Jump to content


- - - - -

Derek and Chris Argue in a Thread of Politicis and Social Issuesand for me to understand more about the US constitution


  • Please log in to reply
1821 replies to this topic

#41 stretts

stretts

    GET YOUR TWO STEP ON!

  • Admin
  • 8,547 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Adelaide, OOOOSTRARLEEARR
  • Interests:You, dear.

Posted 19 April 2011 - 11:06 PM

Teabaggers unite.

I had something much more intelligent here, but interchanged it for this comment

Fearless leader of Stretts' Bitches and Tits


Last.FM


#42 Curtis

Curtis

    A Quirky Phrase Or Something...

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 337 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:UC Davis
  • Interests:Music, along with various thing the aren't music

Posted 19 April 2011 - 11:09 PM

Quote

I had something much more intelligent here, but interchanged it for this comment



Posted Image ima use this tomorrow in school every time i say something stupid to troll the teachers. im gitty with anticipation

Posted Image


#43 kelso

kelso

    Plagued By Practical And A Mercenary Lust

  • Regulars
  • PipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Interests:Kicking ass and hanging out

Posted 20 April 2011 - 12:40 AM

View PostTheCityMayor, on 19 April 2011 - 10:26 PM, said:

Quote

HA! Classes. Capitalism was created before a REAL global economy existed. Its completely possible to work hard and be more successful in a moderately socialistic economy. Capitalism only saves her nicest rewards for those who already have wealth. With a disappearing middle class we here in the states are faced with the ultra rich exporting jobs and a ballooning poverty level. Soon we'll have an aristocracy, even worse than the current one and there isn't going to be any way for the economy to make money. Its going in this all import no export direction and it just makes the whole nation more and more poor. Its completely apparent by the way Congress cannot pass a tax on the ultra wealthy so they are paying only %25...the same amount as a self employed person making under 40G a year.

uh.. were not talking about pure capitalism, thats only leads to shit. But pure socialism is shit too, a balance is key and thats what we have now. And Really? Capitalism rewards the people who already have wealth because they are intelligent enough to use it. Can you blame corporations for exporting their manufacturing? why would they produce in the US when its cheaper elsewhere. It easy to complain about it, but your reaping the benefits every time you buy a 3$ shirt at Khol's. We've always had an aristocracy and good luck changing that, and if you knew econ. you'd know that an oligopoly is really the only viable free market structure that can make a long term profit. Taxing the wealth would even worse for the economy cause there the ones who make all the freakin jobs. Why should the rich pay a higher percentage than everyone else because they succeeded? its all percentages! taxing something creates less demand for it, and if you tax success people arent gonna want to expand business and succeed. All the taxes and EPA b.s is killing my uncles company thats already in a recession.

p.s. 40% of americans don't pay any taxes at all, tell me how thats fair

p.p.s im lovin' this thread stretts, i'm always ready for an intellectual discussion with someone of a different perspective. With my family i'm the liberal, on here im the conservative, i love it Posted Image
Did you read my comment? It sounds like we are not disagreeing about the correct amounts of capitalism and socialism. No, I have not gone to school for Economics - rather I've found myself right in the thick of it all.

I don't see where I implied tax evasion was fair - but what isn't fair is the way the tax code allows the wealthy and large corporations to avoid full tax payment. I can't produce any evidence of this on account of my severe laziness and having ingested enough bourbon to not care but I've seen a few studies about the broken tax code being in one of the top 5 contributing factors to the deficit, at least as far as income is concerned. I think that everyone should pay their full taxes, I agree with what you said about a flat 15%. There shouldn't be reason to slither out of 50 million in taxes because of certain write offs and loopholes. A flat tax rate would also eliminate the millions in funding required to decode all these tax returns. So again, we actually agree here.

Its funny that you choose to lecture me about buying a $3 shirt at khols (you know where I shop and what my standards are?) when I'm the one that's forced to compete and order what will probably end up being six figures worth of product from China this year. Its just what you said, I cannot afford to not go to China. What you aren't addressing is the trade deficit facing this country right now - it isn't going to take long for people to cut us middlemen in the U.S. out of the picture. You are implying that everyone in this scenario (from at least this country keeping in context) will eventually start a company, export the workload and reap the benefits because they are smart enough to do so...which is completely impossible by any stretch and it also counteracts your own statement that the wealthy are the ones creating jobs.

And you can only hide behind your Darwinian ideal of American capitalism in its current form for a few more years. Not only are the Chinese (and other nations) producing better product than us for less money but they are rapidly outscoring Americans in every facet of education. Unless this changes and Americans can start getting rid of some of the ludicrous profit eating czars, agencies, unions and the corruption that is born of Wall Street, Big oil, Medical and Insurance companies we will cease to be a competitive market. All we'll be is H.G. Wells' Eloi.

