Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Bindare_Dundat on March 26, 2008, 08:15:07 PM
-
Some people advocate applying the "spirit of the founding documents," rather than the literal meaning of the words in the documents.
Others advocate that we adhere to the "letter of the supreme law" and interpret the documents in strict accord with the written words.
How seriously do people take the US Constitution these days?
-
Some people advocate applying the "spirit of the founding documents," rather than the literal meaning of the words in the documents.
Others advocate that we adhere to the "letter of the supreme law" and interpret the documents in strict accord with the written words.
How seriously do people take the US Constitution these days?
"It's just a damned piece of paper" -- GWB
-
Some people advocate applying the "spirit of the founding documents," rather than the literal meaning of the words in the documents.
Others advocate that we adhere to the "letter of the supreme law" and interpret the documents in strict accord with the written words.
How seriously do people take the US Constitution these days?
I take it very serious. These days you have Harvard professors saying it needs to be scraped for the times... ::) Bullshit, why would they want to scrap it when they have guys like John Yoo fully willing to mangle the fuck out of it...
-
Well considering it was based on the principles of Locke, and work of Machiavelli I say it still stands as one of the most important pieces of paper in world history, more countries have adopted the outline of our constitution than any other philosopher or other governmental document combined.
-
"Many people think of the United States as a young country. Yet it has the oldest written constitution among the major nations of the world. Moreover, it was, for the first time in history, a constitution that specifically limited the powers that the federal government would be able to exercise over its citizens."
http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-9277514/United-States-Constitution
(http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=19207&rendTypeId=4)
-
"Many people think of the United States as a young country. Yet it has the oldest written constitution among the major nations of the world. Moreover, it was, for the first time in history, a constitution that specifically limited the powers that the federal government would be able to exercise over its citizens."
http://student.britannica.com/comptons/article-9277514/United-States-Constitution
(http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=19207&rendTypeId=4)
BWHAHAHAHhaahahhahahhah..... that worked out real well....
-
BWHAHAHAHhaahahhahahhah..... that worked out real well....
LOL
Definite self pwnage by the American people.
-
LOL
Definite self pwnage by the American people.
yup...
-
BWHAHAHAHhaahahhahahhah..... that worked out real well....
Man, is this "Hugo Chavez picks on loco" day?
Why hasn't it worked out? Are you one of those Americans who calls Bush a dictator? If you really believe that, why is your legislature and your judiciary not doing anything about it? Why are American citizens not doing anything about it? Do Americans want a dictator?
-
Man, is this "Hugo Chavez picks on loco" day?
Why hasn't it worked out? Are you one of those Americans who calls Bush a dictator? If you really believe that, why is your legislature and your judiciary not doing anything about it? Why are American citizens not doing anything about it? Do Americans want a dictator?
If not a dictator then a more socialist style of government modeled after Europe.
Sad but true. We're pissing our individual liberties and sovereignty away. :(
Yay nanny state!
-
Why hasn't it worked out?
AHAHAHHAHAHAHhahahahhahah.... anybody care to take the shot for me, I hate to have all the fun ;D to easy ;D
-
LOL
Definite self pwnage by the American people.
Actually Edmund Burke of the French Revolution would praise this, it's well known that the constitution was written as a limited controlling measure, that still gave people the right to participate, the federal government at that time had little or no influence because strong state sovereignty.
In fact over 90 countries have adopted tid bits of this constitution.
Looks like it has held it's worth many times over, and has proved that the framers had vast forsight into the problems that would face the nation.
-
Ok, gotta go to work for a bit, cant wait to get back and see the carnage, never seen this good of an opening ;D
merry christmas righties.... this question by loco is right up your alley :)
-
Things are working fine....If I can see a clear example of US troops kicking doors and arresting citizens or rounding up people for speaking out then I'll gladly join ur revolution. Nobody here has been affected by the Patriot act or the wire tapping so relax. I'd be more worried over all the bullshit laws passed by local governments limiting all the normal things we do every day. Permits for eveything/smoking bans etc etc.
-
Ok, gotta go to work for a bit, cant wait to get back and see the carnage, never seen this good of an opening ;D
merry christmas righties.... this question by loco is right up your alley :)
Who are you calling rightie?
-
Actually Edmund Burke of the French Revolution would praise this, it's well known that the constitution was written as a limited controlling measure, that still gave people the right to participate, the federal government at that time had little or no influence because strong state sovereignty.
In fact over 90 countries have adopted tid bits of this constitution.
Looks like it has held it's worth many times over, and has proved that the framers had vast forsight into the problems that would face the nation.
I agree. Remember too that the Framers were afraid of the great unwashed getting too much of a say in the government which is why we have a democratic republic with an electoral college. The Framers wanted to keep the right people--the monied elites--insulated to a degree from the rabble.
-
Things are working fine....If I can see a clear example of US troops kicking doors and arresting citizens or rounding up people for speaking out then I'll gladly join ur revolution. Nobody here has been affected by the Patriot act or the wire tapping so relax. I'd be more worried over all the bullshit laws passed by local governments limiting all the normal things we do every day. Permits for eveything/smoking bans etc etc.
Federal Government: "We want a National ID"
State Government: "We have some concerns with individual privacy and personal liberty, we need to discuss this"
Federal Government: "Agree to the ID or your citizens don't fly in commercial airplanes"
You don't have a problem with this?
So as long as you can go into a bar, have a smoke, a beer, and watch the game, all is well eh?
-
Federal Government: "We want a National ID"
State Government: "We have some concerns with individual privacy and personal liberty, we need to discuss this"
Federal Government: "Agree to the ID or your citizens don't fly in commercial airplanes"
You don't have a problem with this?
So as long as you can go into a bar, have a smoke, a beer, and watch the game, all is well eh?
Exactly. HH6 acts as if this door kicking comes out of the blue one day. It is a progression of breakdowns in civil liberties that leads to these actions. He doesnt understand that when we bring these things up..were not protesting door kickins...but the step by step process that leads to the possibility.
If we all waited to the last minute to take action, it will be to late. So we are aware of the process......he only looks for the action = Fail.
-
Federal Government: "We want a National ID"
State Government: "We have some concerns with individual privacy and personal liberty, we need to discuss this"
Federal Government: "Agree to the ID or your citizens don't fly in commercial airplanes"
You don't have a problem with this?
So as long as you can go into a bar, have a smoke, a beer, and watch the game, all is well eh?
Yeah, that would be a problem. Does the federal government really have to have so much control over commercial airlines? Did the founding fathers not intend for the federal government to be small and to stay small?
-
Yeah, that would be a problem. Does the federal government really have to have so much control over commercial airlines? Did the founding fathers not intend for the federal government to be small and to stay small?
Under the guise of "National Security" and "Patriot act" These abuses will continue to grow. America is Dying.....
-
Under the guise of "National Security" and "Patriot act" These abuses will continue to grow. America is Dying.....
nah, these controls have always been in place. every country has them to an extent, we're just more aware of them now. USA is still the best place in the world to live.
-
nah, these controls have always been in place. every country has them to an extent, we're just more aware of them now. USA is still the best place in the world to live.
These controls are being manipulated to further these controls. thats the point.
-
nah, these controls have always been in place. every country has them to an extent, we're just more aware of them now.
I disagree. Technology has allowed and created abuses we couldn't have dreamed of a couple of decades ago. Maybe those in power have desperately wanted such control since the beginning of time, but only very recently have they had the tools to actually do it.
-
I take it very serious. These days you have Harvard professors saying it needs to be scraped for the times... ::) Bullshit, why would they want to scrap it when they have guys like John Yoo fully willing to mangle the fuck out of it...
Thats why I asked the question. With guys like George Bush, Yoo, Cheney, etc... blantantly ignoring/modifying the meaning of the Constitution and the people really doing dick all about it, I wondered how seriously people take the documents. I think people just give it lip service for the most part and take it for granted.
-
I can't believe I had to vote for that numb nuts.
I was listening to the Michael Savage show today. The shit he was taking about that happened under Bush's watch made my fvcking blood boil.
Man, I'm really worried about our country.
-
I can't believe I had to vote for that numb nuts.
I was listening to the Michael Savage show today. The shit he was taking about that happened under Bush's watch made my fvcking blood boil.
Man, I'm really worried about our country.
the first time i could see. The second time.....unbelievable. LOL
-
the first time i could see. The second time.....unbelievable. LOL
First time AND second time, for me, was the lesser to two evils.
Bush is not a Reagan conservative and that really bothers me but Herman Munster John Kerry didn't do anything to make me want to vote for him and I really really dislike John Edwards.
This election will be no different. I have to choose which one I think will do the least amount of damage.
-
Probably have to go with Obama then.... :-\
-
Probably have to go with Obama then.... :-\
Dude, I can't afford that guy. More taxes means less disposable income for me and my wife to invest in our retirement and my children's college funds. Besides, what frickin' genius raises taxes when our economy is in a down spiral? Hey, food and gas more expensive? Let's raise taxes!
Plus I fully expect race relations to go in the toilet. You think America has "entitlement" issues now? Oh boy, wait until he's elected.
-
Dude, I can't afford that guy. More taxes means less disposable income for me and my wife to invest in our retirement and my children's college funds. Besides, what frickin' genius raises taxes when our economy is in a down spiral? Hey, food and gas more expensive? Let's raise taxes!
Yeah, so let's keep borrowing money instead.... ::)
-
Dude, I can't afford that guy. More taxes means less disposable income for me and my wife to invest in our retirement and my children's college funds. Besides, what frickin' genius raises taxes when our economy is in a down spiral? Hey, food and gas more expensive? Let's raise taxes!
