Fayetteville war vet to challenge Hayes [NC-8, a prime Dem target]

Well, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we, billbears?

Oh good. Wait and see. But in the meantime keep voting Republican because one day it'll change. Really it will. And people claim that those of us that don't vote for the one party with two facets are the delusional ones. We're not the ones continuing to vote for the same partisan hacks with the same outcome year after year after year thinking one day it'll change..

I say again can anyone who could pass both a lie detector and a breathalyser seriously suggest that Democrats would spend less

Not saying that at all. Just saying that it could matter less. Especially considering the origins of the Republican party and their Whig roots

By the way, unless you are willing to admit that you are advocating tax increases or letting the automatic benefit cuts "solve" the SS by stiffing future retirees, criticism of Bush's SS proposal doesn't really belong in this discussion because leaving that massive unfunded liability for future presidents to solve would be dishonorably "kicking the can down the road"

You misunderstand if you think I could care less about Social Security. It is a program that has been in place for only 70 years this very year. Shut it down. Tomorrow. That's the only 'fix'. Besides it's unconstitutional as hell. Republicans used to stand for limited government and cutting government. Now they've morphed into 'fixing' it. How grand

The Framers merely failed to foresee the development of partisan politics; you on the other hand have simply ignored the history of it. INTELLIGENT advocates of repeal of the 17th Amendment propose it as a way to make the Federal Government more responsive to the States, NOT out of some silly notion that indirect election would remove partisan politics from the equation

Wow, smarter than the Framers again. You honestly believe they failed to see partisan politics, even within a generation of the passage of the Constitution? And yet not one of them advocated anything as ridiculous as the 17th Amendment. And if you think I want the federal government more 'responsive' to the states again you misunderstand. Except for the few instances Madison outlined in Federalist #45, the federal government was not meant to be 'more responsive' to the states, it was meant to all but not exist as it relates to the internal affairs of the states.

"Oh good. Wait and see. But in the meantime keep voting Republican because one day it'll change. Really it will. And people claim that those of us that don't vote for the one party with two facets are the delusional ones. We're not the ones continuing to vote for the same partisan hacks with the same outcome year after year after year thinking one day it'll change.."

Earth to billbears: that's what PRIMARIES are for, for pushing your party of choice in whatever direction you deem necessary. In the GENERAL election you are (with VERY few exceptions) going to have only two realistic choices, and sad to have to keep telling you this, party MATTERS, especially in the legislatures. People who insist on ignoring party affiliation when voting are asking to be continually disappointed. Either they get fooled by obvious liars, or they end up electing someone who has more in common with the opposition party's leadership than with the party leadership HE VOTES FOR! (Zell Miller is a great American whose worst disservice to the country that he loves was voting for Tom Daschle after Tom obtained a lease with an option to by on Jumpin' Jim Jeffords.)

"Not saying that at all. Just saying that it could matter less. Especially considering the origins of the Republican party and their Whig roots"

Anyone presuming to draw significant insights into modern Republican Party policies by studying their Whig roots is demonstrably insane. That makes about as much sense as studying their founders' opposition to the Federalists in order to understand modern Democrats. The dirty little secret is that the main thing that BOTH political parties have in common with their founders is the NAME.

Now this is NOT, as billbears would have you believe, because party politicians are and have always been totally lacking in principles, but rather because parties change over time along with people that make them up. Thus, Republicans who began as protectionists are mostly free-traders today while Democrats have followed the opposite course. Now there IS merit to studying the history of political PRINCIPLES rather than parties as long as one realizes that what ought to matter most to voters today is not where a party was 20 years ago or where it might be 20 years from now, but rather where it is TODAY.

By the way, rooting around for modern Republican insights amongst the wreckage of the Whig Party seems particularly inapt. Frankly, in their failure to successfully transition from an anti-Jackson, anti-Democrat opposition party into one with a generally recognized set of principles they more closely resemble modern Democrats than Republicans.

