So who's everyone supporting for 2008?

[6thGen]

What? This is ridiculous...

The Founders (and God, right?) set up the electoral college to make it a blend of federal (state-based) and national (population-based) elections, to mirror the two houses of Congress. They wanted to "subjugate" neither the will of the states nor the majority of Americans. The members of the electoral college were never meant to make decisions on their own.

But it is all obsolete now. The size and diversity of states' economies in the 18th century dictated the need for a federalist mentality. In fact, recent globalization has put us way past the need for federalism, and we are close to forcing nation-states in general into obsolescence.

Is geography really the best way to divide the human race into teams?

I?m not talking about that specifically, but the Electoral College was a check on majority will. I?m speaking of the 17th Amendment, which turned Senators from statesmen to politicians, shifting accountability from their nation to themselves. And if you paid attention, you?d see that I said subjugating the will of the minority was a bad thing (ask German Jews), I never said that they wanted to subjugate the will of the majority or the states. I don?t know what is so hard about reading comprehension, but it gets some folks here sometime.

As for a federalism, you miss the point, which isn?t surprising. The importance of federalism, which the Founders recognized was what Tip O?Neill caught onto later ? politics is local. Forcing decisions down the pipeline, rather than up, produces better results, a more satisfied populace and most importantly, a more accountable government. Businesses caught onto that, but DC hasn?t. Politicians in Maryland shouldn?t be deciding what textbooks schools in Waco should be using. If Wisconsin wants to provide healthcare to every person in Wisconsin, that experiment can die in the Petri dish when businesses leave and taxes double. Wisconsin can suffer for their poor decision rather than the entire country. Those whose interest is furthered by treating the 9th Amendment as an inkblot are the ones whom the amendment was designed to limit. They just found a way around that, usually through activist judges illegally writing policy.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Speaking of putting the power in the hands of the States, I wonder at what rate would the population increase in California, if California made it legal to possess and smoke marijuana.

 

[6thGen]

Speaking of putting the power in the hands of the States, I wonder at what rate would the population increase in California, if California made it legal to possess and smoke marijuana.

Short term at a higher rate than long term, since pot makes you impotent[/high school health teacher].

 

[Smiling JOe]

Short term at a higher rate than long term, since pot makes you impotent[/high school health teacher].

 

[Miss Kitty]

Speaking of putting the power in the hands of the States, I wonder at what rate would the population increase in California, if California made it legal to possess and smoke marijuana.

Texas may be first on that pot thing. Lately, officials have found over 15,000 plants growing in the city...some right behind the DEA offices! It's been a good year for crops with all our rain.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Kitty, if they found only 15,000 plants, they must not be looking very hard. I think many of the pot growers are very smart -- smart enough not to use their own land to grow pot, thus preventing confiscation of property.

*******************

Are you ready? Here is your Democratic nomination for Pres and VP.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[6thGen]

But our boy Ross was not a free trader. He was more a conservative populist.

Bob,
This might be a good read - The Elephant and the Dragon. The folks in this book are a great study on free trade. As a look at me, one of my professors and one I keep up with is leading the international charge on bringing banking competition to China and is recognized quite frequently.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010348

 

[hoover_rc]

I?m not talking about that specifically, but the Electoral College was a check on majority will. I?m speaking of the 17th Amendment, which turned Senators from statesmen to politicians, shifting accountability from their nation to themselves. And if you paid attention, you?d see that I said subjugating the will of the minority was a bad thing (ask German Jews), I never said that they wanted to subjugate the will of the majority or the states. I don?t know what is so hard about reading comprehension, but it gets some folks here sometime.

As for a federalism, you miss the point, which isn?t surprising. The importance of federalism, which the Founders recognized was what Tip O?Neill caught onto later ? politics is local. Forcing decisions down the pipeline, rather than up, produces better results, a more satisfied populace and most importantly, a more accountable government.

I know what you meant. My point is that the Electoral College was meant to a blend of majority and states wills. It was meant to give a voice to both the states and the population. The Electoral College is a relic of a disconnected age, as you seem to be.

If the politicians in Maryland can demonstrate a better way to teach our kids, then best practices should prevail.

"Politics is local" was a guide to getting elected, not governing efficiently.

 

[6thGen]

I know what you meant. My point is that the Electoral College was meant to a blend of majority and states wills. It was meant to give a voice to both the states and the population. The Electoral College is a relic of a disconnected age, as you seem to be.

No, it's not. But taking the time to explain it to you is obviously as beneficial as doing so to a Cocker Spaniel.

If the politicians in Maryland can demonstrate a better way to teach our kids, then best practices should prevail.

"Politics is local" was a guide to getting elected, not governing efficiently.

Serious question - are advocating central planning?

 

[hoover_rc]

No, it's not. But taking the time to explain it to you is obviously as beneficial as doing so to a Cocker Spaniel.



Serious question - are advocating central planning?

Ahhhh... isn't it fun to type your insults rather than look someone in the eye with them? It's kind of like being a little desktop satirical cartoonist, only without the humor or creativity.

No, I think I'll save my ideas for some higher discourse. Besides, explaining them to you would be like doing so to a, uh, Newt.

​