Plus I fully expect race relations to go in the toilet. You think America has "entitlement" issues now? Oh boy, wait until he's elected.
True. It's worse than just raising taxes, it's bringing back class warfare, pitting "the rich" and "the corporations" against "the middle class."
None of us can afford this guy, particularly if he has a Democrat House and Senate.
-
True. It's worse than just raising taxes, it's bringing back class warfare, pitting "the rich" and "the corporations" against "the middle class."
None of us can afford this guy, particularly if he has a Democrat House and Senate.
Hahaha, grandpa psych major whiling his life away in honolulu knows more about who can afford this guy than the fools working at Goldman Sachs, NY. ::)
-
USA is still the best place in the world to live.
I agree! (not counting Canada, Switzerland, or France of course)
"The US is still the best nation in the country" - Spiro Agnew ;D
-
I agree! (not counting Canada, Switzerland, or France of course)
"The US is still the best nation in the country" - Spiro Agnew ;D
With the exception of, I'm sure, better food and beer don't all the countries you listed have higher taxes and a higher unemployment rate?
AND no NFL football? >:(
-
With the exception of, I'm sure, better food and beer don't all the countries you listed have higher taxes and a higher unemployment rate?
AND no NFL football? >:(
The whole football thing probably outweighs all the other stuff. :)
-
With the exception of, I'm sure, better food and beer don't all the countries you listed have higher taxes and a higher unemployment rate?
AND no NFL football? >:(
They also have universal healthcare, less crime, ...and women can show their boobies in public without getting arrested.
-
The whole football thing probably outweighs all the other stuff. :)
:o You would take football over beer & boobies? :o :-X
-
:o You would take football over beer & boobies? :o :-X
boobies were never mentioned...... ;D
-
I take it very serious. These days you have Harvard professors saying it needs to be scraped for the times... ::) Bullshit, why would they want to scrap it when they have guys like John Yoo fully willing to mangle the fuck out of it...
Why should we take something that was written 200+ years ago serious?
I agree that a Constitution is a very serious thing.
But this is two separate issues that often get mixed up:
One is the issue of whether a constitution should be respected - I say: Definitely.
The other one, is whether an ancient document, written during a time when slavery existed, democracy wasn't developed, et al, should be treated as some kind of supreme document - I say: No. Fcuking. Way.
There is no logical reason to as why the "founding fathers" would've had a better grasp of what democracy is than our current society.
We as a civilization develops. With it, our democracy should follow.
-
"The US is still the best nation in the country" - Spiro Agnew
You mean the former US vice-president
Spiros Anagnostopoulos?
-
You mean the former US vice-president
Spiros Anagnostopoulos?
Could have been his original name. (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/em/shrug.gif)
For some reason, Americans feel the need to change their surnames in order to avoid umm... complications. :-X
-
Dude, I can't afford that guy. More taxes means less disposable income for me and my wife to invest in our retirement and my children's college funds. Besides, what frickin' genius raises taxes when our economy is in a down spiral? Hey, food and gas more expensive? Let's raise taxes!
Plus I fully expect race relations to go in the toilet. You think America has "entitlement" issues now? Oh boy, wait until he's elected.
w8tlftr, ...unless you're rich, and I mean very rich, you're not going to be looking at increased taxes.
What will happen is that money being spent now will be re-directed into other areas, and the tax cuts to the wealthy, and corporate welfare will end. Obamas focus will be helping Main Street in a way that's good for both Main Street & Wall Street.
-
True. It's worse than just raising taxes, it's bringing back class warfare, pitting "the rich" and "the corporations" against "the middle class."
None of us can afford this guy, particularly if he has a Democrat House and Senate.
The class warfare has been going on for the past 8 years and the middle class has been suffering heavy casualties.
What Obama, and Wall Street are realizing is that when the middle class suffers, EVERYONE suffers.
In most Western democracy, it's the middle class that keeps it all going. hurt them, and it's like shooting yourself in the foot.
-
The class warfare has been going on for the past 8 years and the middle class has been suffering heavy casualties.
What Obama, and Wall Street are realizing is that when the middle class suffers, EVERYONE suffers.
In most Western democracy, it's the middle class that keeps it all going. hurt them, and it's like shooting yourself in the foot.
Good post, Jag. I dont understand the cry of tax increases when its really tax direction......focus back on our economy not others for the most part. These obama plans can be done for the most part by cutting funding to non wanted projects and re directing to immigration, healthcare, job development.
-
Good post, Jag. I dont understand the cry of tax increases when its really tax direction......focus back on our economy not others for the most part. These obama plans can be done for the most part by cutting funding to non wanted projects and re directing to immigration, healthcare, job development.
I think Obamas immigration plans might hurt him in certain segments of the hispanic community, because he will require that immigrants come with skills. He might close the door on the droves of unskilled migratory labour the Republicans want in the USA so badly.
-
Some people advocate applying the "spirit of the founding documents," rather than the literal meaning of the words in the documents.
Others advocate that we adhere to the "letter of the supreme law" and interpret the documents in strict accord with the written words.
How seriously do people take the US Constitution these days?
It's important AND should be ammended. Get rid of the three branches and replace it with a parlament.
-
First time AND second time, for me, was the lesser to two evils.
Bush is not a Reagan conservative and that really bothers me but Herman Munster John Kerry didn't do anything to make me want to vote for him and I really really dislike John Edwards.
This election will be no different. I have to choose which one I think will do the least amount of damage.
Reagan never was a conservative; he spent up to the wazoo....and he wasn't a particularly good president. History, circumstances and chance allowed for him to have glory.
-
Thats why I asked the question. With guys like George Bush, Yoo, Cheney, etc... blantantly ignoring/modifying the meaning of the Constitution and the people really doing dick all about it, I wondered how seriously people take the documents. I think people just give it lip service for the most part and take it for granted.
because ordinary people don't see the ultimate effects right away, so they're like, "tell me what you've lost, huh, huh tell me how things are changed" They have no vision. They lack the capacity to grasp the gradual shift and ask, "now that we've done this, what is next?" They went to work the same as they did the day before, came home, ate, watched a movie, went to bed and got up like nothing is wrong.
-
Why should we take something that was written 200+ years ago serious?
I agree that a Constitution is a very serious thing.
But this is two separate issues that often get mixed up:
One is the issue of whether a constitution should be respected - I say: Definitely.
The other one, is whether an ancient document, written during a time when slavery existed, democracy wasn't developed, et al, should be treated as some kind of supreme document - I say: No. Fcuking. Way.
There is no logical reason to as why the "founding fathers" would've had a better grasp of what democracy is than our current society.
We as a civilization develops. With it, our democracy should follow.
Oh boy, we have to talk...
-
Oh boy, we have to talk...
No you don't. He's Swedish, who gives a shit? :D
-
No you don't. He's Swedish, who gives a shit? :D
well, as long as we're running around the world laying down the law like we rule the known universe, I guess they have a valid interest.
-
Oh boy, we have to talk...
In 1973 Sweden scrapped their old constitution and drew up a new one. Out with the old and in with the new. The Americans should follow suite. Part of the problem is the American reverence for certain things; most Americans still think that Genesis is a factual account of the creation and origin of life because it is in a hallowed book.
The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries of their day, so why the reactionary conservatism when it comes to matters of political change? They changed things and so should we.
-
Oh boy, we have to talk...
Ok, we have to talk you say.
Then explain to me why something that was made 200+ years ago has to still stand.
Why it shouldn't be revamped.
-
Ok, we have to talk you say.
Then explain to me why something that was made 200+ years ago has to still stand.
Why it shouldn't be revamped.
It's more important now than ever. Its original purpose was to limit the govornment's power. There has never been a more powerful govornment in history than what we currently have and without the constitution as a basis to challenge their wrongdoings our 'representatives' would go even farther.
-
In 1973 Sweden scrapped their old constitution and drew up a new one. Out with the old and in with the new. The Americans should follow suite. Part of the problem is the American reverence for certain things; most Americans still think that Genesis is a factual account of the creation and origin of life because it is in a hallowed book.
The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries of their day, so why the reactionary conservatism when it comes to matters of political change? They changed things and so should we.
I disagree with you. Our Constitution is one of the most complete constitutions ever conceived. It's so good even almost 300 years after its conception it is still valid. The reason being the Founding Fathers were hardcore, full-time, serious thinkers who wrote up on the freedom of the individual in a time when people were debating whether slavery was ok or not.
In conclusion, I believe our Constitution is there to be ammended, but under NO circumstances tossed in the garbage can. There will be a point in which the Federal government, by force as usual, will have to relinquish some of their power to the States. I will fight for that.
-
The class warfare has been going on for the past 8 years and the middle class has been suffering heavy casualties.
What Obama, and Wall Street are realizing is that when the middle class suffers, EVERYONE suffers.
In most Western democracy, it's the middle class that keeps it all going. hurt them, and it's like shooting yourself in the foot.
It has been going on for decades. It's a liberal mantra. The Robin Hood approach. Pitting one group of people against the other is just wrong.
-
They also have universal healthcare, less crime, ...and women can show their boobies in public without getting arrested.
Yeah but they're Canadian women. ;)
Of course you could prove me wrong by sending me a pic of your bewbies. :)
-
Yeah, so let's keep borrowing money instead.... ::)
When did I EVER say I supported the U.S. borrowing more money? NEVER.
It's one of the many reasons why we're fucked but that still doesn't mean we need to raise taxes when our economy is tanking.
-
It has been going on for decades. It's a liberal mantra. The Robin Hood approach. Pitting one group of people against the other is just wrong.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg/800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg.png)
Noone is talking about pitting anybody against anybody else. The debate NOWADAYS is not even about taking money from the richest and giving it to the poorest. That is media bullshit. It's about a more fair redistribution of taxes to the lower and middle classes.
