GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4

[LuckyNumber7]

Right, except many of those "conservative" libertarians are, and that's what I mean by not being truly libertarian. Most that call themselves libertarians seem to pick and choose which liberties they really want people to have.

That's why I don't understand the "conservative" or "liberal" adjective to describe a libertarian.

Can you give me an example of each?

They're hybrids.

Ron Paul is the perfect example of a conservative libertarian who implements the ideas of small government and meshes them with the Libertarian ideology.

As far as the left-Libertarianism/social libertarianism/libertarian socialism/whatever. I don't understand a whole lot of that to be honest. I mean, there's tons to read on it from some basic internet searches. I know of their existence, that's really it. And I understand that it's just variances because the term 'Libertarian' is not as finite as you think it is.

 

[BVS]

And I understand that it's just variances because the term 'Libertarian' is not as finite as you think it is.

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because according to their own website their definition is VERY finite.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I remember one day at work a couple months ago, a guy came into the store asking if there were any Ron Paul people in the area. He was talking more about booths and that sort of thing and if any were set up. I told him I didn't really know-there wouldn't have been any in my store, 'cause we're not allowed to endorse any sort of political ideology of any kind (we're generally advised to stay away from political chatter with customers, too), but I didn't know whether or not the main area of the mall follows that policy.

Anywho, the guy was older, and he had on the Uncle Sam style jacket and top hat, complete with stars and stripes, a Ron Paul T-shirt on underneath the jacket, and Ron Paul pins scattered about all over the outfit and hat.

So, yeah. Very passionate indeed. Had I been allowed to properly engage him in discussion I'd like to have found out why he was as enthusiastic as he was about the guy.

We get a lot of Ron Paul supporters in my area. But like BVS, I wonder just how informed many of them are. They could well be quite informed, but it often seems many just like him 'cause he seems like kind of a rebel who doesn't say the same ol', same ol' they hear many politicians spouting every single day. He's a very colorful character, which I think is part of his appeal.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I dunno about that. I think gay people have the right to get married, for instance. I don't think people should deny them the ability to do so. But some people would be able to have a chance at doing that if they're able to vote on whether or not it should be allowed. For those who think marrying whomever you want is a right (or making decisions about your own body or smoking pot or whatever), the idea of people coming along to stop it, be it other civilians, local/state governments, or the federal government, is kind of bothersome, isn't it?

I agree with your viewpoints completely. But you've got to imagine that if Ron Paul's administration is what he wants it to be, and your state government has power and it is also Libertarian, you will get that freedom in the end, no? He's preserving the Constitution first and foremost. And he's taking care of the Federal Government. But as a Constitutionalist he feels no power over the states. That's not to say the state governments cant mimmick his government. That, too, is on the decision of the people to demand.

He'd just be doing his job in the nation that is America. Pulling the strings of the Federal Government (or cutting most of the strings away). The rest isn't up to him (as a Constitutionalist).

Course, that's getting into anarchy a bit there, come to think of it...

Libertarianism is down the political spectrum of anarchism. Anarchism has an absolutely negative sound to it. Communism does, too though, and Socialism is down that road.

People often forget that our founding fathers, as much as they hated too much federal power, also got scared at the idea of civilians having too much power, too. They felt there needed to be a proper balance created so that both sides were able to get what they wanted out of the deal.

Absolutely. Mobocracy. This is an opinion though, but I feel as though we've shifted far enough from even the notion of mobocracy to a point where we're completely controlled. Over the past 200 years the government has successfully made a massive list of things we can and cannot do, and has told us what we have to do. Do not be mistaken - the majority of this was at the hands of those 'representing' the people. Or rather, misrepresenting the people because they 'know what's best'. Sometimes... sometimes they do know what's best. Others... they're simply stripping away freedoms.

 

[Pearl]

They could well be quite informed, but it often seems many just like him 'cause he seems like kind of a rebel who doesn't say the same ol', same ol' they hear many politicians spouting every single day.

I think that is the case. I suspect people who support Ron Paul do it because they're sick of deciding between only two parties in this country.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

We get a lot of Ron Paul supporters in my area. But like BVS, I wonder just how informed many of them are. They could well be quite informed, but it often seems many just like him 'cause he seems like kind of a rebel who doesn't say the same ol', same ol' they hear many politicians spouting every single day. He's a very colorful character, which I think is part of his appeal.

