wouldn't I have to be COnservative to feel guilt over the crap being discussed. Since I nor anyone in my family has ever directly engaged in Slavery or anti civil rights movement I can honestly say I don't feel any guilt.

I've gone far enough back on the Family tree to know that my Mothers side of the family escaped Germany/Poland in 1906. My dads side came out of Canada around the same time. So when I get grouped into the Whites when someone decides to talk about slavery I can talk about my families early 20th century immigration to this country.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

This is what happens when a bubble bursts. This did not start in 2009. It bottomed in 2009, and the unemployment is a trailing indicator(the one that really matters to most people).

I care not when it popped, it only matters who started the dang thing growing! That was many many years ago. Think back, what legislation allowed/required the real estate market to grow exponentially? It was that market's collapse that brought down the banks who then brought down the stock market.

That anyone thinks that economic cycles are so short that any president has any significant influence on them is a fool.

Bubbles take a long time to form and take longer to burst if the government keeps pumping money in it to keep it inflated. As for recovery that can be fast as in Reagan or the 1920 recovery. The problem is to get a fast recovery, the government must make some very politically unpopular decisions. A president would have to make the required changes almost as soon as they take office if they want to see results before their first 4 years are up.

What people forget about recovery is that before the bubble pops it was artificially inflated. Afterwords the artificial inflation is gone and things are where they should be. That rate is much lower than before, but it is sustainable. That is recovered. If people don't like this level of economy then they may have to allow a lot of NIMBY things so they can have a job.

---

Dena tells us about the 17th Amendment. Well, looking very quickly how it use to work, it is easy to see other problems from that angle: nepotism, internal corruption, or the like.
So, the state governor use to select the state legislature or something along those lines? Tell me, then, how was the governor elected or selected?

Article 1 Section 3 of the constitution states they are selected by the state Legislature. The neat thing about our constitution is they never erase. They just add on and correct it as flaws are found. When we made the mistake of passing prohibition, we left it in with the correction to remove it.
The idea was to counter the power of the people with the power of the state. This is also why we don't elect the president directly but instead use the Electoral College (Article 3 Section 1).

I sense more contradictions. Is it just me?
Without scrolling through the thread, I believe previously you said, or it was stated at a link you provided, that state governors appointed members of the nation's senate. I then asked how the governors got into office, and you said in what I quote here that they were appointed by the State Legislature.
I suspect we both misread some things here, as it looks like in the past state legislators were elected by the people, and then they selected who would go on to be the nation's legilsators in D.C.
This explains why recent commercials in my current state point to the conservative candidate for Senate wanting to "re-write the Constitution so that state legislators select our national senators."
Dena, you've talked about Republics and Democracies. I can certainly find links on my own, but first I'm going to try to remember and hypothesize: Republics (planned or actual) were/are more in line with the people electing their representatives at the local level, while those representatives chose those serving at the federal level.
(Note: I was going to say something myself about the Electoral College in my earlier post. My not mentioning it did not mean I needed a reminder about it. Let's see if we can find more than 1 or 2 instances in our entire history of the USA where the Electoral College turned in a result contrary to the popular vote.)
So, back to contradictions: conservatives/libertarians talk a lot about individual rights. You should be just as concerned about possible corrupt practices under the old system, because it still leads to you having to put up with the senator working at the national level, as your fellow person your worried won't make good decisions ... because their reasons for voting for someone could be due to "demagoguery," "popularity" and fickle things.
As you, or some link I found, stated, it was to balance "the power of the people" and "the power of the state." Since you're so worried about the "state" (federal government) intruding into your life too much, do you think the federal government now or ever did need protecting from the people? if you do, well, aren't you offended that you're lumped in as one of those "people" the federal government needs protecting from your "power"? You believe you make good choices, don't you? Is it a matter of worrying that your fellow citizens might not be as smart, or wise, and that it is them that will tip the balance? But, if we were to go back to old system, a right you were granted with the 17th Amendment, just so the 90 pound weakling at the beach of a federal government could be protected from the "power of the people" and you could be protected from the "power of your fellow citizen to make bad choices or ones you disagree with," you're in a vicious circle. You want the federal government to intrude into all facets of our life less, and yet you'd cede control over something you now have a say in back to the politicians.
What say you, folks? Real contradiction?

