RNC ... What a bunch of babies

phobicsquirrel

beatnic

Let's have the debates on FOX.

jadelt

perkinke

beatnic

perkinke

beatnic

perkinke:

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Constitutional Amendment" to change laws, I'm curious about that would you expand on that?

Just that it should be very difficult to write any new laws, and that they be argued fully before laws are written. How old is Roe v Wade? And its' still being argued. Patriot Act? Pushed that through a little too fast, maybe? Oh, and let's not forget ACA, we're still trying to read it to find out what's in it? All three of these issues were pushed through with the support of an emotional wing of a political movement, hell bent on winning the political game.

perkinke

beatnic:

perkinke:

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Constitutional Amendment" to change laws, I'm curious about that would you expand on that?

Just that it should be very difficult to write any new laws, and that they be argued fully before laws are written. How old is Roe v Wade? And its' still being argued. Patriot Act? Pushed that through a little too fast, maybe? Oh, and let's not forget ACA, we're still trying to read it to find out what's in it? All three of these issues were pushed through with the support of an emotional wing of a political movement, hell bent on winning the political game.

Ahhh, okay, I see what you're saying. Roe v. Wade is sort of in a class of its own, I was trying to think of another similar issue and the only one that comes to mind is pre-civil war slavery. Otherwise I agree, and things like that USED to be taken much more slowly. One of the dominant theories, at least in my professional circles, is that the rushes are due in large part to the 24-hr news cycle. legislators used to have nights and weekends to work through compromises and think things through before they reached the nightly news. Now? Not so much.

beatnic

perkinke:

beatnic:

perkinke:

I'm not sure what you mean by a "Constitutional Amendment" to change laws, I'm curious about that would you expand on that?

Just that it should be very difficult to write any new laws, and that they be argued fully before laws are written. How old is Roe v Wade? And its' still being argued. Patriot Act? Pushed that through a little too fast, maybe? Oh, and let's not forget ACA, we're still trying to read it to find out what's in it? All three of these issues were pushed through with the support of an emotional wing of a political movement, hell bent on winning the political game.

Ahhh, okay, I see what you're saying. Roe v. Wade is sort of in a class of its own, I was trying to think of another similar issue and the only one that comes to mind is pre-civil war slavery. Otherwise I agree, and things like that USED to be taken much more slowly. One of the dominant theories, at least in my professional circles, is that the rushes are due in large part to the 24-hr news cycle. legislators used to have nights and weekends to work through compromises and think things through before they reached the nightly news. Now? Not so much.

I don't think our current crop of legislators are very learned people, on either side.

perkinke

Finally, something we completely agree on.

kuzi16

Ken Light

I see what you did here. It's funny. I mean, it IS a joke, right? Because the democrats were crying over a rodeo clown? Good one.

fla-gypsy

After the biased moderators the impartial media (LOL) has fielded this is no surprise. These organizations have made it clear they are biased to begin with their dishonest reporting and debates are for the low information voter to begin with. People with a brain are able to read policy statements and make up there own minds without the need for the media to "help" them or record who got the most zingers in.

Amos Umwhat

Well, what if the network balances everything out by showing Ronald Reagan in the old "Bedtime for Bonzo" movies?

jadelt

fla-gypsy:

After the biased moderators the impartial media (LOL) has fielded this is no surprise. These organizations have made it clear they are biased to begin with their dishonest reporting and debates are for the low information voter to begin with. People with a brain are able to read policy statements and make up there own minds without the need for the media to "help" them or record who got the most zingers in.

Good thought, but there are far too many voters who dont have a clue about the issues. Got news for you, the low information voters do NOT watch CNN, FOX or MSNBC. Not enough "people with a brain"

webmost

raisindot