Want to change the government?

[Dr Kynes]

And another thing, as has been learned in California, there is art, science, and experience necessary for one to well govern in today's society. Horseshit California had a part time legislature up till the 70's. when they became full time lawmakers thats when they started really fucking shit up.

Term limits do several things, they deprive the citizens of their right and proper choice to have anyone they so chose in office, they in effect, actually limit rights. Horseshit. California dopesnt need the "right" to keep shits like willie brown and jerry brown (no relation besides their lefty politics) in the halls of power for decades, nor do we need the "right" to fund their grad lifestyle as they engage in corruption (willie) and incompetence (jerry).


They cause an even quicker sort of turnstyle between public and private, so those in power for a while in the public sector simply enjoy more power in the private, even more quickly than they do now. Horseshit. when the trash starts to stink, you TAKE IT OUT, this does not preclude more trash stinking later, but frequent disposal reduces the stench.


And finally, it takes a number of years for officials to get proficient in the process. Term limits ensure that everyone is always inexperienced in their jobs. Same Horshit as stanza one. is this the chorus? if so, it's one lame hook. even Doctor Dre cant fix this wack ass bullshit, no matter how Phat the Beats may be.

tired old refrain, lame beat, poorly executed, and i cant dance to it. i give it 2 stars Casey Casem.

 

[Dr Kynes]

as a side note - see that little alternative to the oath? affirmation? througout the consitution, it gives that same option - oath or affirmation. It can't be any clearer than that, that the Constitution is totaly and completely religious neutral. Oath is religious, affirmation is not - your choice. Consider also that given that (not necessarily true, but fine), the founders were all Christian, the very fact that they put that option in the Constitution demonstrates how they put their religions away before they started in writing this thing.

affirmation was included because some christian denominations do not permit the swearing of oaths.

 

[canndo]

affirmation was included because some christian denominations do not permit the swearing of oaths.

Which? furthermore there happens to be a phrase forbidding religious tests.

 

[canndo]

tired old refrain, lame beat, poorly executed, and i cant dance to it. i give it 2 stars Casey Casem.

So what we have here is, governemnt deciding what is best for people, in this case it would be government deciding that it is best if this man or that woman never be able to run for the same office again.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Which? furthermore there happens to be a phrase forbidding religious tests.

just off the top of my head:

quakers
menonnites
amish

im sure there are more but i dont feel like looking them up.

heres some examples though:

The 1780 Constitution of the state of Massachusetts, for example, provided that: when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the words "swear" and inserting, instead thereof, the word "affirm," and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words, "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury."

Conversely, the 1776 Delaware and 1777 Vermont constitutions did not restrict affirmations to Quakers. Like the Federal Constitution, these states allowed any citizen otherwise qualified for public office to affirm loyalty to a state, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath. Still, the federal Constitution went far beyond the practices of even these states by prohibiting religious tests for public office


Joseph Story, an early Justice of the Supreme Court and the author of the first detailed commentary on the United States Constitution, comments on the oath or affirmation clause of the Constitution as follows:
Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those who feel a deep sense of accountability to a Supreme being. If, in the ordinary administration of justice in cases of private rights, or personal claims, oaths are required of those, who try, as well as of those, who give testimony, to guard against malice, falsehood, and evasion, surely like guards ought to be to be interposed in the administration of high public trusts, and especially in such, as may concern the welfare and safety of the whole community. But there are know denominations of men, who are conscientiously scrupulous of taking oaths (among which is that pure and distinguished sect of Christians, commonly called Friends, or Quakers,) and therefore, to prevent any unjustifiable exclusion from office, the constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made instead of an oath, and as its equivalent (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833, pp. 1838ff.).

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg11.htm

Many oaths of office contain the text “I, ________ do swear (or affirm)...” When people take such an oath, they have the option of choosing between swearing and affirming, depending on the region where they live. When someone opts to affirm rather than to swear, the oath is more properly known as an affirmation. The difference between the two may seem subtle, but to some people, it is extremely important. It also continues to be an issue in some regions of the world.

Some Christians prefer to say “I affirm” rather than “I swear” because of a section in the Book of Matthew, in which Christ is said to have specifically advised His followers against swearing. Quakers, Mennonites, and members of some other Christian sects choose to not to swear because they believe firmly in telling the truth at all times, and feel that swearing to tell the truth goes against their religious values because it suggests that they might lie at other times.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-swear-and-affirm-in-an-oath.htm

so, can we lay that tired old dog to rest for once and all?

 

[canndo]

just off the top of my head:

quakers
menonnites
amish

im sure there are more but i dont feel like looking them up.

heres some examples though:

The 1780 Constitution of the state of Massachusetts, for example, provided that: when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the words "swear" and inserting, instead thereof, the word "affirm," and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words, "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury."