Perhaps this is true. One thing you've also got to factor in is his genuinity. He doesn't 'play the game' of politics, if you will. No deal making, no teleprompters, no lies (perhaps avoids the real truth sometimes though), no flipflopping, etc.

Now if only we could get a candidate who is like that where people would back him... oh that'd never happen because the media wouldn't have an interest

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because according to their own website their definition is VERY finite.

Fair enough. I'm getting tired anyways. All of this campaigning on Interference and not a single voter grasped!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

however, keeping in mind Obama's surprising drop in the polls this week

I don't think the drop in the polls is surprising at all. As soon as the gas prices started going up you could predict it. It's an instant and constant hit on people, the prices of so many other things go up, and people have far less discretionary income to spend on other things. Income that they were just feeling comfortable spending on other things. Bye bye summer vacation for many people too, if they were even planning one. The recovery is still very tenuous, and people will blame Obama for gas prices and the fallout-that's just how it is.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

"Libertarians" often like to pull that trick of talking about how they want to strip the federal government of power to give more power to the people and their individual rights, when in reality they want states to be allowed to ban women's rights, gay's rights, minority's rights, etc.

exactly. what about those of us who don't live in a liberal state but like the rights that are in place now? when i'm in the us, the state i'm in has already proven how conservative they are by putting a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. if they had the power to do the same for other things that have been made legal at the federal level, such as abortion, i know they would. do i have to do research on all other 49 states to find the one that most fits in with my ideology so i can figure out where i can move to? and then of course hope i can actually afford to move there and find a job, etc.

the one thing i like about having a large federal government is it means there's a lot in place that is the same from state to state. of course this then bites you in the ass when a president you disagree with comes into power and puts forth policies you don't agree with, but i'd rather take that risk than have to move from state to state because i don't agree with their policies.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I agree with your viewpoints completely. But you've got to imagine that if Ron Paul's administration is what he wants it to be, and your state government has power and it is also Libertarian, you will get that freedom in the end, no? He's preserving the Constitution first and foremost. And he's taking care of the Federal Government. But as a Constitutionalist he feels no power over the states. That's not to say the state governments cant mimmick his government. That, too, is on the decision of the people to demand.

He'd just be doing his job in the nation that is America. Pulling the strings of the Federal Government (or cutting most of the strings away). The rest isn't up to him (as a Constitutionalist).

I'd like to think that would be the case. I just don't know how easily it'd be for him to actually run the country that way (and then there are people who don't know how much he adheres to the true libertarian ideals to begin with).

Myself, I honestly don't know what to think of the guy. I agree with his drug stance, agree with his "let's stop going to war so damn much" stance-it's REALLY nice to hear someone say that for once, but some of his other views I keep hearing back and forth on what he believes in regards to them, and it's very confusing.

Not to say your idea wouldn't be worth a try with a true libertarian candidate, that could be quite the interesting experiment. But with the way our system works nowadays, it'd be very hard to do. And then of course we'd have to make sure the state government was libertarian, too, and that enough people would be informed and involved enough to work alongside.

Woo to being in agreement on those specific viewpoints on those issues, by the way .

Libertarianism is down the political spectrum of anarchism. Anarchism has an absolutely negative sound to it. Communism does, too though, and Socialism is down that road.

Indeed. Anarchism right now only sounds good to many people within the confines of a Sex Pistols song .

But yeah, there's always going to be strange bedfellows and different ends and whatnot.

Absolutely. Mobocracy. This is an opinion though, but I feel as though we've shifted far enough from even the notion of mobocracy to a point where we're completely controlled. Over the past 200 years the government has successfully made a massive list of things we can and cannot do, and has told us what we have to do. Do not be mistaken - the majority of this was at the hands of those 'representing' the people. Or rather, misrepresenting the people because they 'know what's best'. Sometimes... sometimes they do know what's best. Others... they're simply stripping away freedoms.

I do agree with this as well, and don't want to dismiss the civilians at all. I do think, for the most part, many can be trusted to do the right things without people telling them to do so. I still have a crazy faith in humanity overall, and as the old saying goes, "power corrupts" and our government has freely shown just how true that saying is many times in no uncertain terms.

