When the time comes change them to more equal, fare and logical

Then to stop almost all future procedural rule changes the Republicans can make one great and overriding rule.

No rules or procedures can change without a super majority vote. And then only after 6 more years pass will the rule change finally be enacted.

At any time in that 6 years a majority vote can cancel and eliminate the rule change.

No one will even try changing the rules because it would take far to long to implement and could almost always be stopped before they are enacted.
No more will a single election allow any party or group to set things up all in their favor.

The idea of the Republicans keeping the rules of the Senate as the Democrats left them is another example, but it is dangerous, as these rules may remain for all eternity. On the other hand, now that the Democrats successfully got away with changing these rules, if the Republicans repair the rules, then the next time the Democrats are in power they can always change the rules back to favor them again, perpetuating a double standard. So what should the Republicans do?

The damage that has been done to this country is staggering, and the above paragraph is just one example of the scope and difficulty in repairing it – one problem is how to keep a repair intact.

I heard an analogy that the damage to this country, these past few years, is like someone blowing up a dam. There is the flood of the immediate aftermath, and the repair is difficult, time consuming, and expends a lot of resources and effort that should have been applied in positive productivity. Plus, the use of the dam is denied us until the repair can be completed. All this applies to politics and the freedoms that have been stripped from us.

*This* is one danger of having a powerful government. The more powerful it is, the more damage it can inflict and the harder it is to repair.

The uniqueness of this country is the freedom that its population had. Now that the tyrannical government has declared itself able to determine how we are to spend our own money (no other tyranny has ever had the audacity to do this), many more of our freedoms are at risk. The Democrats make no secret that they want to eliminate the rest of the Bill of Rights and gain even more control over our lives (several Amendments and other Articles have been changed through lack of enforcement, misinterpretations, and Supreme Court rulings). So much for our liberty.

Another danger of a powerful government is that more power means more tyranny. As we have seen these past few years, government has controlled us over things even as small and seemingly meaningless as what seasonings we can put on our restaurant tables (e.g. salt), what light bulbs we may purchase, and what toilets we may put in our bathrooms. So much for the pursuit of happiness.

This *is* a slippery slope, in that once they determined that these minor freedoms were no longer our choices to make, they went on to tell us how to spend our own money – resulting in coercion into making contracts that we don’t want to make for products that do not satisfy our needs, at prices that we can’t afford, and that violate our personal fundamental values. Further, they now may determine what medical care we are and are not allowed to receive. So much for our ability to live our lives.

Mark Levin suggested that we invoke Article V of the US Constitution and hold a Convention to propose new amendments. Unfortunately, it will be professional politicians who will propose and vote upon these amendments, and these professionals are in their business because they like to have control over people. They have the attitude that if they give “their people” the ability to make their own choices, they will choose wrong, so the rulers have to make the choices for the people (which explains the mess that Michelle made of school lunches).

One difference between the United States and the rest of the world is that it was not professional politicians or policy makers who created our founding documents. Our country was created by and for We the People, not by or for They the Rulers. Other countries were created by the rulers and for the rulers.

Thus the style of writing in the US Constitution is different than any other constitution. We the People have all the rights, except for those we explicitly granted to the government. Other countries, including the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights, list the rights of the people as though the government has conferred rights upon the people. Rights that are given can be taken away, whether given and taken by government or by We the People.

Am I hopeful that the Republicans will do as Robert suggested? Yes. Do I expect them to? No. Their leadership is made of professional politicians, and they have proved that whatever enthusiasm that they had in 1994 has turned into cynical corruption in the intervening decades. As they arrived in Washington in 1994, they watched the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” in hopes that the new class would be more like Stewart’s character, Mr. Smith, but they have since turned into Raines’ character, Senator Paine.

Robert,

Preventing this corruption is why I believe in term limits. I know that the voters will just elect the same type of person that they elected before, but there was a time when these Republican “Paines” were Republican “Smiths.” It is just that over the years their voters elected the same people instead of the same type of people. There is, for example, no hope for getting San Francisco to elect anyone much different from Pelosi, but she did not start out being quite this tyrannical, either.

As we saw in 2009, the Democrats did not believe in listening to We the People, as they sought a way to force their will upon us with the ACA. In the past year, the Republicans likewise only worked on repeal of the ACA until they realized that there was popular support for such repeal, then they changed their priorities instead of pressing the issue, thus they were able to seem to support our wishes without risking losing their real control over us.

As DK said, above, “The zebra doesn’t change his stripes.” Even the Republican zebra.

Your strategy is so simple and brilliant that I am going to post it as a point of information on the main webpage.

I wonder, however, if the Republican leadership can figure this out.

On election night, it was funny to see Democrats on the internet claiming that the filibuster would protect them. They just assume that Republicans wont act like they do so are safe to treat Republicans as nasty as they want. Partially true, just look at the anti-war (anti-Bush) movement and compare that to how Republicans have supported Obama’s efforts to combat AQ and its affiliates. They know they can always go anti-war when a Republican is in office out of an effort to damage a Republican politically but never have that weapon turned back on them.

Ya, in Obama’s big speech yesterday he basically said fu either do what I tell you to do or I will do it anyway.

Regarding Obamacare. Craft a one page amendment to the law that removes the mandate so that people can choose for themselves whether they want to participate (a pro-choice amendment so to speak). Then another amendment that removes the restrictions on they type of coverage a company can offer (another pro-choice amendment). Then let the public see the Dems for the big-government fascist they are.

It’s time to get our fiscal house in order after treating this country for decades like the dormitory in the movie, “Animal House”.

You remember, all those rules the democrats changed to keep the republicans from exhibiting any type of power or influence.

Especially the now none existent filibuster rule.
Or the new rule that the minority party can not propose legislation or amendments to bills without approval of the majority.

Never enact a rule you are unwilling to have used against yourself.