How important is the US Constitution?

[Hugo Chavez]

No you don't. He's Swedish, who gives a shit? 

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.

[Deicide]

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.

[Hedgehog]

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.

[drkaje]

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.

[Slapper]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[w8tlftr]

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. 

[w8tlftr]

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.

[Slapper]

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. 

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]

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.

[w8tlftr]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[Slapper]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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?

[War-Horse]

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.

[w8tlftr]

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.

[Hedgehog]

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.

[Hedgehog]

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.

[w8tlftr]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.   

[w8tlftr]

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.

[Deicide]

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?

[Dos Equis]

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. 

[War-Horse]

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.