Replace the constitution :rolleyes:

[Berzerker]

Victor -

I'd like to see a constitution that leaves a lot less up for interpretation.

I see very little in the Constitution left open to interpretation, the problem is that dishonest people don't want to let the Constitution get in the way of their ideology.

MrFun -

I have this perception that libertarians want "tyranny of the majority" in the name of absolute, unbridled freedom.

That makes no sense, the majority doesn't even believe in freedom, and there are not two definitions of freedom in the dictionary with one being "absolute" freedom and another being "bridled" freedom.

A good, stable government is dynamic, one that can change over time. A stagnant government is bound to fall sooner or later.

Dynamism is stable? And the last part means we must continually lose more freedom to prevent government from falling. If that's the case, let it fall...

[Sava]

FDR is evil incarnate because he got us into WW2. He isn't evil incarnate for the New Deal, although that was no good either.

Don't you think Hitler and Imperial Japan had more to do with starting that war? And when is the time right to enter such a conflict? When they are marching troops down our streets? FDR kept your ass from speaking German, or worse, being baked alive in some oven. Show some ****ing respect.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Not really, but at the same time, I can't see Abe Lincoln passing an equal rights law for homosexuals.

He was a man of his times, and the concept of homosexuality didn't even really exist in those times. I would wager, however, that if he were a modern-day figure, he'd be quite socially progressive.

[Vesayen]

It's nice to know that only 1 out of 18 people so far, has shown himself to be utterly insane.

[Berzerker]

MrFun -

Because I believe the theory that good government can look after the interests of its citizens. You see, the presidents that I admire more than others, include:

President Lincoln

President FDR

President Johnson

Gee, the 3 presidents in charge of the 3 bloodiest wars. That's really looking out for the citizens.

[David Floyd]

Don't you think Hitler and Imperial Japan had more to do with starting that war?

Their declarations of war came after numerous US provocations. Their declarations probably were not justified, but neither were the US actions leading up to them.

And when is the time right to enter such a conflict? When they are marching troops down our streets?

Sorry, this was not a possibility in the US.

FDR kept your ass from speaking German, or worse, being baked alive in some oven. Show some ****ing respect.

No, he kept that from happening to your ass, assuming your family was in Europe/Asia at the time. This has nothing to do with me.

Boris,

I would wager, however, that if he were a modern-day figure, he'd be quite socially progressive.

Possibly, but at the same time, he was a Christian, and Christians of that time were far more fundamentalist than those today.

This is fairly irrelevant, anyway, as my original point was about political parties, not individuals, and it's certain that neither the Democratic or Republican parties, as a whole, support equal rights for homosexuals.

[Berzerker]

He was a man of his times, and the concept of homosexuality didn't even really exist in those times.

God this thread just keeps getting funnier.

[David Floyd]

Now Berz, that's not fair. WW1 was bloodier than Vietnam, and Wilson was probably as bad as LBJ

[Sava]

Gee, the 3 presidents in charge of the 3 bloodiest wars. That's really looking out for the citizens.

don't turn into Floyd now...

Lincoln was good. Preserved the union from treasonous crackers.

FDR was good, perhaps the best president.

Johnson... I'm torn on him. I honestly don't know enough about his domestic accomplishments to make an accurate rating. I give him an F on foreign policy just for Vietnam.

[David Floyd]

Lincoln was good. Preserved the union from treasonous crackers.

Who had every moral right to secede, and every Constitutional right, too. Now, you might say that slavery was wrong, and I'll agree with you. But Lincoln wasn't out to abolish slavery, he was out to preserve a Union that obviously a large number of people didn't want to be a part of anymore, and while doing that, he trampled all over the rights of both US and CS citizens.

FDR was good, perhaps the best president.

Why?

I give him an F on foreign policy just for Vietnam.

I agree with you here.

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Their declarations of war came after numerous US provocations. Their declarations probably were not justified, but neither were the US actions leading up to them.

Provocations? You mean the US taking action to limit the expansion of those dictatorial empire?

Sorry, this was not a possibility in the US.

Yeah, Japan would've stopped at Midway, right? And Hitler would have left us alone after taking Britain. US involvement was critical to all fronts in WW2. I doubt the Soviets would have been able to have such a victory without American involvement. If not an invasion... what would have happened if Germany or Japan would have gotten the bomb first?

