Skip to main content

View Diary: Ralph Nader was Right. (204 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  when the parties first form... (none)
    ..there is a grouping to push for politcal change. What the big two represent is a holding patern. The founding fathers were leary of politcal parties and rightfuly so.

    "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

    by bluestateLIBertarian on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 01:53:17 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah (none)
      "The founding fathers were leary of politcal parties and rightfuly so."

      They were real hesitant about forming them, weren't they?

      Please.

      •  please what? (none)
        They didn't count on politcal parties. Check out it out.

        "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

        by bluestateLIBertarian on Tue Dec 28, 2004 at 11:44:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have checked it out (none)
          And they formed political parties at the same time the Constitution came into effect.  Did they pay lip service to deploring them?  yes.  but what did they do?  they organized parties right out of the gate, and they had their intraparty feuds (Jefferson v. Burr, Adams v. Hamilton, etc.)

          ewe've got this image of a early america in yr head that is in no way congruent with reality.

          •  sorry (none)
            The early parties of the republic do not even come close to resembling what we have today.

            "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

            by bluestateLIBertarian on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 07:58:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  sez you (none)
              what's the difference?  they were put together to advance agendas, promote certain candidates, reward their friends, punish their enemies, etc.  the details have changed, the essential structure is the same.  they bear at least as much resemblance to today's parties as the Constitution as originally ratified bears to the much amended Constitution of today.

              try arguing a point with facts next time instead of simply stating your ill-informed opinions.

              •  much amended? (none)
                After the intial 10 amendments, the bill of rights, there have been only been 17 amendments in the last 200 years, one of those canceling an earlier amendment. And you tell me my arguments are uninformed?

                "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

                by bluestateLIBertarian on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 10:54:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  27 amendments is quite a lot (none)
                  especially when you consider 12 of them were ratified in the 20th century.

                  starting with the one that made direct popular vote for senators part of the constitution!

                  starting the 21st century w/1 doing the same for the presidency is obviously called 4.

                  •  where your direct elect argument breaks down (none)
                    First of all the bill of rights was added to the constitution before it was ratified. So we're really talking about 17.

                    The amendment allowing for the direct election of senators is consistant with states choosing them. Your call for a direct election takes away the authority given to the states.

                    "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

                    by bluestateLIBertarian on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 11:28:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yr obviously no lawyer (none)
                      and since ewe've got this obsession w/numbers, the 20th century saw 12 amendments ratified over a period of approx. 80 years.

                      that's one amendment every 6-7 years on average.

                      yr math is as bad as yr history.

                      and the whole point of an amendment is changing what's allowed under the constitution, so yr pointless "take away authority given to the states" makes no sense.  the framers meant to have it changed to suit changing times.

                      but hey, u think political parties started up in the 1830s and none of the founders would dirty their hands w/them.

                      In a democracy, the people generally get the government they deserve - tant pis.

                      by JJB on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 12:36:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My Wife Had An Errand To Run (none)
                        And asked me to post that for her.

                        In a democracy, the people generally get the government they deserve - tant pis.

                        by JJB on Wed Dec 29, 2004 at 12:37:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site