"You misunderstand if you think I could care less about Social Security. It is a program that has been in place for only 70 years this very year. Shut it down. Tomorrow. That's the only 'fix'. Besides it's unconstitutional as hell. Republicans used to stand for limited government and cutting government. Now they've morphed into 'fixing' it. How grand"

So you'd prefer to let SS crash and burn, right, billbears? Leaving aside the question of whether or not such an attitude amounts to committing political suicide, RESPONSIBLE politicians are under some obligation to try and engineer a soft landing rather than just telling old people, "You f**ked up; you trusted us." Now if Democrats are determined to see the system crash and burn they can continue to filibuster Republican attempts to soften the landing, but IMHO Republicans are obligated to try, if for no other reason than to direct voter anger at the right party when the collapse comes.

"Wow, smarter than the Framers again. You honestly believe they failed to see partisan politics, even within a generation of the passage of the Constitution?"

Based on the stunned horror they expressed towards the virulent partisanship that almost tore the country apart as Federalists and Democrats went for each others throats in a way not topped until the Civil War I'd consider that a big "yes".

"And yet not one of them advocated anything as ridiculous as the 17th Amendment. And if you think I want the federal government more 'responsive' to the states again you misunderstand. Except for the few instances Madison outlined in Federalist #45, the federal government was not meant to be 'more responsive' to the states, it was meant to all but not exist as it relates to the internal affairs of the states."

Wow, even dumber than the Framers than I first assumed. Why the Hell would Framers already suspicions about democracy want to have given BOTH houses of Congress to the "riffraff"? The Framers made the election of Senators indirect because they didn't trust the people. The real question is why does billbears SUPPORT repeal today? Because he's anti-democracy? That's a total nonstarter besides being pretty stupid. Because he wants to reduce political partisanship? That couldn't possibly work for reasons I've already listed, but primarily because partisan politicians would be doing the electing. In order to cut federal spending? What's to prevent the states from using this opportunity to support even MORE federal spending for their benefit as opposed to the current practice of "unfunded mandates"?

The truth, billbears, is that you don't know why indirect election of senators was adopted, you don't know why it was replaced by direct elections, and you clearly haven't got a clue about the consequences of repeal, but nevertheless you are FOR it!

ROTFLMAO!

that's what PRIMARIES are for, for pushing your party of choice in whatever direction you deem necessary

In the 2002 election for Senate race, we did have several choices, the same as we had in the 2004 Senatorial elections. If you would look at the posts even on this very board, quality was substituted for 'electability'. As it is now we have two worthless Senators that don't know their @ss from a hole in the ground, not to mention no idea what a conservative viewpoint is.

In the GENERAL election you are (with VERY few exceptions) going to have only two realistic choices, and sad to have to keep telling you this, party MATTERS, especially in the legislatures

Well, since you are so 'apt' to know the minds of the Framers (which you don't) I would recommend you to Washington's Farewell Address of 1796 and his specific warnings on parties. It looks as if with most Republicans, you can remember their names but forget their words. Party is the last thing that matters.

People who insist on ignoring party affiliation when voting are asking to be continually disappointed. Either they get fooled by obvious liars, or they end up electing someone who has more in common with the opposition party's leadership than with the party leadership HE VOTES FOR! (Zell Miller is a great American whose worst disservice to the country that he loves was voting for Tom Daschle after Tom obtained a lease with an option to by on Jumpin' Jim Jeffords.)

And herein lies the evidence you ignore Washington's words. You are concerned only with the party. What did the first President of this nation of states say in 1796? Oh yes...

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Anyone presuming to draw significant insights into modern Republican Party policies by studying their Whig roots is demonstrably insane

LOL, I would suggest you reread the history of Clay's American System, first advocated by that most worthless man, Alexander Hamilton. We have a party that just in the past two months has forwarded a national highway plan and a revamp of the energy infrastructure, two aspects which are in direct correlation to 'internal improvements' advocated under Clay's American System

Of a lesser extent under the original intent is the 'internal improvement' of our healthcare system, our education system, and our welfare system. All have taken the assumption that our government knows better than we, a major aspect of Clay and Hamilton's 'dream' (nightmare).

So you'd prefer to let SS crash and burn, right, billbears? Leaving aside the question of whether or not such an attitude amounts to committing political suicide, RESPONSIBLE politicians are under some obligation to try and engineer a soft landing rather than just telling old people, "You f**ked up; you trusted us."

