Liberty Amendments

[BigRedBuster]

 

It's funny how Junior obviously understands what I'm saying but you can't.

 

Pal, quit embarrassing yourself.

 

 

How exactly would you say I'm embarrassing myself?

[TGHusker]

 

. . . Dems have mastered the art of taking every issue and making it look like that conservatives are nothing more than racist rich white men.

All conservatives aren't racist rich white men but I'd be more than willing to bet that most racist rich white men are conservative.

 

Carl, that is taking it a bit to far. Remember which party ruled the segregated south for decades - democrats. That is painting political philosophy with a huge broad brush. I know a lot of conservatives - non racist. Sounds like you been believing the democratic talking points to the point of not thinking objectively.

[Husker_x]

 

 

It's funny how Junior obviously understands what I'm saying but you can't.

 

Pal, quit embarrassing yourself.

 

 

How exactly would you say I'm embarrassing myself?

 

 

I not only understood but granted your point yesterday. I'll repeat myself: It is possible to do a free, comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration, which we already have. The Republican idea, which is separate from yours, is to implement the voter ID law as a response to voter fraud. That's their excuse, or rather their pretense. The truth is they know these laws unduly affect poor and young voters in states such as Ohio (e.g. drivers license only), yet there is not a shred of evidence to suggest voter fraud is a real problem. You think of this as a 'scare tactic,' yet have not 1) explained how, or 2) given any sensible alternative Republican motivation for this particular issue. I asked you directly to do so, and you directly refused. Also, I never said the motivation was racist (though you obviously cannot rule it out as a factor, especially in the South). I said it was political pragmatism. There is a big difference. There are two dimensions (at least) to this debate, not one. To be serious you have to seriously address both.

[carlfense]

 

 

. . . Dems have mastered the art of taking every issue and making it look like that conservatives are nothing more than racist rich white men.

All conservatives aren't racist rich white men but I'd be more than willing to bet that most racist rich white men are conservative.

 

Carl, that is taking it a bit to far. Remember which party ruled the segregated south for decades - democrats. That is painting political philosophy with a huge broad brush. I know a lot of conservatives - non racist. Sounds like you been believing the democratic talking points to the point of not thinking objectively.

 

If you're talking about the Democratic Party from decades ago to discuss the present conditions you're either starting with an agenda or unfamiliar with relatively recent history.

 

Read what I said again. I didn't say that all conservatives are racists. I said the opposite.

[LukeinNE]

The political history of the American South is fascinating and naturally, neither party's rhetoric on it is all that close to accurate. Truman, JFK, and for a time LBJ, did all sorts of gymnastics to try to keep the South in line while trying to accommodate their northern liberal (and black) factions.

 

Very interestingly, the plantation class in the South were mostly Whigs, not Democrats, prior to the Civil War.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

. . . Dems have mastered the art of taking every issue and making it look like that conservatives are nothing more than racist rich white men.

All conservatives aren't racist rich white men but I'd be more than willing to bet that most racist rich white men are conservative.

 

Carl, that is taking it a bit to far. Remember which party ruled the segregated south for decades - democrats. That is painting political philosophy with a huge broad brush. I know a lot of conservatives - non racist. Sounds like you been believing the democratic talking points to the point of not thinking objectively.

 

If you're talking about the Democratic Party from decades ago to discuss the present conditions you're either starting with an agenda or unfamiliar with relatively recent history.

 

Read what I said again. I didn't say that all conservatives are racists. I said the opposite.

 

I read it again - OK - I agree the emphasis is on racist white men and not on Conservative men. Sorry I had my hair trigger response up. I don't want to go down that rabbit trail as to % is liberal or conservative. So I'll let your bet stand on its own merit.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

It's funny how Junior obviously understands what I'm saying but you can't.

 

Pal, quit embarrassing yourself.

 

 

How exactly would you say I'm embarrassing myself?

 

 

I not only understood but granted your point yesterday. I'll repeat myself: It is possible to do a free, comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration, which we already have. The Republican idea, which is separate from yours, is to implement the voter ID law as a response to voter fraud. That's their excuse, or rather their pretense. The truth is they know these laws unduly affect poor and young voters in states such as Ohio (e.g. drivers license only), yet there is not a shred of evidence to suggest voter fraud is a real problem. You think of this as a 'scare tactic,' yet have not 1) explained how, or 2) given any sensible alternative Republican motivation for this particular issue. I asked you directly to do so, and you directly refused. Also, I never said the motivation was racist (though you obviously cannot rule it out as a factor, especially in the South). I said it was political pragmatism. There is a big difference. There are two dimensions (at least) to this debate, not one. To be serious you have to seriously address both.

