Are you for Constitutional government? Are you for a slimmer government that is more in-line with its Constitutional authority? Are you for giving more power back to the States, as spelled out in the Constitution? Are you for low taxes? Are you for less federal spending?
As long as it's my constitution and not some constitution written be middle-aged white guys who kept humans as slaves and chattel. It would be hard for me to care less about spending in-line with constitutional authority since I (and that great Republican George Bush) believe the Constitution is just a piece of paper. I want the government to tax and spend in a manner consistent with keeping the wheels of commerce turning. Unfortunately, Tea Partiers cannot tell us what that manner is. I have resided in four states and never once cared what their rights were. No, absolutely not. Living in a progressive state that doesn't mind spending a little money, I hate being raided by next door cheapskates. I am for the RIGHT AMOUNT of taxes. I'm not for low taxes based just on ideology alone. That's moronic. Nope. MORE spending would be far more appropriate. Maybe that way our bridges wouldn't collapse into rivers with a full load of cars. Maybe WE'D be building another canal across Panama instead of the Chinese. Maybe we'd have the greatest super-collider in the world rather than Switzerland. Maybe we'd have the best launch vehicles instead of the French. Maybe we'd have better health care than the Bangladeshis. Who knows, maybe we could even WIN a war from time to time. Sorry to spoil your questionnaire, but you got the wrong guy.
That Constitution worked well enough to make your parents feel free enough and optimistic enough to hatch a thing like you into this Country. And there's nothing wrong with it to this day except it has proven to serve less well it's framer's original intent. That's why we should adopt Mark Levin's proposal in the Liberty Amendments. for the states to hold a convention to amend the Constitution, AS THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS AND PROVIDES INSTRUCTIONS TO DO.
You are clearly a socialist that couldn't care less about the Constitution. You just want to be led around like a show pony. And don't forget that it was the White man that abolished slavery. Answer the poll question. It should be easy for you.
People are being hatched into countries that don't even have constitutions, and at rates far greater than ours. But I am sure that was not your point. As far as I can tell from the way the framers worded the Constitution, the intent was to preserve this country for white male landowners. We can't hold to a constitution where what is written is different than what was intended to be written. That's fine, but I think both you and Levin know that actual conventions to amend the constitution would descend into anarchy before the first cocktail chimis could be served.
Maybe I am a socialist (maybe not, I dunno), but I am sure you know that socialist countries also have constitutions. In other words, one has no bearing on the other.
I'm the first NO vote I believe in a strong central government who should be like a parent lovingly providing for all the needs over every last citizen cradle to grave and to tax and spend to meet that highest obligation of the government. And yes I am a socialist and proud.
Ok, parrot. Cracker? Cuttlebone? Perch? People are running away from progressive (read: Socialist) states... not "raiding" them. lol Silly liberal. Tricks are for kids! What's the "right amount" of taxes? Really? Is that like the old adage "You have to spend money to make money." You must be loving this President, because he's the fastest spending President in American history. I do remember liberals hating on Bush for his spending, though... same with Reagan. You must have liked them, right? Especially Bush, since he expanded government? He didn't pick you. You raided his questionnaire.
At least you admit it. ;] I applaud your honesty. Most liberals hide in the shadows of Socialism and will never admit it. Negative connotations and all that. It's just a political/economic theory. Either accept it or move on.
Very little doubt you are the wrong guy. You knock those old white men, who owning slaves, wrote and RATIFIED the very document that guarantees your right to make an ass of yourself anonymously on a fora. There is little doubt, presuming you live in a Yankee or liberal state, that if you were living at the time of the Founders, you would be all for those people working the Slaves and paying 80% of the tariffs to support the infrastructure and projects in your state. Those slaves would have meant nothing to you as it meant nothing to a majority of the Yankees that engorged themselves on the revenues generated off the backs of those slaves. Hell, you may have even had a few yourself. !50 years later, hiding behind an anonymous keyboard, you can take great pleasure in acting all outraged as much as you like. FAIL! Your holier than thou crap is meaningless.
