If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Archives)   Happy 225th Birthday, U.S. Constitution. We understand it's been a bit of a rocky road over the past two centuries, and sometime you feel more like toilet paper than the guiding principles of a grand republic, but we still like you   (archives.gov) divider line 121
    More: Spiffy, U.S. Constitution, Articles of Confederation, closed sessions, state legislators, principles, celebrations  
•       •       •

2213 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2012 at 10:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 08:13:11 AM
Or as I like to call it, Democracy 1.0 Release 27


Its a shame most of the democracies of the world are currently using Democracy 3.0 and above, while we've kept patching our old outdated version, which is supported in only a handful of countries now.
 
2012-09-17 08:18:22 AM
Well, GD, they did remove those pesky first and fourth amendment features. USA TSA USA!
 
2012-09-17 08:21:17 AM

Generation_D: Or as I like to call it, Democracy 1.0 Release 27


Its a shame most of the democracies of the world are currently using Democracy 3.0 and above, while we've kept patching our old outdated version, which is supported in only a handful of countries now.


Yeah, that first Amendment is really rusty. What on earth are you going on about?
 
2012-09-17 08:23:56 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-17 08:34:32 AM

Generation_D: Or as I like to call it, Democracy 1.0 Release 27


Its a shame most of the democracies of the world are currently using Democracy 3.0 and above, while we've kept patching our old outdated version, which is supported in only a handful of countries now.


Oh sure. We could ditch Democracy 1.0. But who are we going to get to code our new Democracy? Apple? They'd release a new version every two years that's almost exactly the same as the last Democracy.
 
2012-09-17 08:41:02 AM

ginandbacon: Generation_D: Or as I like to call it, Democracy 1.0 Release 27


Its a shame most of the democracies of the world are currently using Democracy 3.0 and above, while we've kept patching our old outdated version, which is supported in only a handful of countries now.

Yeah, that first Amendment is really rusty. What on earth are you going on about?


The fact every other major democracy has a parliamentary system and multiple parties, instead of a winner-take-all system with an electoral college. We still give more votes to land than we do to people, proportionally speaking. Biases like that are a big reason why we say so locked into conservative rule, with less than half our citizenry even voting.

We're still set up to govern a country full of small farmers and ranchers. People in cities proportionally get nowhere near the representation as rural residents get. Its by design. But its at least 100 years out of date.
 
2012-09-17 09:23:50 AM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-17 10:08:07 AM
Garth of Izar was an awesome captain.

Shame he went insane.
 
2012-09-17 10:30:34 AM

Generation_D: The fact every other major democracy has a parliamentary system and multiple parties, instead of a winner-take-all system with an electoral college. We still give more votes to land than we do to people, proportionally speaking. Biases like that are a big reason why we say so locked into conservative rule, with less than half our citizenry even voting.

We're still set up to govern a country full of small farmers and ranchers. People in cities proportionally get nowhere near the representation as rural residents get. Its by design. But its at least 100 years out of date.



Winner take all?  Not even sure what you mean here.  What winner?  The President?  He/She doesn't take all... we still vote on two houses of congress, which are often controlled by a party of which the President is not a member of.
 
The electoral college argument is moot.  Only once in recent history has a president lost while having more votes than his opponent(s).  Maybe I can agree with going with a pure popular vote for president, but its so rare of an issue I really don't think much of it.
 
2012-09-17 10:39:49 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 258x320]


Is that Shelby Steele?
 
2012-09-17 10:54:11 AM

downstairs: Generation_D: The fact every other major democracy has a parliamentary system and multiple parties, instead of a winner-take-all system with an electoral college. We still give more votes to land than we do to people, proportionally speaking. Biases like that are a big reason why we say so locked into conservative rule, with less than half our citizenry even voting.

We're still set up to govern a country full of small farmers and ranchers. People in cities proportionally get nowhere near the representation as rural residents get. Its by design. But its at least 100 years out of date.


Winner take all?  Not even sure what you mean here.  What winner?  The President?  He/She doesn't take all... we still vote on two houses of congress, which are often controlled by a party of which the President is not a member of.
 
The electoral college argument is moot.  Only once in recent history has a president lost while having more votes than his opponent(s).  Maybe I can agree with going with a pure popular vote for president, but its so rare of an issue I really don't think much of it.


heh with the current state of affairs it's more like winner take none and loser take none.
 
2012-09-17 10:54:17 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 258x320]


i865.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 10:55:11 AM
Gladly swore to protect and defend from all enemies foreign and domestic.
 
2012-09-17 10:57:02 AM

ginandbacon: Generation_D: Or as I like to call it, Democracy 1.0 Release 27


Its a shame most of the democracies of the world are currently using Democracy 3.0 and above, while we've kept patching our old outdated version, which is supported in only a handful of countries now.

