patrick.net

Good article and I reservedly like the parliamentarian system; however, I would retain our Bill of Rights and actually effect them.

Good luck getting this past the crowd who believes in a government best suited to an agrarian, pre-industrial polity.

georgeliberte says

however, I would retain our Bill of Rights and actually effect them.

I would write a new, far more encompassing bill of rights that included privacy rights and body rights.

HydroCabron says

Good luck getting this past the crowd who believes in a government best suited to an agrarian, pre-industrial polity.

And the crowd that believes in a government best suited for a pre-agrarian, hunter & collectors, leave me alone, wild frontier.

The problems with this govt. must be the fault of the Modern Whig Party,Freedom Socialist Party,United States Marijuana Party,Transhumanist Party, etc.,etc.,etc. These idiots took over the govt .by force & will destroy this here "America of the United States".

I've thought better & realized none of these have ever had any political control. So it's in the lap of Democrats & Republicans & their stupid voters.

George Carlin:
"By the way, it's the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care! Good honest hard-working people; white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich cock suckers who don’t give a fuck about you….they don’t give a fuck about you… they don’t give a FUCK about you.''

"They don’t care about you at all… at all… AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Thats what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick thats being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.''

"It's called the American Dream,because you have to be asleep to believe it."

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

If it works for the bronze age, it's works for me!

GOP Perpetual Slogan

Starting with national proportional representation so every vote counts. It wouldn't matter if you're the only Republican voter in Ann Arbor, your vote would go towards the Republicans nationally and count. Also, strategic voting where you get 5 points to assign among Parties (or give one all of them), so you can vote your heart and then the second choice, and throw a point to the lesser evil.

Why a whole new Constitution when SCOTUS just legislates what the fuck it wants, anyway, depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Time to stop bitching and start shooting!

Ceffer says

Why a whole new Constitution when SCOTUS just legislates what the fuck it wants, anyway, depending on which way the wind is blowing

To prevent that from happening. You didn't get it did you?

The problem isn't really the constitution, that could be fixed. The problem is the huge amounts of money involved. No other country allows this. The amounts spent on elections elsewhere are trivial. Politicians have to always pander to wishes of their campaign contributors (the 1% and corporations for repugs, unions and laywers for the dumbcrats) and any deviation from the party line will result in a huge backlash. Fail to do your masters bidding and they will find someone else who will. Compromise is no longer possible, only the extremes are represented any more.

New countries generally pattern themselves after the British form of government as the US form gives too much power to the Prez.

Any form of government uses force, the less government the better.

Dan8267 says

I would write a new, far more encompassing bill of rights that included privacy rights and body rights.

If you liberals ignore the rights that are written right into the constitution now, there isn't much hope that you'll suddenly change to actually care about human rights...

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

I would write a new, far more encompassing bill of rights that included privacy rights and body rights.

If you liberals ignore the rights that are written right into the constitution now, there isn't much hope that you'll suddenly change to actually care about human rights...

Liberals only ignore the 2nd amendment, conservatives are responsible for ignoring the other 9. I would think after the reagan years and the bush years you would have a clue, guess not.

FortWayne says

If you liberals ignore the rights that are written right into the constitution now, there isn't much hope that you'll suddenly change to actually care about human rights...

I've stated that some of the leftists on Pat.net are actively attempting to undermine the United States of America.

I rest my case on this thread.

Dan, Cabroncito et al, are treasonous bastards who are more than happy to support and enjoy free speech rights without the guts to fight for it not the guts to advocate the remaining rights that accompany those free speech rights.

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

I would write a new, far more encompassing bill of rights that included privacy rights and body rights.

If you liberals ignore the rights that are written right into the constitution now, there isn't much hope that you'll suddenly change to actually care about human rights...

Are you really that stupid or just bullshitting? Conservatives have been the enemies of human and civil rights throughout our history while liberals have been their champions.

