Quantcast
The sad state of the US people.

Forums - General Discussion - The sad state of the US people.

steven787 said:
Cueil, as party leader, McCain has been running a horrible campaign and running that party into the ground.

He's lost control of his running mate as she degrades him, by constantly undermining his decisions, his opponent, by claiming ties to terrorists, and the voters, by her claims of pro-American and anti-American places.

He refuses to denounce the behavior of the people who use racists and inflammatory images and rhetoric.

He has proven in the primaries and the general election, that he is willing to say different things at different times in order to get elected to a degree far beyond any other modern politician.

McCain changes his strategy every week, flailing aimlessly, lost in his way.

He appears to be an angry, bitter man who refuses to show respect to anyone who disagrees with him.

Just because he claims to disagree with everyone doesn't make him a potentially effective president; especially, since in reality votes squarely in line with Republicans.

This is what has made me think less and less of McCain as the weeks go by. I loved the guy before the entire election cycle, and he is still one of the most honest guys in Washington.

He really did have the chance to be a "new" Republican, but he was mired in the swamp that is the current Republican party.  I guess he forgot to put "Country First."

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
vlad321 said:

You call it socialistic? I'm forgetting the most current statistics but in the US 1.5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth. Even Marx said that 5% should govern 80%.

As for the people arguing the US's poor are living better than the other people's poor. Are you for serious? The poor in the US are in the worst condition of any of the western countries. They can't even get treated if they get sick.

Also the average 4 person family salary is around 45k a year. How many poor does it take to bring those multi millionaires back down to 45k?

Never heard of Medicaid, or Medicare have you? It exists to help the US poor with health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Household income for a typical family is $50,000/yr. Now, exactly how is $50,000/yr not enough to live off of? My family is doing just fine with $30,000.

So again, can you provide any sort of evidence that poor people cannot get access to basic health care? I worked for a medical company for an entire year - Taking the elderly and disadvantaged to doctors offices/hospitals for said basic health care...It was all free. And I serviced people from every age, race, and economic background. Most used medicare/aid since they were under the poverty line...And got said services for free.

So I'd really love to see how the poor in the US are disadvantaged with healtcare. If anything, the average family has the disadvantage with healthcare - which is why we've seen Obama and others up in arms so much - because the poor DO get healtcare. But there's a cutoffline that doesn't allow middle class families access to said healthcare.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball said:
vlad321 said:

You call it socialistic? I'm forgetting the most current statistics but in the US 1.5% of the population controls 95% of the wealth. Even Marx said that 5% should govern 80%.

As for the people arguing the US's poor are living better than the other people's poor. Are you for serious? The poor in the US are in the worst condition of any of the western countries. They can't even get treated if they get sick.

Also the average 4 person family salary is around 45k a year. How many poor does it take to bring those multi millionaires back down to 45k?

Never heard of Medicaid, or Medicare have you? It exists to help the US poor with health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Household income for a typical family is $50,000/yr. Now, exactly how is $50,000/yr not enough to live off of? My family is doing just fine with $30,000.

So again, can you provide any sort of evidence that poor people cannot get access to basic health care? I worked for a medical company for an entire year - Taking the elderly and disadvantaged to doctors offices/hospitals for said basic health care...It was all free. And I serviced people from every age, race, and economic background. Most used medicare/aid since they were under the poverty line...And got said services for free.

So I'd really love to see how the poor in the US are disadvantaged with healtcare. If anything, the average family has the disadvantage with healthcare - which is why we've seen Obama and others up in arms so much - because the poor DO get healtcare. But there's a cutoffline that doesn't allow middle class families access to said healthcare.

Yeah.. it is the poorer middle class who get screwed in the healthcare system.

 



It is true that the judiciary is technically non-partisan, I would argue that there still have been brief instances, and potential future instances when all 3 branches were essentially sympathetic to one party or the other.  I think this is due to the partisan manner in which Supreme Court Judges are appointed.  Just my two sense though, and like gun control, way off topic from various tax proposals.



Greer said:

It is true that the judiciary is technically non-partisan, I would argue that there still have been brief instances, and potential future instances when all 3 branches were essentially sympathetic to one party or the other.  I think this is due to the partisan manner in which Supreme Court Judges are appointed.  Just my two sense though, and like gun control, way off topic from various tax proposals.

 

The funny thing is, that our country has matured to the point that on any one issue, a significant majority of people will have a similar opinion.  We are so polarized by such a small degree that everything is blown out of proportion.  We argue over degree.

Examples:

War.  Most Americans ARE moralist, they believe our military should be used to make the world better.  The question is to what degree.  In 2003, enough people thought that meant invading a coutry. 

Abortion. Most Americans support some type of abortion.  Very few are against the morning after pill, most are against partial birth abortions.  But this is really a bigger issue of health care and morality, but it is the one area.

Taxes.  Most Americans believe in some type of graduated tax system.

Imminent domain.  Most Americans think that should the government should be able to force land sales in some cases, but where is the line draw.  Is it okay for a highway?  for national security purposes? for education? for economic stimulation?

etc.

The point is that, we argue over the details.  Because we don't have much to talk about we think it's the end of the world all the time.

American conservatism and liberalism aren't too far apart.  They both like a strong military, they both support some type of health care subsidy, they both support graduated taxes, they both support some type of gun restrictions, they both support sometype of goverrnment interference in markets.  It goes on and on.  The left calls the right fascist (which some on the right are, but most aren't) and the right calls the left socialist (which some are, but most aren't.)