Oh! I almost forgot, look at the graph. 80% of American families have had their incomes either reduced (when you adjust for inflation) or stay basically the same, while the richest 5% have had their money triple during the same time period. This is what Adam Smith would call an "explosive situation".
And guess what, look at the graph... remember back in the 60's when daddy used to work all by himself, mommy used to stay home and the old man used to make enough money to buy a huge house, a car, take the family on a 3 week vacation. Translate that into today. Guess where all that money went to?
That's right, a big fat cok is being rammed up your ass!
You may call it "liberal whining" though.
We're soooooo fucked!
-
w8tlftr, ...unless you're rich, and I mean very rich, you're not going to be looking at increased taxes.
What will happen is that money being spent now will be re-directed into other areas, and the tax cuts to the wealthy, and corporate welfare will end. Obamas focus will be helping Main Street in a way that's good for both Main Street & Wall Street.
Judi, please define "rich".
How much annual income does one have to make before they're rich? 200k, 300k, 400k a year? Between my wife and I we hit the 300k mark. Where I live (the Peoples Republic of Maryland) just middle class. I could support someone calling me rich if I lived in Bumfvck, Alabama making that kind of money.
I'm doing my taxes today. I'll let you know how bad of an ass fvcking the government gives me.
-
It's important AND should be ammended. Get rid of the three branches and replace it with a parlament.
I disagree.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg/800px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1967-2003.svg.png)
Noone is talking about pitting anybody against anybody else. The debate NOWADAYS is not even about taking money from the richest and giving it to the poorest. That is media bullshit. It's about a more fair redistribution of taxes to the lower and middle classes.
Oh! I almost forgot, look at the graph. 80% of American families have had their incomes either reduced (when you adjust for inflation) or stay basically the same, while the richest 5% have had their money triple during the same time period. This is what Adam Smith would call an "explosive situation".
And guess what, look at the graph... remember back in the 60's when daddy used to work all by himself, mommy used to stay home and the old man used to make enough money to buy a huge house, a car, take the family on a 3 week vacation. Translate that into today. Guess where all that money went to?
That's right, a big fat cok is being rammed up your ass!
You may call it "liberal whining" though.
We're soooooo fucked!
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=207937.0
-
Judi, please define "rich".
How much annual income does one have to make before they're rich? 200k, 300k, 400k a year? Between my wife and I we hit the 300k mark. Where I live (the Peoples Republic of Maryland) just middle class. I could support someone calling me rich if I lived in Bumfvck, Alabama making that kind of money.
I'm doing my taxes today. I'll let you know how bad of an ass fvcking the government gives me.
You guys are doing pretty darn good. Congrats.
I'll add that wealth is determined by net worth, not income. A small business owner can gross $300,000 a year, but after overhead many of them really don't earn much more than the average "middle class" wage earner.
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=207937.0
Dude, all I'm asking you is to compare American families' standards of living back in the 60's to today's. You be the judge.
You can post anything you want, be my guest. But I have to say reality is reality.
-
Dude, all I'm asking you is to compare American families' standards of living back in the 60's to today's. You be the judge.
You can post anything you want, be my guest. But I have to say reality is reality.
You think the standard of living was better in the 60s?
-
You think the standard of living was better in the 60s?
Good gawd did you read his post?? Back in the 60,s and 70,s dad raised all his kids adog and a cat on his income alone......he wasnt a skilled colege graduate either...he was a hard working guy in a warehouse or blue collar worker. He had a house, a car , plenty of food and great vacations for the family. Is this done now in the USA??? Get real.
-
Good gawd did you read his post?? Back in the 60,s and 70,s dad raised all his kids adog and a cat on his income alone......he wasnt a skilled colege graduate either...he was a hard working guy in a warehouse or blue collar worker. He had a house, a car , plenty of food and great vacations for the family. Is this done now in the USA??? Get real.
Good points.
Even in the 80s my family got by comfortably on my father's military salary. We were by no means rich but I had a roof over my head, food on the table, and clothes to wear.
If I wanted "nice" things I did what every other kid had to do - I got a fvcking job.
-
I disagree.
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing.
Look at the level of voting.
How many participates in the elections today?
It's not even 60%.
You see people talk about how there is a lack of alternatives.
With a parlament, you would have multiple parties that if they received at least 4-5 percent could be voted into the legislative chamber.
A guy like Ron Paul wouldn't have to go with either the GOP or the Democrats. With a parlament, he could join the Libertarian party, and they would have a very good chance of getting enough votes to be a factor in US politics.
Another thing:
You have electorates.
Which means that if one state is one by a narrow margin by one candidate, the whole electoral college goes to him/her.
In theory, someone who actually had many more votes than his opponent could lose the election. I'm not talking about the slim margin that Al Gore or Richard Nixon had more votes than GWB or JFK respectively. But rather, a candidate that has all his wins with a huge margin, and all his losses very slight, would be the People's Champion.
Where as the President elected would not.
This would not be possible if the Constitution was reformed and modernized.
Instead of just getting emotional about a constitution that was written 200+ years ago, I think y'all need to revise it, and challenge it.
If it holds up, then fine.
But USA isn't leading the democracy index. Hasn't been for several years.
I think it should be, since it is the economical and political center of the world.
-
It's more important now than ever. Its original purpose was to limit the govornment's power. There has never been a more powerful govornment in history than what we currently have and without the constitution as a basis to challenge their wrongdoings our 'representatives' would go even farther.
The influence of common people is limited.
With a new constitution, a parlament type of government could be introduced.
Which would allow for a multiple party House.
Many complains today that there are only two parties.
And that these two parties are "the government", part of a nomenclatura.
With a constitution that makes it easier for multiple parties in a Parlament, the distance between voters and their representatives would likely drop.
Because there would simply be more candidates and parties that were representing different people in the society.
Instead of the political elite.
-
Look at the level of voting.
How many participates in the elections today?
It's not even 60%.
You see people talk about how there is a lack of alternatives.
With a parlament, you would have multiple parties that if they received at least 4-5 percent could be voted into the legislative chamber.
A guy like Ron Paul wouldn't have to go with either the GOP or the Democrats. With a parlament, he could join the Libertarian party, and they would have a very good chance of getting enough votes to be a factor in US politics.
Another thing:
You have electorates.
Which means that if one state is one by a narrow margin by one candidate, the whole electoral college goes to him/her.
In theory, someone who actually had many more votes than his opponent could lose the election. I'm not talking about the slim margin that Al Gore or Richard Nixon had more votes than GWB or JFK respectively. But rather, a candidate that has all his wins with a huge margin, and all his losses very slight, would be the People's Champion.
Where as the President elected would not.
This would not be possible if the Constitution was reformed and modernized.
Instead of just getting emotional about a constitution that was written 200+ years ago, I think y'all need to revise it, and challenge it.
If it holds up, then fine.
But USA isn't leading the democracy index. Hasn't been for several years.
I think it should be, since it is the economical and political center of the world.
I'm not a fan of the electoral college winner take all, Zack, and I definitely HATE the two party system gridlock.
But I'm not about to abandon the U.S. Constitution.
IMHO, our system is failing because, we the people, fucked up by being lazy and sedated. By apathy we got safety and security over individual liberty.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - we get the government we deserve.
Fvck. Now I'm a sad panda.
-
Good gawd did you read his post?? Back in the 60,s and 70,s dad raised all his kids adog and a cat on his income alone......he wasnt a skilled colege graduate either...he was a hard working guy in a warehouse or blue collar worker. He had a house, a car , plenty of food and great vacations for the family. Is this done now in the USA??? Get real.
Of course it's done. I know plenty of families with full-time Moms. The quality of life and our standard of living is clearly better today than the 1960s, particularly for women and minorities.
-
Of course it's done. I know plenty of families with full-time Moms. The quality of life and our standard of living is clearly better today than the 1960s, particularly for women and minorities.
I just told my wife to quit her job ASAP.
I'm tired of both us working to pay the fvcking tax man.
-
Of course it's done. I know plenty of families with full-time Moms. The quality of life and our standard of living is clearly better today than the 1960s, particularly for women and minorities.
And where does Jebus fit in here Professor Beach Bum?
-
I just told my wife to quit her job ASAP.
I'm tired of both us working to pay the fvcking tax man.
Don't blame you. My wife stayed home making and raising babies for a long time.
-
Of course it's done. I know plenty of families with full-time Moms. The quality of life and our standard of living is clearly better today than the 1960s, particularly for women and minorities.
I give up.
-
I give up.
Good.
-
Don't blame you. My wife stayed home making and raising babies for a long time.
What's more important Beach Bum, the Bible or the US Constitution?
-
What's more important Beach Bum, the Bible or the US Constitution?
(http://www.salagir.com/gfx/troll-web.jpg)
-
Of course it's done. I know plenty of families with full-time Moms. The quality of life and our standard of living is clearly better today than the 1960s, particularly for women and minorities.
I bet there is study on thins somewhere to definitively say so either way.
I do know however, that if the average income in California per person is 40k they would be hell bent to make it.
Decent 2 room apartment = $1200-1500
Decent 3 bedroom house = $1800-2000
Health care for a family of 4 = $800
That doesn't leave much for food, gas, clothes, car payments etc...
-
(http://www.salagir.com/gfx/troll-web.jpg)
That's actually pretty funny although I'm not trying to take sides here................... ;D
-
I bet there is study on thins somewhere to definitively say so either way.
I do know however, that if the average income in California per person is 40k they would be hell bent to make it.
