Who care who made the debt more worse, fact is we cant afford either party doing the same stupid dance. its time for a neww paradigm.
More USA political questions
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
Who care who made the debt more worse, fact is we cant afford either party doing the same stupid dance. its time for a neww paradigm.
The time to debate the ACA ("Affordable Care Act") is past...it happened during the passage of the law. The Republicans don't get a second bite at the apple.
That's not all the Republicans don't get...they don't get the manner in which the country believes they are doing the wrong thing, they just want to pander to a few radical TEA Partiers because they believe in opposition as a political theory. They really believe their TEA Party poll numbers....because (and I say this without rancor) they believe that the country's desires are in line with the TEA party.
They also won't believe how wrong they were when they are drubbed at the next election. Think good ol' G-Dub "took a thumpin'?" Get ready, because all the Republicans are doing is showing the world that although they are in the minority they can still throw a temper tantrum and wield power that way. Sure, a two year old can shut down a restaurant with their tantrum....but is that what the "silent majority" in that restaurant wants? No....and there is ample proof of that right here in Houston, where quite a few restaurants have banned childen under the age of 8 after 7 PM. The country will have as little empathy for the Republicans when they get the chance to make their next political picks.
My take on it is that if we "survive" with the government shut down, do we really need them? Why can't we function as a true democracy and put every important issue to a full public vote? We have masses going to the convenience stores every time there is a big PowerBall jackpot, what makes us think that we can't generate equally big numbers when decisions that relate to the operation of our country is at hand?
I've about had it with the pollies.....scum, all of them. They passed a law that they get paid if the government shuts down....care to say "conflict of interest"?
...a bit like asking the fox to watch over the henhouse, if you ask me.
Vote 'em all out!!!
Vote 'em all out!!!
Vote 'em all out!!!
We really don't need 'em, we just need a warehouse full of low paid clerks to set up each election....oh, yeah....let's make sure they can't afford the health insurance, while we're at it!
Phooooey, I say :thumbsdown: !
Happy B-Day to Mrs. C!!!!
Doug
Yes, Happy Birthday Mrs Craik.
Doug, We are a republic, not a democracy.
Doug, We are a republic, not a democracy.
I would say that to the extent there is an objection to more debt the country believes they are doing the right thing. As to Obabab care. It was never debated, rather railroaded through by what was then the dominant party in both houses. It was purely partisan with zero input, which is certainly not the way things worked before.
Now the public put a republican majority in Congress, which implies under democracy that a majority of people want it looked at again. In any event, when did we become a winner takes all country.
The vitriol comming out of Dems. name calling and villification is more than unbecomming, it indicates the democratic party and followers have become close minded dictators, exactly what thye pledge not to be.
the republicans are fools trapped in the 50's. Sadly the Dems are fools trapped in the 60's which makes then no better. What we need is adult mature goverment for the 2k's.
Looking at Europe and China as two examples, we need socialy liberal but fiscaly realistic government. What we get is words from both sides that neirther is actualy going to live up to, and in fact if we could cut and paste both parties platforms we might get something along the lines of the way most people think.
I foir one dont want to be ruled by blind liberalism, or blind conservatism.
Europe is in no way fiscally responsible or an example. Half the countries are going down the tubes because of their irresponsible social programs. And I believe that China still has terrible work environments not to mention Communist control.
By definition they both mutually exclude each other...it's not possible to do both at the same time. In a nutshell, being "socially liberal" always leads to income redistribution, a forever-expanding number of 'social programs' (cradle-to-grave entitlements), 'handouts' of all kinds, deficit spending, crushing debt, and, of course, handing the BILL for the whole mess to the other guy (read that: the RICH) for payment.
How is that even remotely "fiscally realistic"?
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Happy Birthday Mrs.Craik.
I'm waiting for senior teabaggers to scream holy hell when their social security checks don't arrive under a debt default. The teabaggers that see no economic risk to debt default are in lala land. Get ready for the financial tsunami to reach U.K., Australia, and most of the rest of the world.
I don't think that's the case. "Inefficient" possibly - problems have largely stemmed from having a single set of financial objectives that apply to each member state, regardless of their individual or traditional capability. Once a member, funding for social programs are made up of subsidies from other member states, or more accurately, from a common fund.
To expect the 'alignment' of the Greek economy with that of France or any Northern European economy for instance, as a benchmark of membership is (was) plainly ridiculous.
I dont see them as excluding eachother. For example, abortion, gay marriage and immigration are not policies thta require $$$, but can be socialy liberal. Noe enviromental issues may require a cost, but there is a balance there, between say the extreme of China and the extreme of Califoirnia. Its a cost we are willing to bear. In that sense a country can be fiscaly sound liek China Singapore, and at the same time socialy liberal.