Conversely, the 1776 Delaware and 1777 Vermont constitutions did not restrict affirmations to Quakers. Like the Federal Constitution, these states allowed any citizen otherwise qualified for public office to affirm loyalty to a state, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath. Still, the federal Constitution went far beyond the practices of even these states by prohibiting religious tests for public office


Joseph Story, an early Justice of the Supreme Court and the author of the first detailed commentary on the United States Constitution, comments on the oath or affirmation clause of the Constitution as follows:
Oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting men, and especially upon those who feel a deep sense of accountability to a Supreme being. If, in the ordinary administration of justice in cases of private rights, or personal claims, oaths are required of those, who try, as well as of those, who give testimony, to guard against malice, falsehood, and evasion, surely like guards ought to be to be interposed in the administration of high public trusts, and especially in such, as may concern the welfare and safety of the whole community. But there are know denominations of men, who are conscientiously scrupulous of taking oaths (among which is that pure and distinguished sect of Christians, commonly called Friends, or Quakers,) and therefore, to prevent any unjustifiable exclusion from office, the constitution has permitted a solemn affirmation to be made instead of an oath, and as its equivalent (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833, pp. 1838ff.).

http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg11.htm

Many oaths of office contain the text “I, ________ do swear (or affirm)...” When people take such an oath, they have the option of choosing between swearing and affirming, depending on the region where they live. When someone opts to affirm rather than to swear, the oath is more properly known as an affirmation. The difference between the two may seem subtle, but to some people, it is extremely important. It also continues to be an issue in some regions of the world.

Some Christians prefer to say “I affirm” rather than “I swear” because of a section in the Book of Matthew, in which Christ is said to have specifically advised His followers against swearing. Quakers, Mennonites, and members of some other Christian sects choose to not to swear because they believe firmly in telling the truth at all times, and feel that swearing to tell the truth goes against their religious values because it suggests that they might lie at other times.
http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-difference-between-swear-and-affirm-in-an-oath.htm

so, can we lay that tired old dog to rest for once and all?

No, we cannot. there is no description of why one would have such an option when it would be as easy to simply leave out the oath part.

 

[Dr Kynes]

So what we have here is, governemnt deciding what is best for people, in this case it would be government deciding that it is best if this man or that woman never be able to run for the same office again.

incumbency is the greatest advantage anyone can have in any office, it even beats money or a hot wife.

too often incumbency (and the franking privileDges, free press and constant media exposure that comes with it) is the gateway to a lifetime in office, even if the person is completely unqualified (Sheila Jackson Lee) clinically retarded (Joe Biden) or a murderer (Ted Kennedy, Gary Condit, Richard J Daley, Big Tim Sullivan, etc etc etc)

reducing the maximum ammount of time any one jackass can get on the public teat is PURE BENEFIT no matter how angry it makes you when featherbedding lefties get bounced out of their office (in california it simply lets the new featherbedding lefties take a turn at the tit) or how bad it makes you when sad sack lefty washouts like Jimmy Carter have to waste their awesome talents doing charity work because nobody will hire them with.

 

[Dr Kynes]

No, we cannot. there is no description of why one would have such an option when it would be as easy to simply leave out the oath part.

read the Joseph Story quote above numbnuts.

he laid out the reason for oaths (or affirmations) and why the affirmation option is available for those who (like me) are prohibited from making oaths to anyone but their gods.

 

[canndo]

incumbency is the greatest advantage anyone can have in any office, it even beats money or a hot wife.

too often incumbency (and the franking privileDges, free press and constant media exposure that comes with it) is the gateway to a lifetime in office, even if the person is completely unqualified (Sheila Jackson Lee) clinically retarded (Joe Biden) or a murderer (Ted Kennedy, Gary Condit, Richard J Daley, Big Tim Sullivan, etc etc etc)

reducing the maximum ammount of time any one jackass can get on the public teat is PURE BENEFIT no matter how angry it makes you when featherbedding lefties get bounced out of their office (in california it simply lets the new featherbedding lefties take a turn at the tit) or how bad it makes you when sad sack lefty washouts like Jimmy Carter have to waste their awesome talents doing charity work because nobody will hire them with.

I wil admit incumbancy is a distinct benefit. But so is gerimandering, which will pretty much insure that another of like mind, but inexperience will take the place of the first. On the one hand so many complain of the inexperience of a candidate, on the other they want to have them all be inexperienced. We see what inexperience brings us, looking at all of the new tea party representatives.

Now, I really can't ague much about this because I was taking a position. I would sooner endure the shortfalls of term limits than I would the hazards of permanent idiocracy that our current system breeds.

