| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
polls may be amusing, or informative, but after Bill's poll driven admin. It's clear they're not the be all of reality. Besides, it was prophesizzzed by the court jester, Biden, that this admin would be tested, and that we would not approve of their actions... but they knew better than we did, so just relax. Poll driven government is subject to the whims of the mob & media. Really, I've been hearing the "mexico-gun-excuse" for stripping American citizens of their civil rights for over a week. There was deliberate series of stories to set up the possible treaty with Mexico that would do---well, they don't get into that. I would guess, ( in this 2nd amendment thread ) that since a treaty over rides the Constitution, that an end run is in play. Say, a ban on private transfer of arms? Of course if this were an illegal immigration thread, I'd guess a plot to grant to the entire population of Mexico, past & future, better than I get citizenship.... as long as they register & vote Democrat. But the Polls? LOL. Since Obama reportedly missed being informed about hundreds of thousand nation wide protesters, all Rahm has to do is tell him he's still thought of as godlike, and who's going to tell him different? polls don't mean diddle. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I've crossed paths with two morons this week. One had no clue what PETA is and the other, a 23 year old female, voted for Obama because he IS the anti-Christ. When I pressed her for an explanation for her warped thinking she explained it's the world's destiny and things must be kept in balance. Where can one begin to have a dialogue with people like this. I don't believe it's possible nor do I have the patience or energy to do so. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Selective breeding. You should have to pass the basic civics test that naturalized citizens must pass in order to be allowed to procreate. Unauthorized procreation results in permanent and irrevocable revocation of voting rights for both the breeders and the brood. The test will be administered in english only with punch cards. If you can't read or can't fully punch out little circles, you automatically fail. Additionally, only those who's tax burden to the Federal Government exceeds 5% are allowed to vote. | ||
| Hexangler |
I guess that leaves me out. Additionally, only those who's tax burden to the Federal Government exceeds 5% are allowed to vote. I guess all my hard work and investments into my own company, and the tax credits I used to help, really are unappreciated. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
At some point in time, you, as a small business owner, will make a profit or you will go out of business. At less than 5%, you will utilize more from the Federal Government than you put in. This would put you at a consumer rather than a contributor. One who is a net taker should not have the ability to vote in pay raises from those who contribute. Currently, 50% of the population pays less than 3% of taxes. About 55-60% of the population would be disqualified. Sounds about right to me. | ||
| Court |
How about if we weight votes based on the taxes a person pays. If I am in a 39% tax bracket, I get 39 votes. Persons not paying any taxes get 0 votes. This would incent them to "earn votes".  | ||
| Hexangler |
I see. Defend the 2nd and defy the 24th. Amendment XXIV (the Twenty-fourth Amendment) prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. Sheesh. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
No, repeal the 24th. If we can dictate the pay of executives who work for banks who have received government assistance, why would it not be even more reasonable to determine the voting status of those who are life long recipients of government assistance? It's not whether or not they can pay a poll tax. It's whether or not they have the ability to vote themselves benefits in perpetuity. We are left with the problem we have now. The candidate who gets the most votes is the one who promises the most from the public tit. You want to vote, get off the dole. | ||
| Hexangler |
One who is a net taker should not have the ability to vote in pay raises from those who contribute. Persons not paying any taxes get 0 votes. Talk about elitism. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The alternative is that the poor get to vote for those most likely to make the "un-poor" poor. Add to that the inclination of the current administration to provide amnesty and legalization to another 12M illegal immigrants in order to flood the ranks of the lowest income ranks and greatest recipients of government benefit. You really believe this is fair. You believe this isn't by design? We are witnessing the end of the our American experiment, I'm afraid. | ||
| Hardlya |
+1 FT_bstrd...if you (or me) are hard working, pay your taxes and own a gun, you are definitely ultra conservative and need to be reeled in! Can't have this kinda folks making decisions about the future of the USA for heavens sake...oops scratch the word heaven. | ||
| Bill0351 |
