Off to a good start


#1

Boehner seems to be getting the House back in order from day one. There is a long way to go and I’m not holding my breath, but at least this is a step in the proper direction.

[LEFT]House GOP ends floor voting rights for delegates

Read more at the Washington Examiner: House GOP ends floor voting rights for delegates | Washington Examiner[/LEFT]

[LEFT]By: JIM ABRAMS 01/05/11 3:29 PM
Associated Press

Read more at the Washington Examiner: House GOP ends floor voting rights for delegates | Washington Examiner[/LEFT]

[LEFT]One of the first acts of the new Republican-controlled House is to take away the floor voting rights of six delegates representing areas such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa.
Five of those delegates are Democrats, while one, from the Northern Marianas Islands, is an independent.
The GOP decision to rescind the ability of delegates to vote on amendments on the House floor was the predictable outcome of a longtime party divide. Democrats extended the voting rights in 1993 when they controlled the House, Republicans disenfranchised the delegates when they became the majority in 1995 and Democrats restored delegate rights when they regained control of the House in 2007.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: House GOP ends floor voting rights for delegates | Washington Examiner[/LEFT]

Sorry about the double link, it would seem that the Washington Examiner is paranoid.


#2

I think alll dems should be disenfranchised, but that’s me…


#3

That IS the core of our Democracy. Ignore or disenfranchise the people who don’t agree with you. Especially if they outnumber you.


#4

Funny, I don’t feel outnumbered. I’m not a huge fan of polls but I found two for you in a quick search in case you do.

Party Affiliation

The number of American adults calling themselves Republicans in December increased by one percentage point from November to 37.0%.

Also in December, the number calling themselves Democrats fell by a point to 33.7%.

Partisan Trends - Rasmussen Reports™


#5

I guess I should feel outnumbered since I would fall in the 29.3% that doesn’t claim either party. I know you all like to THINK that I’m a Dem, but I think they are as misguided (if not more) as Republicans.

I am a Libertarian, or apparently as you all say a Liberal.


#6

Most of the self-styled libertarians that I’ve seen are hard to tell from Democrats. Now I realize there are some on this site that aren’t that far left, but most of them I’ve noticed are.


#7

Only on certain issues. =/ On economic issues, we’re basically identical to conservatives, if not even more pro-capitalism. You’ll hear that from libs. That we’re hard to tell from Republicans. It’s like we can’t win. XD


#8

“Insert evil laugh here” Accept your fate, give in to the power of the dark side![ATTACH]1147[/ATTACH]


#9

Would that be conservatism? =J


#10

:yes:


#11

I think alll dems should be disenfranchised, but that’s me…

There are no issues that democrats support that are constitutional.

  1. The constitution provides for no redistribution of wealth (what we know as welfare has nothing to do with the welfare clause in the constitution, that is just what democrats called redistribution of wealth to cover it up)
  2. The constitution provides for no environmental regulation
  3. The constitution provides for no federal control of abortion, or virtually any other crimes, for that matter

There is nothing democrats support that is constitutional, period. If the constitution were upheld, democrats would be illegal.

Ignore or disenfranchise the people who don’t agree with you. Especially if they outnumber you.

In a constitutional system, it shouldn’t matter who outnumbers who because the individual has unalienable rights. It isn’t about how many support something, it makes no difference for the country being free or not. The majority only takes what it wants by force, whether you call it democracy or dictatorship.

The majority of our founding fathers wanted neither.

Most of the self-styled libertarians that I’ve seen are hard to tell from Democrats

That is because you are largely a social conservative, even if you happen to agree on the economic issues, it is obviously the social conservatism that is the biggest draw for you.

Libertarianism and modern liberalism are more different than modern conservatism and liberalism.

Wherever liberals and libertarians agree, it is never for the same reasons.

Liberals want drugs and abortions to destroy society and make it easier to manipulate. They use gays for votes to support their communist agenda.

Libertarians just don’t believe the government has the right to interfere in your personal choices, so in other words, for the OPPOSITE reasons.

Conservatives are in line with libertarians: they believe the government should interfere to protect your unalienable rights, they just believe that more interference in certain areas are necessary. (IE, a conservative will argue that a druggie DOES effect others directly and so drugs should be outlawed but a libertarian would say that an individual is capable of taking drugs responsibly and should only be punished for actual crimes)

Then there are left-libertarians, who believe in living in communes and sharing all the land. Those people are just retards. (Pardon my offense to the mentally-retarded for comparing them to left libertarians)


#12

T’ain’t fate, but choice; and she chose the gray side…


#13

Ok that’s cleared up a lot of confusion for me. It still felt like you had to be either liberal or conservative and I could see people taking sides in debates here simply so they were taking the right ‘side’. Well that’s what it looked like anyways.

Because those (no interference) are exactly the reasons I hold my political beliefs lol certainly I don’t trick gay people into voting communism in or whatever.

AArgh I know I have to be careful but, without inciting anger, I need to ask of a constitutional conservative “why can it never be changed?”


#14

It can never be changed until people start believing in self determination, motivation and reliance. In this nanny state we’re stuck in no one in power is really willing to make the choices that will help the most but cost them politically. They are willing to go after the other guys ox, just won’t go after their own. Meanwhile the 900 lb gorilla in the room everyone keeps ignoring, no matter what damage it does, is entitlements. Until those are brought into control no one can make any forward progress.


#15

ok :slight_smile: that’s a good answer. Resistance to change for the sake of it can be dangerous


#16

That depends to a degree on if you mean that “for the sake of it” applies to the “resistance” or the “change.” :biggrin: