QUOTE(ezra_z @ Mar 13 2012, 18:14)
ofcourse he's just another guy with an opinion, but my point is he's DEFINITELY not a nutjob. in my (and alot of other people's) opinion he is highly credible.
Just for the record I think you probably emphasised the wrong word there (I would have gone with not).
On the whole though I don't think anyone has suggested that support of Ron Paul instantly makes you a nut job but rather a blind and unquestioning support of Paul and a complete parroting of more than a few of his positions makes you a nut job. I think some of Paul's economic plans are good but I also happen to think that some of them are beyond terrible and when you get away from his economic policy he falls apart completely.
QUOTE(ezra_z @ Mar 13 2012, 19:42)
socialist/fascisct central planning doesn't work you nutjob Parsifal, look at the evidence. soviet union is the US's future, wars->famine->economic collapse.
Still haven't taken the time to correctly identify what socialism and fascism are and for some reason you seem to think they're interchangeable. They aren't.
QUOTE(sanitynotincluded @ Mar 13 2012, 19:44)
The issue is that the constitution should not evolve, it should be amended throught the clearly defined procedure. When judges/justices can invent things in the constitution that are not written there and which have not been passed by the approved means then there can be no justice, and that is something that the writers of the document would have abhorred. The document is not and should not be preserved in aspic for all eternity, but it should change through specific acts of constitutional means, not at the whim of 9 lawyers (even if one of them is an intrisically wise latina) in Washington.
Again you're mistaking (or misrepresenting) my belief that the founders would want the constitution to be a document that changes, grows and yes evolves with the people it is supposed to serve as an endorsement of any and all Supreme Court decisions. It is perfectly possible to believe that the constitution should be a living breathing document without fully endorsing any and all decisions passed down by the Supreme Court.
The founders understood that the best defence against the tyranny of the majority/active minority was a severely limited government. If the different arms of government were to operate within their constitutionally mandated bounds then they would be unable to impose their opinions on the people.
I'm not sure its right to say that the founders believed limited government to be the best defence against tyranny and factional rule. Madison placed much more emphasis on the separation of powers than limited government when it came to counteracting factional rule and tyranny. He firmly believed that you needed each of the three branches of government to be strong and independent from one another so that they were able to keep one another in check. He also believed that the sheer size of the union and the diverse make-up of it would stop factional rule from being an issue but that theory falls apart in the modern age.
The tea partiers are perhaps the least dishonourable in this respect, as they are at least arguing for the return of government to its bounds. If they get their way then government would be less able to impose anyone's preferences on the rest. compared with their critics, that makes them angels and far closer to the ideals of the revolution.
Not sure I agree with this description at all. If the Tea Party were to get their way then government would become about enforcing their views and ideology on everyone else and shutting out any contradictory views or ideology. That's why I say the founders would be so against what they're doing.
There are wonderful things called elections. They work quite well, if combined with the acceptance that winning them gives you the right to nudge things a little but not to impose your every whim on the nation.
Elections that huge numbers of people don't vote in because they become alienated and isolated from the process which hyper focuses on pre-selected wedge issues designed to motivate a political base. But that's another issue.
My much wider point was that we now live in an age of political action groups and special interests that all inevitably claim to speak for the majority which is inherently impossible and that these groups all exert far too much pressure and influence on the political process in the name of the majority. Or the best interest of the majority.
There is a mechanism for changing them. That the pace of change has been slow is indicative of a lack of popular will. That said, when amendments like the 17th and 22nd are passed, it shows the dangers of letting little minds tinker with what is fundamentally a fairly good document. Just count yourself lucky that you don't suffer the EU constitution.
In this instance though its not just about changing the constitution but the entire political structure and the mechanisms and rules of it.
QUOTE(sanitynotincluded @ Mar 13 2012, 21:15)
I'm not sure that I'd agree with that. I agree that Romney winning it before the convention is the most likely outcome, and even if he falls slightly short, he will probably be close enough to win in the end anyway. I don't see any VP moves from him as likely though because in his case it would be portrayed as arrogance/overconfidence by his opponents and probably backfire.
It depends on how far ahead he is going into the convention, where the momentum is and ultimately who he gave the VP slot to.
That falls into the conceit that Krugman won a Nobel prize. There is no Nobel prize for economics. What Krugman's accolytes dishonestly try and pass off as a Nobel prize is actually the "Sveriges Riksbank Prize".
That's a particularly childish and desperate distinction to try and make at this point.