What are the Democrats thinking?

[saltandsand]

They've decided to count half the delegates for MI and Fla. Why would they think that rewarding rule breaking behavior is advantageous? Do these two states think they are more important than all others and need not abide by the rules? Isn't it that all of us are penalized for not following the rules? When was the last time you received half of what you should have received when you broke the rules? Rule breakers should get nothing, or better yet less than nothing...like a fine.

Made me sick to see the aggressive feminist outrage, a bunch of mostly white women screaming about unfairness. Ain't it about time that we unite to address very very serious problems and stop the politics of self-serving greed.

Rewarding rulebreakers is not fair, nor is it in anyway appealing.

[Southern Man]

Yet another example of what our Country has become. If we don't stand up soon, and take out Country back, from these self serving Politicians, there will be no Country to take back.
Read below:

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine

[saltandsand]

How do we "stand up and take it back"? I agree, but seems not much we can do. And to make matters worse, it seems as if there is an endless line of self-serving ingrates to backfill a position as soon as it has been emptied. It's almost as though full bodied representation in unfettered service of the people is a trait which evolution has irradicated.

"These are the times that try men's souls." Thomas Paine, at the onset of the Revolution.

In thinking about what they are doing, think about this. Break the rules, don't pay your taxes and then see if the penalty is half of the original liability due.

[J_Lannon]

You actually thought that the democrat party was democratic?

[dipnet]

There's nothing new here. It's democrats being democrats. The rules apply to other people, not them. Which works fine for them when the other people are Republicans. In this case it's: CAOS.

[lil red jeep]

:popcorn: well....:popcorn: as I see it, for the past 7 years the republicans have been thumbing their noses at the American people and have said "What rules?" I guess if they make them, they feel they can break them. Names come to mind like Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, W., Dick (mom and pop sure got that one right!), they all have lied and covered up and lied some more. Both parties do it and as Americans we just sit and take.:--|

[Rockfish1]

you can point all the fingers at the president you want but he runs nothing... congress pulls all the strings, makes the budget, etc all the president does is approve or disapprove their bills and they can over ride his veto if they want to...

the dumbocrats have had control of congress for the last 2 years and what have they done?... let gas go through the roof, unemployment has sky rocketed, cost of living has gone thru the roof... don't blame the pres, it's your dumb@$$ed congress that's allowed/caused this to happen...it's the dumbocrats that are trying to bankrupt our Social Security system wanting to give all the illegals our hard earned money... that's all I've got to say on this matter, don't want to ruin the whole day...

[OBX_Nomad]

I'm sure someone will corrent me if I'm wrong, but don't you need a 2/3rds majority in both houses to override the president? Like the republicans are going to let that happen. So, wha'ts happened with the nation since Dubya took office falls directly on him. And lets not forget his sidekick Cheney. We all know what side he falls on when it comes to big oil companies getting what they want.

But hey, we found the WMD's. . . . NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[J_Lannon]

We need a new party that is willing to govern by the constitution. As far as I can tell, it has not been done in the last 140 years or so.

The republican, and democrat party are both filled with career politicians..........not patriots.

None of the candidates this year (or the past 140) have a honest bone in thier bodies.

Obama and his wife are both "anti white male", "anti corporate", with alot of racial baggage. Not to mention that he has never accomplished a single thing in his polital career.

McCain is a democrat posing as trying to pose as a republican. He would be a lame duck anyways with a democrat controlled congress, ..........so he's wasted vote.

Hillary.............its been alot of fun watching this WENCH... wiggle and wretch for the past year. I guess it is true that "what goes around comes around".

[lil red jeep]

I'm all for a new party, but the question would have to be "would the powers that be, allow it to happen?" It's probably a lot like Detroit. Just how many fuel saving ideas have they squashed because they have so many politicians under their thumbs. Granted VW isn't a Detroit car, but heck, I remember my highschool girlfriends parents had a VW Rabbit diesel that ran on the highway at 65-70 mpg! That was 1980-81, and Detroit hasn't had the brains to make a vehicle get comparable mileage? Puhleeze!

A new party would be terrific, but if the party only attracts head cases like Nader, then what is actually accomplished? I just hope that this mess is cleared up before my children have to think about buying a home for themselves. That isn't too far away (10 years or so) and what have we allowed to happen?

