Granted similarities between Obama and Carter aside, Romney, maybe. Perry, I doubt, simply because he sounds too much like a high-octane Bush.

"non-wealthy" are those who benefit from social programs that the GOP of 2011 wants to eliminate in their perverted quest to keep all the money.

I like the general premise of the idea, but trying to game it with redistricting is pretty fucking lame. I do think that electoral votes should be split, though.

I love when people make this sort of statement. Ok, I'll bite. Where does should the constitution be changed because of the internet or stealth bombers?


.

EXACTLY!!!!!


.:2 cents:

That is the difference between elections WITHIN A STATE, and elections including and between all the states. The constitution makes the US a collection of self-running states, that cede some powers to the Federal government (10th Amendment). I say thank god for this, (even though the feds are TOTALLY over-reaching the powers that the states allowed them), it would be FAR worse if the 10th amendment didn't exist. The fact is that the larger an area and population that a government controls, the less representative and more removed from the people it becomes. That's why the 10th amendment exists, and that's why states can control how they each decide their votes for the President.


.:2 cents:

If that's the real reason behind it, then why not go with popular vote? IE the people's vote.

Why, because they couldn't cheat their way with that.

Before you get involved, you need to educate yourself dipshit.

You're just going to replace one ass hat with another.

Or keep the same one. Replacement is not inevitable.

My point was simply that for as brilliant as the founding fathers were they likely could never have imagined the world that we live in today and that they would probably not be offended if parts of the Constitution were changed in order to better fit our modern society.

I was just using stealth bombers and the internet as an example, but I would say that the internet actually holds some power in my argument for getting rid of the electoral college. One of the reasons it was created was to force candidates to campaign in lesser populated areas. Back in the days of its creation information traveled slowly and the newspapers were notoriously corrupt. So the candidates had to travel to visit the far reaches of the nation in order to get the word out about what they believed. Now with the internet, if they say anything it around the world within minutes.

The constitution wasn't meant to be a static document either. Perhaps reading the founding fathers own feelings on this would be educational.

You want change back? You are jewish afterall.

You actually honestly believe their is any difference between the two parties?

If the founding fathers were alive today they wouldnt be campaigning for either side they would be organising an uprising due to being disgusted by what has happened to the land they conquered.

Seems as though they were also clever never to warn what would happen if the central bank of America was a private entity. Guess what they were 100% correct.

Ouch.... I'd be bitter too if I had to actually be you.

It?s open season on President Barack Obama ? and that?s just from members of his own party.

With frustration and disappointment mounting from stinging defeats in Tuesday?s two special elections and over Obama?s jobs plan, the media is filled on Thursday with Democrats on the record publicly questioning and doubting the president and some of his policies, and a few even unleashing biting criticism.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1Y4Hgewem