The politcal storm continues
#21
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:15 PM
#23
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:25 PM
http://youtu.be/dbzpuqWo6yU
ouch.
#25
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:33 PM
It was supposed to be a living document and hasn't kept up with the times, it's only been changed 27 times. Ten of witch were right out of the gate, and one of which null voided another. It needs changed to refect our current world or left behind.
#26
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:39 PM
it's much more interesting what's going on between syria and russia.
#27
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:42 PM
And by the way, an ice giant knocked me down a ski slope four years ago and broke a lot of bones in my body. So even the One-Eye has a few issues with his campaign.
#28
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:44 PM
SuomiWarder, on 14 August 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:
And by the way, an ice giant knocked me down a ski slope four years ago and broke a lot of bones in my body. So even the One-Eye has a few issues with his campaign.
by that defintion no one can be president, since no one is a natural citizen. except if you vote for howling red lynx, who lies in the ditch with a liver failure.
#29
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:55 PM
#30
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:59 PM
Zoex, on 14 August 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:
It was supposed to be a living document and hasn't kept up with the times, it's only been changed 27 times. Ten of witch were right out of the gate, and one of which null voided another. It needs changed to refect our current world or left behind.
The constitution is NOT a living document. What it has listed for the federal government's powers are all the federal government should have. What powers are not expressly given to the federal government in that document are expressly given to the states or the individual by the 10th amendment. A centralized government trying to rule 300+ million (and growing) people living over 3.8 million square miles just isn't practical in the least bit. Keeping the bulk of the ruling authority delegated to smaller areas where the state laws can be tailored more closely and react more quickly to the needs of its people, with a smaller federal government providing for common defense, organization/proliferation of trade between the states and the civil rights of all Americans is what we should have according to the constitution and its amendments.
However thanks to two centuries of court decisions having the rule of law (Because congress has x power from one part of the constitution and an unrelated power from y part of the constitution means that it has z power even though not explicitly stated in the constitution) our congress has legislated itself into a bloated cluster **** from which we have very little hope of recovering claiming that same 'living document' theory.
And just because the constitution has ONLY been changed 27 times in two hundred and thirty six years does not mean it hasn't kept up. There's a reason why we made it difficult to change. So that we can't have idiots single-handedly add stuff (Anti-gay marriage amendment?) to the constitution we're just going to ditch 20 years down the road because it turned out to be ridiculous (It happened ONCE. Prohibition, and that took greater than 100 years of lobbying on the part of abolitionists.)
#31
Posted 14 August 2012 - 03:59 PM
#32
Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:03 PM
I like Kennedy, as an historical figure and admire the things he oversaw and his handling of the Cuban Missile crisis, for example. However, that family practically defines political corruption. *eye roll*
#33
Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:04 PM
#34
Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:06 PM
Celldoor, on 14 August 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:
bush senior was the best thing to happen to the country... he had nearly abolished the welfare system, had most people in the country relying on themselves, job market was strong coming out of a recession then clinton came along (who wouldnt have been elected if the media didnt blow things all out of proportion)
#35
Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:09 PM
keep your crap in your own back yard
#36
Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:10 PM
#37
Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:10 PM
#38
Posted 14 August 2012 - 04:51 PM
Lightdragon, on 14 August 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:
I like Bush Sr, too, he was a pragmatist that wasn't hamstrung by rigid ideology. However, to infer that the Clinton years were bad for the US economy? Did you see the GDP growth during the 90s? Or the budget surplus at the end of his presidency? I find it silly that so many people who advocated fiscal conservatism in the past only now care about it now that a Democrat is in office. Do you know what happens to an economy when you rip the rug from under it by shutting off government spending that's shoring up weak domestic consumption? In an economy that hasn't been export-oriented in decades?
Here's a quick comparison I drew up, getting data from the U.S. Bureau of Economics. The growth of Clinton's years vs Bush's years was relatively the same except for the uptick in growth caused by the credit bubble that we subsequently see go poof. Bush enacted tax cuts, and embarked on a costly war that pretty much eliminated the surplus that was at the end of the Clinton administration. This whole nonsense about trickle-down economics is hilarious when you look at this graph, because tax cuts for the most wealthy Americans have the least effect on the economy, for many reasons.
#39
Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:31 PM
PhasedOut, on 14 August 2012 - 05:31 PM, said:
AFTER That darn ComStar Adept fixes my Spellcheck.
#40
Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:45 PM
68 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 68 guests, 0 anonymous users