And Rockfish... who said it was my congress. It's just as much yours as mine. When the Democrats last held the office of President of the United States, as much as it may pain you to remember, out nation was not occupying a soveriegn nation against its will and left office with a SURPLUSS! Not quite sure why that would upset a marginally intelligent human being, but apparently it does. Who's the dumb@$$ now?

[rattler]

fire them all, down to city level, and start all over...Mickey Mouse keeps getting votes...:confused::eek:

[totallybeachin]

You got that right Rattler, Fire them all. Everyone in DC is crooked to the party or self serving. The ones there that think they're not are naive. Doesn't much matter which side either. We finally got a dem congress which promised to get us out of Iraq, but we're still there, why, because one side doesn't work without the other and they're both in the same game. Think I'm wrong....Get a Dem pres, see what happens to gas prices and being in Iraq. It will be the same outcome. Look very carefully at quotes from the Dem hopefuls, they both explicitly don't say they will bring our troops home, why, they will go to Afganistan. And the pres can't do anything to oil cos except profit by investing in them or punish them for being succesful businesses, not quite free market economy practice is it?
Yeah I know things were great when Bill was blowing the country, then amid international shame (the guy can't even tell the truth about that, come on:--|) the corporate book cookers got ahead of themselves and our economy has been suffering ever since (Enron anyone?)...Sure looked bad for W to inherit that didn't it? Don't forget after 9/11 the UN did NOTHING to help substantiate any claims against Saddam.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that it doesn't much matter which side you're for, there just isn't enough of a difference in my book. I don't trust Hill as a "regular" and I don't want to pay for someone else's health care, especially if they don't care enough to even try to work for it. Obama has the wrong kind of friends and ZERO experience at getting anything done, don't get me wrong, he's a fabulous speaker and can really get people believing in him, but to what end? If he had any experience at all he'd be a huge favorite!
The least worst is an old man who is willing to work with the other side to try to get something done. Both sides hate him for that, that ought to tell you something.
Politics sure do depress me.
May we all be lucky enough to see the beach one more time.

[VICIII]

You got that right Rattler, Fire them all. Everyone in DC is crooked to the party or self serving. The ones there that think they're not are naive. Doesn't much matter which side either. We finally got a dem congress which promised to get us out of Iraq, but we're still there, why, because one side doesn't work without the other and they're both in the same game. Think I'm wrong....Get a Dem pres, see what happens to gas prices and being in Iraq. It will be the same outcome. Look very carefully at quotes from the Dem hopefuls, they both explicitly don't say they will bring our troops home, why, they will go to Afganistan. And the pres can't do anything to oil cos except profit by investing in them or punish them for being succesful businesses, not quite free market economy practice is it?
Yeah I know things were great when Bill was blowing the country, then amid international shame (the guy can't even tell the truth about that, come on:--|) the corporate book cookers got ahead of themselves and our economy has been suffering ever since (Enron anyone?)...Sure looked bad for W to inherit that didn't it? Don't forget after 9/11 the UN did NOTHING to help substantiate any claims against Saddam.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that it doesn't much matter which side you're for, there just isn't enough of a difference in my book. I don't trust Hill as a "regular" and I don't want to pay for someone else's health care, especially if they don't care enough to even try to work for it. Obama has the wrong kind of friends and ZERO experience at getting anything done, don't get me wrong, he's a fabulous speaker and can really get people believing in him, but to what end? If he had any experience at all he'd be a huge favorite!
The least worst is an old man who is willing to work with the other side to try to get something done. Both sides hate him for that, that ought to tell you something.
Politics sure do depress me.
May we all be lucky enough to see the beach one more time.

Just think this should be posted again..
Great read. I agree. Nicely done.

[Southern Man]

I would like to see a "Patriot Party"
This party would be the party of Constitutional Law.
There job would be to go through all laws passed in the lats 70+ years and see if they conflict with the Constitution if they do, strike them down.
To bring the Government back to its original purpose .
A Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

What we have now is a Government, of the Government, by the Government, and screw the people.

Its time to remove the Corporations from running our Government. Its a time for, We The People.

The Media, and Big Business, run our Country now.

[VICIII]

I would like to see a "Patriot Party"
This party would be the party of Constitutional Law.
There job would be to go through all laws passed in the lats 70+ years and see if they conflict with the Constitution if they do, strike them down.
To bring the Government back to its original purpose .
A Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

What we have now is a Government, of the Government, by the Government, and screw the people.