"polls may be amusing, or informative, but after Bill's poll driven admin. It's clear they're not the be all of reality." Well conceived and ethically administered polls are one of the only ways of gauge public sentiment short of a referendum. Our whole government system is based on public sentiment weighed against our existing laws and Constitutional rights. In that way, poll driven government is actually not a bad thing at all. The key is knowing when public sentiment runs against Constitutional rights. That's what Alexis de Tocqueville meant when he talked about "the tyranny of the majority." The key issue in the 2nd Amendment debate is what level of gun legislation actually constitutes a breach of our rights. At this point you need a special license for Class III weapons, so clearly the 2nd Amendment isn't an absolute right. The Heller vs DC decision showed that gun laws can only go so far before they will be struck down. The current debate on assault weapons falls somewhere between those two issues, and public opinion is going to play some sort of role whether a person wants it to or not. On another note: I sure hope Court's joking about a sliding scale of representation based on income. It's unconstitutional an immoral on so many levels it's beyond belief. Bill | ||
| Greenlantern |
We are witnessing the end of the our American experiment I have always thought that statement to be a contradiction in terms. If the experiment was truly ending, would that not mean a solution has been found? Putting the question respectfully and not within any topical context, What makes any one Amendment more precious than any other? If a set of rules are not working for a segment of the players do we tweak the rules so it goes the other way and then reinstate them when the new underdogs get frustrated just the same? If the answer is yes, then I fear that the Constitution in it's entirety is flawed and as such should be scrapped and redrawn as the providence of circumstances dictate. I personally do not believe this to be the case and pray that this path would not ever be trodden. The pessimist in me though reminds that this imminent demise of our great nation has played out before. We made it but the cost could not be measured in mere dollars. How much are we willing to spend? That seems to be the real question. | ||
| Jb2 |
I like Court's scale. Taxation with appropriate representation. Only the fair tax based on consumption and not income would be the fairer alternative. I still have not figured out how folks who pay no income tax get a refund. That's income redistribution if there ever was. JB2 | ||
| Court |
>>>I sure hope Court's joking about a sliding scale of representation based on income. It's unconstitutional an immoral on so many levels it's beyond belief I am joking. I've seen dishonest and stupid in The White House . . . just never at the same time. The things they are doing now, when not romping around the world making a horse's ass out of himself with the new Maiden of Make-Up, is beyond anything I could have imagined. We now have a system where a minority of the folks are supporting the majority. I don't know the solution. My comfort is that I'm damn sure it's temporary. The stunts, over the past couple of days, with compromising national security will come back to haunt him. I'm waiting for the release of the names (including Nancy Pelosi) of ALL the folks where were briefed IN DETAIL about the means to be used and SIGNED OFF in advance. Now they all sit around acting aghast . . . it really is a shameful bunch of people led by a patently unqualified and totally classless President. He is a national embarrassment. Keep an eye on Rahm. | ||
| Reindog |
Court is old and in the way. His caretaker needs to wipe off the spittle dribbling down his chin. He lives in some mythical past era and needs to jump aboard the Obama wagon for the Big Win! | ||
| Moxnix |
Old anekdoty from the former Soviet Union-- Seven paradoxes of the socialist state: Nobody works, but the plan is always fulfilled. The plan is fulfilled, but the shelves in the stores are empty. The shelves are empty, but nobody starves; nobody starves, but everybody is unhappy; everybody is unhappy, but nobody complains; nobody complains, but the jails are full. Odd how public school civics classes no longer teach about the Constitution, followed by post secondary institutions teaching against it. Dumbness, by default, puts more folk on the government breast who always vote for more government milk. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
