Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article V of the Constitution & a Constitutional Convention

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I am with AA on this one.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by All-American View Post

      I am also completely unconcerned about fascists taking over. People hate nazis as much now as ever. (The bigger issue is how quickly we label someone as a fascist. Keep that up and it may be tough to notice when the genuine article comes around.)
      I never label anyone a fascist (other than self-proclaimed fascists), but I do ask students about behaviors they applaud, the ethics of those behaviors, the constitutionality of them, and they shut down at the first sign of criticism. I don't know if I've ever even used the word fascist in class unless I was teaching about Franco. So, there's nothing to "keep up," but if you think that there aren't any potential elements of fascism brewing in this country right now, I believe that you should look again with your discerning eye.
      "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
        I never label anyone a fascist (other than self-proclaimed fascists), but I do ask students about behaviors they applaud, the ethics of those behaviors, the constitutionality of them, and they shut down at the first sign of criticism. I don't know if I've ever even used the word fascist in class unless I was teaching about Franco. So, there's nothing to "keep up," but if you think that there aren't any potential elements of fascism brewing in this country right now, I believe that you should look again with your discerning eye.
        There are 300+ million people in this country. Of course we have bona fide fascists. And they're harder to ignore now, given the availability of social media as a platform and the eagerness of CNN et al. to trumpet their going-ons. Nevertheless, I feel pretty comfortable believing that we are winning the war.
        τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
          It is not the advertising, per se, that bothers me, it's the influence that it buys. In order to purchase that advertising, you need a source for the money, and those sources can threaten to cut off that money, causing you to bend to their will. THAT is the problem.
          This is not nothing. But at the end of the day, you can't buy influence from someone who doesn't have any, and the only way to get that influence is for voters to give it to you.
          τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
            I never label anyone a fascist (other than self-proclaimed fascists), but I do ask students about behaviors they applaud, the ethics of those behaviors, the constitutionality of them, and they shut down at the first sign of criticism. I don't know if I've ever even used the word fascist in class unless I was teaching about Franco. So, there's nothing to "keep up," but if you think that there aren't any potential elements of fascism brewing in this country right now, I believe that you should look again with your discerning eye.
            When people with lots of education, experience, and intelligence in a certain field, say "Hey, we should probably be doing something about this", sometimes emphatically, then just maybe it makes sense to listen to what they are saying. At least to be informed about it, what causes it, and what the potential risks are. I thought that was the whole point of checks-and-balances built into our system. The law doesn't actually do the work of checking and balancing, it just allows for it, which means someone has to actually keep an eye out. It looks like they are:



            Anytime there is a significant push for a specific ideology--and people are scared to oppose the ideology for fear of their jobs or in some cases threats of violence, there is cause for concern that shouldn't be ignored. It's a serious problem that the next generation of kids are arriving in college without being able to handle criticism of their indoctrination beliefs.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
              I never label anyone a fascist (other than self-proclaimed fascists), but I do ask students about behaviors they applaud, the ethics of those behaviors, the constitutionality of them, and they shut down at the first sign of criticism. I don't know if I've ever even used the word fascist in class unless I was teaching about Franco. So, there's nothing to "keep up," but if you think that there aren't any potential elements of fascism brewing in this country right now, I believe that you should look again with your discerning eye.
              Why are the kids allowed to shut down at a University?

              I think you professors mean well but the issue in our country is a lack of morality. That leads to corruption. There has always been money and corrupt people I just happen to believe more people in our civilization put a higher priority on their short term benefit than the damage their shortsightedness does to systems. There is no law that a thousand really smart people are going to come up with that will fix that challenge.

              It really still is about "We, the People." It isn't President Trump's fault or Hugh Hefner, it is us.
              Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
              -General George S. Patton

              I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
              -DOCTOR Wuap

              Comment


              • #22
                I'm with AA on most of his suggestions.