Its time to remove the Corporations from running our Government. Its a time for, We The People.

The Media, and Big Business, run our Country now.

Amen.
I am fully sick of the influences of our Govt.
It is the all mighty "$$$$" that runs our Govt. It seems like the Govt does not think about citizens at all and just special interest and how much the "payback" for money for the campaign. It is like they know they can lie to the citizens and use the "$$donated$$" money to fuel the campaign and just pay back the "$$donations$$" with policy. Makes me :--|

[saltandsand]

Try Bob...

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

Just an idea? Or just another choice?

[totallybeachin]

My wife just reminded me that we are already registered members of the third party: The Cocktail Party.
It takes a few just to get through the evening news!
A Revolution takes a LOT of support and planning and a LONG time to take hold. Be prepared for a long uphill battle with a good deal of chaos and uncertainty as well. Sounds like a regular day for us hard working middle class folk huh?

In the $4 gas thread, I plan to move to where I want to be, so that when I can't afford to go anywhere, I don't feel like I need to. ;) (It's a long walk from Rocky Mount).
See you at the beach.:fishing:
ps VicIII and southernman, I'm with you.

[J_Lannon]

Try Bob...

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/

Just an idea? Or just another choice?




I have been following him since a buddy of mine mentioned his name a while back.

I could support a guy like that. He is pretty much inline with my views.........and alot of other conservatives.

I hope he makes the ballot.

[saltandsand]

I have been following him since a buddy of mine mentioned his name a while back.

I could support a guy like that. He is pretty much inline with my views.........and alot of other conservatives.

I hope he makes the ballot.

Try to get his name out there. It's a darn shame that most people don't even know he's around. Guess that's what happens when two closely aligned parties hog up all the attention.

[ASK4Fish]

I would like to see a "Patriot Party"
This party would be the party of Constitutional Law.
There job would be to go through all laws passed in the lats 70+ years and see if they conflict with the Constitution if they do, strike them down.
To bring the Government back to its original purpose .
A Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

What we have now is a Government, of the Government, by the Government, and screw the people.

Its time to remove the Corporations from running our Government. Its a time for, We The People.

The Media, and Big Business, run our Country now.

there is such a party, know as the Constitutionalist party. they follow the constitution to the "T" however that includes the many uses of GOD and therefore NOT separation of church and state, so thats why they fail to come up with many votes. What a lot of people fail to realize is that we're all conservative, no one wants radical change, yet no president has won an election since the 50's without promising "change"...if you want to change something, change the local gov't first

[saltandsand]

there is such a party, know as the Constitutionalist party. they follow the constitution to the "T" however that includes the many uses of GOD and therefore NOT separation of church and state, so thats why they fail to come up with many votes. What a lot of people fail to realize is that we're all conservative, no one wants radical change, yet no president has won an election since the 50's without promising "change"...if you want to change something, change the local gov't first

I changed alright, I changed my party affiliation in Spring 08. Just to send a message, but somehow I doubt if the arrogance even cares to listen.

[J_Lannon]

If I had the money , or even the brains to go with it....... I would run for a local position, just to reek havoc with the polite society in our area.

[fyremanjef]

two thoughs here

one do away with the electoral college. I mean. really. And what are super delagates?

as for the other parties, Nater et. all. Dont run. If you want to raise a topic for discussion do it, but drop out of the election the day before election day. They are not going to win. And a vote for the (now bare with me) is a wasted vote. I'm all for democracy, but i mean WTF. 2004 showed all of us how important every vote was. Bush should not have been president. It was obvious when he encouraged Nader supporters to vote for Nader. Its a sad day when the president doesnt win by a land slide. Oh well.

[steve grossman]

My write in vote is for Chuckie Cheese.

[J_Lannon]

two thoughs here

one do away with the electoral college. I mean. really. And what are super delagates?

as for the other parties, Nater et. all. Dont run. If you want to raise a topic for discussion do it, but drop out of the election the day before election day. They are not going to win. And a vote for the (now bare with me) is a wasted vote. I'm all for democracy, but i mean WTF. 2004 showed all of us how important every vote was. Bush should not have been president. It was obvious when he encouraged Nader supporters to vote for Nader. Its a sad day when the president doesnt win by a land slide. Oh well.