Who was in favor of slavery? Conservatives.
Who was in favor of segregation? Conservatives.
Who was in favor of lynching? Conservatives.
Who was against blacks being allowed to vote? Conservatives.
Who was against women being allowed to vote? Conservatives.
Who was against allowing blacks and whites to marry each other? Conservatives.
Who is against allow people of the same sex to marry each other? Conservatives.
Which Supreme Court justices said that it's okay for you to be stripped searched and body cavity searched, a process that literally meets the FBI's and Justice Department's legal definition of rape, for an alleged traffic violation? Conservatives.

So, how exactly are liberals fucking over human rights and how exactly are conservatives upholding them?

dodgerfanjohn says

I've stated that some of the leftists on Pat.net are actively attempting to undermine the United States of America.

And that's why your opinion doesn't mean shit. It's not grounded in reality.

dodgerfanjohn says

Dan, Cabroncito et al, are treasonous bastards who are more than happy to support and enjoy free speech rights without the guts to fight for it not the guts to advocate the remaining rights that accompany those free speech rights.

In order to exercise free speech, you must know how to speak. Your ramblings are incoherent.

Dan8267 says

I would write a new, far more encompassing bill of rights that included privacy rights and body rights.

OK, so start writing! Please post your new constitution in this thread.

I have some ideas for it:

* publicly funded elections
* absolute prohibition on secret courts
* absolute prohibition on national security letters
* a right to privacy in all your electronic communication unless you are specifically named as a suspect in a crime
* specifically affirming that corporations and unions are not legal persons. only "natural born" humans are persons.
* prohibition of income tax and sales tax, to be replaced with a land value tax and tax on radio spectrum

Dan8267 says

dodgerfanjohn says

I've stated that some of the leftists on Pat.net are actively attempting to undermine the United States of America.

And that's why your opinion doesn't mean shit. It's not grounded in reality.

dodgerfanjohn says

Dan, Cabroncito et al, are treasonous bastards who are more than happy to support and enjoy free speech rights without the guts to fight for it not the guts to advocate the remaining rights that accompany those free speech rights.

In order to exercise free speech, you must know how to speak. Your ramblings are incoherent.

It means that YOU DAN hate the nation you live in. Many people are currently upset at the state of the government we have because it doesn't adhere to our governing documents. You want to throw out the governing documents. Worst of all, you fail to explain the fallout of doing so.

As such your thoughts are as big of a load of crap as John Lennons "Imagine"....fantasy bullshit that can't possibly exist because people are flawed and perhaps the worst of the flawed are those that are really good at gaining and consolidating power. In simpleton terms, evil exists and the more you change the rules to make things "fair" via consolidated power, the less fair things become because the evil among us use that to control others. The US constitution scattered govt power to unprecedented levels in modern human civilization and the bill of rights stated unprecedented freedoms and liberties to individuals. Efforts to undermine that are about as craptacular as it gets.

dodgerfanjohn says

It means that YOU DAN hate the nation you live in.

No, I just hate the assholes in it like you who make life miserable for everyone else. It's nonsensical to say that you love or hate a country. A country isn't a person. A country doesn't have thoughts, feelings, or relationships. A country is a fictional entity written on a piece of paper. Dumb people just don't get that.

It's the people, not the flags and borders that matter.

dodgerfanjohn says

As such your thoughts are as big of a load of crap as John Lennons "Imagine"....fantasy bullshit that can't possibly exist because people are flawed a

So basically you're saying that it's impossible to write a better Constitution than the original. You know who would disagree with you? The people who actually wrote the original.

The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead.… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.

- Thomas Jefferson

No matter what all this yik yak is futile, there is too much money in centralized government and those who benefit want to keep the idiot constituents complacent i.e. ignorant

Thomas Jefferson did not write the constitution, you simple ass.
He was the ambassador to France, and in France while it was being written.
Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence.
James Madison kept Jefferson informed during the constitutional process, that's as close as Jefferson came to having any impact on the document. He was a listener...

Dan8267 says

The people who actually wrote the original.

The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead.… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.

- Thomas Jefferson

Honey, all the founding fathers had input. I was clearly speaking of that, not who penned the actual words.

