New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Electoral rules and procedures need to be the same in all 50 states

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Yes, that Constitution. And I agree with you that the reform you are proposing should be adopted, which you would realize if you were more interested in comprehending than in winning a contest that only you are participating in. But I also understand that the Constitution in its current form prescribes each state setting its own rules for elections (with a few exceptions, for example, no race discrimination in voting qualifications).
You are the con artist who is fooling sad poor people that the earth will blow up in 12 years unless we do exactly what you say.

You are to be destroyed, to save the earth and to protect decency and real science

Just how it is
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
Okay. I'll concede that governments have the legitimate authority to impose seat belts laws on government roads, if not that they should have. That said, the overall point of tyranny coming in small steps still holds
Well, if you've been reading my posts, you know that I think the US government is no longer legitimate because it doesn't follow it's instructions from the people, the Constitution. I think Lincoln was a tyrant and the Civil War was the first step to the end of our freedom. So I'm not exactly light on tyranny. But I just can't see government rules for using government roads as any step towards tyranny, even a small one. We don't have to agree on everything


I agree that the Civil War was a huge move in the direction of federal tyranny in the USA.
The point of the quote, I believe though, is that democracy inevitably leads to reign by terror. Benjamin Franklin said ..."a republic, if you can hold it" or words to that effect. In correspondence, Thomas Jefferson said he knew that the new USA would fail ultimately.
They were prescient. The war between the states was one giant step toward the inevitable failure of the American experiment.

A big part of me still wants to believe in the founding ideals of my country. Ultimately, though, our future will be either authoritarianism or collapse.
I agree on that. We were designed NOT to be a democracy, and the reason for that was that it is just tyranny of the majority, as we are seeing in spades today
 

EatTheRich

President
You are the con artist who is fooling sad poor people that the earth will blow up in 12 years unless we do exactly what you say.

You are to be destroyed, to save the earth and to protect decency and real science

Just how it is
Are you the guy who also calls people who disagrees with you “schizo”?
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
What you are advocating violates the Constitution. Ergo, you are seeing to overthrow our Constitutional government and install an authoritarian one. Like @Constitutional Sheepdog, it makes you and enemy of the Constitution.
Your 1st sentence here is correct. The remainder, no. The US constitution contains provisions for its own amendment. What I would advocate is amending the constitution to, among other things, choose the POTUS differently and give him broader authority and longer terms. Note that all along I've said authoritarian, not totalitarian, and that I said it would be similar to a constitutional dictatorship. I'm not saying overthrow our constitutional government; I'm saying change it to better serve the nation.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Are you the guy who also calls people who disagrees with you “schizo”?
He calls people who disagree with him all kinds of nasty things.
Its a shame that just a couple of new folks can bring so much nastiness and ugliness and negativity to the forum that a bunch of others new folks abandoned it almost immediately. That shouldn't have been allowed to happen.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
He calls people who disagree with him all kinds of nasty things.
Its a shame that just a couple of new folks can bring so much nastiness and ugliness and negativity to the forum that a bunch of others new folks abandoned it almost immediately. That shouldn't have been allowed to happen.
Which new folk.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Are you the guy who also calls people who disagrees with you “schizo”?
AOC is a schizzo, you clearly believe that you are a great scientist and believe that you were put here to save the earth from cow farts.

So yea, anyone who fits that mold is pretty much a schizzo

Your new green deal retarded schizzo hero

 

EatTheRich

President
AOC is a schizzo, you clearly believe that you are a great scientist and believe that you were put here to save the earth from cow farts.

So yea, anyone who fits that mold is pretty much a schizzo

Your new green deal retarded schizzo hero

Nope. Your claims of what I “clearly believe” are entirely products of your paranoia and delusions.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Nope. Your claims of what I “clearly believe” are entirely products of your paranoia and delusions.
Denial is quite common.

Tell us more about how physics needs to be changed to accommodate your view of AGW

Also tell us how AGW is near fundamental to modern physics

Should be fund-a-mental

Mr. Heisenberg

lol
 

EatTheRich

President
Denial is quite common.

Tell us more about how physics needs to be changed to accommodate your view of AGW

Also tell us how AGW is near fundamental to modern physics

Should be fund-a-mental

Mr. Heisenberg

lol
I didn’t say that. I said that physics would have to be radically changed to be compatible with the hypothesis that AGW is not occurring. And I do not say that because I fancy myself an expert on physics. I say it because it’s what the people who are experts on physics (the American Physical Society to give one example) say.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
I didn’t say that. I said that physics would have to be radically changed to be compatible with the hypothesis that AGW is not occurring. And I do not say that because I fancy myself an expert on physics. I say it because it’s what the people who are experts on physics (the American Physical Society to give one example) say.
And you still can not offer one fact that substantiates AGW.
The oceans haven't risen
The north pole is still frozen
Antarctic winters are still minus 80F

Yadda yadda

But everyone says there is no snow

How is AGW near fundamental to physics?

Schizzo
 

EatTheRich

President
And you still can not offer one fact that substantiates AGW.
The oceans haven't risen
The north pole is still frozen
Antarctic winters are still minus 80F

Yadda yadda

But everyone says there is no snow

Schizzo
Yes, the oceans have risen. Oops!
 

EatTheRich

President
L
X

Wrong Gore said that th north pole would be melted by now and that no child would see snow already.

Bye the way retard climate change has always happened and is expected to continue.

What part eludes you
1. Gore is not a climate scientist, and his being wrong about something does not disprove mainstream science.
2. You have made this claim before, and have been unable to link to him ever saying any such thing.
3. The issue is the current pace (unusually rapid) and trajectory (deleterious to civilization) of the current climate change.
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
L


1. Gore is not a climate scientist, and his being wrong about something does not disprove mainstream science.
2. You have made this claim before, and have been unable to link to him ever saying any such thing.
3. The issue is the current pace (unusually rapid) and trajectory (deleterious to civilization) of the current climate change.
There is no unusual pace, in fact there is a pause that shut everyone including bore up
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Over the past 12000 years the average rate of warming has been 0.06 degrees Celsius per century. Today it is 0.13 degrees per decade and rising.
Again you skip 20000bc to 10000bc when 90 percent of all ice melted

And your temps are unsubstantiated by any scientific measurement
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
Which new folk.
Frecks-something and Birdz come to mind.
There's no proof that the nastier tone the forum's had recently because of a couple of people drove anyone away -- that post came more from my heart than my head -- but I'd bet on it. And who knows how many folks took a look, saw the nastiness, and never joined?
Weren't the rules about direct insults and so forth intended precisely to attract and retain more members?
 
Top