                My own 2 cents:

                I don't necessarily think we need a constitutional amendment for campaign finance. I think we need to get rid of the personal contribution limits to campaigns and if that doesn't get rid of super-PACS, then require that they disclose donations. I'm not for limiting speech, but speech is a public thing, hiding financing/contributions seems counter to the concept of free speech. If something is to be expressed, those hearing it are entitled to the context and circumstances associated with that speech.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
                  Why are the kids allowed to shut down at a University?.
                  Well, I cannot make them talk or express themselves. Most of my conversations are had in between classes or before class begins. I have class MTWThF with the same students, so I get to know them very well..six hours per week. In a literature class, I can pry more, and it's usually in English, so that helps. But, in my language classes, I'm kind of famous for chatting students up between classes...people will come in from the hallway to talk. I try and let them choose the topics and I basically just ask questions the whole time, pointedly, to make them think. But, if no one's talking, I'll ask a question, like, this morning, I said, "So, who thinks it's ok to shame someone on social media if they do something bad?" We then had a discussion where most people said that that was bullying and you couldn't do it, but then one person said it was ok to post racists, and suddenly everyone agreed and so I asked, what if they were just having a bad moment and said something they'd regret and would apologize for, mere moments after they said it...is it still ok? "Yes" said most. So I asked, "Have any of us ever said anything we wished we could take back?" It went from there until it was time to start class. Little 5-8 minute bits of thought...anything to keep them off their phones. I don't know if I got anywhere, but I keep trying. If I reach one, it's worth it.
                  "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    it's all just a friendly Constitutional Convention until they decide we no longer want or need a Bill of Rights. Then what? I don't think I trust a bunch of right wingers from places like Alabama with some of those freedoms.
                    Last edited by BlueK; 02-12-2018, 11:29 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
                      Well, I cannot make them talk or express themselves. Most of my conversations are had in between classes or before class begins. I have class MTWThF with the same students, so I get to know them very well..six hours per week. In a literature class, I can pry more, and it's usually in English, so that helps. But, in my language classes, I'm kind of famous for chatting students up between classes...people will come in from the hallway to talk. I try and let them choose the topics and I basically just ask questions the whole time, pointedly, to make them think. But, if no one's talking, I'll ask a question, like, this morning, I said, "So, who thinks it's ok to shame someone on social media if they do something bad?" We then had a discussion where most people said that that was bullying and you couldn't do it, but then one person said it was ok to post racists, and suddenly everyone agreed and so I asked, what if they were just having a bad moment and said something they'd regret and would apologize for, mere moments after they said it...is it still ok? "Yes" said most. So I asked, "Have any of us ever said anything we wished we could take back?" It went from there until it was time to start class. Little 5-8 minute bits of thought...anything to keep them off their phones. I don't know if I got anywhere, but I keep trying. If I reach one, it's worth it.


                      You go wuap!
                      Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                      "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                      GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by beefytee View Post
                        ...I'm not for limiting speech, but speech is a public thing, hiding financing/contributions seems counter to the concept of free speech. If something is to be expressed, those hearing it are entitled to the context and circumstances associated with that speech.
                        I disagree. The reason we have secret ballots is to avoid voter intimidation. Campaign donations are an extension of this concept. Nobody should be afraid to vote for fear of the consequences. Using this logic, people should then not be afraid to support a candidate or cause that is on a ballot.

                        It is not society's responsibility to intimidate people into supporting the right cause; that's the job of the courts and the constitution. If a law is passed that tramples civil liberty, courts will eventually make things right. Likewise, if someone who supports these laws is a reprehensible human being, their colors will eventually show without delving into their voting record. Conversely, a lot of people are good people who support bad legislation out of ignorance or a personal weakness. One decision doesn't necessarily make a person bad, and certainly shouldn't cost them their career if it is a lawful decision at the time.

                        If a candidate or issue makes it to the ballot through legal and accepted means, people should not fear voting or supporting the candidate/issue, yet that is exactly what has evolved. People have lost their jobs merely for contributing to a ballot measure. People are using campaign finance disclosure to suppress votes and intimidate voters- perhaps not from voting a specific way, but certainly from supporting certain positions. In my mind, this is an unconscionable affront to the democratic process, and the only way to stop it is by keeping campaign donations private.
                        sigpic
                        "Outlined against a blue, gray
                        October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
                        Grantland Rice, 1924

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Shaka View Post
                          I would limit campaigning to two months before prior to election day.
                          I would get rid of corporate campaign contributions and limit individual contributions.
                          I would limit terms in the senate to two and limit the terms of the house to four.
                          I like the cut of your jib. US elections are absurdly long, when compared to almost every other democratic country.
                          "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                          "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                          - SeattleUte

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by cowboy View Post
                            I disagree. The reason we have secret ballots is to avoid voter intimidation. Campaign donations are an extension of this concept. Nobody should be afraid to vote for fear of the consequences. Using this logic, people should then not be afraid to support a candidate or cause that is on a ballot.