If the experiment was truly ending, would that not mean a solution has been found? I have had several experiments "end" without a solution. Usually very loudly. Not all Amendments ARE equal, but they are law. Is the law that prohibits littering equal in importance to the law that prohibits murder? The issue is that there are two competing political modes. "Conservatives" seek to maintain the ACTUAL meaning of the Constitution as it was written under a "strict constructionist" viewpoint. "Liberals" seek to alter the meaning of the Constitution based upon current usage, context, and opinion. The framers sought to have the meanings of words concrete rather than fluid. Otherwise, they would never have structured the mechanisms for altering the Constitution as they did. They wanted to make changing the Constitution difficult. They didn't want it to be easy to change for one person, the president, or 9 people, the judiciary, or 535 people in Congress. They wanted the majority of a VAST majority of the population in the states to agree that changing the Constitution was right and beneficial. The vast majority of the vast majority of states would NEVER ratify the overarching demolition of Constitution as has been perpetrated over the last 8 years or the last 100 days. NEVER. When, though, the 545 elected and appointed members of the three branches of the government of our nation fail to abide by the written word of the Constitution, the founders provided a big red reset button. The mechanism of that reset IS the 2nd Amendment. Altering or limiting that Amendment, removes the last opportunity to keep our nation from slipping over the edge into tyranny. (Message edited by ft_bstrd on April 21, 2009) | ||
| Moxnix |
"I've seen dishonest and stupid in The White House . . . just never at the same time." Stoopid, bent (as in dishonest), but well trained. An old joke from Armenian Radio: This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “What is the difference between the Constitutions of the USA and USSR?” Both guarantee freedom of speech.” We’re answering: “Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.” (Message edited by moxnix on April 21, 2009) | ||
| Oldog |
He is a national embarrassment. This is an accurate statement... If the do a movie about BO I hope that he gets ripped like bush did in W oh wait its been done, Hotshots, "Tug Benson" bridges was funny BO is not....} | ||
| Court |
>>>Court is old and in the way. Absolutely. I, following the example of my Dad, have always sought to learn, love and live without the need of a government to prop me up, help me start my business or compensate for lack of personal responsibility. Dad was a legend (as way my Grandfather) in the construction business having started with $500 (borrowed $50 each from 10 Lineman in a bar in Bonner Springs, KS) and retiring at 52 having built one of the best construction firms in the USA. He told me "I showed you how to do it, no amount of my money will do anything but interfere". I sat out with my $3,200 and managed to be winning national awards in 5 years for excellence and was admitted to the Advanced Management Program. We did things in a way that has become foreign. We worked hard. We both made huge screw ups. When we did, we accepted responsibility and corrected them. We both got lots of notice. I've been on more magazine covers than my folks would have guessed when I was a kid. I paid my way through college . . . all five of them and will be graduating May 20th #1 in the Graduate Program from Columbia. You're right . . . I am very old fashioned. I love competition and I love hard work. I'm not eligible to serve with this administration. By the way, I spent 2 years doing Press Advance with The White House Advance Team and got to travel with both President Reagan and Vice President Bush. Both were cut from the same cloth as my Dad. Both smart as whips, kind and considerate and accomplished leaders. I fear me and my kind have become dinosaurs. You're right . . . I am drooling. P.S. - Little sidebar . . . I am not done yet. Keep your eyes on Long Island Sound . . . I LOVE construction, entrepreneurship and doing things folks say can't be done. | ||
| Greenlantern |
I have had several experiments "end" without a solution. Usually very loudly. Next time, use a pie and not the vacuum. Not all Amendments ARE equal, but they are law. Maybe in scope, but not in mandate. It is our political "bible" after all. Is the law that prohibits littering equal in importance to the law that prohibits murder? While a valid point, it is not in context with original question. (see above) The issue is that there are two competing political modes. Our "original sin"  The framers sought to have the meanings of words concrete rather than fluid. Otherwise, they would never have structured the mechanisms for altering the Constitution as they did. They wanted to make changing the Constitution difficult. I agree fully. They didn't want it to be easy to change for one person, the president, or 9 people, the judiciary, or 535 people in Congress. They wanted the majority of a VAST majority of the population in the states to agree that changing the Constitution was right and beneficial. And there is the rub. No matter how many fail safes you incorporate in a system, there is always that many more ways to circumvent it. It was and is a GREAT set up, unfortunately "We the People" have a nasty habit of ignoring the whole story once we are convinced we are convinced our chapter has been writ accurately. The vast majority of the vast majority of states would NEVER ratify the overarching demolition of Constitution as has been perpetrated over the last 8 years or the last 100 days. NEVER. True and False! Please see Fort Sumter, Jefferson Davis, Abraham Lincoln and The War between the States. " Tell Mr. Chase not to bother himself