Decent 2 room apartment = $1200-1500
Decent 3 bedroom house = $1800-2000
Health care for a family of 4 = $800
That doesn't leave much for food, gas, clothes, car payments etc...
True, although you're talking about California with its high cost of living. What about less expensive places to live? I would imagine it was far more expensive to live in a big cities in the 1960s too.
And yes people tend to make less money in less expensive cities.
-
True, although you're talking about California with its high cost of living. What about less expensive places to live? I would imagine it was far more expensive to live in a big cities in the 1960s too.
And yes people tend to make less money in less expensive cities.
that's why i think there is study about this somewhere out there.
-
What's more important, the Bible or the US Constitution?
This is a good question. Would be interesting to see the answers.
-
(http://www.salagir.com/gfx/troll-web.jpg)
oooooh. I'm stealing that graphic! ;D
-
True, although you're talking about California with its high cost of living. What about less expensive places to live? I would imagine it was far more expensive to live in a big cities in the 1960s too.
And yes people tend to make less money in less expensive cities.
Sometimes these less expensive places to live, do not also have the jobs people need.
If you're a silicon valley IT expert, you might have to live in San Fran, ...'cause Hicksville only needs farmers.
Now if he were a network marketing professional, ...he'd have no grounds whatsoever to complain.
He'd have the ability to earn Silicon Valley IT expert income, while enjoying Hicksville type living expenses,
...and all those years of hard work wouldn't be flushed away. He'd simply build upon the foundation already layed.
-
This is a good question. Would be interesting to see the answers.
Just ask Professor Beach Bum! ::)
-
Sometimes these less expensive places to live, do not also have the jobs people need.
If you're a silicon valley IT expert, you might have to live in San Fran, ...'cause Hicksville only needs farmers.
Now if he were a network marketing professional, ...he'd have no grounds whatsoever to complain.
He'd have the ability to earn Silicon Valley IT expert income, while enjoying Hicksville type living expenses,
...and all those years of hard work wouldn't be flushed away. He'd simply build upon the foundation already layed.
"And yes people tend to make less money in less expensive cities."
-
"And yes people tend to make less money in less expensive cities."
My friend Earl went from "living in a mansion on the hill, ...to a trailer house on a dirt road,
...not a blacktop road within miles", and he often poses the following question to people, ...
Q: "Do you know the difference between a $4000 /mth house payment, vs a $400 /mth payment?"
Do you know what the answer is (which I tend to believe)? Well, according to Earl:
A: "Nothing! There's NO difference at all between the two if you haven't got the $400"
So an argument that people can move to less expensive areas despite the fact that they tend to make less is a ridiculous one imo. If the mortgage is breaking your back, ...how willing would you be to move your family to a less expensive place next to the neighborhood crack house? I think most would continue to bare the crushing load for as long as they could until they collapsed under the weight.
If you ever get a chance to sit down and talk with Earl in person, jump at it. This is a man with much life experience who's been kicked down, had the wind knocked out of him, and been pitched so many curve balls sooo many times, ...yet through everything, he just picks himself up, dusts himself off, and moves forward.
He's such an inspiration, ...and one-on-one, he'll make you wet your pants with laughter.
He's a unique combination of laser-like intensity & Jeff Foxworthy earthiness rolled into one.
You can hear him tell his story in his own words here (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/ffi/video.htm) (It's the 6th video down the right).
-
My friend Earl went from "living in a mansion on the hill, ...to a trailer house on a dirt road,
...not a blacktop road within miles", and he often poses the following question to people, ...
Q: "Do you know the difference between a $4000 /mth house payment, vs a $400 /mth payment?"
Do you know what the answer is (which I tend to believe)? Well, according to Earl:
A: "Nothing! There's NO difference at all between the two if you haven't got the $400"
So an argument that people can move to less expensive areas despite the fact that they tend to make less is a ridiculous one imo. If the mortgage is breaking your back, ...how willing would you be to move your family to a less expensive place next to the neighborhood crack house? I think most would continue to bare the crushing load for as long as they could until they collapsed under the weight.
If you ever get a chance to sit down and talk with Earl in person, jump at it. This is a man with much life experience who's been kicked down, had the wind knocked out of him, and been pitched so many curve balls sooo many times, ...yet through everything, he just picks himself up, dusts himself off, and moves forward.
He's such an inspiration, ...and one-on-one, he'll make you wet your pants with laughter.
He's a unique combination of laser-like intensity & Jeff Foxworthy earthiness rolled into one.
You can hear him tell his story in his own words here (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/ffi/video.htm) (It's the 6th video down the right).
I really don't get you Jaguar...
-
As usual... is takes an overbearing Canadian to explain the "E pleb nista" to those who inherited it! ;D
-
I give up.
Now you know why the call it "the dumb down of America". It's the prerequisite to a police state: People who question nothing while the economic benefits are funneled to a minority and the majority are given the economic burden (deficit).
It's all in the books.
-
Of course it's done. I know plenty of families with full-time Moms. The quality of life and our standard of living is clearly better today than the 1960s, particularly for women and minorities.
I ain't talking about social issues. That's an entirely different subject. I'm talking about the most important factor in our quasi-capitalistic society: MONEY. Need I say more?
-
Well considering it was based on the principles of Locke, and work of Machiavelli I say it still stands as one of the most important pieces of paper in world history, more countries have adopted the outline of our constitution than any other philosopher or other governmental document combined.
Well considering the constitution itself took inspiration from English common law which in turn was built from the Magna Carta I would have to disagree and say the Magna Carta holds this position.
-
americans are slowing having their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution taken away in such a way as to not alarm the majority of the populace that it is indeed happening.
not only civil liberties, but the visions of what the founding fathers invisoned for the country and the populace who they sought to protect by drafting the document.
take, for example, your forefathers wanting to protect you from such things as income taxes and a federal reserve, which you were up until the great depression.
now you have the maufacturing (or not- the point of this post is not to start discussion on the conspirices surrounding 9/11) the events of 9/11, and the preaching of terror and fear 24 hours a day by the american news agencies, which will only make it easier to usurp further freedoms from the population when the time comes under the guise of 'protecting' you from domestic terrorism.
my question to you is, as i imagine the most of you posting here are american, do the majority of you not see what is going on, or do you just not care?
-
americans are slowing having their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution taken away in such a way as to not alarm the majority of the populace that it is indeed happening.
not only civil liberties, but the visions of what the founding fathers invisoned for the country and the populace who they sought to protect by drafting the document.
take, for example, your forefathers wanting to protect you from such things as income taxes and a federal reserve, which you were up until the great depression.
now you have the maufacturing (or not- the point of this post is not to start discussion on the conspirices surrounding 9/11) the events of 9/11, and the preaching of terror and fear 24 hours a day by the american news agencies, which will only make it easier to usurp further freedoms from the population when the time comes under the guise of 'protecting' you from domestic terrorism.
my question to you is, as i imagine the most of you posting here are american, do the majority of you not see what is going on, or do you just not care?
Amen. Sadly i think most are blind sheep with total loyalty in the govt to protect them. Probably 70% of americans will not realized theyve been raped of their rights gradually until its way to late.
Some of us are watching and sleeping with one eye open..... 8)
-
americans are slowing having their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution taken away in such a way as to not alarm the majority of the populace that it is indeed happening.
not only civil liberties, but the visions of what the founding fathers invisoned for the country and the populace who they sought to protect by drafting the document.
take, for example, your forefathers wanting to protect you from such things as income taxes and a federal reserve, which you were up until the great depression.
now you have the maufacturing (or not- the point of this post is not to start discussion on the conspirices surrounding 9/11) the events of 9/11, and the preaching of terror and fear 24 hours a day by the american news agencies, which will only make it easier to usurp further freedoms from the population when the time comes under the guise of 'protecting' you from domestic terrorism.
my question to you is, as i imagine the most of you posting here are american, do the majority of you not see what is going on, or do you just not care?
I have wondered the very same question myself.
I will admit though, I have noticed a gradual shift in the past few years that I've been posting here.
The reality is beginning to sink in for many Americans, and many are actively seeking the America they believed in, the one they were taught as youngsters. While it never existed was perfectly clear for many of them, but for a great many more, they thought they had it. They're now realizing they didn't and what little they did have is quickly slipping away from them. Again we're seeing the same fear tactics being used, ...only this time, they've added another scary bogey man along with the other spooky bogeymen of 911. Now they're exploiting the fear many Americans have that a Black man is gonna "Kill Whitey" ::)
Many of us outside the US were able to see the picture clear as day, it started with the firing of Bill Maher for expressing his own logically derived opinion, to the figurative lynching of the Dixie Chicks, and the all out assault on various high profile members of the entertainment community. But alas, those who forget their history, are often doomed to repeat it. For evil to triumph, all that is required is for good men to do nothing. The blue prints for their agenda are pretty clear, they've been in the public domain for years. All one has to do is recognize it and take action, ...or not.
"One of the first moves of a dictatorship is to stifle the artists and thinkers who have the ability to stir up dissent from any prescribed dogma which might enslave them." -- Uta Hagen
“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know?
For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.” --Caesar
-
Hugo Chavez, I'm still waiting for a reply from you.
-
Oh boy, we have to talk...
Hugo Chavez, I'm still waiting for a reply from you.
Again, "Hugo Chavez"/Berserker. I replied to you several times in this thread.
I am still waiting for one reply from you.
-
“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know?
For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.” --Caesar[/b]
Great quote.
-
take, for example, your forefathers wanting to protect you from such things as income taxes and a federal reserve, which you were up until the great depression.
The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, along with the Income Tax. The great depression did not begin until the crash of 1929.