Not everythign soicialy liberal needs to cost money. But by alienating women over gneder issues, and gays over marriiage not to mention the 30% of the population that is hispanic over immigration its hard to impossible for there to be a majority of people who might otherwise be fioscaly responsible or conservative.
Put anotehr way, many people understand debt to be a problem, but its not bcessarily overiding for them. If fiscaly conservative pols droped social issues that alienate women gays and immigrants, they would hold a majority pretty quickly, its those conservative social issues that loose elections. To vote republican you have to vote in spite of their religious dogma, and for many that is a step too far.
What we are presented with today is false choices. If you want clean aior and water you must be anti business, wrong. If you want fiscal conservatism you must be anti abortion and anti gay, wrong.
the ultimate contradiction, if youa re pro choice youa re anti the second amendment, wrong, in factt he core principles are the same.
How about if i am pro constitutiuon and pro america. I'll take my clean air and water as it tis today, new envioromental rules will be brought ina s feasible, and yes industry will pollute in some areas and I will protect others. I will measure enviromental costs againts economic costs and include public health costs in the equation.
how about a free market solution to plastic bags, you can make and distribute them, but I will add in a doisposal cost.
How about I belive int he constitution, as abortion is a portected right so is the right to bear arms. maybe I will ameliorate aorund the edges so each right is not totaly offensive, like maybe limiting late term abortions, and also having background checks for guns, a good pro quo.
And yes you can have all the social progressiveness people like, but not at ever increaing debt and taxes. We can pay for what we can affoord. If NY or California or Colorado wants to do more, then they must tax their citizens directly. that way proiductive enterpirse and people have the choice to stay or move.
In such a system we maintain produtive drive and social prgression in balance
Calling a group you may not like bya derogatory name puts you in the same category of close minded bigots, just becauuse youa re liberla doies not mean you live in a state of virtue and everythign you say is good and right. name calling also indicates an insecurity of perspective and the need to denigrate.
the tea party may have its faor share of nuts, it also has a larger number of memebers who just want less intrusive givernement and less taxatrion.They believe rightly or wrongly that growth comes from less goverment and the way to opportunity is growth.
Europe indicates large statal entities stifle growth and innovation.
But that is not to say no government, just that maybe there is an apporpriate amount of governement and wehat we have now is gorlly inefficient, arcane , bloated etc. But then we can say that for any large entity,
Uuuuuuuuuuh...'whut'?
Please point out to me where in the constitution The Founders wrote "abortion is a right"? (I do not mean show me where some lefty judge somewhere has "interpreted" the constitution to MEAN that - I want to know where the constitution itself actually declares it - or something close - in black & white.) I've read the Bill of Rights a few times (as well as the constitution ) and have never run across it.
As I see it, the Founders would n-e-v-e-r have condoned abortion - period. After all, in the 'D of I', did they not write, "...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are >LIFE<, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Where is a baby's "right to life" protected by legalizing abortion?
While I do agree with a few of the things you stated in your post above, I have 'issues' with several others (surprise, surprise)! lol! So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as they say.
:chug:
Last edited:
Uuuuuuuuuuh...'whut'?
Please point out to me where in the constitution The Founders wrote "abortion is a right"? (I do not mean show me where some lefty judge somewhere has "interpreted" the constitution to MEAN that - I want to know where the constitution itself actually declares it - or something close - in black & white.) I've read the Bill of Rights a few times (as well as the constitution ) and have never run across it.
As I see it, the Founders would n-e-v-e-r have condoned abortion - period. After all, in the 'D of I', did they not write, "...with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are >LIFE<, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? Where is a baby's "right to life" protected by legalizing abortion?
While I do agree with a few of the things you stated in your post above, I have 'issues' with several others (surprise, surprise)! lol! So, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as they say.
As you point out, it says nowhere specificaly that abortion is a right. So some people arguably can claim that the second amendment (right to bear arms) is on more solid footing than abortion.
I dont think the founding fathers said slavery is illegal either, yet I dont know anyone who argues with that point now. Times move on and constitutional principles like the inalienable rights are interpreted more widely with intellectual and societal evolution. This was certainly inteded int he cosntitution.
Now we do know that under the constitution and laws of the USA, the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of what is a constitutionaly protected right or not. If you sir argue thta the supreme court does not have this authority, then like lefties you are in favor of throwing out the constitution when it suits. Whether we like or not a particular ruling, we must uphold the power of the court, for without that there is no constitution.