No, he kept that from happening to your ass, assuming your family was in Europe/Asia at the time. This has nothing to do with me.

Bull****. Are you seriously this dillusional that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese wouldn't have attacked America? Brutal, evil empires prey on the weak and innocent. Either we fight tyranny that threatens us, or we become subjects of it. If you don't think the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were threats, then you are a moron.

[Odin]

Scrap it. It is vauge enogh that people twist the wording to fit thier side (the 2nd amendment for example). Things I would like in a new constitution:

It must must clearly state that seperation of church and state MUST be inforced, no "in God we trust", or "so help me God" crap should be allowed in the government, Schools must be religion free, Judeo-Christian Mythology should belong IN a mythology class, not in other classes.

NO subsidies should be allowed.

Direct presidential vote.

Campaign contributions cannot exceed $3,000 per person. Soft Money is totally banned. The max campagn $ per person is agusted every year for inflation.

Replace the original Senate with a Senate based on preportional representation, like in many European countries.

SC justices can serve no more than 10 years.

The budget MUST be approved by popular referendum in both Federal and State. Every household gets a copy of the buget 2 weeks before it is voted on.

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Who had every moral right to secede, and every Constitutional right, too. Now, you might say that slavery was wrong, and I'll agree with you. But Lincoln wasn't out to abolish slavery, he was out to preserve a Union that obviously a large number of people didn't want to be a part of anymore, and while doing that, he trampled all over the rights of both US and CS citizens.

Sorry, I believe America is one nation. There is no moral right to secede. If you don't like this country, you can leave. That's the policy. I don't blame him for conscription or suspensions of rights. Desperate times call for desperate measures. And anything that preserved the union and defeated the treasonous slave owning traitors is good.

Why?

See WW2. A little battle, I'm sure you've heard of it. His pre-war policies helped pave the way for America getting out of the Depression. I know you hate taxation and such with a passion, but without the New Deal policies; America would no doubt be a nation where robber barons exploit the huddled poor masses. And despite your silly notions on what's "fair" the country today is a better place because of those policies. Unless you prefer to live in a country with rampant unemployment, unbelievable poverty... basically... feudalism.

[David Floyd]

Sava,

Provocations? You mean the US taking action to limit the expansion of those dictatorial empire?

I mean attacking Uboats, escorting convoys, radioing Uboat positions to the Brits, giving military equipment to the Brits, placing embargos on the Japanese, etc.

Yeah, Japan would've stopped at Midway, right?

Japan probably couldn't have even invaded and held Hawaii, much less the Continental US. Don't be ridiculous.

And Hitler would have left us alone after taking Britain.

Hitler at no point had anywhere near the capability to defeat the RAF and RN, and invade England.

US involvement was critical to all fronts in WW2.

Not the defense of the UK.

I doubt the Soviets would have been able to have such a victory without American involvement.

Oh, absolutely not. But I won't feel sorry for the Soviets, one of the most brutal regimes of all time.

If not an invasion... what would have happened if Germany or Japan would have gotten the bomb first?

Japan getting the bomb?

As for Germany, the Germans were nowhere near building the bomb, or even being able to build the technology they would need to build more technology in order to build an atomic bomb. Hitler didn't care about it, and put his resources into other areas. Germany had no uranium or plutonium, and the British destroyed the last of the heavy water supplies in raids.

Bull****. Are you seriously this dillusional that the Nazis and Imperial Japanese wouldn't have attacked America? Brutal, evil empires prey on the weak and innocent. Either we fight tyranny that threatens us, or we become subjects of it. If you don't think the Nazis and Imperial Japanese were threats, then you are a moron.

They were certainly threats, just not to the United States. Neither had the capability to invade the US. To build that capability, both would have had to conquer their intended empires, and build up for decades. Of course, if the US got the atomic bomb before this point, which is virtually certain, then the game would have been up anyway.

Hell, the Germans couldn't even invade England, and the Japanese would have been hard pressed to go after India and Australia, so I fail to see your point.

[David Floyd]

There is no moral right to secede. If you don't like this country, you can leave.

That's not in accordance with the 10th Amendment, nor in accordance with the concept that the 13 Colonies predated the federal government. If nothing else, certainly any of the original 13 had the right to leave. But there is no reason that any acceptance into the US should be permanent or binding.

His pre-war policies helped pave the way for America getting out of the Depression.

Actually, his policies did little to nothing.