Yeah, that first Amendment is really rusty. What on earth are you going on about?


The American government is arguably the oldest in the world. No other country has had fundamentally the same government for longer than we have. You can argue for England, but the monarchy has little to no power, particularly when compared to it's power in 1787. I don't consider that to be the same government when the power structure is radically different. Every other single country has had a massive upheaval of one form or another since then.

Traditionally, the oldest government is NOT the best working. It's an out of date system slowly bringing the country down. We can see examples of that today everywhere, particularly in the utter inability for Congress to do anything.
 
2012-09-17 10:59:55 AM

GAT_00: The American government is arguably the oldest in the world. No other country has had fundamentally the same government for longer than we have. You can argue for England, but the monarchy has little to no power, particularly when compared to it's power in 1787.


I would argue the current UK government dates back to the Glorious Revolution; its changes since then have been evolutionary not revolutionary, so they probably have us beat.
 
2012-09-17 10:59:59 AM
Neocon view of the Constitution after 1-20-09: "We must adhere to this greatest of documents ever written, as our Lord gave his divine truth to the Founding FathersTM to make America the greatest nation that Jesus Christ ever set foot on..."

Neocon view of the Constitution prior to 1-20-09: "It's just a god damned piece of paper."
 
2012-09-17 11:00:28 AM

Generation_D: Biases like that are a big reason why we say so locked into conservative rule


Yeah. Four disastrous years of Obama and Biden. That's some serious conservative rule, there.
 
2012-09-17 11:02:28 AM

GAT_00: Traditionally, the oldest government is NOT the best working. It's an out of date system slowly bringing the country down. We can see examples of that today everywhere, particularly in the utter inability for Congress to do anything.


And I suspect it will take another revolution to modify it. The well entrenched have their own interests at heart and won't be easily persuaded to change anything. The system works very well for a select few.
 
2012-09-17 11:02:39 AM

Maud Dib: antidisestablishmentarianism: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 258x320]

[i865.photobucket.com image 550x441]


Epic use of Neil DeGrasse Tyson is epic.
 
2012-09-17 11:02:48 AM
I'd die to defend what I imagine it to be.
 
2012-09-17 11:04:03 AM
i208.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 11:04:09 AM

BitwiseShift: Gladly swore to protect and defend from all enemies foreign and domestic.


Which is why I can't fly. Some one would go to prison and someone else would end up in a hospital. For what? For defending the constitution? No one would bail me out because this nation of pussies doesn't care.
So I don't fly.

And my company HQ knows this.
Fark them if they have no integrity.
 
2012-09-17 11:05:02 AM
Is that the document that starts off "We the people", but socialism is bad?
 
2012-09-17 11:05:25 AM

BitwiseShift: Gladly swore to protect and defend from all enemies foreign and domestic.


Have you seen them lately? Cause I haven't.
 
2012-09-17 11:05:30 AM

DamnYankees: GAT_00: The American government is arguably the oldest in the world. No other country has had fundamentally the same government for longer than we have. You can argue for England, but the monarchy has little to no power, particularly when compared to it's power in 1787.

I would argue the current UK government dates back to the Glorious Revolution; its changes since then have been evolutionary not revolutionary, so they probably have us beat.


That's the counter argument, of course, but the power structure in the UK from the Glorious Revolution to now is fundamentally different. The power has completely changed hands.

That isn't the case here.

mytdawg: GAT_00: Traditionally, the oldest government is NOT the best working. It's an out of date system slowly bringing the country down. We can see examples of that today everywhere, particularly in the utter inability for Congress to do anything.

And I suspect it will take another revolution to modify it. The well entrenched have their own interests at heart and won't be easily persuaded to change anything. The system works very well for a select few.


I'd like to think that isn't so, and I don't really want a revolution because I have no idea what we'd look like on the other side of it right now.
 
2012-09-17 11:06:04 AM
We, who's we? The constitution is a fat load.
 
2012-09-17 11:07:35 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Is that the document that starts off "We the people", but socialism is bad?


And three-fifths. Don't forget about three-fifths. When the Republican Congress of '10 created a bunch of jobs by reading the Constitution out loud, the Tea Party members asked for encores when the three-fifths part was read.
 
2012-09-17 11:07:49 AM

downstairs: Winner take all? Not even sure what you mean here. What winner? The President? He/She doesn't take all... we still vote on two houses of congress, which are often controlled by a party of which the President is not a member of.


Winner takes one third of the federal government, and then winner gets to pick people for another third. Still a valid criticism, especially when comparing it to the parliamentary system, where your vote isn't necessarily wasted just because your guy didn't come in first.