The U.S. Constitution brought together, in one remarkable document, ideas from many people and several existing documents, including the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence. Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the "Founding Fathers" of our country.

constitutionfacts.com

Unless you are trying to redefine the word "actually", you were anything but clear...

Dan8267 says

I was clearly speaking of that,

Dan8267 says

The people who actually wrote the original.

The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead.… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.

- Thomas Jefferson

One more idea for our new constitution: high inheritance taxes. It is very common among Republicans to argue two contradictory things:

1. everyone should rise or fall on their own efforts (meritocracy)
2. it is wrong to tax inherited wealth

But inherited wealth is the exact opposite of meritocracy.

Many people pay lip service to meritocracy but get very het up about inheritance taxes, or death taxes as they like to call them. It is often said that inheritance taxes represent double taxation but in many cases that isn't true; for middle-class people, their biggest asset is usually their home on which capital gains tax is not paid. Similarly, business owners only pay capital gains tax when they sell; by definition, if they are passing a company on to their heirs, they have not sold.

If one assumes that an economy functions best if the most talented people rise to the top, then inherited wealth rigs the deck. There is a lottery effect; if your parents owned property, or die early (before they spend their savings on nursing care), then you have a big advantage over others who may be just as hard-working or talented. Wealthy people already pass on a lot of advantages to their children; they can afford better education, and a better environment at home (more books, quiet places to study etc).

History, as well as fiction, suggests that being born to inherited wealth is not normally a spur to greater effort; instead, life is devoted to social display or indolence. The world hardly needs a new class of Bertie Woosters.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/03/inequality

Dan8267 says

I would write a new, far more encompassing bill of rights that included privacy rights and body rights.

That's what amendments are for.

Wow - I figured it would be another 6 months before this argument reared its ugly head again. You know the Progs are sensing doom in 2016 with Hillary and beginning to accept that Obama's legacy is circling the drain lower than Carter when they start up the "get rid of the Constitution" nonsense.

Whenever Democrats lose power from the voters, the same Left-wingers begin the same arguments about how America is incapable of being governed by our Constitution and form of government.

This is a damning observation...

socal2 says

Whenever Democrats lose power from the voters, the same Left-wingers begin the same arguments about how America is incapable of being governed by our Constitution and form of government.

socal2 says

Whenever Democrats lose power from the voters, the same Left-wingers begin the same arguments about how America is incapable of being governed by our Constitution and form of government.

Reminds me of a joke during the Clinton years:

Q: "What do you call people who propose 146 amendments to the Constitution?"

A: "Conservatives."

Progs and Libs are manic. But they have the same script year after year depending on their political fortunes.

All of 2 seconds ago, most of the major Progressive political writers and politicians were all saying that the Republican party was dead with the age of Obama and that Republicans need to become more Liberal or go the way of the dinosaur. Yet Republicans refused to die or become more Liberal and managed to capture the majority of the following offices giving Republicans more controlled political seats since the 1930's:

- Majority of State Legislatures
- Majority of State Governors
- Majority of US House Seats
- Majority of US Senate Seats

And if a Republican wins the White House next year (as seems likely) the same Progs will be writing how America is ungovernable and that we need to get rid of States (Dan already has a thread started) along with getting rid of our Constitution.

SoftShell says

Unless you are trying to redefine the word "actually", you were anything but clear...

Misquoting a person is the worst way to support a point.

Are you saying that Thomas Jefferson had no influence on the concepts and principles in the Constitution? Go ahead and write a paper on that and see how it's peer reviewed.

I stand by my point and nothing you said have invalidated it. Not even the people behind the Constitution, both the direct authors and the indirect designers, believed that the first Constitution would also be the last. They did not intend it to used, almost unchanged, for over 200 years. Are you really trying to argue otherwise?

Also, are you really trying to argue that Thomas Jefferson isn't a founding father as defined by

The U.S. Constitution brought together, in one remarkable document, ideas from many people and several existing documents, including the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence. Those who made significant intellectual contributions to the Constitution are called the "Founding Fathers" of our country.

Many of the United States Founding Fathers were at the Constitutional Convention, where the Constitution was hammered out and ratified. George Washington, for example, presided over the Convention. James Madison, also present, wrote the document that formed the model for the Constitution.