I realize I sound like I'm getting a bit chippy but I'm not angry at anyone or taking anything personally. Its just the internets.

View Poststretts, on 19 April 2011 - 10:09 PM, said:

And hey, Kelso, havnt seen you for a while
I lurk.

And furiously masturbate to any photos that people post.
Deep beneath the black dawn, leagues from lightning's flash...Ribs will raise cathedrals for the morning mass. Steel yourself in sackcloth, roll your heart in ash. Scrape your skin with steel wool and hold fast hope. Cross your heart and hold fast hope.

#44 sam sanford

sam sanford

    OMG! Wat hav I dun?

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,289 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:minnesota

Posted 20 April 2011 - 01:55 AM

skipping everything that was just said and replying to the first thing said after i posted.


View PostTheCityMayor, on 19 April 2011 - 09:05 PM, said:

Well universal healthcare isnt an exclusively good or bad thing. Like stretts says, its going good in Australia, but in Canada its very inefficient. Its just a question of how well the government will execute it, whether the ends justify the means (means being cost), and whether there are other issues that need attending to first.

This is my personal opinion, judging by the post office, and just our government in general, we will not be able to execute universal healthcare efficiently. At a time when we have deficits and debt, the ends don't justify the means because healthcare is a privilege not a right. Finally, there are definitely issues that need the money first i.e. the infrastructure, the education system, all the foreign wars, and the freakin economy

government pulls off health care just fine. ask anyone in the military. also, the whole 'its a privilege not a right' thing is totally your opinion. i dont see how anyone could actually answer that question with evidence. do you have any idea of a specific cost impact? have you looked up any specific cost benefit that may be possible?

pretty sure the US already spends more than any other country in the world per capita on healthcare. you say you want money to go to infrastructure, education and war. all jobs usually done by lower/middle class people. same people that are sick and can't afford to pay for medical bills. wouldn't it make sense if those people were healthy and able to do those jobs? i also find it ironic when people say the government should help the economy and then say that the economy should be ran by the private sector. as if they are really that different.

http://seekingalpha....-oecd-countries

interesting video

Posted Image

thepersonandthepeople.bandcamp.com

#45 Kyle

Kyle

    The Priest

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Blacksburg, Va
  • Interests:Teaching inner-city kids the dangers of crumping.

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:24 AM

I am of the opinion that a "Bring back Arrested Development" amendment should be enacted.
gooby pls

#46 DerekAdams32

DerekAdams32

    Oh, What A Terrible, Terrible Game He Plays!

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,350 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Nolensville, TN
  • Interests:Politics, Scary Movies, Strategy Games

Posted 20 April 2011 - 08:42 AM

Well I didn't get a chance to check the forum yesterday because I was busy at work, and I'm too lazy to go back and quote everything that I want to respond to, so I'm just going to respond generally to everyone.

A classless society is for drones. If you want to be lazy your whole life, not have to work hard, and never have any sense of accomplishment, then that's the way to go. We shouldn't make it more difficult for people to be successful.

On the flip side, I think the whole world should be provided free health care. That would be a truly amazing accomplishment to be able to provide such a service. The problem is we cannot afford to provide this service. As proof, look at the larger corporations. Obama had to pass an exemption for the larger corporations like McDonalds because they were going to have to cancel a large portion of their health care. If the biggest, richest companies in the US can't afford this, what makes you think smaller companies can?

Hopefully I can find a break from work to post more later.
Posted Image

#47 Curtis

Curtis

    A Quirky Phrase Or Something...

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 337 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:UC Davis
  • Interests:Music, along with various thing the aren't music

Posted 20 April 2011 - 09:00 AM

i could honestly write like a whole page in response to Sam Kelso and Derek, but i got to go to school in 5 minutes so it'll have to wait.

i really loving this thread though, im just curious if im the only person on here with some conservative view points

Posted Image


#48 DerekAdams32

DerekAdams32

    Oh, What A Terrible, Terrible Game He Plays!

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,350 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Nolensville, TN
  • Interests:Politics, Scary Movies, Strategy Games

Posted 20 April 2011 - 11:39 AM

View PostTheCityMayor, on 20 April 2011 - 09:00 AM, said:

im just curious if im the only person on here with some conservative view points

Clearly you skimmed my post. I don't have a liberal bone in my body.
Posted Image

#49 Sigafoos

Sigafoos

    SIGGITYFIGGITYFIGGITYFOOS

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,767 posts
  • Gender:no thanks
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Interests:fnord

Posted 20 April 2011 - 12:31 PM

My face upon seeing this thread:

Posted Image

I hope to set an example. You know, for children and stuff.


#50 Kyle

Kyle

    The Priest

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Blacksburg, Va
  • Interests:Teaching inner-city kids the dangers of crumping.