But at the same time, having some sort of proper structure in place still makes sense, too. I think the main issue is just looking at all the issues and deciding who has the power to control what. And I think if we were all able to sit down and make a list or whatever, we might actually for the most part find ourselves in agreement on what the government can control versus what we can control. I really don't think it's nearly as complicated as many people like to make it out to be sometimes.

Perhaps this is true. One thing you've also got to factor in is his genuinity. He doesn't 'play the game' of politics, if you will. No deal making, no teleprompters, no lies (perhaps avoids the real truth sometimes though), no flipflopping, etc.

Now if only we could get a candidate who is like that where people would back him... oh that'd never happen because the media wouldn't have an interest

They would once they realized that a good portion of the country supported him. Right now Ron Paul's fanbase is definitely vocal and passionate, but how much of the population it comprises, I don't know. But if at least half the country was behind a candidate of that sort, the media'd HAVE to pay attention at some point. And if not, they should be bombarded by voters until they do.

Yeah, I think the guy seems overall pretty genuine and honest-he's the old guy who just says whatever's in his head and doesn't care how it sounds . Of all the Republican candidates, he certainly annoys me the least.

I think that is the case. I suspect people who support Ron Paul do it because they're sick of deciding between only two parties in this country.

And on that note, I certainly understand their feelings. Limiting our options to two people really is pretty crazy.

 

[U2DMfan]

Well we're going to have to agree to disagree, because according to their own website their definition is VERY finite.

Point us to the conservative website. And then the liberal website.

Libertarian is both a party and an ideology.
It would be like the Democrats changing their name to 'Liberal Party'.
Would that platform or definition then represent all self-described liberals?

P.S.
Was Noam Chomsky a libertarian? I don't know. But I do know that he would know better about his own views than I would. I see him as a bit of Left radical, so I am not the person to illustrate his specific views.

That said, I do think there are liberals that don't believe the Government is the answer to all of our problems. It goes to the idea that libertarianism isn't a political platform, nor is it represented solely by Ron Paul, who is very much on the Right on almost every issue. You could call him a Right Winger with accuracy, although that is a loaded term...usually reserved for Limbaugh's and Hannity's and hard social stances. But he is an ideological conservative to the core. And so much of his conservative ideology influences his constitutionalism, which influences his libertarianism. This is part of a long ass post right there...I'll mercifully just skip the rest of it.

Libertarians believe in some government, naturally. I don't think arguing that any support of governmental power invalidates someone as a libertarian. I think outright encroachment of civil liberties would (support for the Patriot Act, support for the health care mandate). The people that call themselves libertarian incorrectly are numerous, but it's tough...

This phraseology is both necessary for ease of conversation in discussing broader views and completely maddening at the same time. I don't think people should draw the correlation between libertarianism and 'use of government' It is absolutely a sliding scale, like liberal or conservative. Just on a different axis.

 

[BVS]

Point us to the conservative website. And then the liberal website.

Libertarian is both a party and an ideology.
It would be like the Democrats changing their name to 'Liberal Party'.
Would that platform or definition then represent all self-described liberals?

It doesn't matter if you're talking about the party or the ideology, they both have strict definitions.

Conservative, liberal, Democrat and Republican do not.

Conservative and liberal are measurements on a sliding scale, libertarian is not.

You can be "mostly conservative" or "slightly liberal" but one can't be "kind of libertarian", that's like describing oneself as "kind of Catholic". You either are or you're not. You can be a non-practicing Catholic, but that basically means you are not Catholic.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

(Reuters) - Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum told Puerto Ricans on Wednesday they would have to make English their primary language if they want to pursue U.S. statehood, a statement at odds with the U.S. Constitution.

Santorum traveled to the U.S. territory to campaign ahead of the island's Republican primary election scheduled for Sunday, where he, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are vying for 20 delegates.

Puerto Ricans, who recognize both English and Spanish as their official languages, are scheduled to vote in November on a referendum to decide whether they want to pursue statehood or remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth.

In an interview with El Vocero newspaper, Santorum said he supported Puerto Ricans' right to self-determination regarding the island's political status.

"We need to work together and determine what type of relationship we want to develop," he told the newspaper.

But Santorum said he did not support a state in which English was not the primary language.

