Are there any conservatives in the TC's at all? (to buy, live)

[Tyryztoll]

Originally Posted by Ghengis

how long did you look at it?

You're so predictable.

[l12]

Originally Posted by The Northerner

The Pioneer Press can't be very conservative........I saw an ad for gay dating on their website that looked awfully pornographicish.

I think those ads are targeted based on your browsing history and preferences, not really managed by Pioneer Press itself...

[l12]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Do you understand that the Constitution can be changed and has been many times? If so, are you unhappy with the amendment process specified in the Constitution now and, if so, how would you make it better?

I am very aware of this, and yes I do have a problem with the requirement that 3/4 of state's legislatures have to ratify it. The fact that 1/4 of states, which might contain only about 5% of the country's population, can prevent any change makes it kind of impossible.

I think many of the problem's of this country can be attributed to the fact that a resident of an unpopulated state like Wyoming might have over 60x the political power and representation as a citizen of a large state does, and the Constitution really does not provide any workable way of fixing this, as the small states would have to agree to give up their "equal" Senate votes.

[l12]

Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3

I bet there is more thinking involved in playing golf than sitting on the internet.

I don't doubt that there is some thinking involved with golf, and many mindless ways to waste time on the internet. However, I think golf is mainly about physics, and an individual man against nature, it offers very little regarding human society overall and human interactions. By contrast, the internet offers all the wealth of the world's collected knowledge and thought on politics, philosophy, human behavior, economics, etc., if one is motivated to think about such things.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by l12

I am very aware of this, and yes I do have a problem with the requirement that 3/4 of state's legislatures have to ratify it. The fact that 1/4 of states, which might contain only about 5% of the country's population, can prevent any change makes it kind of impossible.

I think many of the problem's of this country can be attributed to the fact that a resident of an unpopulated state like Wyoming might have over 60x the political power and representation as a citizen of a large state does, and the Constitution really does not provide any workable way of fixing this, as the small states would have to agree to give up their "equal" Senate votes.

Thanks. I just wanted to be clear whether what you oppose and want to change are the fundamental principles of our current form of government, or just some small details. I think we've established that you are an advocate of radical changes.

We are very fortunate to have a form of government that prevents the tyranny of the majority and instead protects minority rights. The Founders of our country saw thinking like yours to be very dangerous and devised this Federalist form of government as a safeguard against it. That others like you have not been able to thwart their plans in over 200 years is a testimony to their foresight and genius.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by The Northerner

The Pioneer Press can't be very conservative........I saw an ad for gay dating on their website that looked awfully pornographicish.

Originally Posted by l12

I think those ads are targeted based on your browsing history and preferences, not really managed by Pioneer Press itself...

not that there's anything wrong with that

[Globe199]

I do think being "progressive" by definition means you favor at least considering the possibility of changing the Constitution. I don't think anyone says it's "all outdated"; but it is only natural that some aspects will be outdated 250 years later, when we have had dramatic changes in every aspect of life and society.

Progressive means willing to scrap old ideas if it is warranted, being open to new information, and willing to consider radical changes objectively.

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Do you understand that the Constitution can be changed and has been many times? If so, are you unhappy with the amendment process specified in the Constitution now and, if so, how would you make it better?

More to the point, the use of the constitution as a political tool has been corrupted and perverted, especially by the uneducated minions of the tea party. Everything those lunatics dislike is "unconstitutional." Even when it isn't. It's taken as gospel almost as badly as the bible.

To me, and speaking to what he said, the constitution is old and vague. There's too much room for interpretation, too much that can be twisted to suit one's beliefs. If we rewrote it today, it would be more succinct.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

More to the point, the use of the constitution as a political tool has been corrupted and perverted, especially by the uneducated minions of the tea party. Everything those lunatics dislike is "unconstitutional." Even when it isn't. It's taken as gospel almost as badly as the bible.

To me, and speaking to what he said, the constitution is old and vague. There's too much room for interpretation, too much that can be twisted to suit one's beliefs. If we rewrote it today, it would be more succinct.

Let's try to set the slander of those you disagree with aside for now.

Give us a specific example of how you would rewrite something in a new Constitution. I'm just not convinced that what you guys really want is something that can be "twisted" to suit your beliefs, but let's see.

[Astron1000]

Originally Posted by Globe199

...To me, and speaking to what he said, the constitution is old and vague. There's too much room for interpretation, too much that can be twisted to suit one's beliefs. If we rewrote it today, it would be more succinct.

Tell that to Congress: The "No Child Left Behind Act," written in 2001 and put forward by Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) clocked in at 274,559 words. And that's not even the longest bill ever written.

Go ahead and read it here.

Here's a snippet of the remarkably poetic language:

"(c) Allocation and Reservations.-- ``(1) Allocation.--(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary is authorized to allot to each State an amount that bears the same ratio to the amount appropriated for such year under section 726 that remains after the Secretary reserves funds under paragraph (2) and uses funds to carry out section 724(d) and (h), as the amount allocated under section 1122 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to the State for that year bears to the total amount allocated under section 1122 of such Act to all States for that year, except that no State shall receive less than the greater of-- ``(i) $150,000; ``(ii) one-fourth of 1 percent of the amount appropriated under section 726 for that year; or ``(iii) the amount such State received under this section for fiscal year 2001."

Imagine what Congress would do with the Constitution!

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Let's try to set the slander of those you disagree with aside for now.

Give us a specific example of how you would rewrite something in a new Constitution. I'm just not convinced that what you guys really want is something that can be "twisted" to suit your beliefs, but let's see.

There was no "slander" in my post, so cut that sanctimonious crap.

I would rewrite the first and second amendments to remove the ambiguity. I would probably strengthen the fourth amendment. I would add an amendment that says that the government cannot intervene between doctor and patient with very few exceptions.

Much of the verbiage in the constitution is old style English. I'd like to see it overhauled with more modern language.