How were we protected from the Federal Reserve and Income tax up until the great depression, when in fact these changes were made before the great depression?
Too many conservatives use the terms "forefathers" and "founding fathers" without knowing what the hell they are talking about in terms of US history.
-
The Federal Reserve was created in 1913, along with the Income Tax. The great depression did not begin until the crash of 1929.
How were we protected from the Federal Reserve and Income tax up until the great depression, when in fact these changes were made before the great depression?
Too many conservatives use the terms "forefathers" and "founding fathers" without knowing what the hell they are talking about in terms of US history.
While the Fed existed, it wasn't until the great depression that your money supply was turned over to them.
Previous governments resisted & rebuffed their many attempts to control the US money supply til eventually one didn't, and that President (Woodrow Wilson I believe, ...but could be wrong) was known to say he had just committed one of the worst mistakes, and visited a great calamity upon the nation (or something to that effect)
-
My friend Earl went from "living in a mansion on the hill, ...to a trailer house on a dirt road,
...not a blacktop road within miles", and he often poses the following question to people, ...
Q: "Do you know the difference between a $4000 /mth house payment, vs a $400 /mth payment?"
Do you know what the answer is (which I tend to believe)? Well, according to Earl:
A: "Nothing! There's NO difference at all between the two if you haven't got the $400"
So an argument that people can move to less expensive areas despite the fact that they tend to make less is a ridiculous one imo. If the mortgage is breaking your back, ...how willing would you be to move your family to a less expensive place next to the neighborhood crack house? I think most would continue to bare the crushing load for as long as they could until they collapsed under the weight.
If you ever get a chance to sit down and talk with Earl in person, jump at it. This is a man with much life experience who's been kicked down, had the wind knocked out of him, and been pitched so many curve balls sooo many times, ...yet through everything, he just picks himself up, dusts himself off, and moves forward.
He's such an inspiration, ...and one-on-one, he'll make you wet your pants with laughter.
He's a unique combination of laser-like intensity & Jeff Foxworthy earthiness rolled into one.
You can hear him tell his story in his own words here (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/ffi/video.htm) (It's the 6th video down the right).
I disagree. It's much easier to make $400 than $4000. A dollar goes much farther in Texas than it does in Honolulu. The food, gas, rent, mortgage, clothes, etc. are much cheaper. And there is no state income tax in Texas. Same is true of many other parts of the country. One of my friends sold his house here and was able to pay cash for a house on the mainland. A plethora of people have moved from here to Las Vegas because it's cheaper. People makes these kinds of moves all the time in different parts of the country.
I was just talking to someone who has a house in Wyoming. He said they don't have a state income tax, the cost of living is low, and the state has a huge surplus every year. That's one place people can move to if they want a better quality of life.
-
I ain't talking about social issues. That's an entirely different subject. I'm talking about the most important factor in our quasi-capitalistic society: MONEY. Need I say more?
I'm talking about money too.
-
americans are slowing having their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution taken away in such a way as to not alarm the majority of the populace that it is indeed happening.
not only civil liberties, but the visions of what the founding fathers invisoned for the country and the populace who they sought to protect by drafting the document.
take, for example, your forefathers wanting to protect you from such things as income taxes and a federal reserve, which you were up until the great depression.
now you have the maufacturing (or not- the point of this post is not to start discussion on the conspirices surrounding 9/11) the events of 9/11, and the preaching of terror and fear 24 hours a day by the american news agencies, which will only make it easier to usurp further freedoms from the population when the time comes under the guise of 'protecting' you from domestic terrorism.
my question to you is, as i imagine the most of you posting here are american, do the majority of you not see what is going on, or do you just not care?
What specific "rights and freedoms" are you talking about?
-
While the Fed existed, it wasn't until the great depression that your money supply was turned over to them.
Previous governments resisted & rebuffed their many attempts to control the US money supply til eventually one didn't, and that President (Woodrow Wilson I believe, ...but could be wrong) was known to say he had just committed one of the worst mistakes, and visited a great calamity upon the nation (or something to that effect)
The Fed controlled interest rates before 1929. This is what lead to the malinvestment of the roaring 20's and the resulting crash.
Now if you are referring to the termination of the domestic gold standard, then I would agree as that did not happen until 1934.
There was a massive run on the banks in 1907 that was allegedly spurred by JP Morgan and the creation of the Fed in 1913. They had control of the money, but because of the domestic gold standard were limited in the amount of credit they could create, so they did not have the power that is available with a fiat currency.
-
I disagree. It's much easier to make $400 than $4000. A dollar goes much farther in Texas than it does in Honolulu. The food, gas, rent, mortgage, clothes, etc. are much cheaper. And there is no state income tax in Texas. Same is true of many other parts of the country. One of my friends sold his house here and was able to pay cash for a house on the mainland. A plethora of people have moved from here to Las Vegas because it's cheaper. People makes these kinds of moves all the time in different parts of the country.
I was just talking to someone who has a house in Wyoming. He said they don't have a state income tax, the cost of living is low, and the state has a huge surplus every year. That's one place people can move to if they want a better quality of life.
Depends on what you do. ;)
Sometimes making $400 is just as easy as making $4K, so you might as well make the $4K.
But I think you're missing Earl's point. His point was, it doesn't matter what the amount is, if you don't have it.
-
What specific "rights and freedoms" are you talking about?
what rights and freedoms?
any or every right and freedom guaranteed to you by your constitution.
the rest of the world globally can see the writing on the wall- if you are an american citizen but also a 'suspected terrorist' the time will come when every civil liberty you now enjoy will be suspended from you. arrested on allegation. denied an attorney. held without a trial. assets frozen and or completely taken away. what do you think the homeland security act does in braod strokes- protects you from terrorism? no, it gives your government total and complete rule over you.
tell me you can see what you as american citizens are being set up for.
don't think it can and won't be done, or that this is all just conspiracy- look at the way the feredal reserve manipulated it's way into such a position of power.
and that is the best part- stormshadow wishes to argue timelines and when it happened. he is very knowledgable of timeline and such but has not offered anything in terms of a concrete stance of what he sees happening in the US. it seems like he's just throwing out dates to look intelligent, which i'm sure he is,, but what he's missing here is the fact that it did happen. period.- and the fact it did happen should be a wake up call to your all and it doesn't seem to be. your whole economy is at the mercy of a non governmental, privately owned agency.
so, you now have your entire economy controlled by the federal reserve, and your administration putting itself in a position to suspend your civil liberties.
listen bro, i don't wish to argue this much as it doesn't matter to me one bit what happens to you, and i am not saying this out of malice, just simply because i do not reside within your borders. you can all live in denial of the writing on the wall all you want. its no skin off my nose. the only question i have that still has to be answered is how come americans as a whole either don't know about this or don't care?
-
I disagree. It's much easier to make $400 than $4000. A dollar goes much farther in Texas than it does in Honolulu. The food, gas, rent, mortgage, clothes, etc. are much cheaper. And there is no state income tax in Texas. Same is true of many other parts of the country.
Completely true. I moved from CA to TX last year and earn the same salary. There is no state income tax here, gas is cheaper, and homes cost about 30% of what they do in CA. Many people who live on the East & West Coasts simply don't want to leave, but you can often find a better quality of life in "less desirable" parts of the country if you're willing to make the move.
-
Depends on what you do. ;)
Sometimes making $400 is just as easy as making $4K, so you might as well make the $4K.
But I think you're missing Earl's point. His point was, it doesn't matter what the amount is, if you don't have it.
You like bragging about your wealth, don't you?
-
The Fed controlled interest rates before 1929. This is what lead to the malinvestment of the roaring 20's and the resulting crash.
....
I would disagree somewhat. The economy was already tanking before Hoover took office with major industries depressed. Unions were crushed, wealth inequality was acute w/ the richest 1% owning 40% of the country’s wealth, rampant mergers saw American industry controlled by 200 corps, and although worker productivity soared, the middle class shrank to about 20% of the population.
I think the lack of regulation— especially the lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws—played a big roll in contributing to the bad investments of the '20s b/c it permitted wealth and power to accumulate in the hands of a few which is a recipe for corruption/bad business. It’s like the situation we have today with the investment banks, worthless mortgages and rampant opportunism at the middle class's expense. Bad/crooked investments create nothing of value for the country.
-
what rights and freedoms?
any or every right and freedom guaranteed to you by your constitution.
the rest of the world globally can see the writing on the wall- if you are an american citizen but also a 'suspected terrorist' the time will come when every civil liberty you now enjoy will be suspended from you. arrested on allegation. denied an attorney. held without a trial. assets frozen and or completely taken away. what do you think the homeland security act does in braod strokes- protects you from terrorism? no, it gives your government total and complete rule over you.
tell me you can see what you as american citizens are being set up for.
don't think it can and won't be done, or that this is all just conspiracy- look at the way the feredal reserve manipulated it's way into such a position of power.
and that is the best part- stormshadow wishes to argue timelines and when it happened. he is very knowledgable of timeline and such but has not offered anything in terms of a concrete stance of what he sees happening in the US. it seems like he's just throwing out dates to look intelligent, which i'm sure he is,, but what he's missing here is the fact that it did happen. period.- and the fact it did happen should be a wake up call to your all and it doesn't seem to be. your whole economy is at the mercy of a non governmental, privately owned agency.
so, you now have your entire economy controlled by the federal reserve, and your administration putting itself in a position to suspend your civil liberties.
listen bro, i don't wish to argue this much as it doesn't matter to me one bit what happens to you, and i am not saying this out of malice, just simply because i do not reside within your borders. you can all live in denial of the writing on the wall all you want. its no skin off my nose. the only question i have that still has to be answered is how come americans as a whole either don't know about this or don't care?