The electoral college argument is moot. Only once in recent history has a president lost while having more votes than his opponent(s). Maybe I can agree with going with a pure popular vote for president, but its so rare of an issue I really don't think much of it

That's not the only thing the electoral college effects. A very large number of people in places like Massachusetts and Texas and California don't vote because only the swing states matter, so it's hard to outright say that 2000 is the only recent election affected by this system. Also, based on our current system, your vote might be worth less just because of where you live.
 
2012-09-17 11:09:21 AM
I have a copy of it over my visor in my car.
 
2012-09-17 11:09:48 AM

GAT_00: ginandbacon: Generation_D: Or as I like to call it, Democracy 1.0 Release 27


Its a shame most of the democracies of the world are currently using Democracy 3.0 and above, while we've kept patching our old outdated version, which is supported in only a handful of countries now.

Yeah, that first Amendment is really rusty. What on earth are you going on about?

The American government is arguably the oldest in the world. No other country has had fundamentally the same government for longer than we have. You can argue for England, but the monarchy has little to no power, particularly when compared to it's power in 1787. I don't consider that to be the same government when the power structure is radically different. Every other single country has had a massive upheaval of one form or another since then.

Traditionally, the oldest government is NOT the best working. It's an out of date system slowly bringing the country down. We can see examples of that today everywhere, particularly in the utter inability for Congress to do anything.


You do realize that the founders of this country specifically wanted it to be hard for Congress to do anything? The 10th amendment was an example of this. Limiting the powers of the Federal government. Things really started to change, for the worse in my opinion, when the 17th was passed. Removing the state's voices from the government, and putting it all in the people's hands, instead of balancing it between the two, was one of the biggest mistakes made. It opened both sides of Congress to influence by special interests, and pretty much lead us to where we are today.
 
2012-09-17 11:12:07 AM

tgambitg: You do realize that the founders of this country specifically wanted it to be hard for Congress to do anything? The 10th amendment was an example of this. Limiting the powers of the Federal government. Things really started to change, for the worse in my opinion, when the 17th was passed. Removing the state's voices from the government, and putting it all in the people's hands, instead of balancing it between the two, was one of the biggest mistakes made. It opened both sides of Congress to influence by special interests, and pretty much lead us to where we are today.


Ah yes, a Tenther. Longing for the days of the Articles of Confederation, not realizing that their little power-weak paradise totally failed.
 
2012-09-17 11:16:25 AM
GAT_00 Smartest
Funniest
2012-09-17 11:12:07 AM


tgambitg: You do realize that the founders of this country specifically wanted it to be hard for Congress to do anything? The 10th amendment was an example of this. Limiting the powers of the Federal government. Things really started to change, for the worse in my opinion, when the 17th was passed. Removing the state's voices from the government, and putting it all in the people's hands, instead of balancing it between the two, was one of the biggest mistakes made. It opened both sides of Congress to influence by special interests, and pretty much lead us to where we are today.

Ah yes, a Tenther. Longing for the days of the Articles of Confederation, not realizing that their little power-weak paradise totally failed.


Swing!...and a miss.
 
2012-09-17 11:18:08 AM

GAT_00: tgambitg: You do realize that the founders of this country specifically wanted it to be hard for Congress to do anything? The 10th amendment was an example of this. Limiting the powers of the Federal government. Things really started to change, for the worse in my opinion, when the 17th was passed. Removing the state's voices from the government, and putting it all in the people's hands, instead of balancing it between the two, was one of the biggest mistakes made. It opened both sides of Congress to influence by special interests, and pretty much lead us to where we are today.

Ah yes, a Tenther. Longing for the days of the Articles of Confederation, not realizing that their little power-weak paradise totally failed.


As opposed to all the successful, long-lasting societies we see around us? There is no utopia on Earth, because you can't take the human nature out of the human.
 
2012-09-17 11:18:08 AM

downstairs: Only once in recent history has a president lost while having more votes than his opponent(s)


This has happened three times.
 
2012-09-17 11:18:29 AM

Quantum Apostrophe: Is that the document that starts off "We the people", but socialism is bad?


Yes. And if you think people coming together to form a government is socialism you are wrong.
 
2012-09-17 11:18:38 AM

GAT_00: That's the counter argument, of course, but the power structure in the UK from the Glorious Revolution to now is fundamentally different. The power has completely changed hands.

That isn't the case here.


I'm not so sure about that. 300 years from now, they might teach American history saying "At its foundation, the United States was a government founded on legislative action and collective agreement; by the turn of the millenium, it's transformation into a fundamentally unitary government under the hand of an elected monarch, albeit still checked by an elected congress, was established."

Not saying we're there, of course - just that things are much more obvious in hindsight than when you're living through it.
 