"Like any other state, there has to be compliance with this and any other federal law," Santorum said. "And that is that English has to be the principal language. There are other states with more than one language such as Hawaii but to be a state of the United States, English has to be the principal language."

However, the U.S. Constitution does not designate an official language, nor is there a requirement that a territory adopt English as its primary language in order to become a state.

Congress would have to give approval if Puerto Rico is to become the 51st state. Although Congress has considered numerous proposals to make English the official U.S. language, none has ever passed.

However, some states have passed their own laws declaring English the official language, including heavily Hispanic Florida.

Puerto Rico has about 4 million people and its population can vote in partisan primaries but not presidential elections. Puerto Ricans on the mainland have the same voting rights as other U.S. citizens.

Santorum's statement may fall flat with Puerto Rican Republicans, who have always argued that issues of language and culture should be controlled by state governments and not the federal government.

It also could alienate the 4.2 million Puerto Ricans who live on the U.S. mainland, including nearly 1 million in presidential swing-state Florida.

Romney and Gingrich have both said Puerto Ricans must decide their future for themselves. Romney has said that if they choose to pursue statehood, he would help them achieve it.

Romney, who is scheduled to travel to Puerto Rico on Friday and stay through the weekend, won the endorsement of Governor Luis Fortuno, who is also the head of Puerto Rico's pro-statehood New Progressive Party.

Santorum was to meet with Fortuno on Wednesday before a town hall meeting with residents.

He said he and Fortuno are friends because they went to the same church in Washington when Fortuno served as Puerto Rico's non-voting representative in the U.S. Congress from 2004-2008.

Santorum also said that he does not support "at this time" allowing residents in territories like Puerto Rico to vote for president, although he said he was open to analyzing alternatives, such as allowing their votes to count in the popular vote but not in the Electoral College.

 

[BVS]

I think before we adopt English as our official language, we should require and IQ test for Presidential candidates.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I guess he could always rewrite The Constitution if he was elected. He could figure out a way. Maybe he could say that God gave him the power.

Wasn't it Sarah Palin who carried around a copy in her pocket and gave them away? Maybe she could spare one for Rick.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

^ true, he could always add an amendment saying english is the official language. though i think it's ridiculous. and again, i fail to see how this is even an important issue. what language puerto ricans speak in puerto rico doesn't affect me or anyone in any of the states, or even the other territories. though at this point the government either needs to start making these territories states (including d.c.) or these territories need to have all the rights states do, including being able to vote in federal elections.

 

[digitize]

D.C. is a problem because it leans so far to the left. Republicans will come up with arguments against allowing D.C. to have Congressional representation based on things like "the founders intended for Congress to represent the states" as long as that's the case, when in reality state identity is becoming more and more meaningless and this really just amounts to disenfranchisement of 617,996 people, more than Wyoming.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

oh exactly, but if we were to ever make puerto rico a state, it'd look incredibly ridiculous to completely ignore d.c. like that. the whole thing with wyoming ticks me off. i don't think its statehood should be revoked or anything like that, but given that the u.s. hasn't added any states in over 50 years even though we have a territory with a greater population than almost half of the states and the capital district with a greater population than wyoming (and not far off from vermont), it's ridiculous.

if it were up to me, all territories (and d.c.) would become states, though that would bring the total to 56 and zomg the number of stars would probably look like shit or something so we can't have that.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Freudian slip?

8 AM to noon-control of pubic region

noon to close-move on to uteri



Santorum Campaign Releases "Pubic Schedule"

 

[digitize]

oh exactly, but if we were to ever make puerto rico a state, it'd look incredibly ridiculous to completely ignore d.c. like that. the whole thing with wyoming ticks me off. i don't think its statehood should be revoked or anything like that, but given that the u.s. hasn't added any states in over 50 years even though we have a territory with a greater population than almost half of the states and the capital district with a greater population than wyoming (and not far off from vermont), it's ridiculous.

if it were up to me, all territories (and d.c.) would become states, though that would bring the total to 56 and zomg the number of stars would probably look like shit or something so we can't have that.

But most of those territories would probably elect Democrats. And we can't have that. The current voting maps were carefully gerrymandered just perfectly to create exactly the balance that this nation needs.