Jeff.............the problem with doing away with the electoral college is.................The largers ciies would be the ones deciding our president every time. The votes in the smaller cities and states would count for nothing.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its worth.

[ASK4Fish]

two thoughs here

one do away with the electoral college. I mean. really. And what are super delagates?

as for the other parties, Nater et. all. Dont run. If you want to raise a topic for discussion do it, but drop out of the election the day before election day. They are not going to win. And a vote for the (now bare with me) is a wasted vote. I'm all for democracy, but i mean WTF. 2004 showed all of us how important every vote was. Bush should not have been president. It was obvious when he encouraged Nader supporters to vote for Nader. Its a sad day when the president doesnt win by a land slide. Oh well.

um...yeah, in '04 Bush won a majority vote...'00 was close and neither candidate won a majority but Bush still won, even without the popular vote...

[baitslingin]

whats sad is .... that yall still think the "people" elect the president :rolleyes: cmon on now

[wolfgang]

Those of us who still believe in limited government and the Constitution had a chance to make our voice heard by voting for Ron Paul. Many of us did vote for him, but it wasn't enough.

When will the "conservatives/Republicans " out there wake up and realize that the Neo-Conservatives like Bush and McCain are not conservatives. They are no different than the Democrats. Bush has expanded the scope and power of the Fed and spent enough money to make even the most liberal Democrat blush.

And when will the Obama/Clinton supporters realize that their liberal agenda is nothing more than Communism Lite, i.e. socialism.

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison

[wolfva]

I'll agree with you that Bush and McCain aren't exactly poster boys of Conservatism. However, I'd still vote for either of them over Ron Paul. No offense, but he comes off like the mad uncle that get's locked in the attic which everyone hopes doesn't get out...

[Malakas07]

Those of us who still believe in limited government and the Constitution had a chance to make our voice heard by voting for Ron Paul. Many of us did vote for him, but it wasn't enough.


Amen. This is election is looking similar to the 1972 election. No one felt that McGovern or Nixon were good canidates. (From what I read in history texts.) Since I'm a young buck.

This is really off topic but related to Ron Paul. I just finished reading his book.

The Revolution: A Manifesto (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519)

A very good read 1000x better than Barrack's overhyped book The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

I highly recommend it. It's a quick read and gives you some really good history lessons.

This election is going to be one to sit back grab your :popcorn: and watch the show.

[wolfgang]

I'll agree with you that Bush and McCain aren't exactly poster boys of Conservatism. However, I'd still vote for either of them over Ron Paul. No offense, but he comes off like the mad uncle that get's locked in the attic which everyone hopes doesn't get out...


Good thing that the "mad uncle" perspective won the day in 1776 and during the framing of the Constitution. How sad that 200+ plus years later one who carries the banner of those first patriots/founders gets labeled a "mad uncle". I'll stick with the "mad uncle" types while you cozy up with the rest of the family and maintain the status quo in Washington. :)

[saltandsand]

Mad Uncle "does not equal" status quo.... give me a break, nothing is farther from truth. That the neo-cons are liberal is an undeniable fact...but there will still be those who attempt fanciful arguments to the contrary. Hilarious, and absolutely raucous indeed.

[rattler]

cut the senate and congress pay to expencies only...end the pros...stop letting them make money for ripping US off...its supposed to be a service to US...

[totallybeachin]

I'm all for a revolution, but who do we vote for in the meantime? If I thought it would help or make a difference I would vote for Ron Paul instead of McCain. Maybe I will just so my voice isn't heard supporting someone I don't really support.
I think I'll be reading "Revolution" while I try to figure it out.
Thanks to all of you guys for provoking thought.

[wolfva]

Well, if the choice is between the status quo and electing someone who could never get a single thing done as president, guess I'll stick to the status quo. Unless, of course, you think that Ron Paul's first order of business would be to pull a Cesar, surround the senate with the military, and force them to declare him dictator of America.

