There goes the First Ammendment

[98s14inaz]

Originally Posted by Matej

Screw the Constitution.
Yes I said it.
I can't believe people in 2008 want to live by a document written over 200 years ago, back when times were completely different and it was written to suit the needs of the people of that time.
The Constitution is obsolete and needs to be overhauled.

You should check the track record of countries that don't have a constitution like ours if you think it is so good some place else. England and Australia come to mind. You think it sucks here, move to one of those two.

[Matej]

Originally Posted by 98s14inaz

You should check the track record of countries that don't have a constitution like ours if you think it is so good some place else. England and Australia come to mind. You think it sucks here, move to one of those two.

Have you ever lived in either one, for an extended period of time? Tell me what's so terrible about living there.
But that's off the subject, I'm not saying any country has the perfect government.
I'm just tired of people constantly calling on the amendments, that are irrelevant by this century. The Constitution was a masterpiece of its time, but now it's 2008. The king of Britain isn't trying to house soldiers in your homes.

[98s14inaz]

Originally Posted by Matej

Have you ever lived in either one, for an extended period of time?

I have several relatives and friends who have. I know better than to move there. Read some books about them, socialism sucks.

[Matej]

Originally Posted by 98s14inaz

Read some books about them, socialism sucks.

The US government is currently buying up banks. I could call that socialism, because if that doesn't reek of socialism, I don't know what does. However, that just goes back to the problem of trying to classify everything as black or white. I believe some government involvement in certain things can be a good thing, such as health care for example, it's just a matter of finding a balance that works, something that years from now doesn't result in another catastrophic failure like today's economic situation.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Originally Posted by Matej

Screw the Constitution.
Yes I said it.
I can't believe people in 2008 want to live by a document written over 200 years ago, back when times were completely different and it was written to suit the needs of the people of that time.
The Constitution is obsolete and needs to be overhauled. Even though I definitely do not trust the current government to rewrite it.

People like you disgust me. Don't try to change my country because you don't like it. The Founders set rules and, if we had lived by them, people would be better off now. We broke them and here we are. We don't change them except by very strict guidelines, which were abused... and here we are.

You want universal health care? Go to Canada or France or Germany. It isn't in the Constitution, and health care back then consisted of a rag soaked in brandy, bed rest, and some luck. You're blessed to have this much access to medical necessities.

America was founded on self-reliance. You may want handouts, high taxes, and increased regulation, but you want another country, not mine. The American Dream pays off, but not if you're a lazy idiot. You need to work, you need to fail, you need to pick yourself up and rise above to live the dream. If you think it's unfair, life's unfair.

Neoliberalism makes me sick. Every cent I donate to political causes will go toward causes to reverse the spread of the cancer and bring down the bloat.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by KA24DESOneThree

You want universal health care? Go to Canada or France or Germany.

Universal health care. You don't even have to go to Canada or Europe. It doesn't even work here.

Hawaii had enacted "universal coverage" for children through HMSA and that program was cancelled after just 11 months and coverage for 2000 kids.

Crisis in Hawaii Healthcare

[BustedS13]

so fox might actually be fair and balanced instead of a 24/7 smear campaign? oh no

[SexPanda]

I personally hate the FCC. If I could, I would take the FCC, put it on a ship, and send it back to europe where it belongs.

If you dont like whats on tv, change the station
if you dont like what on the radio, turn it off
if you dont like whats in the news paper, put it down.

All of these politically correct people and their bullshit ideas of what I need to hear and see, I hate it. If I want to watch 2 asian hookers go down on a midget in a bikini, I don't want the government saying I cant.

Basically, in the words of so many,

FUCK THE FCC

[Matej]

Originally Posted by RJF

OK, name a better country.

And if we are so f!@^&d up, why does everyone in the world want to come here?

Show me a country where educated people still want to come to America.

This isn't the 1940s.

[JeremyR]

better country is an opinion, there is no definate better country, never will be.

personally i feel canada is a way better country.
universial health car, very low crime and homicide rate. when have you ever seen canada go to war with a country or have a terrorist attack?? hmm?

you act like everyone wants to come to america and no where else. there are people who immigrate to other countries as well. im sorry all of our media is biased towards making people "blind patriots" yeah lets all just believe everything we hear on the news and our leaders tell us. no one ever lies. ever. EVER. its honestly not worth my time or effort to argue with you over politics. i come to zilvia to get away from all political hype not see more of it. people need to get lives.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6K5M0xtxQVQ...</param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6K5M0xtxQVQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[40daws]

Barack is also going to require all forums posters with negative posts about him to advertise thier penis size on the back of there jeans. Tight jeans. Male camel toe tight. And muscle shirts. And carry a little McCain and Palin doll,along with a fanny pack. This is only is he wins. He is. So be ready.

[40daws]

Poor white trash manager: I'm afraid if Obama wins,someone will kill him and then that will start a race war.
Janitor: You ever notice when someone talks about about a race war,they are always white ?
PWTM: Uhhhh...?
Janitor: White people say they are not scared,or fear a certain race of folks,but whats with all the race war talk ?
PWTM: Blarggg..arrgg...Mhh..I'll be in my office.

[SexPanda]

lol this thread is win...

You know what will happen if barack becomes president?
Not shit
You know what will happen if McCain becomes president?
Not shit.

It's all the same smoke and mirrors. Im voting for McCain simply because Obama is far too liberal, but it really doesnt matter.

[svensko]

Originally Posted by SexPanda

lol this thread is win...

You know what will happen if barack becomes president?
Not shit
You know what will happen if McCain becomes president?
Not shit.

It's all the same smoke and mirrors. Im voting for McCain simply because Obama is far too liberal, but it really doesnt matter.

I'm voting for Obama simply because McCain/Palin are far too conservative.

[iwishiwas-all*]

gabe calls it now it will never happen .

[TheWolf]

This is about USA being #1. The second place plaque is in the ladies room.

OMG canada being #1... HAHAHA at what? being a big pussy nation. Free healthcare in exchange for tarrifs, taxes, and shitty weather. What a deal! Why don't you move from cali to canada and live there instead. Everything you buy from the US up there costs $8 + 12-15% in Tax just to get it shipped across the border. Throw duty on top if it wasn't made in america.

[murda-c]

So i need to unite the planet so we can stop spending all our resources on war and start spending them on healthcare and galactic colonization?

I'll get right on it.

[RJF]

What's their definition of "rich"?

[imotion s14]

Originally Posted by RJF

What's their definition of "rich"?

put the fear of the deficit behind us?

Who the fuck keeps electing this moron? Oh right.. the educated elite of blue state Massachusetts.

[RJF]

More taxes...less free speech and now they want to take our 401(k)'s

Socialism here we come.

This has to be the scariest thing I've read yet about a possible all-Democrat government: the end of 401(k) investing.

Powerful House Democrats are considering removing all existing 401(k) tax breaks -- goodbye, matching employer contributions! -- and forcing Americans to contribute to a second level of Social Security instead. (Bet you haven't heard about this one from the "Elect Obama" mainstream media...)

Details from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

"...your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k), and your capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your 'matching' funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!

"As Michelle Obama says, you could buy a pair of earrings every year … except, of course, you can’t. It’s in The Lockbox, defined by politicians as Locked Away from You but Accessible to Us. It goes there along with 5% of your gross earnings, apparently to play with the 7% of your gross earnings that already goes to Social Security. And what do they do with the money? They give you government bonds as your only investment option."

More:

"The Democrats want to end the private retirement system that has allowed Americans to become a vast investor class and put them back in thrall of the federal government. This is nothing more than a second welfare system that would sit on top of the crumbling Social Security entitlement. It would leave the American working and middle classes with no retirement option other than a government handout.

"If the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, kiss your 401(k)s goodbye, and get into the bread lines first before the crowd arrives."

Senator McCain needs to be hitting this issue hard in ads, starting immediately. A Republican Presidential veto pen is the only thing which can stop this plan from taking place.

Unfortunately, given the current state of the market and everyone's 401(k) plans, the issue may not have the same resonance it would normally have, but voters should also be reminded that historically market dips have always been temporary...always.

Like a lot of Americans, our 401(k), and the generous matching contributions by my husband's employer, provides much of our financial security. If Democrats take that away and instead tax us more for "a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute," it would be devastating, not only for American workers everywhere, but for the American economy.

http://laurasmiscmusings.blogspot.co...-accounts.html

[Gnnr]

Socialism? Naaahhhhh. If only we where so lucky. Last I checked we where more like a "hybrid capitalism", where the govt gets the power and corporations get to enjoy the profits of capitalism and we get to enjoy the cons of socialism.