I'm asking about this comment: "americans are slowing having their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution taken away . . . ." You now say that includes "any or every right and freedom guaranteed to you by your constitution." I am asking you to clarify what specific rights and freedoms you contend have been taken away.
-
I'm asking about this comment: "americans are slowing having their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution taken away . . . ." You now say that includes "any or every right and freedom guaranteed to you by your constitution." I am asking you to clarify what specific rights and freedoms you contend have been taken away.
stop with the semantics.
i don't know if you are being smug and this is an attempt to play words games, or sincere and actually have a difficult time comprehending what is meant by the nature of my post, so i'll explain it a little more simply.
my apologies for not doing so in the beginning- i had actually hoped this would turn into a thought provoking debate, not a game of word play. others in this thread have understood what my post is in regards to, perhaps when debating i should not take my words being understood as a forgone conclusion.
when i say slowly being taken away, it i had hoped it would be understood that the framework that would allow this to happen is being established.
i apologise for making such broad strokes. i should have made my point a little less hazy, so i'll say it here so there is no misunderstanding, and no mincing of words and no semantics- in an undisclosed amount of time, the untied states of american will be come a police state, if something is not done by your populace to prevent this from happening.
do you contend this or accept it?
if so why?
thank you.
-
I'm asking about this comment: "americans are slowing having their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution taken away . . . ." You now say that includes "any or every right and freedom guaranteed to you by your constitution." I am asking you to clarify what specific rights and freedoms you contend have been taken away.
It depends. The 4th A right to freedom from searches unsupported by a warrant was trashed by the Bush Administration for years.
If there is any nexus whatsoever btn you and any terrorist org, you can kiss your 4th, 6th, 8th amendment rights off as well.
For example, maybe you donated money to relief effort back in Pakistan or India and that relief effort had ties to terrorist organizations.
I know many people think, "I got nothing to fear"...I wonder some times.
-
stop with the semantics.
i don't know if you are being smug and this is an attempt to play words games, or sincere and actually have a difficult time comprehending what is meant by the nature of my post, so i'll explain it a little more simply.
my apologies for not doing so in the beginning- i had actually hoped this would turn into a thought provoking debate, not a game of word play. others in this thread have understood what my post is in regards to, perhaps when debating i should not take my words being understood as a forgone conclusion.
when i say slowly being taken away, it i had hoped it would be understood that the framework that would allow this to happen is being established.
i apologise for making such broad strokes. i should have made my point a little less hazy, so i'll say it here so there is no misunderstanding, and no mincing of words and no semantics- in an undisclosed amount of time, the untied states of american will be come a police state, if something is not done by your populace to prevent this from happening.
do you contend this or accept it?
if so why?
thank you.
Semantics?? I'm quoting you. You said our "americans are slowing having their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution taken away . . . ." Which ones? Freedom of speech, religion, press? Right to counsel? Voting? What?
If you're asking whether I believe some unnamed "right and freedom" is being taken away, I disagree.
If you're asking whether I think in an "undisclosed amount of time" we will become a "police state," I disagree. What's your basis for this statement?
-
Semantics?? I'm quoting you. You said our "americans are slowing having their rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the constitution taken away . . . ." Which ones? Freedom of speech, religion, press? Right to counsel? Voting? What?
If you're asking whether I believe some unnamed "right and freedom" is being taken away, I disagree.
If you're asking whether I think in an "undisclosed amount of time" we will become a "police state," I disagree. What's your basis for this statement?
see decker's post beachbum.
he gets it.
-
It depends. The 4th A right to freedom from searches unsupported by a warrant was trashed by the Bush Administration for years.
If there is any nexus whatsoever btn you and any terrorist org, you can kiss your 4th, 6th, 8th amendment rights off as well.
For example, maybe you donated money to relief effort back in Pakistan or India and that relief effort had ties to terrorist organizations.
I know many people think, "I got nothing to fear"...I wonder some times.
Yes, some unknown people who were subject to warrantless wiretaps had their Fourth Amendment rights violated.
If you are a foreign terrorist, or foreign suspected terrorist, you're not entitled to habeas, etc.
I don't know if "I got nothing to fear" is accurate, but the opposite end of the spectrum (paranoia) really has no basis. I think "healthy distrust" is more appropriate.
-
Yes, some unknown people who were subject to warrantless wiretaps had their Fourth Amendment rights violated.
If you are a foreign terrorist, or foreign suspected terrorist, you're not entitled to habeas, etc.
I don't know if "I got nothing to fear" is accurate, but the opposite end of the spectrum (paranoia) really has no basis. I think "healthy distrust" is more appropriate.
Yes, some people had their Constitutional rights violated by the Bush Administration.
Where I'm from, that's called a "crime". Now I'm not sure what "crime" means around here, but where I'm from, it's a fairly serious phenomenon.
And I think that the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 restored HC for some detainees.
-
Yes, some people had their Constitutional rights violated by the Bush Administration.
Where I'm from, that's called a "crime". Now I'm not sure what "crime" means around here, but where I'm from, it's a fairly serious phenomenon.
And I think that the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 restored HC for some detainees.
He should have gotten a warrant.
-
He should have gotten a warrant.
I agree.
Since the president ordered spying without getting the warrants, he committed repeated felonies.
That's bad business for someone sworn to uphold and enforce the laws.
-
Since the president ordered spying without getting the warrants, he committed repeated felonies.
That's your opinion. :)
-
That's your opinion. :)
Oh my friend here we go.
The president broke the FISA law. That's one for the history books.
That's a felony as well. That's a fact.
Too bad he's beyond the reach of the courts.
My opinion that he should be tried in a court of law runs counter to the impeachment guidelines in the constitution.
-
Oh boy, we have to talk...
Lay it out.
Bump for an answer.
-
Lay it out.
Bump for an answer.
What do you want an answer to? At the risk of sounding like an arrogant schmuck, i'll venture to say I've had more formal education about the constitution than anyone else in this thread (yes, including the lawyer)... so I'll answer an honest question from the academic perspective.
-
What do you want an answer to? At the risk of sounding like an arrogant schmuck, i'll venture to say I've had more formal education about the constitution than anyone else in this thread (yes, including the lawyer)... so I'll answer an honest question from the academic perspective.
"Hugo Chavez" wrote to me that he wanted to talk after a post I wrote about how I think the constitution is outdated and could use an update.
I made several replies to him after that.
He still refuses to reply.
I find it strange.
I think your posts have been very interesting.
It's hard to have any opinion on "Hugo Chavez", since he's dodged the issue since that post.
-
"Hugo Chavez" wrote to me that he wanted to talk after a post I wrote about how I think the constitution is outdated and could use an update.
I made several replies to him after that.
He still refuses to reply.
I find it strange.
I think your posts have been very interesting.
It's hard to have any opinion on "Hugo Chavez", since he's dodged the issue since that post.
oh holy shit dude, I'm totally sorry, I haven't clicked this thread again until now... My appology I did not mean to gaff you off!!!! You know sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I don't, but you're one of the guys I always respect because you come with an honest take at all times... Please forgive me, it's been a weird week for me. Let me go back and read the thread and I'll get right on it bro.
-
Why should we take something that was written 200+ years ago serious?
I agree that a Constitution is a very serious thing.
But this is two separate issues that often get mixed up:
One is the issue of whether a constitution should be respected - I say: Definitely.
The other one, is whether an ancient document, written during a time when slavery existed, democracy wasn't developed, et al, should be treated as some kind of supreme document - I say: No. Fcuking. Way.
There is no logical reason to as why the "founding fathers" would've had a better grasp of what democracy is than our current society.
We as a civilization develops. With it, our democracy should follow.
I read your post more carefully. Seems like you have an issue with textualists/strict constructionists like Scalia.
You really have to balance his position against the others on the Supreme Court. In the 20th century, after 1936, the Supreme Court (interpreter of the Constitution) has really done quite well. Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Gay Rights, Women's Rights, Death Penalty, Non-combatant detainee Rights, and last year Massachusetts v. EPA (a step in the right direction on global warming). They've gone a little soft on white collar crime, but still not too bad.
Biggest fuck-up in recent memory. giving bush the presidency in 2000.... unfortunately, it's hindsight that is 20-20.
-
Ok, we have to talk you say.
Then explain to me why something that was made 200+ years ago has to still stand.
Why it shouldn't be revamped.
Ok, it does and has been "revamped" 27 times. The basic words of the American Constitution are probably most perfect words ever written for the people. The foundation is all there and yes there are some flaws, as you mentioned, slavery and as I mention, it's a flaw corrected through a fantastic process for "revamping" by amendment. It has worked so far. If we today said, ok, let's just scrap the whole thing and rewrite, trust me, under our current spectrum of dipshit politicians, there is a better than half chance that we would take several steps backwards. I disagree with you because our Constitution has a very good foundation no matter what time you live. Amend as needed and as is designed.
-
so you're a lawyer?
-
so you're a lawyer?
who? not me...
-
If we today said, ok, let's just scrap the whole thing and rewrite, trust me, under our current spectrum of dipshit politicians, there is a better than half chance that we would take several steps backwards. I disagree with you because our Constitution has a very good foundation no matter what time you live. Amend as needed and as is designed.
I agree that we should not scrap it. And we wouldn't be able to reproduce the process that created it.
The way our common law system works, there's a whole body of law that is undergirded by the Constitution, and for the most part I'm happy with it.
I'm opposed to frequent amendment though. But, thankfully, the constitution makes it so that it's incredibly hard to amend. :D
-
Really an amazing period in our history. Men like Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and so many others rising to the top. And then John Marshall (Jefferson' cousin) comes along to interpret it. Never have something like that again.