No, not a Constitutional Convention. It would be a State's convention to amend the Constitution. Whole nother thing, entirely. And it prevents any of the anarchy you rightly fear. Levin anticipated that when he wrote his book.. Consider the following: http://www.teapartytribune.com/2013...itution-article-v-and-the-liberty-amendments/
I'd like to see a socialist constitution - LOL! Not for me. - - - Updated - - - Are you sure your from St. Pete, FL? You also must be on every government program in existence. Do you believe in personal responsibility?
Yes and besides Medicaid the state never expanded that (I support them doing so) I'm on food stamps, have a free cell phone, on a few charity programs like I get a free monthly bus pass and use the free clinic. I do pay my taxes on my income of $11,700 this year and next year I'm making sure it goes to under the Federal Poverty line. My income declared for first quarter next year will be likely $10,000 this will be for self-employment taxes and regular taxes minus my Earned Income Tax Credit and business deductions usually few of those. I don't mind working but the law doesn't demand I work more than I want to and I like Busking and crafting simple jewelry which I see online. But no use working too hard 10 to 15 hours a week at most is enough with a month or two off a year. But yes the more I can get from the government the better I have no issues taking it I return these benefits with my artistic work in the community performing and the charities well I'm a disabled person working and not on SSI so to many I save the system money. I could opt to not work, get a lawyer get SSI and get a monthly check for that which I don't since I can work and get much of what I want.
What a silly thing to believe in. Personal responsibility + $2.34 will get you a vente hot coffee at Starbucks. Like any other rich dude, my only personal responsibility is to twist arms and make the government do what I need it to do.
Socialist countries do not have States. From what I know, no other nation in the world is a "federation" of shared power like the The Constitutional role for the Federal government would be to establish standards and let the State implement the design and administration to achieve those standards. Only upon evidence of a State neglecting or otherwise failing its' responsibility should bring in the <doom> Federals <Darth Vadar breath sounds>. Why should California & Californians suffer loss of authority over failures in another State. We had a great indigent medical care system which was cheaper and good quality. LBJ's MediCaid destroyed it. Moi
The only reaction to such a post would be suspicion of flame-baiting. You absolutely cannot be serious.
Well, if you have no ambition, person drive, do not believe in personal responsibility and are OK with just getting by, then I guess a government dependency is your life. You are exactly what Obama wants. A zombie that will not rock the boat or bite the hand that feeds you.
There should be a rule against an opinion poll that asks two questions, and only allows you to answer one of them. My answer is YES, to a smaller federal government, and NO to more states' rights.
The Constitution gave more power to the States in order to fend off an overpowering federal government. Unfortunately, our moronic politicians have flip-flopped that protection of power to the federal side. One could move to the State that best suits him/her.
From a political science perspective (putting aside my disagreements with the state itself), I am an advocate of decentralized competitive federalism. States should have all powers except a select few reserved to a national government, which would mostly act as a referee between states, and never interfere with individuals within those states. In this way states could form their own policies and compete in a sort of political free-market. The best ideas would eventually be adopted by all, and the more progressive states could be on the forefront of innovation. Perhaps one state could abolish limited liability, the others would see the benefits and soon follow suit. In a centralized system of government, such as the one you currently have, innovation is discouraged, and all solutions have to be one size fits all. I'm for placing independence as close to the individual as possible. In politics, the states have been that intermediary between nation and individual.
I'm dead serious. After Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake", she went on to say that the peasants "should accept personal responsibility for their poverty."
Many people are in the situation they are in because they do not have the drive to get out. They are happy just "getting by". Take the freebies Uncle Sam has to offer, and live on that. Some people are victims of a bad situation, but many are scamming the system. America wouldn't be the way it is if everyone had their hands extended out.
I would be for a smaller federal government with lower taxes and more states rights. I personally feel that the federal government is way too big. I honestly think it is becoming quite authoritarian as well.