 

You know....if you would just simply have said the bolded part and left it at that, we wouldn't be in this derp filled gibberish conversation that you seem to keep needing to have.

 

However, I am interested in something you said.

 

You said that we already have a comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration. Please explain.

 

It must be different than both Iowa and Nebraska. In both of those states, I registered to vote when I got my driver's license. Obviously they were comfortable with who I was at the time of registration. Since then, I have never been asked for an ID, proof of who I am or what ever you might be talking about.

So, I'm interested in what you are talking about.

[Husker_x]

 

 

 

 

It's funny how Junior obviously understands what I'm saying but you can't.

 

Pal, quit embarrassing yourself.

 

 

How exactly would you say I'm embarrassing myself?

 

 

I not only understood but granted your point yesterday. I'll repeat myself: It is possible to do a free, comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration, which we already have. The Republican idea, which is separate from yours, is to implement the voter ID law as a response to voter fraud. That's their excuse, or rather their pretense. The truth is they know these laws unduly affect poor and young voters in states such as Ohio (e.g. drivers license only), yet there is not a shred of evidence to suggest voter fraud is a real problem. You think of this as a 'scare tactic,' yet have not 1) explained how, or 2) given any sensible alternative Republican motivation for this particular issue. I asked you directly to do so, and you directly refused. Also, I never said the motivation was racist (though you obviously cannot rule it out as a factor, especially in the South). I said it was political pragmatism. There is a big difference. There are two dimensions (at least) to this debate, not one. To be serious you have to seriously address both.

 

You know....if you would just simply have said the bolded part and left it at that, we wouldn't be in this derp filled gibberish conversation that you seem to keep needing to have.

 

However, I am interested in something you said.

 

You said that we already have a comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration. Please explain.

 

It must be different than both Iowa and Nebraska. In both of those states, I registered to vote when I got my driver's license. Obviously they were comfortable with who I was at the time of registration. Since then, I have never been asked for an ID, proof of who I am or what ever you might be talking about.

So, I'm interested in what you are talking about.

 

 

I said it two days ago, repeated it yesterday, and must have said it five times by now. I have no clue how you missed it, but given that you have ignored or evaded every single point put to you, I can't say I'm surprised. Sorry to have touched a nerve.

 

To the bold: no, I didn't. The thing we already have is voter registration, not your free voter ID system. The system we have already works. Your system could also work in theory, but it would be redundant, and in any case has nothing whatever to do with actual Republican voter ID proposals affecting the 21 million Americans who lack government-issued photo ID (again, conveniently the poor, young, or minorities). Which brings us right back around to your derp about scare tactics, as if the distinction between reality and the gibberish you invent and post didn't matter.

 

If you'd like to stop the merry-go-round, by God, spare me. I haven't been this bored with a debate since watching Matt Dillahunty curb stomp Sye Ten Bruggencate.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

I not only understood but granted your point yesterday. I'll repeat myself: It is possible to do a free, comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration, which we already have. The Republican idea, which is separate from yours, is to implement the voter ID law as a response to voter fraud. That's their excuse, or rather their pretense. The truth is they know these laws unduly affect poor and young voters in states such as Ohio (e.g. drivers license only), yet there is not a shred of evidence to suggest voter fraud is a real problem. You think of this as a 'scare tactic,' yet have not 1) explained how, or 2) given any sensible alternative Republican motivation for this particular issue. I asked you directly to do so, and you directly refused. Also, I never said the motivation was racist (though you obviously cannot rule it out as a factor, especially in the South). I said it was political pragmatism. There is a big difference. There are two dimensions (at least) to this debate, not one. To be serious you have to seriously address both.

 

 

However, I am interested in something you said.

 

You said that we already have a comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration. Please explain.

 

It must be different than both Iowa and Nebraska. In both of those states, I registered to vote when I got my driver's license. Obviously they were comfortable with who I was at the time of registration. Since then, I have never been asked for an ID, proof of who I am or what ever you might be talking about.

So, I'm interested in what you are talking about.