-
who? not me...
LOL you're juiced tonight ;D
I meant Calmus
-
I agree that we should not scrap it. And we wouldn't be able to reproduce the process that created it.
The way our common law system works, there's a whole body of law that is undergirded by the Constitution, and for the most part I'm happy with it.
I'm opposed to frequent amendment though. But, thankfully, the constitution makes it so that it's incredibly hard to amend. :D
exactly... you know when it gets amended, it's most likely a serious need--unlike the Bush Gay Marriage ban bullshit.... working well enough so far! Perfect no, but hell...
-
LOL you're juiced tonight ;D
I meant Calmus
I'm totally toasted ;D Love for everyone :)
-
I'm totally toasted ;D Love for everyone :)
:D
-
Really an amazing period in our history. Men like Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and so many others rising to the top. And then John Marshall (Jefferson' cousin) comes along to interpret it. Never have something like that again.
Amen brother...
-
I'm talking about money too.
Okkkkkkk... And you're saying that, money-wise, us, present America, is better off than the America of the 60's?
-
Okkkkkkk... And you're saying that, money-wise, us, present America, is better off than the America of the 60's?
I'm saying the American family is better off today than the 1960s (discrimination issues aside). The standard of living is better. People make more money. There are more educational and income opportunities. There are a plethora of full-time moms.
-
I'm saying the American family is better off today than the 1960s (discrimination issues aside). The standard of living is better. People make more money. There are more educational and income opportunities. There are a plethora of full-time moms.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o
I'm speachless.
-
I'm saying the American family is better off today than the 1960s (discrimination issues aside). The standard of living is better. People make more money. There are more educational and income opportunities. There are a plethora of full-time moms.
blanket statement.
nice.
more educational opportunities?
in 2003 the US ranked 18th amongst 24 amongst industrialised nations in terms of the effectiveness of its educational system, and that was after the introduction of the no child left behind act in 2001. luckily in 2005 you had managed to climb to a tie for 8th place on the ladder with belgium. belgium...?; and the sub saharan nations rank only 1% behind you in government spending on education...
-
I'm saying the American family is better off today than the 1960s (discrimination issues aside). The standard of living is better. People make more money. There are more educational and income opportunities. There are a plethora of full-time moms.
Can anyone prove/disprove this? "People make more money" (adjusted for inflation of course)
I thoguht the middle class was shrinking and those below the poverty line were going up.
-
Can anyone prove/disprove this? "People make more money" (adjusted for inflation of course)
I thoguht the middle class was shrinking and those below the poverty line were going up.
Look around any neighborhood and 90% of moms are working. It takes 2 incomes to pay for a mortgage and carpayments, gas food etc. Not anything like the 60s and 70s when Dad did it all moneywise and mom was around to put a bandaid on your skinned knee.
Beachbum is living in lala land as usual....
-
Look around any neighborhood and 90% of moms are working. It takes 2 incomes to pay for a mortgage and carpayments, gas food etc. Not anything like the 60s and 70s when Dad did it all moneywise and mom was around to put a bandaid on your skinned knee.
Beachbum is living in lala land as usual....
He very clearly said that the standard of living is better in 2008 than in the 60s.
Should be fairly easy to prove/disprove for someone with good research skills (I am not lol)
There were a lot less 2-income families in 1960, and a lot less foreclosures...
-
He very clearly said that the standard of living is better in 2008 than in the 60s.
Should be fairly easy to prove/disprove for someone with good research skills (I am not lol)
There were a lot less 2-income families in 1960, and a lot less foreclosures...
i just dont think beachbum is worth the effort to research. Common sense beats him all the time.
-
blanket statement.
nice.
more educational opportunities?
in 2003 the US ranked 18th amongst 24 amongst industrialised nations in terms of the effectiveness of its educational system, and that was after the introduction of the no child left behind act in 2001. luckily in 2005 you had managed to climb to a tie for 8th place on the ladder with belgium. belgium...?; and the sub saharan nations rank only 1% behind you in government spending on education...
Our educational system is so ineffective that large segments of the world's population flood our borders, partly to attend our educational institutions. But that's a different issue. I mentioned opportunities. If you factor in the end of Jim Crow and the suppression of women, there are a slew of additional educational opportunities today than in the 60s. Even if you don't factor that in, I am sure we have more accredited colleges, universities, trade schools, etc. today than we did in the 60s. The federal government provides millions (probably billions) in subsidies through Pell Grants, the GI Bill, etc. There is a legitimate issue regarding the quality of education in many of our public elementary and high schools, but there is no question Americans have more post-secondary opportunities today than 40 or 50 years ago.
-
Our educational system is so ineffective that large segments of the world's population flood our borders, partly to attend our educational institutions. But that's a different issue. I mentioned opportunities. If you factor in the end of Jim Crow and the suppression of women, there are a slew of additional educational opportunities today than in the 60s. Even if you don't factor that in, I am sure we have more accredited colleges, universities, trade schools, etc. today than we did in the 60s. The federal government provides millions (probably billions) in subsidies through Pell Grants, the GI Bill, etc. There is a legitimate issue regarding the quality of education in many of our public elementary and high schools, but there is no question Americans have more post-secondary opportunities today than 40 or 50 years ago.
Yeah, but you're mixing the point, yes, socially we've made great strides toward total equality. Whether we've achieved it or not is a totally different issue. Money is the core issue here because we're a capitalistic society. And money-wise you have to be mentally blind to argue that we're better off than in the 60s. Nowadays, without money you can't get into a decent school, which reduces the posibility of getting a decent job. Without money you will not have adequate representation in the courts should you decide to hit your boss (or worse yet, pork his wife). Et cetera.
Let me put it to you in simple terms. Back in the early 90s I wanted to do the Camino de Santiago, which is a well known pilgrimage route in Europe that runs from various European countries into a small town in the northwest of Spain called Santiago de Compostela. I wanted to take 2 weeks off because I wanted to start the route from Bordeaux (France). To make a long story short, when I booked the trip at the time, 1992 to be exact, the total cost was $ 757.00. I remember this vividly. In the end, I wasn unable to go because of work-related issues, but I was hell bent on going this year with my wife... To put it in simple terms: $ 7,300.00 for 2 fucking weeks!
And this is not because of the euro being overvalued, it is because the dollar is as good as toilet paper outside the US.
Capisci amici?
-
slapper, decker, and others...
can anyone find stats that show if the US standard of living was better or worse, in 1960 or in 2007?
-
slapper, decker, and others...
can anyone find stats that show if the US standard of living was better or worse, in 1960 or in 2007?
Well, I'm looking for my father's mortgage documents as well as one of his check stubs (don't get more real than that!).
I'll get back to you on it.
-
Yeah, but you're mixing the point, yes, socially we've made great strides toward total equality. Whether we've achieved it or not is a totally different issue. Money is the core issue here because we're a capitalistic society. And money-wise you have to be mentally blind to argue that we're better off than in the 60s. Nowadays, without money you can't get into a decent school, which reduces the posibility of getting a decent job. Without money you will not have adequate representation in the courts should you decide to hit your boss (or worse yet, pork his wife). Et cetera.
Let me put it to you in simple terms. Back in the early 90s I wanted to do the Camino de Santiago, which is a well known pilgrimage route in Europe that runs from various European countries into a small town in the northwest of Spain called Santiago de Compostela. I wanted to take 2 weeks off because I wanted to start the route from Bordeaux (France). To make a long story short, when I booked the trip at the time, 1992 to be exact, the total cost was $ 757.00. I remember this vividly. In the end, I wasn unable to go because of work-related issues, but I was hell bent on going this year with my wife... To put it in simple terms: $ 7,300.00 for 2 fucking weeks!
And this is not because of the euro being overvalued, it is because the dollar is as good as toilet paper outside the US.
Capisci amici?
Not mixing the point at all. I mentioned educational opportunities and "no one" started talking about the quality of (secondary) education. Just clarifying that point with him.
I agree that money is a large part of the issue, but we're not going to start this "you're blind" if you don't agree with me line are we? :) There are numerous factors you can look at today that are better than the 1960s. Off the top of my head:
- As I mentioned, more educational opportunities. Anyone can go to a post-secondary college, university, or trade school. State universities have relatively inexpensive tuition. Junior/community colleges are dirt cheap. There are a ton of scholarships available. The federal and state government offers a lot of money in grants. The military can provide pretty much a free education for anyone. Take the GI Bill and the Army College Fund. Not sure what the precise dollar amounts are, but it's a lot of money. There are federally guaranteed student loans available. Some states offer free tuition to students who achieve certain criteria. These opportunities are much greater today than 40 or 50 years ago.
- You mentioned the house your father bought. What kind of house was it? I grew up in a working class neighborhood where everyone (including us) owned their own home. No apartment buildings. No renters. But I look at the first houses that each of my siblings and I purchased and they are head and shoulders better than the house I grew up in. We make more money than our parents did.
I think of a number of instances like this, but here is just one: a family at my church consists of a retired sergeant major, his wife, and two sons. When they first moved here about ten years ago, the father was still active duty, and the wife was a full-time mom. Neither the father nor the mom are college graduates. They bought a decent house in a nice neighborhood. Today, their oldest son is in medical school. The Air Force is paying his tuition. The youngest son is in college and just joined the military. I would be willing to wager that both sons' first houses will be better than the house their parents bought (on one income) here in Hawaii. Their quality of life will be better too. I know this is anecdotal, but I could give you about 50 stories like this.