                            It is not society's responsibility to intimidate people into supporting the right cause; that's the job of the courts and the constitution. If a law is passed that tramples civil liberty, courts will eventually make things right. Likewise, if someone who supports these laws is a reprehensible human being, their colors will eventually show without delving into their voting record. Conversely, a lot of people are good people who support bad legislation out of ignorance or a personal weakness. One decision doesn't necessarily make a person bad, and certainly shouldn't cost them their career if it is a lawful decision at the time.

                            If a candidate or issue makes it to the ballot through legal and accepted means, people should not fear voting or supporting the candidate/issue, yet that is exactly what has evolved. People have lost their jobs merely for contributing to a ballot measure. People are using campaign finance disclosure to suppress votes and intimidate voters- perhaps not from voting a specific way, but certainly from supporting certain positions. In my mind, this is an unconscionable affront to the democratic process, and the only way to stop it is by keeping campaign donations private.
                            This is an interesting issue but I'm not sure I like your argument here. I see a major distinction between expressing one's view, in the privacy of the voting booth, on the one hand, and trying to influence the vote of others with a megaphone, whether literal or figurative. When someone advocates for a particular position, I examine the merits of the argument but I'd still like to know what that person's motivations are. If the financial support for a local measure is coming from out-of-state or from the Caucasus, I want to know. I'm okay with keeping small donations private, but once a financial megaphone becomes too large to tune out, I want to know who's on the other side of it.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by cowboy View Post
                              I disagree. The reason we have secret ballots is to avoid voter intimidation. Campaign donations are an extension of this concept. Nobody should be afraid to vote for fear of the consequences. Using this logic, people should then not be afraid to support a candidate or cause that is on a ballot.

                              It is not society's responsibility to intimidate people into supporting the right cause; that's the job of the courts and the constitution. If a law is passed that tramples civil liberty, courts will eventually make things right. Likewise, if someone who supports these laws is a reprehensible human being, their colors will eventually show without delving into their voting record. Conversely, a lot of people are good people who support bad legislation out of ignorance or a personal weakness. One decision doesn't necessarily make a person bad, and certainly shouldn't cost them their career if it is a lawful decision at the time.

                              If a candidate or issue makes it to the ballot through legal and accepted means, people should not fear voting or supporting the candidate/issue, yet that is exactly what has evolved. People have lost their jobs merely for contributing to a ballot measure. People are using campaign finance disclosure to suppress votes and intimidate voters- perhaps not from voting a specific way, but certainly from supporting certain positions. In my mind, this is an unconscionable affront to the democratic process, and the only way to stop it is by keeping campaign donations private.
                              I'm not suggesting getting rid of private ballots. While that is a form of speech, it isn't what I'm addressing here.

                              I do think those who want to express themselves publically or support public causes also have to stand behind what they are supporting. We need a system where people are free to share but also responsible for what they share.

                              While Mozilla had every right to fire their CEO for his donation, I completely disagree with their decision. I no longer use Firefox and will never support the foundation and encourage others to do the same. The CEO has to live with his decision and the foundation has to live with theirs.

                              There is always going to be intimidation. I don't think hiding and secrecy is the answer to it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by PaloAltoCougar View Post
                                This is an interesting issue but I'm not sure I like your argument here. I see a major distinction between expressing one's view, in the privacy of the voting booth, on the one hand, and trying to influence the vote of others with a megaphone, whether literal or figurative. When someone advocates for a particular position, I examine the merits of the argument but I'd still like to know what that person's motivations are. If the financial support for a local measure is coming from out-of-state or from the Caucasus, I want to know. I'm okay with keeping small donations private, but once a financial megaphone becomes too large to tune out, I want to know who's on the other side of it.
                                As usual, PAC states it much better than I do.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X