Posted 20 April 2011 - 12:42 PM

View Postderekadams32, on 20 April 2011 - 11:39 AM, said:

View PostTheCityMayor, on 20 April 2011 - 09:00 AM, said:

im just curious if im the only person on here with some conservative view points

Clearly you skimmed my post. I don't have a liberal bone in my body.

Wanna change that? ;]
gooby pls

#51 Sigafoos

Sigafoos

    SIGGITYFIGGITYFIGGITYFOOS

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,767 posts
  • Gender:no thanks
  • Location:Buffalo, NY
  • Interests:fnord

Posted 20 April 2011 - 12:45 PM

View PostTheCityMayor, on 20 April 2011 - 09:00 AM, said:

i could honestly write like a whole page in response to Sam Kelso and Derek, but i got to go to school in 5 minutes so it'll have to wait.

i really loving this thread though, im just curious if im the only person on here with some conservative view points

Scott's title is LATR's Token Republican.

View PostLachryma, on 20 April 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

View Postderekadams32, on 20 April 2011 - 11:39 AM, said:

Clearly you skimmed my post. I don't have a liberal bone in my body.

Wanna change that? ;]

I lost (wait wrong thread)

I hope to set an example. You know, for children and stuff.


#52 Kyle

Kyle

    The Priest

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 521 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Blacksburg, Va
  • Interests:Teaching inner-city kids the dangers of crumping.

Posted 20 April 2011 - 12:48 PM

If you haven't noticed, I'm really good at being serious and contributing.
gooby pls

#53 Scott

Scott

    Stapp

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,097 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 April 2011 - 04:25 PM

View PostTheCityMayor, on 20 April 2011 - 09:00 AM, said:


i really loving this thread though, im just curious if im the only person on here with some conservative view points
does this mean i have to change my title now?

#54 Curtis

Curtis

    A Quirky Phrase Or Something...

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 337 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:UC Davis
  • Interests:Music, along with various thing the aren't music

Posted 20 April 2011 - 05:01 PM

Quote

Clearly you skimmed my post. I don't have a liberal bone in my body.

i read it, i just forgot cuz its was at the beginning of the thread. my sincere apologies sir, it just appeared to me as if there were like many liberal people arguing against me alone

Scott, you absolutely don't have to change your tittle. You were here first sir, and i would describe myself as independent anyways. Im just fiscally conservative. Legalize it! Posted Image

Quote

Wanna change that? ;]

not in the slightest, i prefer rational, logical, thinking to liberalism Posted Image

Posted Image


#55 Old Henry

Old Henry

    Triple Handsome Squidward

  • Stretts' Bitches & Tits
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:D&D, Playing music, FLCL, Skateboarding

Posted 20 April 2011 - 06:37 PM

The constitution is meant to updated via Amendments; it was designed to adopt social custom, or to breathe.

Certain rights presented to the branches of Government must be taken literally; though, you must take in account the insinuated laws as well. Certain laws are flexible. It all depends on the circumstance, the extent the law was broken, and the factors in the circumstance that would insinuate a flexibility on charges.

Now, for instance - Obama unlawfully attacked Libya with Cruise Missiles.

If you were a Constitutionalist, or even strict to the laws emitting from the Constitution, you could say by breaching the Constitution's laws, Obama is eligible for impeachment. For War can only be issued by Congress; the President was only given the power to militarily intervene for a period of sixty days, but even then - he must notify Congress. This was to distance himself from Absolute Rulers such as the King of England; the Framers were heavily against absolute power. Nonetheless, attacking Libya is severely unconstitutional. You can say it is under the pretense of NATO; they were the presiding and leading organization in terms of handling the situation on a militaristic scale. Nonetheless, Libya only presented a common interest in regards to our domestic tranquility and the existence of our Government and Bureau's. It was not imperative to attack it to sustain our safety, and the safety of our citizens. For the President is the Commander and Chief due to the fact that he is the Chief Citizen, in so much that he is supposed to represent the will of the American people. To retaliate, or to use the United States military should be pretty much limited to the preservation of American people.

The aforementioned was an example of Constitutional intricacies.

Read Rousseau, Voltaire, Hobbes, Locke, Plato, and Baron De Montesquieu for further understanding of the creation of American documents.

Posted Image


#56 sam sanford

sam sanford

    OMG! Wat hav I dun?

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,289 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:minnesota

Posted 20 April 2011 - 06:42 PM

View Postderekadams32, on 20 April 2011 - 08:42 AM, said:



A classless society is for drones. If you want to be lazy your whole life, not have to work hard, and never have any sense of accomplishment, then that's the way to go. We shouldn't make it more difficult for people to be successful.

just some philosophical question here: what is 'accomplishment' to you? also, what does it mean to be successful? why do you think everybody would be lazy if we live in a classless society?