The ONLY way Ron Paul could, as president, get anything done is if the Legislative and Judicial branches backed him up. Which they would not do. It's humerous how many 'Constitutional Scholars' who back that great Constitutinarian don't seem to grasp the idea of 'Checks and Balances'. Now, don't get me wrong, I'd like to see us return more to the way the Founding Fathers intended. But know what? They never intended for the Constitution to be a dead document sealed in stone. That's why it is called a LIVING DOCUMENT. It grows, changes with the times. Hey, shortly after the Constitution was ratified the Federal Government subsisted on tarifs and donations. Do you think that would work today? We had a very VERY small standing fleet and just a few Marines. Sure, every able bodied adult male was a member of the Militia, but the Militia was only levied when we were attacked. How well do you think a Militia system would have worked in WWII? When most Americans were isolationists until Pearl Harbor, and even then most Americans were irritated with Roosevelt for attacking Germany instead of Japan. Afterall, Hitler never attacked us, Tojo did. Then again, what am I talking about? We wouldn't even be a country, probably. Because of the Civil War, whose end result was turning us from individual States bound as a confederation into one country where the will of the Federal government took precedent over the will of the States.

As nice as it may be to fantasise of living in a simpler time, the fact of the matter is time has moved on. The past is the past, and can not be relived. Whether we like it or not, the current system of government is the one we have. And it is based on that rarest of things...a revolution which actually WORKED. Most revolutions don't, you know. Look at South America. And Africa. And Indonesia. Not to many Democracies are born from revolution. But a hell of a lot of dictatorships are.

[jcreamer]

You got that right Rattler, Fire them all. Everyone in DC is crooked to the party or self serving. The ones there that think they're not are naive. Doesn't much matter which side either. We finally got a dem congress which promised to get us out of Iraq, but we're still there, why, because one side doesn't work without the other and they're both in the same game. Think I'm wrong....Get a Dem pres, see what happens to gas prices and being in Iraq. It will be the same outcome. Look very carefully at quotes from the Dem hopefuls, they both explicitly don't say they will bring our troops home, why, they will go to Afganistan. And the pres can't do anything to oil cos except profit by investing in them or punish them for being succesful businesses, not quite free market economy practice is it?
Yeah I know things were great when Bill was blowing the country, then amid international shame (the guy can't even tell the truth about that, come on:--|) the corporate book cookers got ahead of themselves and our economy has been suffering ever since (Enron anyone?)...Sure looked bad for W to inherit that didn't it? Don't forget after 9/11 the UN did NOTHING to help substantiate any claims against Saddam.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that it doesn't much matter which side you're for, there just isn't enough of a difference in my book. I don't trust Hill as a "regular" and I don't want to pay for someone else's health care, especially if they don't care enough to even try to work for it. Obama has the wrong kind of friends and ZERO experience at getting anything done, don't get me wrong, he's a fabulous speaker and can really get people believing in him, but to what end? If he had any experience at all he'd be a huge favorite!
The least worst is an old man who is willing to work with the other side to try to get something done. Both sides hate him for that, that ought to tell you something.
Politics sure do depress me.
May we all be lucky enough to see the beach one more time.

well said

[jcreamer]

Okay
We have seen both sides and who is voting for who?
I for one am still undecided as I really do not care for either of them as a president. I was definitely against Thrillery.

[J_Lannon]

Okay
We have seen both sides and who is voting for who?
I for one am still undecided as I really do not care for either of them as a president. I was definitely against Thrillery.





Mickey Mouse or Bullwinkle..........but not sure which one yet.:rolleyes:

[saltandsand]

Mickey Mouse or Bullwinkle..........but not sure which one yet.:rolleyes:


I know which one sounds like Mickey and there's little doubt as to which one is Bullwinkle.... ha ha ha...

[wolfva]

I'm voting for McCain as he's the lesser of 2 evils. Usually when faced with that type of decision I just vote none of the above. But I feel if Obama is elected he'll inadvertantly do to much damage to us. His heart may be in the right place, but he's clueless. He has no sense of history. Talk with our enemies? The city-states of Europe tried that tact with the Vikings. Know what they did? Took the silver they were promised and left... AFTER sacking the cities. Chamberlain thought talk was all that was needed to pursuade his great friend Adolf from going to war, Hitler used the time bought to strengthen is forces and invade Poland. Saddam used the 12 years after the first Gulf War to try to erradicate the Kurds, completely revamp his weapons systems with new, state of the art equipment from Russia, Germany, and France, developed long range bio/chem missiles (remember he turned 2 dozen over to the US before we invaded, in an attempt to forestall said invasion), and bought enough castor beans to produce enough 'pesticide' to kill every insect in Iraq several times over (castor beans are used to produce ricyn, a nerve agent). And I won't get started on the numerous brand new factories he gutted and sent to Syria marked as 'scrap metal' as we invaded.