 

[BVS]

Exactly ^ There's a reason Republicans are violently opposed to making any of the territories states and thwarting the Hispanic vote. Otherwise they'd never win another presidency ever again on their current platform.

 

[digitize]

There is something weird about giving Guam, population 159358, two Senators, though. My city has about four times as many people as Guam. It's a very blue city in a very red state and effectively gets no representation in the US Senate whatsoever.

Maybe we should just abolish the Senate

 

[BigMacPhisto]

Maybe we should just abolish the Senate

Well, obviously. It's been the biggest roadblock to getting anything done and Democrats can never get anywhere close to the majority that Republicans are able to when they control the Senate because there's always the south + small states to ensure that there's at least 40-ish Republicans sitting in there. It's extremely unfair to say the least. Why on Earth should Wyoming have the same representation in a branch of Congress as California with like 70 times the amount of people? At the very least, get rid of these god-damn supermajorities of sixty and let bills pass the senate with 51 votes, damn it. Have all the Senators up for re-election every four years along with the President so that the Senate best reflects what the people want when they actually bother to vote. Let the House be up for re-election every two years so that the people not in power can whine and gain back some seats (which has nearly always happened since the days of FDR). Right now, a minority of the American population is having a huge say in causing our government's inaction and it's because 1) Nobody votes in non-Presidential elections and 2) The damn Senate always contains relics since only a third are up for re-election at any given time. If it were all tied together with the Presidential elections, Obama would have had like 70+ Senators and achieved insane progress right away. The way it stands now, he could theoretically lose the Senate despite winning the November election, simply because it just so happens that the 1/3 of Senators up for re-election this year are mostly Democrats and mostly in states were they could easily lose (ones carried back in the '06 anti-Bush wave).

The fair way to do things would be to just have the house only and have the entire thing be done off of proportional representation. The third party vote would skyrocket immediately, regardless of whether or not any of the minor parties had much in terms of cash flow, and we'd see parties like the Greens netting 15% of the overall vote and getting like 60 people in the House of Representatives. As for pork or whatever, it would lead to a great decrease in that, but anybody could form coalitions to get what they need for their given states or local districts.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

But most of those territories would probably elect Democrats. And we can't have that. The current voting maps were carefully gerrymandered just perfectly to create exactly the balance that this nation needs.

yep. it's just like the slave vs. free states all over again. perhaps if we can persuade the other four territories to promise they'll vote republican for ever and ever!, then all five can be added.

i definitely think an overhaul of senate is needed, or maybe removing some of their power and giving it to the house. at least they're proportionally represented. they're not perfect either, but like bigmacphisto said, it's ridiculous that wyoming gets equal representation to a state like california.

 

[digitize]

I wasn't being totally serious when I suggested abolishing the Senate. I don't know how I feel about it, but I think that in an ideal world where I could amend the Constitution however I wanted to, it would be worth considering.

The Senate is absolutely not something that is good for ensuring equal enfranchisement of voters, for obvious reasons. I think that the only reasonable argument in favor of it is as an intentional retard on progressive movements, which may theoretically be good for the US in a long term sense, even if it is often very annoying in the short term.

The idea of a proportionally representative House and no Senate really appeals to me. Of course, that system severs representative ties to geography, but in some ways, that would definitely be a good thing. It would be good for getting people what they want and allowing people to fairly evaluate the performance of a party with the option of getting rid of them painlessly. Honestly, a full-on Westminster system with a proportional Congress would be best for that. But Britain and America have very different visions of government; in Britain, one party is the government and does whatever they want until they are voted out, while in America, one party controlling the Senate, the House, and the presidency is very rare, but it's harder to get rid of anyone or anything. The progressive in me likes the idea of a system modeled more after Britain, but there is part of me that likes the more slow nature of the American system.

Regardless, I think it's a little ridiculous that the founding fathers tend to be treated as demigods in America. The Constitution is flawed but outlines a good, working form of government. However, there's no reason why the political and economic philosophy of the late 1700s has to be revered forever. I think more debate in the United States about the fundamental nature of how our government is run (and no, I don't mean things like we should adopt Marxist-Leninist communism) would be a good thing, but there seems to be this mentality of "the founding fathers thought this so this is how the United States should be run forever and ever".