Quote

On the flip side, I think the whole world should be provided free health care. That would be a truly amazing accomplishment to be able to provide such a service. The problem is we cannot afford to provide this service. As proof, look at the larger corporations. Obama had to pass an exemption for the larger corporations like McDonalds because they were going to have to cancel a large portion of their health care. If the biggest, richest companies in the US can't afford this, what makes you think smaller companies can?

Hopefully I can find a break from work to post more later.

pretty sure mcdonalds could afford it. they just dont want to lose that much profit. but by 2014 all of the exemptions and that stuff would be gone and their part time low level employees could than apply for subsidized medicaid.

but as far as healthcare it is a gray area and i usually just play devils advocate with conservatives. i think its kinda goofy they dont list how much of their current profit revenue goes to covering there current health plans. private or public i assume it going to cost a lot. the difference is that any voter can have a say on the government program while private companies can do whatever they want. and with the rising costs of the already number 1 industry in the country, why would we want to stay on the path? not to mention the private sector has higher overhead costs because there are a lot of money spent executive salaries (which have constantly risen in the past few years).

i looked into healthcare and i would have to be paying a $10,000 deductible at first. thats as much as i paid to go to my shitty college. i could either do that or just not have insurance. the next time i have a major health issue i wont pay for it.


i always get started on typing something up and then get distracted by other internet things.
Posted Image

thepersonandthepeople.bandcamp.com

#57 Curtis

Curtis

    A Quirky Phrase Or Something...

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 337 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:UC Davis
  • Interests:Music, along with various thing the aren't music

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:34 PM

Quote

Now, for instance - Obama unlawfully attacked Libya with Cruise Missiles.


If you were a Constitutionalist, or even strict to the laws emitting from the Constitution, you could say by breaching the Constitution's laws, Obama is eligible for impeachment. For War can only be issued by Congress; the President was only given the power to militarily intervene for a period of sixty days, but even then - he must notify Congress.

Uh.. thats just plain wrong. There is this thing called the War Powers Resolution. Obama did notify congress and they will have to aprove it when the 60 days are up. This is how Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on so long without being a declared war, because congress keeps approving them every 60 days. So a military intervention in Libya is completely legal as long as congress approves it. It doesn't breach the constitution because it is not a declared war and, because it needs congress approval, it has checks and balances anyway

Posted Image


#58 Scott

Scott

    Stapp

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,097 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Florida

Posted 20 April 2011 - 08:33 PM

View PostASonOfRevolution, on 20 April 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

Now, for instance - Obama unlawfully attacked Libya with Cruise Missiles.
He now holds the world record for cruise missiles launched by a peace prize recipient.

#59 Old Henry

Old Henry

    Triple Handsome Squidward

  • Stretts' Bitches & Tits
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:D&D, Playing music, FLCL, Skateboarding

Posted 20 April 2011 - 09:52 PM

View PostTheCityMayor, on 20 April 2011 - 07:34 PM, said:

Quote

Now, for instance - Obama unlawfully attacked Libya with Cruise Missiles.


If you were a Constitutionalist, or even strict to the laws emitting from the Constitution, you could say by breaching the Constitution's laws, Obama is eligible for impeachment. For War can only be issued by Congress; the President was only given the power to militarily intervene for a period of sixty days, but even then - he must notify Congress.

Uh.. thats just plain wrong. There is this thing called the War Powers Resolution. Obama did notify congress and they will have to aprove it when the 60 days are up. This is how Iraq and Afghanistan have gone on so long without being a declared war, because congress keeps approving them every 60 days. So a military intervention in Libya is completely legal as long as congress approves it. It doesn't breach the constitution because it is not a declared war and, because it needs congress approval, it has checks and balances anyway

I was unaware that he did notify. The damn media I read reported that he did not notify them within forty-eight hours. I am not aware of the designated time target. Regardless, I am wrong. There are discrepancies in the media, I am not at all surprised I was misinformed.

Nonetheless, had he attacked them illegally - all of what I stated holds truth.

And I am aware that along with Iraq, it was implemented in Korea and Vietnam, correct?

Posted Image


#60 Curtis

Curtis

    A Quirky Phrase Or Something...

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 337 posts
  • Gender:m
  • Location:UC Davis
  • Interests:Music, along with various thing the aren't music

Posted 20 April 2011 - 10:04 PM

Quote

And I am aware that along with Iraq, it was implemented in Korea and Vietnam, correct?

For Vietman, the Tonkin incident prompted the passing of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which pretty much let the president do whatever he wanted. thats the reason they passed the war powers resolution, cuz after the fuckin blood bath that was vietman congress wanted to reel the powers of the president in

I have no idea about Korea but i would assume it was something similar

aaand the bombing of Libya was , technically, completely legal

Posted Image





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users