Other U.S. Founding Fathers were not there, but made significant contributions in other ways. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was serving as ambassador to France at the time of the Convention. He kept abreast of the proceedings in Philadelphia by carrying on correspondence with James Madison. John Adams, as ambassador to Great Britain, wrote "Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the United States of America." Thomas Paine wrote the influential pamphlet "Common Sense," which immeasurably influenced the philosophy reflected in the Declaration of Independence. One of the U.S. Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, was initially opposed to the very idea of the Constitution! He wanted to keep the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the Constitution. However, when an agreement was made to add a "bill of rights" to the Constitution, Henry fought hard for its ratification.

The term "framers" is sometimes used to specify those who helped "craft" the Constitution. "Founding Fathers" often refers to people who contributed to the development of independence and nationhood.

If Fox News said what I said, you would be defending it. Clearly you are only interested in who wrote the post, not what was written. You are the very definition of a troll, so go fuck off.

zzyzzx says

That's what amendments are for.

Amendments are one mechanism, but for large reforms they are ineffective. Amendments are like software patches. I'm talking about a complete rewrite with a new architecture. Patches are shitty ways to accomplish that.

Dan8267 says

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

I would write a new, far more encompassing bill of rights that included privacy rights and body rights.

If you liberals ignore the rights that are written right into the constitution now, there isn't much hope that you'll suddenly change to actually care about human rights...

Are you really that stupid or just bullshitting? Conservatives have been the enemies of human and civil rights throughout our history while liberals have been their champions.

Who was in favor of slavery? Conservatives.
Who was in favor of segregation? Conservatives.
Who was in favor of lynching? Conservatives.
Who was against blacks being allowed to vote? Conservatives.
Who was against women being allowed to vote? Conservatives.
Who was against allowing blacks and whites to marry each other? Conservatives.
Who is against allow people of the same sex to marry each other? Conservatives.
Which Supreme Court justices said that it's okay for you to be stripped searched and body cavity searched, a process that literally meets the FBI's and Justice Department's legal definition of rape, for an alleged traffic violation? Conservatives.

So, how exactly are liberals fucking over human rights and how exactly are conservatives upholding them?

Ask a conservative to justify his statement and he runs away.

Dan8267 says

So, how exactly are liberals fucking over human rights and how exactly are conservatives upholding them?

Taking aside that all the evils listed above came from the Democrat party.

The Liberals, Progressive, Democrats (whatever you want to brand yourself today to hide from your deplorable past) is the party of unrestrained abortion and eugenics which eclipses all the past vile Democrat racist policies of the past. Millions of lives snuffed out with Dr. Mengele picking through the dismembered arms and legs looking for organs to sell.

How on earth can you claim Liberals are upholding "human rights" when your party is the party of killing MILLIONS and MILLIONS of unwanted babies?

socal2 says

Taking aside that all the evils listed above came from the Democrat party.

Oh, no, let's address that bitch. All the evils listed above came from the Southern Democratic Party (aka Dixiecrats) when it was composed entirely of conservatives who left the Democratic Party and joined the Republican Party in the 1950s and 1960s due to Nixon's Southern Strategy. Today's Democratic Party has only one thing in common with that Democratic Party: the name. Similarly, today's Republican Party is similar to the pre-Sourthern-Strategy Republican Party in name only. To say otherwise is a complete and blatant lie.

Of course, it's understandable why you would lie. You are ASHAMED of the behavior of conservatives, regardless of which party they control, and rightfully so. So you must distort to the truth and hope the audience gets confused. By criticizing the pre-1950s Democratic Party you are criticizing today's Republican Party and conservatives. The very people you are calling evil are the people in today's Republican Party or their ancestors. Game, set, match, bitch.

socal2 says

The Liberals, Progressive, Democrats (whatever you want to brand yourself today to hide from your deplorable past) is the party of unrestrained abortion and eugenics which eclipses all the past vile Democrat racist policies of the past.