Ah yes, let us trust the same 'responsible' politicians that gave us Social Security to provide a 'safe landing' for the elderly. I'm sure I trust them fully to phase out Social Security. But that's not what Republicans are promising is it? They plan only to 'fix' an unconstitutional system that was never meant to be in place.

The Framers made the election of Senators indirect because they didn't trust the people

Well at least in your entire rant you got one thing right. But now mysteriously you see the citizens of the respective states somehow more informed than their ancestors. That we now have the ability to vote for Senators. But the original intent of the Senators was to tend to the business of the nation as a whole. Tell me Fred. Why is it that Senators spend more time pandering as talking heads with worthless promises of wasting money? Perhaps because they realize sheep are still sheep no matter what century? You take away their platform and you see an immediate change of who runs for Senate and how many times they run. Of course this is just human nature, not the wisdom of Fred

The truth, billbears, is that you don't know why indirect election of senators was adopted, you don't know why it was replaced by direct elections, and you clearly haven't got a clue about the consequences of repeal, but nevertheless you are FOR it!

And now we come to the innuendo that I don't understand the intent of government as well as Fred. Why not just come out with a personal attack and explain to us all your 'wisdom'? To answer your inane question in a nutshell

A) to protect us from the very democracy that has destroyed us

B) to remove all possible power from the states that was seemly and to make the separate and sovereign states even more subservient after an unconstitutional war and attack on sovereign states the previous century and

C) I know exactly what would happen. More than likely, over the first few elections, Democrats would become a major power in the Senate. And perhaps this would be the best solution. If you would look at the history I provided from the Cato Institute, when the legislative branch and the executive branch are in the hands of opposite parties, spending goes down because of gridlock. And perhaps in your false two party system, when it comes to shrinking government, this may be for the best. God knows I don't know how much more I can handle of Bush's 'conservative' policies

I wonder if billbears realizes that he has managed to disprove his own point? I rather doubt it else why would he keep quoting the views of the Framers on the EVILS of political parties when those very same Framers split apart into Federalist and Democrat Parties? Why quote Washington's Farewell Address' specific warnings on political parties when the partisan split he was warning about had already taken place ON HIS WATCH?

Now by pointing out their failure to "practice what they preached" I am NOT intending to attack the honor or character of billbear's plaster saints, the Framers of the Constitution. Rather I'm suggesting that if THEY couldn't keep party politics out of the system of government THEY created, why should anyone expect their successors and inheritors (who are CLEARLY inferior beings in billbear's opinion) to do any better?

Here's a challenge: name a democratically elected representative national government that has remained political-party-free for more than an eye-blink of history. You cannot do it, and that means something. It means that the dream of party-free government belongs on the same ash heap of history with socialism and communism -- wonderful ideas if they'd only work.

But they don't.

Finally, billbears dithers around a lot but at long last explains why he'd REALLY like to see the repeal of direct election of senators: because he thinks it would give the Democrats control of the Senate thus producing gridlock with a Republican House.

Leaving aside the question of whether indirect election could actually lead to a party switch in control of the Senate when Republican states are becoming more Republican at the state level as well (and there are MORE Republican states than Democrat ones), that's IT? THAT'S the magic solution to the problems of political parties? To divide the government between them so that nothing much gets done?

ROTFLMAO!

Even the most crazed Libertarian could point out the idiocy underlining this concept: spending NEVER goes DOWN because of gridlock. At BEST gridlock causes spending to INCREASE at a SLIGHTLY LOWER rate, but if that is truly your idea of paradise, it means (if you are being honest with yourself) that you have completely given up on the idea of representative government and are waiting to be rescued by some sort of "benevolent" dictatorship because you have begun to realize that "your side" can no longer win elections.

The Framers would DESPISE you, billbears, and not merely because you are just another unreconstructed Confederate:

"after an unconstitutional war and attack on sovereign states the previous century"

That's right, freepers; billbears is still worked up about about "his side" losing the Civil War. Maybe billbears should do us all a favor and emulate his favorite historical figures by seceding from the Free Republic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.