You have every right to not be gay. You have a right to not be (insert ethnicity/religion/political affiliation of choice) if you do not wish to be.

You do not have a right to tell others not to be (copy from previous insert)

Amen

---

Do I have the right to tell others that they can't join a cult (or for that matter a "religion" ) that espouses the overthrow of the Government. Do I have the right to outlaw a cult that enforces the degradation and subjugation of women to sexually-distorted notions left over from Harem days.

Can I outlaw a religion if it fraudulently promises rewards in exchange for fealty and tithing. Promises such as life everlasting and the rewards of heaven. Or, a religion that has as it's ultimate secret (that we pay to find out) that we were visited by aliens.

Can I outlaw a religion that advocates conversion or death for non-believers.

So what is a cult and what is a religion? What is fraud and what is feel-good nonsense?

Ku Klux Klan
Branch Davidians
minutemen
All Religions ??

Do I have the right to tell others that they can't join a cult (or for that matter a "religion" ) that espouses the overthrow of the Government. Do I have the right to outlaw a cult that enforces the degradation and subjugation of women to sexually-distorted notions left over from Harem days.

Can I outlaw a religion if it fraudulently promises rewards in exchange for fealty and tithing. Promises such as life everlasting and the rewards of heaven. Or, a religion that has as it's ultimate secret (that we pay to find out) that we were visited by aliens.

Can I outlaw a religion that advocates conversion or death for non-believers.

So what is a cult and what is a religion? What is fraud and what is feel-good nonsense?

Ku Klux Klan
Branch Davidians
minutemen
All Religions ??

You make a lot of great posts, but how does this have to with the topic?
Please don't let vehement anti-religiosity send you into an evangelizing tirade trying to convert folks to atheism, k-o? It has little to nothing to do with this thread.

Sorry, I thought that I was responding to the the previous post. And the topics in the news about banning certain religious icons in France and Switzerland.

next time i will check deeper into the starting posts, and I too like to stay on the topic.

I suppose Glenn Beck vs MLK is not necessarily dealing with religion.

je me excuse

Sorry, I thought that I was responding to the the previous post. And the topics in the news about banning certain religious icons in France and Switzerland.

next time i will check deeper into the starting posts, and I too like to stay on the topic.

I suppose Glenn Beck vs MLK is not necessarily dealing with religion.

je me excuse

S'ok. It's just that Frank said something about majority and democracy, which Soft answered, eventually, with "You have every right to not be gay. You have a right to not be (insert ethnicity/religion/political affiliation of choice) if you do not wish to be. You do not have a right to tell others not to be (copy from previous insert)" (http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=61285&nowrap=true#1035374).
Soft was just, I think, talking about the balance between minority and plurality (not necessarily majority). He only addressed religion tangentially.

Let's talk about Glenn, baby. Let's talk about you ... and ... me. Let's talk about ... some plans ... about marr... y...ing a member ... of ... the Tea Party. Let's talk about it.

might as well talk about the Neoconservative talking points that Beck etal. use to lie to America. Heck, I watched about 15 minutes of the Odonnell debate from Deleware and I saw how she couldn't think once she got off message. These people are a sham. Much like the TACS test here in Texas. You can teach the kids the test but beyond that they are lost.

When questioned on where she got her numbers she was a deer in the headlights

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

might as well talk about the Neoconservative talking points that Beck etal. use to lie to America. Heck, I watched about 15 minutes of the Odonnell debate from Deleware and I saw how she couldn't think once she got off message. These people are a sham. Much like the TACS test here in Texas. You can teach the kids the test but beyond that they are lost.

When questioned on where she got her numbers she was a deer in the headlights

Have a video link to that 15 mins. of debate and the deer in the headlights look for that question?

Her response was a less than eloquent or quick, "I'll have the information on my website tomorrow." well you were spouting numbers today. Numbers that you made clear you don't understand or know where they came from. So much for just reading the script. Perhaps a politician would think it prudent to actually understand what one is taking about

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Her response was a less than eloquent or quick, "I'll have the information on my website tomorrow." well you were spouting numbers today. Numbers that you made clear you don't understand or know where they came from. So much for just reading the script. Perhaps a politician would think it prudent to actually understand what one is taking about

Maybe I was not listening closely enough, but I thought was an answer to name a S. Court ruling in the last 5 years she disagreed with ... ?