1. Liberals, progressives, and Democrats are three different things. The fact that you do not distinguish between them demonstrates the sheer level of your willful ignorance.
2. Liberals and progressives, and today's Democrats have never, ever been for the eugenics of the past. You're thinking of conservatives.
3. Liberals, progressives, and today's Democrats have never, ever been for unrestrained abortions. Roe v. Wade, which is want the vast majority of Americans want, says that women have an unrestricted right to abortions during the first trimester. Once again, you are ignorant of the facts.
4. First trimester abortions are not morally or ethically wrong. See this classic thread.
5. It is both ridiculous and despicable to claim that abortions, even late term ones, are anywhere on the level of slavery, mass child rape, and genocide, which is exactly what conservatives have done throughout our nation's history. And yes, having sex with a 14-year-old slave girl is child rape. A slave, by definition, cannot consent or refuse.
6. If you actually gave a damn about preventing abortions, you would be against polluters who are responsible for far more abortions via miscarriages than expected mothers are. Every time you support polluters you are performing abortions on unborn offspring from a few hours after conception to a few hours before birth and everywhere in between.

socal2 says

How on earth can you claim Liberals are upholding "human rights" when your party is the party of killing MILLIONS and MILLIONS of unwanted babies?

A fertilized egg is not a baby, no matter how many times you assert that it is. Strangely, you conservatives have no problems killing millions of actual babies when they are living in other countries. How many babies and pregnant women died because of Bush's illegal war in Iraq? Far more than get aborted in the United States and that's including embryos and zygotes.

Not a baby. It does not have a brain. It does not have a mind. It does not have a soul, and neither do you.

no misquoting...here it is...jefferson did not "actually write" the constitution. You use him as a reference below.
He may have offered some input from France...that's not the same as "actually writing" as you state below.

Dan8267 says

So basically you're saying that it's impossible to write a better Constitution than the original. You know who would disagree with you? The people who actually wrote the original.

The earth belongs always to the living generation and not to the dead.… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years.

- Thomas Jefferson

Dan8267 says

Misquoting a person is the worst way to support a point.

Dan8267 says

Not a baby. It does not have a brain. It does not have a mind. It does not have a soul, and neither do you.

In the videos (that you fail to address - or even watch?) the doctors are picking through a tray of baby arms and legs looking for organs like livers and hearts to sell for medical research.

This is not a 1st trimester abortion.

In other videos, the doctors are openly musing about delaying abortions and adjusting the procedures to better harvest organs from older and more developed babies.

You Progs OWN this atrocity since you go ape-shit even at modest abortion restrictions (ban at 20 weeks to match the rest of Europe). So I really don't care to hear monster supporters like you as you try to revise the Democrat's party deplorable history of slavery, segregation and Eugenics.

Something more modern indeed.
Just one rule...

1)Gay cakes for all. It only comes in one flavor and one size, you are required to make it, taste it, and like it.

No, I did not say that, you did.
I am saying Jefferson did not actually write the original.

Dan8267 says

Are you saying that Thomas Jefferson had no influence on the concepts and principles in the Constitution?

No, I did not say that, you did.
I am saying Jefferson did not actually write the original.

Dan8267 says

Also, are you really trying to argue that Thomas Jefferson isn't a founding father

No. I am interested in preserving whatever's left of the Merriam Webster dictionary.
When i read something like "The people who actually wrote the original", I expect to see a reference to one of founding fathers who sat around the table in the room where the constitution was being put to paper".
I was disappointed by your reference to someone who was sitting in a wine bar in Paris at the time...

Dan8267 says

Clearly you are only interested in who wrote the post, not what was written.

Why is Dan pimping Jefferson as an authority for his Constitution argument anyway?

Doesn't Dan know that Jefferson was a big slave holder? Using Dan's ability to revise history, that means Jefferson must have been an evil Conservative, teabagger!

I don't think we'll know until around 2am EST....when Georgies closes...unless they have wifi there...

socal2 says

Why is Dan pimping Jefferson as an authority for his Constitution argument anyway?

Doesn't Dan know that Jefferson was a big slave holder? Using Dan's ability to revise history, that means Jefferson must have been an evil Conservative, teabagger!