Between Barack and a Hard Place: Ultimate US Elections 2012 Thread

[Nick Soapdish]

The US was designed that a majority of the power would be in the hands of the States that is a founding principle and was considered the Norm until after FDR came into office. That has been slowly changed, not by changing the Constitution but by simply ignoring the parts of the Constitution that The People in DC don't like

The big change between the states and feds happened under Lincoln.

The Constitution isn't being changed; it's being reinterpreted. You may consider that to be sophistry, but I think that the Founding Fathers were deliberate in allowing some flexibility. After all, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison were all flexible in their own interpretations of the Constitution, depending on their own political positions at the time and what was facing the nation.

[dupersuper]

I don't know those people, but I do know those who have figured out that taking the minimum wage job would actually end up decreasing their actual income, after taxes.

Boy: minimum wage is a joke...

[Jim Thompson]

Boy: minimum wage is a joke...

I'd say it's a well intentioned idea, but that strong unions are a better way of approaching the challenge.

[Jim Thompson]

The big change between the states and feds happened under Lincoln.

The Constitution isn't being changed; it's being reinterpreted. You may consider that to be sophistry, but I think that the Founding Fathers were deliberate in allowing some flexibility. After all, Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison were all flexible in their own interpretations of the Constitution, depending on their own political positions at the time and what was facing the nation.

I agree, the founders created a flexible document, but Mike isn't incorrect in pointing out federal level politicians increasingly ignore what is in the Constitution, and have been doing so at an increasing rate over the past seven or eight decades (though you're correct, great change happened with Lincoln).

[Jim Thompson]

better than tyranny by upper class.

How so?

[Jim Thompson]

And thus government becomes tyranny by majority.

I once heard someone say we'll be better off as a society when we collective realize Robin Hood was a thief.

[Winslow]

I once heard someone say we'll be better off as a society when we collective realize Robin Hood was a thief.

I think everyone already knows that.

But if the someone was insinuating we should view him as a "bad guy", then that someone is out of touch with a common archetype of economic social justice.

[Jim Thompson]

I think everyone already knows that.

But if the someone was insinuating we should view him as a "bad guy", then that someone is out of touch with a common archetype of economic social justice.

You think the "common" archtype is a morally justifiable one? I sometimes wonder if it's even a pragmatic one. Certainly it isn't one that follows the "teach a man to fish" model.

[the4thpip]

I wonder how Romney's chances would worsen if Paul and Santorum dropped out ASAP.

[the4thpip]

You think the "common" archtype is a morally justifiable one? I sometimes wonder if it's even a pragmatic one. Certainly it isn't one that follows the "teach a man to fish" model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlber...al_development

[Jim Thompson]

I wonder how Romney's chances would worsen if Paul and Santorum dropped out ASAP.

I actually think that might help him out a bit.

[Jim Thompson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlber...al_development

Yeah, the toughest thing I have always had with his principle are his thoughts surrounding a universal ethic, and how it relates to "justice". I think he makes some very good points for consideration, but at day's end his philosophical approach was a little too ephemeral for my tastes.

[Iangould]

I once heard someone say we'll be better off as a society when we collective realize Robin Hood was a thief.

Actually if you read the original stories, Robin of Locksley was defended the legal rights of the commoners against unconstitutional and illegal taxes imposed by an illegitimate government.

[Jim Thompson]

Actually if you read the original stories, Robin of Locksley was defended the legal rights of the commoners against unconstitutional and illegal taxes imposed by an illegitimate government.

I have read the original stories -- and I still tend to think he was a thief, though a well intentioned one.

[Jeff Brady]

I once heard someone say we'll be better off as a society when we collective realize Robin Hood was a thief.

Right, because his subtitle "Prince of Thieves" wasn't a clue.