- We live longer today than 40 or 50 years ago. We have an obesity epidemic, but we still enjoy better lives health wise than our parents and grandparents.
- The products and services are better. The cars, electronics, etc. are better quality today.
- Income is way up. You mentioned the cost of a trip in 1992 versus today. How does your income today compare to 1992? :) I make just a tad bit more today than 16 years ago. . . .
- Then there is the discrimination issue. Brown v. Board was just in the 1950s and the Civil Rights Act was in the 1960s. The quality of education and access to public accommodations for minorities today is night and day.
- Women were largely shut out of the professional ranks in the 50s and 60s. Not nearly so today.
- It is harder in more expensive cities (like Honolulu) for a family to survive on a single income, but it happens all time. I know plenty of neighbors, co-workers, church members, and friends who do it. I think a substantial number of military wives are full-time moms.
I could go on, but I have to go stink up the softball field.
-
There is no problem my man! The sky is the limit!
We're soooo fucked!
-
There is no problem my man! The sky is the limit!
We're soooo fucked!
Here ya go, ...a little something to ease the pain. ;)
(http://www.auravita.com/prodimages/JOHN/JOHN10111_2.jpg)
-
Here ya go, ...a little something to ease the pain. ;)
(http://www.auravita.com/prodimages/JOHN/JOHN10111_2.jpg)
Dude, people here are so obedient it's sickening. I fell like one of a handful of adults in a classroom full of little kids who keep on insisting that Santa (Klaus) is real.
-
Dude, people here are so obedient it's sickening. I fell like one of a handful of adults in a classroom full of little kids who keep on insisting that Santa (Klaus) is real.
Republicans have created ther own little world of self-denial. Truly stupifying.......Theyll be in line for government cheese one day, while saying: "The govt loves us, cuz they give us cheese" ::)
-
Republicans have created ther own little world of self-denial. Truly stupifying.......Theyll be in line for government cheese one day, while saying: "The govt loves us, cuz they give us cheese" ::)
When did this wave of self-complacency, this feeling that someone is looking out for us at all times? I mean, the majority of social changes like trade unions came into being because as soon as the FED was created, and with it the Great Depresion, people realised that unless they took matters into their own hands their ass was grass. I understand that we grew up amongst a generation of flag suckers (baby boomers) who truly believe they are the greatest generation to have been born in this country of ours, that they are the ones who got the economy outta the GD or that they are the most American of all Americans in American history... but they are obviously THE generation who aligned all the (economic) elements that will eventually create an intergenerational great depresion. Bottom line.
Thank God we'll always have Canada!
-
When did this wave of self-complacency, this feeling that someone is looking out for us at all times? I mean, the majority of social changes like trade unions came into being because as soon as the FED was created, and with it the Great Depresion, people realised that unless they took matters into their own hands their ass was grass. I understand that we grew up amongst a generation of flag suckers (baby boomers) who truly believe they are the greatest generation to have been born in this country of ours, that they are the ones who got the economy outta the GD or that they are the most American of all Americans in American history... but they are obviously THE generation who aligned all the (economic) elements that will eventually create an intergenerational great depresion. Bottom line.
Thank God we'll always have Canada!
Once the dollar drops even canada and mexico will be all one with us. We will soon share the same currency called the "Amero". Just enough will be given out to satisfy food demands of the population to get them to a level of contentment (Nothing like now) And then action toward world unity thru the UN and elite class.
I have no idea how people can say: "theyre not breaking your door down, chill out"......If we wait till that point its too late.
-
Jag is going to have the Rodriguez family of 12 living next door.
She won't be a happy girl.
-
I'm saying the American family is better off today than the 1960s (discrimination issues aside). The standard of living is better. People make more money. There are more educational and income opportunities. There are a plethora of full-time moms.
People are making more money in this decade than in the '60s. The incremental increases are one thing but the household gains are another--b/c we have both mom and pop working. "[F]ull-time moms" are a liability and not an asset to laud. I remember when latchkey kids were created in the late 70s b/c no one was home to let the kid into the house since both parents worked. I was one of them. Worker producitivity has increased since the 1960s but that's hardly relfected in the income earned.
We are working longer hours with less vacation time and less family time and the family unit is suffering. Is it any wonder the divorce rate is over 50%? The nuclear family is failing due in large part to the demands of the work-force.
The producitivity/income gains are concentrated at the top--the financial elite.
As for every generation doing better than the previous one, that has ended at the Bush presidency.
The real problem facing Americans is income and wealth inequality. The last time either was as bad as it is now was in the late 1920s.
Why does inequality of income or wealth matter? Political power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few contrary to the democratic ideals underlying our constitution; Crime, wealfare rolls, blown educational opportunities directly correlate to income and wealth inequality; Poverty and low life-expectancy/high mortality rates correlate with income and wealth inequality.
-
People are making more money in this decade than in the '60s. The incremental increases are one thing but the household gains are another--b/c we have both mom and pop working. "[F]ull-time moms" are a liability and not an asset to laud. I remember when latchkey kids were created in the late 70s b/c no one was home to let the kid into the house since both parents worked. I was one of them. Worker producitivity has increased since the 1960s but that's hardly relfected in the income earned.
We are working longer hours with less vacation time and less family time and the family unit is suffering. Is it any wonder the divorce rate is over 50%? The nuclear family is failing due in large part to the demands of the work-force.
The producitivity/income gains are concentrated at the top--the financial elite.
As for every generation doing better than the previous one, that has ended at the Bush presidency.
The real problem facing Americans is income and wealth inequality. The last time either was as bad as it is now was in the late 1920s.
Why does inequality of income or wealth matter? Political power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few contrary to the democratic ideals underlying our constitution; Crime, wealfare rolls, blown educational opportunities directly correlate to income and wealth inequality; Poverty and low life-expectancy/high mortality rates correlate with income and wealth inequality.
D, only about 80% of us understand reality. The other 20% are livin on the beach, denying the incoming tsunami......
-
Jag is going to have the Rodriguez family of 12 living next door.
She won't be a happy girl.
Compared to the last neighbours I had, ...the Rodriguez family of 12 would be a blessing.
Now if they started shovelling the driveway at 5am or started mowing the lawn at 6am on a Saturday morning,
...then I'd have a problem, ...but other than that I'm content to have 12 Mexican neighbours next door.
pssst: haven't you heard... it's you darned Yanks that are bringing alll the property values down worldwide. :P
-
Ok, it does and has been "revamped" 27 times. The basic words of the American Constitution are probably most perfect words ever written for the people. The foundation is all there and yes there are some flaws, as you mentioned, slavery and as I mention, it's a flaw corrected through a fantastic process for "revamping" by amendment. It has worked so far. If we today said, ok, let's just scrap the whole thing and rewrite, trust me, under our current spectrum of dipshit politicians, there is a better than half chance that we would take several steps backwards. I disagree with you because our Constitution has a very good foundation no matter what time you live. Amend as needed and as is designed.
Well said Hugo! ;D
-
Curious to see if any opinions on this question have changed as the issues have changes.
When I asked this question the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, etc.. were on everyone's mind and the Constitution seemed very important to everyone but now we have a different president with different issues. Are some of you still willing to place so much importance on following the written documents if it meant dropping things like government run healthcare and if it meant that there would have been no bailouts?
-
Curious to see if any opinions on this question have changed as the issues have changes.
When I asked this question the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, etc.. were on everyone's mind and the Constitution seemed very important to everyone but now we have a different president with different issues. Are some of you still willing to place so much importance on following the written documents if it meant dropping things like government run healthcare and if it meant that there would have been no bailouts?
The constitution says what it means and means what it says as has been stated in this tread if something needs to be changed there is an amendment process. No where in the document is healthcare a right implied or otherwise. No where is the document does it say that the federal government has the right to "spread" the wealth around implied or otherwise. These wothless fuckers in Washington think they can just ram a bill through no matter how unconstitutional it is and we will just sit on our hands and take it, well fuck them. The oath they took was to uphold and defend the constitution, the oath the military takes is to defend and uphold the constitution, and might I add against enemies foreign and domestic.
-
Curious to see if any opinions on this question have changed as the issues have changes.
When I asked this question the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, etc.. were on everyone's mind and the Constitution seemed very important to everyone but now we have a different president with different issues. Are some of you still willing to place so much importance on following the written documents if it meant dropping things like government run healthcare and if it meant that there would have been no bailouts?
no, I feel the same way.
-
The constitution says what it means and means what it says as has been stated in this tread if something needs to be changed there is an amendment process. No where in the document is healthcare a right implied or otherwise. No where is the document does it say that the federal government has the right to "spread" the wealth around implied or otherwise. These wothless fuckers in Washington think they can just ram a bill through no matter how unconstitutional it is and we will just sit on our hands and take it, well fuck them. The oath they took was to uphold and defend the constitution, the oath the military takes is to defend and uphold the constitution, and might I add against enemies foreign and domestic.
Aren't there many things the government does that aren't implied or otherwise in the constitution?
It doesn't take an amendment for a law to get passed.
-
Some people advocate applying the "spirit of the founding documents," rather than the literal meaning of the words in the documents.
Others advocate that we adhere to the "letter of the supreme law" and interpret the documents in strict accord with the written words.
How seriously do people take the US Constitution these days?
If should be absolutely followed down to each letter. If changes our needed a system is laid out to correctly makes those changes.
-
no, I feel the same way.
I was curious how that fits in with your support of the healthcare issue? Or am I making assumptions?
-
Aren't there many things the government does that aren't implied or otherwise in the constitution?
It doesn't take an amendment for a law to get passed.
Thats why the real power is defered to the states. They are supposed to "police" themselves and pass laws that obey the US constitution as well as each states constitution