Messages

I understand all of this and studied it a great deal in college as well majors were History/Poli Sci.  Perhaps, you need to realign what you view as a liberal, because to qualify as a liberal one doesn't have to be at the end of the "scale" so to speak.  Also, every system, or belief group if you will, have their plus and minuses.  Capitalism, Communisms, Nationalism, Fascism (questionable on this one), Socialism, Autocracy, Democracy, Monarchy <-- all of these have pluses and minuses and should you study them I would challenge you that you would find things that you could agree with in any of them, to decry a system merely because you don't understand or agree with all of its ideals doesn't mean that it doesn't have positives.  A blended system that encompasses many different systems is usually ideal, thus a democratic republic such as the USA.  I will get off my soap box, but the point I am trying to get across is that we all need to be a little more open minded and review each opinion/idea without automatically attacking it as invalid.  Also, my earlier point that has been discarded is that to attack someone because of their ideals is ridiculous, attack the individual ideas that you disagree with.

It isn't unconstitutional, just less reliable as a witness, however, some state courts have disagreed.  But I must point to the fact that if you stole from a store, and were videotaped in the process, there is a good chance that you will be found guilty, so why excuse someone speeding on camera?

I think it is obvious who I am based on my username.

This is ridiculous, obviously you don't pay attention to what you are reading and the opinions of "democrats" to classify all liberals as communists.  If that were the case that by the same token, if you are a right-wing thinker, you would be classified as a fascist/nationalist .

Oh heck, Frank.  Go ahead and buy her a ticket back to Tulsa... it will be one less dem-wit Kansas will have to contend with.

entirely uncalled for

Second that!

To insinuate that a liberal is a communist is factual incorrect. 

Watch gold up 25.90, and 1-year T-bill yield down @ 0.06%.  That is where the money is going.

It is sad to see that 228 representatives (at this point in time) viewed reelection in November to be their prime concern as opposed to the needs of our economy and public.

No I am not kidding, either we are a democracy where the people are supposed to be trusted to make the decisions or not. 

Sorry but were a Republic based on the rule of law. We're not supposed to have to trust anyone in government, we have laws that restrict them.

I realize that a large portion of the electorate is usually insufficiently informed to make a balanced decision, however, the constitution was structured to allow the people to decide as this is a democratic republic. 

Ok were a democratic republic i agree with that but we are not a democracy.

Hmmmm I am not sure what else your trying to get at on that.   The constitution is structured to control government not the people. 

Let me see where I start on this...
The people I was referring to are the people... voting.  The people should make the choice to limit a term was the point of the statement.  What I was stating about the electorate was that in general they are uninformed but since are laws don't require a certain knowledge of the candidates and their positions (not that that would be feasible), you shouldn't be restricting whom they can vote for.  That is the point of the entire statement, i realize we are not a pure democracy, we are a democratic republic, which by the way means we grant more power to those that are elected than a pure democracy would.  I wonder if that makes you more or less comfortable with our government, sorry nvm.

Furthermore, I don't think the Presidency should be term-limited,

You have got to be kidding ! ! ! ! !

No I am not kidding, either we are a democracy where the people are supposed to be trusted to make the decisions or not.  I realize that a large portion of the electorate is usually insufficiently informed to make a balanced decision, however, the constitution was structured to allow the people to decide as this is a democratic republic.  So we either honor that choice, or term limit politicians and do the job of the people for them.  I am sorry, but tradition is fine and it is true that two-terms was the traditional limit however, it should be noted that we should allow the people to make that choice and trust in their decision or amend the constitution and do away with elections since we don't believe that the people can properly limit a persons term in office.  If the people want to vote for the person, why do we prevent them?