatever the people vote it to be. What should protect us is the constitution but liberal lawyers and liberal judges are creating perverted views of the constitution, therefore, attempting to turn everything to our core left.

That's the whole concept behind a republic. Our rights should be protected, no matter who is in office.

[BoneDigger]

Yes, but these judges are put into their positions through the elected officials. These elected officials represent their liberal constituents. Isn't this spelled out in the Constitution?

[HoustonHunter]

Yes, but these judges are put into their positions through the elected officials. These elected officials represent their liberal constituents. Isn't this spelled out in the Constitution?

Scratching my head because I'm not sure how else to continue to make my point...

The constitution is not a living, breathing document. Yes, the elected can elect and elect and it's based on the votes from the people (ideally).. However, what the founders intended is that the constitution remains the same and protects the people, no matter who is in office.

[Ætheling]

This country just needs is a good plague. There's too **** many people here with too **** many opinions.

Haha, I have my 13 year old daughter trained, whenever I am bitching about something in the truck I will look back at her and say "you know what the problem is?" she says (for my benefit of course) "too many people, time to cull the herd". I love it, shes a good girl.

[XBowHunter]

Yes, but these judges are put into their positions through the elected officials. These elected officials represent their liberal constituents. Isn't this spelled out in the Constitution?

conservatives will never admit they are outnumbered.

[Buff]

conservatives will never admit they are outnumbered.

Most of the folks I know do believe the workers are now out numbered by the leaches.

My grandfather told me back in 1960 that sooner or later the leaches would figure out that they can vote themselves a living rather than have to get a job.

It has taken longer than I expected but we are now to that point.

[PondPopper]

Interesting, and to some extent I agree. The question though is simple, if the majority of this country is left of center, why should the representation for those people not also be left of center?

Just because a majority wants to jump off a bridge doesn't mean its the right thing to do or that the rest of us should follow.

[texansfan]

2). What about the use of stem cells? Why would the government be involved in that at all?

The same reason why some folks want the govt to be involved in abortions.