2012-09-17 11:18:44 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 258x320]


This

In spades
 
2012-09-17 11:19:26 AM

tgambitg: You do realize that the founders of this country specifically wanted it to be hard for Congress to do anything? The 10th amendment was an example of this.


No. Sorry, i hear this too much from derpistan that i cannot help but launch. The Tenth amendment was to clarify the inherent structure of the Constitution. It exists because the framers were afraid that mouth-breathers would not understand that Congress' enumerated powers were all it could do, so they wrote a rule specifically saying so.

Its as if you wrote a list of foods the babysitter could eat from the fridge like so:

Pizza
Coke
Celery Sticks
Leftover Chinese


and got worried the sitter could somehow misconstrue the list as non-exclusive, so wrote at the end:

Any other foods not listed on the above list are not for you to eat and are reserved for me.

This is why the 10th is not really used by actual courts, its slightly to the left of being a redundant clarification. The limitations of power you are discussing were in there from the start.
 
2012-09-17 11:21:02 AM
Everyone who thinks that the current administration is worse, constitutionally, than any previous administration, is simply and inarguably too stupid to be allowed to live, much less vote.

PS: All tea partiers and strict constitutionalists are cowardly little biatches.
 
2012-09-17 11:21:56 AM

DamnYankees: GAT_00: That's the counter argument, of course, but the power structure in the UK from the Glorious Revolution to now is fundamentally different. The power has completely changed hands.

That isn't the case here.

I'm not so sure about that. 300 years from now, they might teach American history saying "At its foundation, the United States was a government founded on legislative action and collective agreement; by the turn of the millenium, it's transformation into a fundamentally unitary government under the hand of an elected monarch, albeit still checked by an elected congress, was established."

Not saying we're there, of course - just that things are much more obvious in hindsight than when you're living through it.


While Congress is weaker, it still has most of it's power - it just doesn't know how to use it. The monarchy has been completely stripped of all real power.
 
2012-09-17 11:22:13 AM

BitwiseShift: Gladly swore to protect and defend from all enemies foreign and domestic.


Not much luck with those domestic ones, eh? Or the foreign ones.

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-09-17 11:23:15 AM
By request...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-17 11:24:34 AM

GAT_00: While Congress is weaker, it still has most of it's power - it just doesn't know how to use it. The monarchy has been completely stripped of all real power.


Yes, but that was true a very, very long time ago. The UK's monarch has not vetoed a bill in over 300 years.
 
2012-09-17 11:24:39 AM

GAT_00: The American government is arguably the oldest in the world. No other country has had fundamentally the same government for longer than we have. You can argue for England, but the monarchy has little to no power, particularly when compared to it's power in 1787. I don't consider that to be the same government when the power structure is radically different. Every other single country has had a massive upheaval of one form or another since then.

Traditionally, the oldest government is NOT the best working. It's an out of date system slowly bringing the country down. We can see examples of that today everywhere, particularly in the utter inability for Congress to do anything.



Might make for some good discussion. What would you say are the differences between Democracy 1.0 and Democracy 3.0? Name specifics, and their advantages.
 
2012-09-17 11:24:57 AM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: I have a copy of it over my visor in my car.


I have no comment on what you said, I just want to hear about more about your surprising adventures. 

/Mitchell and Webb = awesome
//Peep Show = awesome x2
 
2012-09-17 11:26:02 AM

cubic_spleen: Everyone who thinks that the current administration is worse, constitutionally, than any previous administration, is simply and inarguably too stupid to be allowed to live, much less vote.

PS: All tea partiers and strict constitutionalists are cowardly little biatches.


Obama has absolutely violated the constitution more than at least a few previous administrations. At the bare minimum, there's that guy who died after one month.
 
2012-09-17 11:27:10 AM

Maud Dib: antidisestablishmentarianism: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 258x320]

[i865.photobucket.com image 550x441]


Ryan Gosling will save the Republic and our hearts.
 
2012-09-17 11:27:37 AM

antidisestablishmentarianism: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 258x320]


2.bp.blogspot.com
NOOOO! NOT THE LONG-FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE!
 
2012-09-17 11:28:33 AM

Maud Dib: antidisestablishmentarianism: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 258x320]

[i865.photobucket.com image 550x441]


Is that Neil deGrasse Tyson behind him looking upset?

theboobox.net
 
2012-09-17 11:28:33 AM

cubic_spleen: Everyone who thinks that the current administration is worse, constitutionally, than any previous administration, is simply and inarguably too stupid to be allowed to live, much less vote.

PS: All tea partiers and strict constitutionalists are cowardly little biatches.


Says the guy commenting on an Internet discussion board...
 
Displayed 50 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report