 

 

I said it two days ago, repeated it yesterday, and must have said it five times by now. I have no clue how you missed it, but given that you have ignored or evaded every single point put to you, I can't say I'm surprised. Sorry to have touched a nerve.

 

To the bold: no, I didn't. The thing we already have is voter registration, not your free voter ID system. The system we have already works. Your system could also work in theory, but it would be redundant, and in any case has nothing whatever to do with actual Republican voter ID proposals affecting the 21 million Americans who lack government-issued photo ID (again, conveniently the poor, young, or minorities). Which brings us right back around to your derp about scare tactics, as if the distinction between reality and the gibberish you invent and post didn't matter.

 

If you'd like to stop the merry-go-round, by God, spare me. I haven't been this bored with a debate since watching Matt Dillahunty curb stomp Sye Ten Bruggencate.

 

 

 

Is this not the exact sentence from your post?The red part implies we already have what is in the black part....which is....a comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration.

 

I'll repeat myself: It is possible to do a free, comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration, which we already have.

 

Gosh...sorry if I'm simply asking for clarification of what you said.

[Hooked on Huskers]

We need a coup d'état. Disband both Senate and House, abolish lobbyists and POTUS is simply a figurehead like British monarchy. Next, install unicameral lawmakers, one house, with no party alignment (Nebraska model). I like the ideas for previous posts ........ voters online.

 

Roman Empire eventually failed. I hope not too late by launching U.S. coup d'état.

 

Just kidding? I don't knowww ..... think about it.

[BigRedBuster]

We need a coup d'état. Disband both Senate and House, abolish lobbyists and POTUS is simply a figurehead like British monarchy. Next, install unicameral lawmakers, one house, with no party alignment (Nebraska model). I like the ideas for previous posts ........ voters online.

 

Roman Empire eventually failed. I hope not too late by launching U.S. coup d'état.

 

Just kidding? I don't knowww ..... think about it.

We don't need a coup d'état against the government. We need one against the media.

[Husker_x]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I not only understood but granted your point yesterday. I'll repeat myself: It is possible to do a free, comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration, which we already have. The Republican idea, which is separate from yours, is to implement the voter ID law as a response to voter fraud. That's their excuse, or rather their pretense. The truth is they know these laws unduly affect poor and young voters in states such as Ohio (e.g. drivers license only), yet there is not a shred of evidence to suggest voter fraud is a real problem. You think of this as a 'scare tactic,' yet have not 1) explained how, or 2) given any sensible alternative Republican motivation for this particular issue. I asked you directly to do so, and you directly refused. Also, I never said the motivation was racist (though you obviously cannot rule it out as a factor, especially in the South). I said it was political pragmatism. There is a big difference. There are two dimensions (at least) to this debate, not one. To be serious you have to seriously address both.

 

 

However, I am interested in something you said.

 

You said that we already have a comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration. Please explain.

 

It must be different than both Iowa and Nebraska. In both of those states, I registered to vote when I got my driver's license. Obviously they were comfortable with who I was at the time of registration. Since then, I have never been asked for an ID, proof of who I am or what ever you might be talking about.

So, I'm interested in what you are talking about.

 

 

I said it two days ago, repeated it yesterday, and must have said it five times by now. I have no clue how you missed it, but given that you have ignored or evaded every single point put to you, I can't say I'm surprised. Sorry to have touched a nerve.

 

To the bold: no, I didn't. The thing we already have is voter registration, not your free voter ID system. The system we have already works. Your system could also work in theory, but it would be redundant, and in any case has nothing whatever to do with actual Republican voter ID proposals affecting the 21 million Americans who lack government-issued photo ID (again, conveniently the poor, young, or minorities). Which brings us right back around to your derp about scare tactics, as if the distinction between reality and the gibberish you invent and post didn't matter.

 

If you'd like to stop the merry-go-round, by God, spare me. I haven't been this bored with a debate since watching Matt Dillahunty curb stomp Sye Ten Bruggencate.

 

 

 

Is this not the exact sentence from your post?The red part implies we already have what is in the black part....which is....a comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration.

 

I'll repeat myself: It is possible to do a free, comprehensive voter ID system outside of voter registration, which we already have.

 

Gosh...sorry if I'm simply asking for clarification of what you said.

 

 

 

Nope. It's a misreading, sorry. The syntax is a little tricky, but I was comparing something that is possible (your system) against voter registration, which we already have. See the changed bold above.