about the Constitution . . . I have that sacred instrument here at the White House, and I am guarding it with great care." Abraham Lincoln 1861 When, though, the 545 elected and appointed members of the three branches of the government of our nation fail to abide by the written word of the Constitution, the founders provided a big red reset button. The mechanism of that reset IS the 2nd Amendment. That may well be and as such led to my original post. Quick change (I do not use "real" change because that takes time and nobody seems to have the patience for that anymore) with real results would require revolution by force of arms. This would as I stated above be the true end of "the experiment" as the above mentioned war confirmed that no government ever created, provisioned for it's own dissolution in it's charter. If that be the case I hope the new country has a more kickass name . Always fun trading quips with you my friend! One day I hope it's over a brew, I'm buying  | ||
| Thumper74 |
The United States of Awesome! The flag will have flames added to it to make it look faster | ||
| Greenlantern |
The United States of Awesome! The flag will have flames added to it to make it look faster  | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
While ALL laws have equal mandate, the consequences of infraction are asymetrical. Odd that the 2nd Amendment is the target of the left. Could it be that ultimately the ability to use force of arms is the only real back stop to a government gone awry. In order for total government, socialist/communist ideals, to work, the Constitution must die. They are mutually exclusive. Religion must be abolished. There can be no God before Government. Reliance on ANYONE or ANYTHING other than a government program is forbidden. We mutilated the 1st Amendment with respect to religion long ago. We blew right past the 10th Amendment decades ago. Blame FDR. What about the commerce clause? What about any of two dozen provisions of the Constitution that are commonly overridden regardless of the language. This issue isn't JUST about the alteration of the execution of the law, but it's the consequences of the alteration that count. If the populace is left with less ability to defend themselves against a government as a result of a watering down of the 2nd Amendment, the consequence is quite dire. What could take a few years to restore could take decades or might never be brought back. Beer! It would be an honor sir! | ||
| Jb2 |
World peace is surely on the horizon, once us old fu<kers die. Song title: Eugene Lyrics by Greg Brown http://www.gregbrown.org/gblyricsevening.html#euge ne (Message edited by jb2 on April 21, 2009) | ||
| Aesquire |
The current debate on assault weapons... No debate. Just lies. Sliding scale based on income? Way unconstitutional. Seems to be the way things work for some politicians.... large bribes get results. Does not mean it's right. I might go for the "Starship Troopers" concept. The rights of citizen come after voluntary service. Not going to happen, but an interesting variation from pay for play. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
"Service Guarantees Citizenship" I like the idea. Only citizens vote. Only citizens are eligible for public service. | ||
| Thumper74 |
It's not a terrible idea, if I remember correctly, only citizens could own land, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Germany have a similar law? All persons are required to work in public service, ie, military, hospitals, etc? | ||
| Aesquire |
...if I remember correctly, only citizens could own land, etc. Not in the "Starship Troopers" FICTIONAL universe. No draft. No forced service. That would ruin the concept. At the age of 18 you are allowed to volunteer for service. You can volunteer if you are 80 too, but it would be kind of hard to do your "2 years, or the duration of the emergency" at that age. The deal is, you get no choice of job. The protagonist in Starship Troopers wanted to be a pilot, since his sweetheart wanted to. Bad news for him, bad math scores, ( can't astrogate a starship without calculus ) so he gets mobile infantry. As Heinlein put it, if you are blind in a wheelchair, they may have you count hairs on a caterpillar by touch, since they cannot turn you down. but you can quit at any time, no problem, ( except in combat ) you just don't get the franchise. Property rights etc. all same as now, but only vets vote. The ( really really bad ) Movie was done by a film maker who hated the subject matter, yet the most sarcastic slams on Heinlein's book in the movie are unintentionally the funniest to me. Scene: obviously beaten criminal type before 20 ft high judges bench. (Voiceover) "A murderer was caught this morning, sentenced this afternoon" (Judge) "Guilty!" (VO) "Execution at 7 tonight, all channels, all net...Do you want to know more?" The base concept is that you put the well being of the state before your own to earn the right to vote. I don't want to live there, but that system has it's good points. many accused Heinlein of being fascist because of that book, but it was simply an exploration of an idea. The book itself is a coming of age story. |