Objections to abortion are almost always religion based and sadly religion is too involved in politics and tied up with repubilcans, in fact causing loss of credibility and votes. On the other hand liberalism is a form of religion itself, and as we see here there is a slavish adherance to its dogma, even when the principles contradict.
Now the founding fathers were nothing isf not rationalaists. I would say that if we want government out of people lives, abortion and gay marriage are two areas where govenment has no business. By extension there are a lot of other areas beholden to liberals where gov too has no business.
Everybody these days wants to pick and choose the parts they like, it does not work that way. There are principles and rights in the constituition, and the court intreprets them, you could say the religion of the USA is not supposed to be fundementalist chrisianity or socialist liberlism, out religion is the constitution.
Yes I am sure the court gets it wrong sometimes, but mostly its pretty good even if we dont like the outcome. So yes the gov has no buisness interefering in a womans choice/body untill such time as there is a second human life being interfered with. Now some belive that life begins with conception. But in fact what we are refering to is sentient life, human life, for example killing aworm is not considered murder, nor are using rabbits in medical experiments. Although funnily liberals freak out at animals in medical experiments but have no issue with late term abortions.
Now I cant tell you for sure when a human life, or better yet sentience begins. Stripping out religious dogma, its not conception. But if you ever had a child and saw sonar scans then you know that a shrimp like thing with barely a heart is probably not yet sentient, and divided eggs sure are not. But we also can be quite clear as rational human beings that somewhere after three months there exists something that looks pretty human to us, something that reacts to stimuli and has a formed brain. It is a baby, maybe not able to live outside the womb, but a human baby. Lets face it humans cant live on their own till age 5, so ability to survive outside the womb is a poor stanbdard.
So yes there is a right to "choice" but that right is not for unlimited duration. Stripping religious dogama out of it, we can porbably all say that after three months is not good. Or put another way if you cant decide in three moinths then you are having the baby. Lets face it religion does not even want contraception, and we are all pretty much past that phobia.
As to the second amendment. Its pretty clear a constitutional convention can change that, if that does not seem likely my conclusion woudl be that the people are quite comfortable on average with this amendment. Now going further if the second is valid why do we accept retsrictions on the types of weapons allowed, like full auto, how are these restrictions constitutional. And if a right to bear arms protects people from tyrany, then by principle if not court interpreted right snowden and wikileaks do the same.
However as some people are clearly not able to be responsible around weapons, how much rule are we comfortable with. And here it gets sticky, because libs are more concerned with getting rid of guns in totality than adrssing the issue of crazy people getting guns and harming innocents.
So I live in two states where a ruger mini 14 is ok but libs feels better by having an ar15 which is funtionaly the same banned. Its just ludicrous.
By the same token gun owners are so freaked at losing the 2nd amend right, that any reform is shut down. Seriously background checks shoudl not be an issue. Every looney who bought a gun went to a store. I have yet to hear of someone taught to shoot by thier father out in the country going nuts and doing a mass killing.
the mass killing are done by dissafected youth from unusual family backgrounds, with a lack of parental involvement, I challenege one of you to find that these poeple were not on meds recently too. Fact is we have societal probelms due to destruction of values and family structure. There are lots of reasons for this, and maybe we shoudl think about what we are losing.
The answer is not in banming guns, but in keeping guns out of the hands of known mentaly unstable people, something neither side wants to do.
libs dont want to tag metaly unstable people and have adata base, because that would be "unfair". Libs want to believe that with pills everyone can be made well and good. Consevatives dont want any restrictions on who can get a gun, because once you give a finger its the whole hand, and gun owners know that what the opposition wants is no guns period.
Somewhere rational reality needs to set in. Yeah anyone should be able to buy a gun and keep it unregistreed, but at the point of sale full background check with mental health data base should take place.
And another question, if I cant fart without ID, I mean you cant go on a plane, you cant do anythign without ID, why is it that you can you vote without it. I mean half the buildings you cant get into wiothout ID including chilldren in schools.
Lets grow up and be adults on both sides. Each side has valid points, One Nation.
Last edited:
Well lets see congresional apoproval rating was at 23% before. I see that the Presidents rating is now 35% so he has come off 20%. I expect the president to be a leader, to rise above, and as he said in his first inauguration to be rpesident of all the people, not the despotic leader of a notional 50% faction. Sadly the president is a union type guy, he is used to "sides", fights and winners and losers.
We also see that only 30% of the nation, according to todays polls, want more debt and the limit raised.