 

[BigMacPhisto]

The Senate made more sense when they were trying to protect state's rights and the federal government wasn't as big as it is now. I think part of that though has to do with the ruling elites controlling so much land that they just wanted to have their own rules/laws that they could dictate by being a representative of their own State. I mean, this country really only exists because the rich wanted to make sure they had control over their wide swaths of land rather than somebody across the pond.

But anyway, back then, there were like no real infrastructure programs or much to really be divided on given the lack of technology or huge religious divide or whatever. More importantly, the difference in state populations was so damn minimal as well that you didn't have anything as lopsided as we do now in terms of Senate representation. If my place has 7,000 people and its own set of laws and yours has 7,600 or whatever, who really gives a fuck?

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Regardless, I think it's a little ridiculous that the founding fathers tend to be treated as demigods in America.

this. they wrote what they did based on how they felt at the time, and also being sick of the king having absolute power in the uk. things aren't even like that in the uk anymore. i'm not suggesting if thomas jefferson were around now he'd wished we had remained part of the monarchy or anything ridiculous, but rather that if they can change over a couple hundred years, so can we. like you said, not some huge drastic overhaul. i may be a socialist at heart but i'm also a realist and i know that would never happen in the states. but there needs to be some sort of way to help things move faster.

and yes, i'm sure the founding fathers weren't even thinking at the time whether or not the country would still be using the constitution all this time later. shit changes and time changes, things that weren't an issue back in the 1770s are now. i feel like i'm not articulating myself well enough, but yeah.

 

[BonosSaint]

8 am to noon-control of pubic region

noon to close-move on to uteri



santorum campaign releases "pubic schedule"

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Indeed. Times have changed and the way we do things needs to change along with it. And god, YES, term limits for Congress, please. Please. I'm really tired of seeing people who've been there since...what...the early '60s, it seems? That's ridiculous.

if it were up to me, all territories (and d.c.) would become states, though that would bring the total to 56 and zomg the number of stars would probably look like shit or something so we can't have that.

8 AM to noon-control of pubic region

noon to close-move on to uteri



Santorum Campaign Releases "Pubic Schedule"

at both of these.

Though I do agree with Khanada, I don't know why we own all these territories and such yet can't seem to move forward with making them states. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I think before we adopt English as our official language, we should require and IQ test for Presidential candidates.

Yeah, so, um, Santorum IS aware we don't have an official language in this country, right? I'll give him this, at least he was bluntly honest towards Puerto Ricans. How in the hell he thinks that'll endear them to him, I don't know, but at least he isn't shying away from his true feelings on the subject.

(Also, geez, there are people who are born and raised here whom I think would do well to learn some decent English-speaking skills before we start yelling at immigrants about it )

 

[Steved1998]

I wasn't being totally serious when I suggested abolishing the Senate. I don't know how I feel about it, but I think that in an ideal world where I could amend the Constitution however I wanted to, it would be worth considering.

The Senate is absolutely not something that is good for ensuring equal enfranchisement of voters, for obvious reasons. I think that the only reasonable argument in favor of it is as an intentional retard on progressive movements, which may theoretically be good for the US in a long term sense, even if it is often very annoying in the short term.

The idea of a proportionally representative House and no Senate really appeals to me. Of course, that system severs representative ties to geography, but in some ways, that would definitely be a good thing. It would be good for getting people what they want and allowing people to fairly evaluate the performance of a party with the option of getting rid of them painlessly. Honestly, a full-on Westminster system with a proportional Congress would be best for that. But Britain and America have very different visions of government; in Britain, one party is the government and does whatever they want until they are voted out, while in America, one party controlling the Senate, the House, and the presidency is very rare, but it's harder to get rid of anyone or anything. The progressive in me likes the idea of a system modeled more after Britain, but there is part of me that likes the more slow nature of the American system.

Regardless, I think it's a little ridiculous that the founding fathers tend to be treated as demigods in America. The Constitution is flawed but outlines a good, working form of government. However, there's no reason why the political and economic philosophy of the late 1700s has to be revered forever. I think more debate in the United States about the fundamental nature of how our government is run (and no, I don't mean things like we should adopt Marxist-Leninist communism) would be a good thing, but there seems to be this mentality of "the founding fathers thought this so this is how the United States should be run forever and ever".

Go back to England, Tory.