Anyways, at least McCain won't sign us over to the UN or fold to Islamic countries who don't have our best interests in mind. Now if only he was tougher on illegals...

[wolfgang]

I'm all for a revolution, but who do we vote for in the meantime? If I thought it would help or make a difference I would vote for Ron Paul instead of McCain. Maybe I will just so my voice isn't heard supporting someone I don't really support.
I think I'll be reading "Revolution" while I try to figure it out.
Thanks to all of you guys for provoking thought.


I've read "The Revolution" and I'm reading it again...highly recommend it. I'm really at a loss to understand how anyone who loves freedom could disagree with it.

[wolfgang]

Well, if the choice is between the status quo and electing someone who could never get a single thing done as president, guess I'll stick to the status quo. Unless, of course, you think that Ron Paul's first order of business would be to pull a Cesar, surround the senate with the military, and force them to declare him dictator of America.

The ONLY way Ron Paul could, as president, get anything done is if the Legislative and Judicial branches backed him up. Which they would not do. It's humerous how many 'Constitutional Scholars' who back that great Constitutinarian don't seem to grasp the idea of 'Checks and Balances'. Now, don't get me wrong, I'd like to see us return more to the way the Founding Fathers intended. But know what? They never intended for the Constitution to be a dead document sealed in stone. That's why it is called a LIVING DOCUMENT. It grows, changes with the times. Hey, shortly after the Constitution was ratified the Federal Government subsisted on tarifs and donations. Do you think that would work today? We had a very VERY small standing fleet and just a few Marines. Sure, every able bodied adult male was a member of the Militia, but the Militia was only levied when we were attacked. How well do you think a Militia system would have worked in WWII? When most Americans were isolationists until Pearl Harbor, and even then most Americans were irritated with Roosevelt for attacking Germany instead of Japan. Afterall, Hitler never attacked us, Tojo did. Then again, what am I talking about? We wouldn't even be a country, probably. Because of the Civil War, whose end result was turning us from individual States bound as a confederation into one country where the will of the Federal government took precedent over the will of the States.

As nice as it may be to fantasise of living in a simpler time, the fact of the matter is time has moved on. The past is the past, and can not be relived. Whether we like it or not, the current system of government is the one we have. And it is based on that rarest of things...a revolution which actually WORKED. Most revolutions don't, you know. Look at South America. And Africa. And Indonesia. Not to many Democracies are born from revolution. But a hell of a lot of dictatorships are.

The Founders provided for a way to change the Constitution in accordance with experience and changing times...it's called an amendment. We are free to amend it if we need to. But that is not what the advocates of a so-called "living Constitution" mean. The federal courts are not at liberty to interpret the Constitution altogether differently from how it was understood by those who wrote it. A "living Constitution" is no Constitution at all. It cannot protect us from the encroachment of government power if the government can simply and arbitrarily re-interpret it or reverse it's original meaning at will.

I do not fantasize about living in a simpler time, but neither do I accept that "Whether we like it or not, the current system of government is the one we have". That describes a dictatorship, not a constitutional republic governed by the people. And it's that mentality that maintains the status quo in Washington. The revolution may have worked, but is it still working?

[wolfva]

The Constitition is a piece of paper. It protects nothing. It is the IDEALS, and the willingness of those governed, who protect us.

The mere existance of the amendment process is what makes the Constitution a 'living document'. It grows as the country does. I find it slightly humerous that in trying to be contrary and to 'teach' me something, you agreed with my definition.

A dictatorship is a form of governemnt where ONE man rules. We live in a representative democracy. Words have specific definitions, please don't create definitions which fit your preconceived notions; it's intellectually lazy. There are plenty of REAL dictatorships out there you can study for clarification. I recommend Fidel Castro, Omar Bashir, and Robert Mugabe.

[saltandsand]

May I interpose one simple, yet rarely understood word, "LIBERTY."

Let's begin discourse as to what it means to you.

Liberty is an immense concept, it's more than a word.

[wolfgang]

The Constitition is a piece of paper. It protects nothing. It is the IDEALS, and the willingness of those governed, who protect us.

The mere existance of the amendment process is what makes the Constitution a 'living document'. It grows as the country does. I find it slightly humerous that in trying to be contrary and to 'teach' me something, you agreed with my definition.