[98s14inaz]

Originally Posted by RJF

More taxes...less free speech and now they want to take our 401(k)'s

Socialism here we come.

This has to be the scariest thing I've read yet about a possible all-Democrat government: the end of 401(k) investing.

Powerful House Democrats are considering removing all existing 401(k) tax breaks -- goodbye, matching employer contributions! -- and forcing Americans to contribute to a second level of Social Security instead. (Bet you haven't heard about this one from the "Elect Obama" mainstream media...)

Details from Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

"...your employer can no longer write off their contributions to your 401(k), and your capital gains would be taxable year-on-year. In other words, it becomes just another investment or savings account, with no tax benefit at all, and no employer contribution. Instead, Uncle Sam would give you your 'matching' funds — up to a whopping $600 per year! Whoopee!

"As Michelle Obama says, you could buy a pair of earrings every year … except, of course, you can’t. It’s in The Lockbox, defined by politicians as Locked Away from You but Accessible to Us. It goes there along with 5% of your gross earnings, apparently to play with the 7% of your gross earnings that already goes to Social Security. And what do they do with the money? They give you government bonds as your only investment option."

More:

"The Democrats want to end the private retirement system that has allowed Americans to become a vast investor class and put them back in thrall of the federal government. This is nothing more than a second welfare system that would sit on top of the crumbling Social Security entitlement. It would leave the American working and middle classes with no retirement option other than a government handout.

"If the Democrats control both Congress and the White House, kiss your 401(k)s goodbye, and get into the bread lines first before the crowd arrives."

Senator McCain needs to be hitting this issue hard in ads, starting immediately. A Republican Presidential veto pen is the only thing which can stop this plan from taking place.

Unfortunately, given the current state of the market and everyone's 401(k) plans, the issue may not have the same resonance it would normally have, but voters should also be reminded that historically market dips have always been temporary...always.

Like a lot of Americans, our 401(k), and the generous matching contributions by my husband's employer, provides much of our financial security. If Democrats take that away and instead tax us more for "a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute," it would be devastating, not only for American workers everywhere, but for the American economy.

Laura's Miscellaneous Musings: Democrats to Kill 401(k) Accounts?!

I didn't know about some of that, scary stuff.

[shade]

You mean give even more welfare to fuckin bums in this country so they can keep leeching on the money that hard working people worked for? Fuck that, work hard for something or get the fuck out. Pussy ass liberals..

Originally Posted by murda-c

So i need to unite the planet so we can stop spending all our resources on war and start spending them on healthcare and galactic colonization?

I'll get right on it.

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by shade

You mean give even more welfare to fuckin bums in this country so they can keep leeching on the money that hard working people worked for? Fuck that, work hard for something or get the fuck out. Pussy ass liberals..

I'm not any more for welfare as a handout than you probably are, but telling ANY sizable contingent of the population to "GTFO" doesn't work, even if it's what is fair.

A market-based meritocracy economy is indeed very fair, but it does have shortcomings when applied to reality. A meritocracy (i.e. hands-off free-market economy) produces winners and losers, and we'd all like to tell ourselves that the winner should win, the losers should lose, and everyone should fend for themselves.

Unfortunately that won't really work. The American gene-pool produces born winners, born losers, and then people who could go either way (the latter being the vast majority). What do we do with the born losers, the people who are just not equipped to ever "win" in a winner-take-all economy? This is a decent-sized chunk of society, and you can't have a big chunk of society being consistently marginalized and unhappy unless you want to have crime skyrocket, have economic issues (see: current housing crisis), or potentially breed a revolution (violent or political).

So what do you do with these people? You can't very well kill or deport them, and you also can't expect them to somehow leave on their own. No, unfortunately it is the responsibility of the "winners" to take care of the "losers" to a certain extent, if for no reason other than self-preservation via keeping the nation stable. The assistance doesn't necessarily need to be in the form of a straight-up government handout, but there DO need to be safety nets of some kind.

It isn't exactly fair, and it definitely doesn't fit into the ideological purity demanded by today's GOP, but that doesn't make it not true. Consider it a cost of doing business.

Creating permanent underclasses is a nasty business, as numerous societies throughout history have learned.

