Constitutional Convention?

#208
#208
lawgator1 said:
Sure, but it's the GOP'S last vestige of power left. At the national level, the demographics are inevitable. And rather than adapt to those changes, the GOP base, particularly in the South, drive the party to antagonize racial minorities.


To get the nomination means automatically killing your chances in the general.
Click to expand...
Troll. There is no rational explanation for this.
 
#209
#209
Any admendment would have to have 75% to ratify. So only 13 states voting against something stops it. To believe anything radical could happen is a bit naive
 
#210
#210
The intent is to return power to the states. The founders knew the government would eventually try to reach beyond its set boundaries, so this the option they gave us to reign it back in
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#211
#211
Vol8188 said:
My argument is clear. If not through birth, then how else are we defining citizenship?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking this is an obvious answer but you can never be too sure on here. If you do away with anchor babies, there would still be an immigration policy with naturalization toward citizenship. Immigrants work hard and study to pass a civics test, then take an oath. It happens every day. Obviously children born to a citizen would have citizenship. Shamefully, most of the natural born citizens wouldn't pass the citizenship test but that's a different conversation.
 
Last edited:
#212
#212
lawgator1 said:
Sure, but it's the GOP'S last vestige of power left. At the national level, the demographics are inevitable. And rather than adapt to those changes, the GOP base, particularly in the South, drive the party to antagonize racial minorities.


To get the nomination means automatically killing your chances in the general.
Click to expand...

The problem I see for the GOP is there are a handful of cities, with massive populations, that dominate national elections. You are correct that principles of individual liberty are not going to be popular in these areas until these populations realize the utter failure their progressive collectivist policies are leading the toward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#214
#214
lawgator1 said:
Sure, but it's the GOP'S last vestige of power left. At the national level, the demographics are inevitable. And rather than adapt to those changes, the GOP base, particularly in the South, drive the party to antagonize racial minorities.


To get the nomination means automatically killing your chances in the general.
Click to expand...

And the dems and other liberals don't antagonize minorities through the soft bigotry of low expectations
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#215
#215
red butler said:
The problem I see for the GOP is there are a handful of cities, with massive populations, that dominate national elections. You are correct that principles of individual liberty are not going to be popular in these areas until these populations realize the utter failure their progressive collectivist policies are leading the toward.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, The GOP is working hard to become right wing collectivists and silence the message of liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#216
#216
From Doug Casey and appropriate for this thread:

IS THE STATE NECESSARY?

The violent and corrupt nature of government is widely acknowledged by almost everyone. That's been true since time immemorial, as have political satire and grousing about politicians. Yet almost everyone turns a blind eye; most not only put up with it, but actively support the charade. That's because, although many may believe government to be an evil, they believe it is a necessary evil (the larger question of whether anything that is evil is necessary, or whether anything that is necessary can be evil, is worth discussing, but this isn’t the forum).

What (arguably) makes government necessary is the need for protection from other, even more dangerous, governments. I believe a case can be made that modern technology obviates this function.

One of the most perversely misleading myths about government is that it promotes order within its own bailiwick, keeps groups from constantly warring with each other, and somehow creates togetherness and harmony. In fact, that's the exact opposite of the truth. There's no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another…unless they're organized into political groups. The Middle East, now the world's most fertile breeding ground for hatred, provides an excellent example.

Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably in Palestine, Lebanon, and North Africa for centuries until the situation became politicized after World War I. Until then, an individual's background and beliefs were just personal attributes, not a casus belli. Government was at its most benign, an ineffectual nuisance that concerned itself mostly with extorting taxes. People were busy with that most harmless of activities: making money.

But politics do not deal with people as individuals. It scoops them up into parties and nations. And some group inevitably winds up using the power of the state (however "innocently" or "justly" at first) to impose its values and wishes on others with predictably destructive results. What would otherwise be an interesting kaleidoscope of humanity then sorts itself out according to the lowest common denominator peculiar to the time and place.

Sometimes that means along religious lines, as with the Muslims and Hindus in India or the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; or ethnic lines, like the Kurds and Iraqis in the Middle East or Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka; sometimes it's mostly racial, as whites and East Indians found throughout Africa in the 1970s or Asians in California in the 1870s. Sometimes it's purely a matter of politics, as Argentines, Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and other Latins discovered more recently. Sometimes it amounts to no more than personal beliefs, as the McCarthy era in the 1950s and the Salem trials in the 1690s proved.

Throughout history government has served as a vehicle for the organization of hatred and oppression, benefitting no one except those who are ambitious and ruthless enough to gain control of it. That's not to say government hasn't, then and now, performed useful functions. But the useful things it does could and would be done far better by the market.
 
#218
#218
CNCVol88 said:
Don't worry, The GOP is working hard to become right wing collectivists and silence the message of liberty.
Click to expand...

Boy, are you ever screwed up. I'm and independent when it comes to political parties and I'm a conservative. If anyone is trying to silence the message of liberty and endorse being a member of the borg it's liberals. They apparently cannot survive on their own and need a collective. Just observe the unions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#219
#219
KentheOrange said:
Boy, are you ever screwed up. I'm and independent when it comes to political parties and I'm a conservative. If anyone is trying to silence the message of liberty and endorse being a member of the borg it's liberals. They apparently cannot survive on their own and need a collective. Just observe the unions.
Click to expand...

Have you looked at the message on the right lately? They aren't supporting Liberty either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#220
#220
CNCVol88 said:
And the dems and other liberals don't antagonize minorities through the soft bigotry of low expectations
Click to expand...

Gee, that explains racial quotas and affirmative action. Those exist only because liberals don't believe minorities can compete on a level playing field and need extra help.
 
#225
#225
KentheOrange said:
Boy, are you ever screwed up. I'm and independent when it comes to political parties and I'm a conservative. If anyone is trying to silence the message of liberty and endorse being a member of the borg it's liberals. They apparently cannot survive on their own and need a collective. Just observe the unions.
Click to expand...

Why would you be opposed to unions?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top