A dictatorship is a form of governemnt where ONE man rules. We live in a representative democracy. Words have specific definitions, please don't create definitions which fit your preconceived notions; it's intellectually lazy. There are plenty of REAL dictatorships out there you can study for clarification. I recommend Fidel Castro, Omar Bashir, and Robert Mugabe.

A piece of paper? Actually the Constitution is a contract between the people and those who govern them. It documents those IDEALS which you speak of. And it defines the boundaries and limits of the government's power. By defining and limiting that power it does act as a protection.

You missed my point entirely. I was making a distinction between 1) the true amendment process, and 2) the federal courts' concept of the Constitution as a "living document", i.e reinterpreting/reversing the intent of the Constitution as a means to bypass the amendment process altogether. There is a world of difference between these two concepts of a "living document". If the people have performed no offical act (such as amending the Constitution) to change/reverse the original intent, by what right may the government unilaterally change the terms of its contract by simply reinterpreting the Constitution (and ignoring the amendment process)? A "living" Constitution as defined by today's conventional wisdom and the courts is exactly what any government would love to have!!

Again you missed my point entirely. I wasn't trying to present a precise, technical definition of a "dictatorship". I was simply saying that your mentality of apathy/complacency ("this is the system of government that we have whether we like or not") is a foreign concept to and totally at odds with a government by the people. If it's a technical definition you want, I guess I would call it a ruling elite/oligarchy, i.e. a small group of non-elected officials (e.g., the Supreme Court) who are appointed for life reinterpreting it's contract at will while totally disregarding the amendment process and the will of the majority. Not exactly representative government in my book??

[wolfgang]

May I interpose one simple, yet rarely understood word, "LIBERTY."

Let's begin discourse as to what it means to you.

Liberty is an immense concept, it's more than a word.

Excellent question and an "immense concept" indeed...entire philosophies have centered around defining this word and working out its implications/applications in society. Assuming we are narrowing the scope to the present discussion of political/civil liberty, this is what it means to me...

The freedom to self-govern one's actions and utilize one's resources (property, income, etc.) without government interference (or at least minimal government interference). The ability to self-govern obviously presupposes some level of personal responsibility/integrity/morality. It also presupposes that this freedom is not absolute; there must be mutual respect for the rights/liberties of others.

Or to define it from the perspective of what it is not...

"Government is essentially the negation of liberty." - - Ludwig von Mises

[wolfva]

Wolfgang, we're playing semantical games here inre. what the Constitution is. Nonetheless, the Constitution does NOT protect us. WE protect us. It states what WE, as a people, are willing to put up with and what we expect from the government.

You speak about the People changing the Constitution. How do they do that? By speaking to their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES who then propose amendments. Yet you also seem to differentiate between the people, and the government. They are one and the same. George Bush? He's not (as some think) a lizardroid alien from another galaxy...he is an American citizen. Nancy Pelosi? Ok, she looks like an alien, what with the plastic surgery and all, but same thing. She's an American citizen. Our government is OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people. It consists of THE PEOPLE. It's not an amorphous entity complete in itself. And yes, it is STILL answerable to WE the People. George Bush's term ends this year, at which point another President who was chosen by the People will be sworn into office. The same is true for numerous Senators and Congressmen. You claim we live in a dictatorship? Sorry to disabuse you of that notion, but dictators aren't elected. And they don't step down when their term is up. Which is why I told you to stop making up definitions for existing words. Just because YOU don't like the current system does not make it a dictatorship. It is not.

Btw, the Government doesn't reinterpret the Constitution. It's the Surpreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution. That's how the founding fathers set it up, and it's worked ok so far.

I DO have to admit I get a kick out of people who claim those who disagree with them are 'complacent' or 'apathetic'. I believe I wrote a post here about that mindset. There is nothing complacent or apathetic about my belief that the system, although not perfect, is the best we've got and is working as intended.

[wolfva]

And now to answer SaltandSand...

Liberty. The right to live as you will, do as you wish, and be complete in yourself, free from outside forces.

[saltandsand]

And now to answer SaltandSand...

Liberty. The right to live as you will, do as you wish, and be complete in yourself, free from outside forces.

Okay. And while you're doing anything and everything you want, what happens to the liberty of others who may experience interference from what you're doing? Just an observation, I'm not intending an argument.