[Gnnr]

Originally Posted by WanganRunner

I'm not any more for welfare as a handout than you probably are, but telling ANY sizable contingent of the population to "GTFO" doesn't work, even if it's what is fair.

A market-based meritocracy economy is indeed very fair, but it does have shortcomings when applied to reality. A meritocracy (i.e. hands-off free-market economy) produces winners and losers, and we'd all like to tell ourselves that the winner should win, the losers should lose, and everyone should fend for themselves.

Unfortunately that won't really work. The American gene-pool produces born winners, born losers, and then people who could go either way (the latter being the vast majority). What do we do with the born losers, the people who are just not equipped to ever "win" in a winner-take-all economy? This is a decent-sized chunk of society, and you can't have a big chunk of society being consistently marginalized and unhappy unless you want to have crime skyrocket, have economic issues (see: current housing crisis), or potentially breed a revolution (violent or political).

So what do you do with these people? You can't very well kill or deport them, and you also can't expect them to somehow leave on their own. No, unfortunately it is the responsibility of the "winners" to take care of the "losers" to a certain extent, if for no reason other than self-preservation via keeping the nation stable. The assistance doesn't necessarily need to be in the form of a straight-up government handout, but there DO need to be safety nets of some kind.

It isn't exactly fair, and it definitely doesn't fit into the ideological purity demanded by today's GOP, but that doesn't make it not true. Consider it a cost of doing business.

Creating permanent underclasses is a nasty business, as numerous societies throughout history have learned.

Word. Once you get into higher level politics you start to see that social darwinism doesn't work out. This country learned many times, sometimes brutally, that it can't function without those at the bottom of the pyramid.

[RJF]

Another Democrat that wants to stifle free speech.

[WanganRunner]

Originally Posted by Gnnr

Word. Once you get into higher level politics you start to see that social darwinism doesn't work out. This country learned many times, sometimes brutally, that it can't function without those at the bottom of the pyramid.

Yep.

It's comforting to think that we can apply the "rules of the playground" to running the country and decide everything based on what's fair, but unfortunately that doesn't always sync with reality.

It doesn't work at a macro level. Huge groups of people exert certain influence and can exact certain consequences just by virtue of being a huge group, whether it's fair or not. You can either deal with it and secure your own position or ignore it at your own peril.

[Phlip]

You know guys, now that you mention it...
I think I dislike the idea of a liberal president, especially a black one.
I am voting for a Maverick who has mastered the fine arts of hypocrisy and throwing rock and hiding his hands, but puts country first and hoping that his fuckton of horrible ideas actually work somehow.

[WanganRunner]

The right needs to stop being so alarmed at this prospect.

This will ONLY happen if the Democrats attain a super-majority, i.e. 60 seats in the Senate. This is HIGHLY unlikely, so stop stressing out about it.

All that will happen is a house majority, a Dem President, and a Senate majority that is NOT filibuster-proof (i.e. precisely what the GOP had awhile back).

It won't be anything earth-shattering.



That article, however, totally ignores the most profound thing the Dems could do with a super-majority if they ever got one. They could eliminate the electoral college and run Presidential elections on a straight popular vote.

A popular vote would mean that the GOP would never get another President elected EVER AGAIN, barring huge shifts in how population is distributed in the United States. Right now, it's not in the Dems interest to spend time and money extracting maximum turnout from hugely populated areas in safe blue states, they're more motivated to go after a few swing voters in rural Ohio. With a popular vote they could ignore the Rust Belt swing voters and ramp up their turnout on the coasts. The GOP already has very near max turnout, but the Dems have a huge potential to tap more. Given how the population is distributed in this country (i.e. heavy on the coasts), the GOP would never, ever, ever, ever win a Presidential election EVER again.

But a super-majority won't happen, so don't sweat it.



EDIT: As of the most recent census, the total "Blue State" (04 election) population is 167.9 million people while the total "Red State" population is only 125.2 million. Now, of course, there are Democrats in red states and Republicans in blue states, but the way it is right now, the percentage of population that actually votes is still pretty low. If the Republicans maxed turnout in their lower-populated states and the Dems maxed turnout in their much higher-populated states, well.....you get the idea. It would be permanent Democratic rule forever.

[RJF]

Originally Posted by WanganRunner

But a super-majority won't happen, so don't sweat it.

You so sure? It doesn't look that way right now.