Maybe Republicans Are Starting To Make A Comeback

[Elmo Dukat]

Warrantless wiretapping itself is less concerning than is the unconstitutionality of the action. If you believe that warantless wiretapping should be legal, then you should seek to change the Constitution to make it so, not disregard the Constitution or seek to override it with tortured logic because you disagree with it.

Nah.

Amending the constitution is too cumbersome a process.

Do you care what the Constitution says or respect it as our highest law?

drunkl Elmo is crushing on Cicero

 

[Dayton3]

This stuff is always cyclical. Great Divine History Teacher, let thou patrons know political power waxes and wanes, and the two party system is the most stable system known (which means it's not going one party any time soon, unless that nuke on the horizon hits its target)

I think that factor has hurt the Republicans over the years.

When Republicans win big in elections they tend to think "that's it. we won. game over. Now can we all go back to making money".

When the Democrats lose, they realize it is just round one and come back fighting. They realize that no election is permanent in the U.S.

 

[JonathonWally]

This stuff is always cyclical. Great Divine History Teacher, let thou patrons know political power waxes and wanes, and the two party system is the most stable system known (which means it's not going one party any time soon, unless that nuke on the horizon hits its target)

I think that factor has hurt the Republicans over the years.

When Republicans win big in elections they tend to think "that's it. we won. game over. Now can we all go back to making money".

When the Democrats lose, they realize it is just round one and come back fighting. They realize that no election is permanent in the U.S.

So dems are smarter for being able to plan ahead and think to the future?

 

[Elmo Dukat]

This stuff is always cyclical. Great Divine History Teacher, let thou patrons know political power waxes and wanes, and the two party system is the most stable system known (which means it's not going one party any time soon, unless that nuke on the horizon hits its target)

I think that factor has hurt the Republicans over the years.

Cycles imply inevitable comebacks....

When Republicans win big in elections they tend to think "that's it. we won. game over. Now can we all go back to making money".

It takes two to cycle! Complacency cuts both ways, babe.

When the Democrats lose, they realize it is just round one and come back fighting. They realize that no election is permanent in the U.S.

It all ends up in the same behavior --- endless cyclical back-and-forths and power trading --- so does the motivation matter?

 

[Dayton3]

This stuff is always cyclical. Great Divine History Teacher, let thou patrons know political power waxes and wanes, and the two party system is the most stable system known (which means it's not going one party any time soon, unless that nuke on the horizon hits its target)

I think that factor has hurt the Republicans over the years.

When Republicans win big in elections they tend to think "that's it. we won. game over. Now can we all go back to making money".

When the Democrats lose, they realize it is just round one and come back fighting. They realize that no election is permanent in the U.S.

So dems are smarter for being able to plan ahead and think to the future?

Democrats have more lawyers in their ranks. Lawyers understand that no verdict is ever final. There is (almost) always one more appeal or motion to be filed.

Finality is rare.

Republicans have more businessman in their ranks. Businessman are used to fighting a battle to the end and that being the end of the matter. You buy out another company. A company goes bankrupt. A company establishes uncontested supremacy in the market.

Republicans in politics expect finality.

So the nature of American politics highlights Democratic strengths better than those of Republicans.

 

[Marc]

Warrantless wiretapping itself is less concerning than is the unconstitutionality of the action. If you believe that warantless wiretapping should be legal, then you should seek to change the Constitution to make it so, not disregard the Constitution or seek to override it with tortured logic because you disagree with it.

Nah.

Amending the constitution is too cumbersome a process.

God, I wish this was TNZ.

Yeah - unfortunately certain posters start threads in here that are borderline trolling because if was TNZ they've be toast so quickly it wouldn't be funny.

 

[Elmo Dukat]

Regardless of party, political reps want/need to get elected. Therefore, parties drift from left to right and back again depending on how they believe they can secure the most votes. Case in point: liberals used to the be party of freedom. They're now the party of centrally-planned government. That's pretty much drifting as far from your original philosophy as you can go,

 

[datas_cat_spot]

Although I consider myself independent, I've tended to lean moderate Republican over the years.

But what the GOPers who killed the auto loan (not 'bailout') did was, in essence, sacrifice *3 million American jobs* on the altar of vengeance against the UAW. I'm hardly a union flagwaver and no fan of government rescues of private industry, but there was a greater good here that these so-called 'representatives of the people' stiff-armed in favor of a juvenile 'so there, thpppttt.' Shameful hardly begins to describe it.

If this is an example of what the GOP comeback will look like, I'll be voting with the Democrats from now on.

Exactly. The GOP has been very short sighted. They're so concerned with trying to smash unions, they're not realizing if they allow millions of Americans to lose jobs on their watch, they will lose power for a generation. It's happened before, and it can happen again. It can't simply be blamed on Bush this time, it will be the party's fault.

 

[trekkerguy]

This thread =


And just so I'm not trolling, um, so how bout them GOPs... doin stuff...

 

[Squiggy]

Nah.

Amending the constitution is too cumbersome a process.

Do you care what the Constitution says or respect it as our highest law?

A flawed document written by a group of slaveowners who had an overwrought fear of the British and European power politics in general.

It isn't the Bible.

But it's the law of the land. The Bible isn't.

 

[trekkerguy]

Do you care what the Constitution says or respect it as our highest law?

A flawed document written by a group of slaveowners who had an overwrought fear of the British and European power politics in general.

It isn't the Bible.

But it's the law of the land. The Bible isn't.

And the former has far more merit than the latter. But that's another discussion for another thread...

 

[Elmo Dukat]

Do you care what the Constitution says or respect it as our highest law?

A flawed document written by a group of slaveowners who had an overwrought fear of the British and European power politics in general.

It isn't the Bible.

But it's the law of the land. The Bible isn't.

, this exchange is insanely funny. It couldn't be clearer, but somehow it still isn't clear... the Constitution is by *definition* the highest law of America,

 

[Dayton3]

Do you care what the Constitution says or respect it as our highest law?

A flawed document written by a group of slaveowners who had an overwrought fear of the British and European power politics in general.

It isn't the Bible.

But it's the law of the land. The Bible isn't.

Laws can change.

Laws can be reinterpreted.

Laws can be applied differently at different times.

All to serve the greater good.

The Ten Commandments were written in stone.

The Constitution was not.

 

[Elmo Dukat]

A flawed document written by a group of slaveowners who had an overwrought fear of the British and European power politics in general.

It isn't the Bible.

But it's the law of the land. The Bible isn't.

Laws can change.

Laws can be reinterpreted.

Laws can be applied differently at different times.

All to serve the greater good.

The Ten Commandments were written in stone.

The Constitution was not.

I'll get some stone and a chisel out.

(and laws aren't necessarily written, changed, or reinterpreted (which means their intent is changed) to serve the greater good)

 

[trekkerguy]

A flawed document written by a group of slaveowners who had an overwrought fear of the British and European power politics in general.

It isn't the Bible.

But it's the law of the land. The Bible isn't.

Laws can change. Be ignored.

Laws can be reinterpreted. To get around them.

Laws can be applied differently at different times. For those who can't read.

All to serve the greater good. To serve fascist dictators.

The Ten Commandments were written in stone. In some myths...

The Constitution was not. No, it was our hearts and minds.

 

[Squiggy]

A flawed document written by a group of slaveowners who had an overwrought fear of the British and European power politics in general.

It isn't the Bible.

But it's the law of the land. The Bible isn't.

Laws can change.

Laws can be reinterpreted.

Laws can be applied differently at different times.

All to serve the greater good.

The Ten Commandments were written in stone.

The Constitution was not.

Actually, the 10 commandments have been interpreted many different ways over the millennia. The medium on which it was transcribed has nothing to do with it.

I mean "Thou shall not kill", pretty straight forward right? Ohhh..."but war is ok".

 

[Dayton3]

But it's the law of the land. The Bible isn't.

Laws can change.

Laws can be reinterpreted.

Laws can be applied differently at different times.

All to serve the greater good.

The Ten Commandments were written in stone.

The Constitution was not.

Actually, the 10 commandments have been interpreted many different ways over the millennia. The medium on which it was transcribed has nothing to do with it.

I mean "Thou shall not kill", pretty straight forward right? Ohhh..."but war is ok".

Actually it is "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

The Bible has always allowed killing for the right reasons.

 

[Squiggy]

And those "right reason" are probably open to debate. I mean, if the Bible was cut and dry there probably wouldn't be 38,000 different denominations of Christianity all with their own slightly different take on the book.

Nope. No interpretation here.

 

[Captain X]

There was an America before the Constitution.

Yes, and it had fallen into near anarchy before the Constitution was made and put into effect. You should really read up on history sometime.

There will be one should be choose to replace it with something better.

The only way yo make it better would be to further personal freedoms and to protect those freedoms further from control freaks.

 

[Captain X]

The Ten Commandments were written in stone.

The Constitution was not.

1st: that coudl change if you really seriously think that would change anything
2nd: the Twelve Tables were also written in stone, should we follow those?