 

[canndo]

read the Joseph Story quote above numbnuts.

he laid out the reason for oaths (or affirmations) and why the affirmation option is available for those who (like me) are prohibited from making oaths to anyone but their gods.

Then you do believe that the Constitution contains religious elements and IS a "christian" document?

 

[Dr Kynes]

I wil admit incumbancy is a distinct benefit. But so is gerimandering, which will pretty much insure that another of like mind, but inexperience will take the place of the first. On the one hand so many complain of the inexperience of a candidate, on the other they want to have them all be inexperienced. We see what inexperience brings us, looking at all of the new tea party representatives.

Now, I really can't ague much about this because I was taking a position. I would sooner endure the shortfalls of term limits than I would the hazards of permanent idiocracy that our current system breeds.

California was so viciously Gerrymandered (by democrats exclusively) for 180 years that the people stepped in and demanded districts be created by a public non-partisan commission under the supervision of the courts.

through history republicans and conservatives have been the least gerrymandering group, while democrats and lefties have done it as a matter of course.

your venom for the "tea party" is misplaced. they may be tone deaf, rancorous and impolitic, but thats what the country needs not more mealy mouthed liars who say what they think will get them elected and then do as they please.

having a truely free unbiased press would be a help, but thats out of the question, for the press we have only right wing liars and left wing liars digging their way through the same pile of horseshit from opposite sides, but it's all the same CRAP.

 

[canndo]

Rancor? oh, you mean my pointing out that a handful of obstinant ideologs held he counry hostage?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Then you do believe that the Constitution contains religious elements and IS a "christian" document?

it IS a document written by christians (of which i am not one) so it naturally contains their belief system, but they did a great job of making it balanced and not creating a theocracy, however for the last 100 years or so it has been turned into a theocracy of political correctness and special favours for various interest groups which turns the whole document into so much worthless paper.

it's no longer the framework for a republic, but rather, the last ragged shit ticket in a public toilet.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Rancor? oh, you mean my pointing out that a handful of obstinant ideologs held he counry hostage?

better it be ideologues than idea-free meatpuppets reading from a teleprompter.

you can change an idea, but meatpuppets are puppets forever.

 

[canndo]

better it be ideologues than idea-free meatpuppets reading from a teleprompter.

you can change an idea, but meatpuppets are puppets forever.

I'm going to have to weigh that actually. When was the last time the meatpuppet caucus shut down government?

 

[canndo]

it IS a document written by christians (of which i am not one) so it naturally contains their belief system, but they did a great job of making it balanced and not creating a theocracy, however for the last 100 years or so it has been turned into a theocracy of political correctness and special favours for various interest groups which turns the whole document into so much worthless paper.

it's no longer the framework for a republic, but rather, the last ragged shit ticket in a public toilet.

Ok well damned (again) if I can ague with that assessment.


Damn.


(but.... I am too optomistic to accept that rather graphic final comment)

 

[Dr Kynes]

Ok well damned (again) if I can ague with that assessment.


Damn.


(but.... I am too optomistic to accept that rather graphic final comment)

it may be broken down, rusty and the trunk may smell like cat pee, but in a good shop it can be restored to factory original condition. even a few minor improvements (power brakes, power steering, air conditioning, but NO SEATBELTS!) can be added, but the current dipshits would turn our classic '76 Plymouth Constitution into a fucked up shitty lowrider with a deafening stereo, 3 game consoles and a purple faux-fur dashboard before we can stop the heresy.

 

[see4]

California was so viciously Gerrymandered (by democrats exclusively) for 180 years that the people stepped in and demanded districts be created by a public non-partisan commission under the supervision of the courts.

through history republicans and conservatives have been the least gerrymandering group, while democrats and lefties have done it as a matter of course.

your venom for the "tea party" is misplaced. they may be tone deaf, rancorous and impolitic, but thats what the country needs not more mealy mouthed liars who say what they think will get them elected and then do as they please.

having a truely free unbiased press would be a help, but thats out of the question, for the press we have only right wing liars and left wing liars digging their way through the same pile of horseshit from opposite sides, but it's all the same CRAP.

I'd like to point out, that Democrats of yesteryear are the quintessential Republican of today.

 

[ginwilly]

I'm going to have to weigh that actually. When was the last time the meatpuppet caucus shut down government?

What is "When they refused to delay the individual mandate even though they themselves wanted to".

Tell him what he wins Alex!

 

[ChesusRice]

What is "When they refused to delay the individual mandate even though they themselves wanted to".

Tell him what he wins Alex!

NO mandate
No compulsion to buy insurance
No compulsion to buy Insurance
No way to fund Obamacare

Yep looks like the Republicans are trying to sabotage the law before people end up liking it to me