[strigori]

We need a coup d'état. Disband both Senate and House, abolish lobbyists and POTUS is simply a figurehead like British monarchy. Next, install unicameral lawmakers, one house, with no party alignment (Nebraska model). I like the ideas for previous posts ........ voters online.

 

Roman Empire eventually failed. I hope not too late by launching U.S. coup d'état.

 

Just kidding? I don't knowww ..... think about it.

The two house system is part of the intricate checks and balances systems we have in place at the Federal level. A unicameral system would not work well on the Federal level. Either small population states like Nebraska are marginalized, or have excessive power over the larger states. Similar issues effect the Unicameral in Nebraska as it is.

 

The only reason you want to eliminate the POTUS position is your side is unlikely to hold the office again in the near future. The parliamentary head of state is one I am not a fan of, and our system has proven the POTUS design is far more stable than a Prime Minister.

 

Just tossing out 'well, the Roman Empire failed, so we are going to fail' takes nothing into account.

 

Even thinking about tearing down our system is idiotic. For more than 200 years we have had a smooth, stable transition of power. Because we have had several years of morons in the House, does not make for a justification for tearing down what is the most successful governmental system the world has seen to date.

[Husker_x]

 

We need a coup d'état. Disband both Senate and House, abolish lobbyists and POTUS is simply a figurehead like British monarchy. Next, install unicameral lawmakers, one house, with no party alignment (Nebraska model). I like the ideas for previous posts ........ voters online.

 

Roman Empire eventually failed. I hope not too late by launching U.S. coup d'état.

 

Just kidding? I don't knowww ..... think about it.

The two house system is part of the intricate checks and balances systems we have in place at the Federal level. A unicameral system would not work well on the Federal level. Either small population states like Nebraska are marginalized, or have excessive power over the larger states. Similar issues effect the Unicameral in Nebraska as it is.

 

The only reason you want to eliminate the POTUS position is your side is unlikely to hold the office again in the near future. The parliamentary head of state is one I am not a fan of, and our system has proven the POTUS design is far more stable than a Prime Minister.

 

Just tossing out 'well, the Roman Empire failed, so we are going to fail' takes nothing into account.

 

Even thinking about tearing down our system is idiotic. For more than 200 years we have had a smooth, stable transition of power. Because we have had several years of morons in the House, does not make for a justification for tearing down what is the most successful governmental system the world has seen to date.

 

 

Well said, man. I'm constantly amazed at how badly our own citizens underestimate this country. After spending a year in China, I'd bet on us every day and twice on Sunday. And the Roman Empire? Please. Until the day comes when our army starts swearing loyalty to our generals, not the constitution, it's a non-comparison not worth entertaining.

[strigori]

 

 

We need a coup d'état. Disband both Senate and House, abolish lobbyists and POTUS is simply a figurehead like British monarchy. Next, install unicameral lawmakers, one house, with no party alignment (Nebraska model). I like the ideas for previous posts ........ voters online.

 

Roman Empire eventually failed. I hope not too late by launching U.S. coup d'état.

 

Just kidding? I don't knowww ..... think about it.

The two house system is part of the intricate checks and balances systems we have in place at the Federal level. A unicameral system would not work well on the Federal level. Either small population states like Nebraska are marginalized, or have excessive power over the larger states. Similar issues effect the Unicameral in Nebraska as it is.

 

The only reason you want to eliminate the POTUS position is your side is unlikely to hold the office again in the near future. The parliamentary head of state is one I am not a fan of, and our system has proven the POTUS design is far more stable than a Prime Minister.

 

Just tossing out 'well, the Roman Empire failed, so we are going to fail' takes nothing into account.

 

Even thinking about tearing down our system is idiotic. For more than 200 years we have had a smooth, stable transition of power. Because we have had several years of morons in the House, does not make for a justification for tearing down what is the most successful governmental system the world has seen to date.

 

 

Well said, man. I'm constantly amazed at how badly our own citizens underestimate this country. After spending a year in China, I'd bet on us every day and twice on Sunday. And the Roman Empire? Please. Until the day comes when our army starts swearing loyalty to our generals, not the constitution, it's a non-comparison not worth entertaining.

 

Our schools do such a crappy job of teaching history most people have very little sense of place in history. Goes along with the mentality of everything right now is somehow the best/worst/greatest/whatever of all time. And more often than not, simply not true.