So what does this mean. No one likes instability, congress is blamed for that. People want the president to be a president, not a faction leader, not someone who stays out when its expedient, not someone who refuses to talk to the other side. I guess if Kennedy had done that we would have gone up in smoke in 62.
People also are alarmed, 70% oof us by government spending and debt. One party sees votes in banging on that drum, the other refuses to duscuss it with any real credibility. Both are FOS, because both had their times to decide and both spent more.
The issue is one of crippling govermental involvement from laws upon laws, to taxes up the yazoo, and its all still never enough so we get debt on top of that. Gov programs are run well into the deficit. If gov could not manage medicare and soc security without those porograms running well into the red, how is it going to manage obaba care. In any event its the law, if repubs want to fight and stop gov, stop it over the deficit in general.
Funny thing is both sides want to prevent phase 2 of the sequester(which does reduce deficit rate) which starts next year, that is what this whole show is about.
Last edited:
Uuuuuuuuuuh...'whut'?
Please point out to me where in the constitution The Founders wrote "abortion is a right"? (I do not mean show me where some lefty judge somewhere has "interpreted" the constitution to MEAN that - I want to know where the constitution itself actually declares it - or something close - in black & white.)...Where is a baby's "right to life" protected by legalizing abortion?
Larry, the Supreme Court's job is to enforce the constitution, but who would want them to enforce things as they were back in the 1700's when the constitution was written? We're an evolving society and the founding fathers recognized that, so the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the constitution as they see it applying to our changing society...such as a baby's "right to life"....the Supreme Court has yet to determine when in the gestational period a baby becomes a person and not a zygote or an embryo, and AFAIK the general "guideline" is as soon as that embryo could reasonably be expected to survive if it were delivered. Now think about the medical progress that has been made not only in the last 200+ since the Constitution/ammendments were written, but also within recent times...would we want them to apply the same standards to when an embryo becomes a viable "baby" as were effective back in the days the constitution was written.... I think not, and I think the answer is that we might not want them to utilize the same standards as were in effect 50 years ago....perhaps 5 years ago. It is the job of the Supreme Court to determine what IS constitutionally protected, like it or not.
Surely you recognize the need for the complex issues in our complex societies to be decided based on what is right in today's world, not what was right back when the Constitution was written, no?
Cheers!
Doug
I think I could use a lot more derogatory labels than 'teabagger'. The hypocritical ones are the seniors you see at Tea Party rallies on TV. Haven't you seen the signs ' keep the government out of my Medicare'? Aren't Medicare and Social Security the biggest threat to our long term financial viability? By the way do you post while driving? Your misspellings make it a challenge to figure out what you're trying to say.
Last edited:
That's because it WASN'T illegal back then. That's what the Civil War was fought over.
I'd disagree there too. When looking at "constitutional principles", the constitution should be "interpreted" thru a 'lens' that focuses on what the meaning of words/phrases/social customs were back then...NOT by how any of the aforesaid might be defined as 'meaning' today.
And I'd submit that, given some of the absolutely R-I-D-I-C-L-O-U-S decisions the court has made, it's not beyond the realm of reason to conclude that that very court could destroy the constitution as well. Example? The DISGUSTINGLY W-R-O-N-G ruling on eminent domain. A CHILD OF THREE wouldn't have decided the way the SO-CALLED "supremes" did in that matter. It absolutely FLEW IN THE FACE of over 200 yrs of tradition/precedent - not to MENTION the dictates of the constitution itself. The very IDEA that it's now SUPPOSEDLY CONSTITUTIONAL for govt to take someone's private property and hand it over to a developer who then builds whatever project on it that produces HIGHER TAX REVENUE FOR GOVT is just plain c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l. The constitution says ones property can ONLY be taken by "due process"...meaning court action brought about by ones ILLEGAL behavior.
But, the entire constitution is based on Judeo-Christian philosophy! So, I repeat: The Founders would not have even considered listing abortion as a "right". Ditto "gay rights".
It DOES. How could it be otherwise since a human being has to go thru A-L-L stages of pregnancy in order to be born. If there is no conception, there is no birth. If, after conception, the various body 'cells' aren't formed, there is no birth. If no lungs form, there is no birth...etc., etc., etc. The b.s. that masquerades as a 'scientific argument' about when life actually begins is just that - b.s. It's just so much secularist/liberal smoke and fog. It's intellectual pettifogging and obfuscating at its best.
They clearly AREN'T. And we're all FOOLS for allowing it. What part of "...NO LAW INFRINGING..." needs clarification? I submit NONE.
I can't think of even ONE 'gun law' that IS constitutional at the moment.