Now, voting in line with the party doesn't make the person "more left" or "more right" it makes them in line with their slighty off center party.  Voting against their party may mean they are lining up with the opposite side, but it also may be extremist...For example: the left leaning and right leaning members of congress who voted against the "bail out"(not the ones who voted against it because they are in contested districts).

Okay, when Roberts was chosen, everyone thought that he would take on abortion.  Once he got on the supreme court, what did he say, it's "settled as a precedent."

Crazy right?  Wrong, you don't move up that far, in anything relating to law, by letting your opinions effect your interpretation of the law.  Even on the DC handgun issue, the "liberal" justices and some "conservative" lower court judges were against the "conservative" decision because the hand gun ban was voted in by a voter initiative.  The constitution protects the rights of citizens from the government, not necessarily from themselves.  If a super majority of the population can't decide on a law, then who can.  That decision could have far reaching impact.  Like Am.2 in Florida, a gay marriage ban.  Will the people pass it, and then the court over turn it?  Who knows, but Heller v. District of Columbia may have set a liberal precedent, by Conservative judges. 

The issues are not always so simple as liberal v. conservative or Republican v. Democrat, we live in a very complex society, with a range of opinions that can't be labeled left and right, right and wrong, or black and white.

In other words, don't worry, the world isn't going to fall apart around you for the next 4-20 years with a liberal controlled government, it didn't fall apart for liberals over the last 20.  It may be kinda bad, but this is no Great Depression or WW.  We just like to bitch.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
mrstickball said:

Never heard of Medicaid, or Medicare have you? It exists to help the US poor with health care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Household income for a typical family is $50,000/yr. Now, exactly how is $50,000/yr not enough to live off of? My family is doing just fine with $30,000.

So again, can you provide any sort of evidence that poor people cannot get access to basic health care? I worked for a medical company for an entire year - Taking the elderly and disadvantaged to doctors offices/hospitals for said basic health care...It was all free. And I serviced people from every age, race, and economic background. Most used medicare/aid since they were under the poverty line...And got said services for free.

So I'd really love to see how the poor in the US are disadvantaged with healtcare. If anything, the average family has the disadvantage with healthcare - which is why we've seen Obama and others up in arms so much - because the poor DO get healtcare. But there's a cutoffline that doesn't allow middle class families access to said healthcare.

Yeah.. it is the poorer middle class who get screwed in the healthcare system.

 

This is true, but a lot of doctors have stopped taking Medicaid/Medicare as well because they feel it doesn't give them enough money.  The government does the same thing insurance companies do and haggles with the doctors.

The whole payment system in our current medical system is so poorly done it really just hurts your head sometimes when you sit down and think about it.

And Medicaid and Medicare are definitely socialist, for the record.  But if you took them away people would shit a brick.  People bitch about socialist policies until you try to take away a "socialist" policy they already have.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

steven787 said:
Greer said:

It is true that the judiciary is technically non-partisan, I would argue that there still have been brief instances, and potential future instances when all 3 branches were essentially sympathetic to one party or the other.  I think this is due to the partisan manner in which Supreme Court Judges are appointed.  Just my two sense though, and like gun control, way off topic from various tax proposals.

 

The funny thing is, that our country has matured to the point that on any one issue, a significant majority of people will have a similar opinion.  We are so polarized by such a small degree that everything is blown out of proportion.  We argue over degree.

Examples:

War.  Most Americans ARE moralist, they believe our military should be used to make the world better.  The question is to what degree.  In 2003, enough people thought that meant invading a coutry. 

Abortion. Most Americans support some type of abortion.  Very few are against the morning after pill, most are against partial birth abortions.  But this is really a bigger issue of health care and morality, but it is the one area.

Taxes.  Most Americans believe in some type of graduated tax system.

Eminent domain.  Most Americans think that should the government should be able to force land sales in some cases, but where is the line draw.  Is it okay for a highway?  for national security purposes? for education? for economic stimulation?

etc.

The point is that, we argue over the details.  Because we don't have much to talk about we think it's the end of the world all the time.

American conservatism and liberalism aren't too far apart.  They both like a strong military, they both support some type of health care subsidy, they both support graduated taxes, they both support some type of gun restrictions, they both support sometype of goverrnment interference in markets.  It goes on and on.  The left calls the right fascist (which some on the right are, but most aren't) and the right calls the left socialist (which some are, but most aren't.)

Now, voting in line with the party doesn't make the person "more left" or "more right" it makes them in line with their slighty off center party.  Voting against their party may mean they are lining up with the opposite side, but it also may be extremist...For example: the left leaning and right leaning members of congress who voted against the "bail out"(not the ones who voted against it because they are in contested districts).

Okay, when Roberts was chosen, everyone thought that he would take on abortion.  Once he got on the supreme court, what did he say, it's "settled as a precedent."

Crazy right?  Wrong, you don't move up that far, in anything relating to law, by letting your opinions effect your interpretation of the law.  Even on the DC handgun issue, the "liberal" justices and some "conservative" lower court judges were against the "conservative" decision because the hand gun ban was voted in by a voter initiative.  The constitution protects the rights of citizens from the government, not necesarily from themselves.  If a super majority of the population can't decide on a law, then who can.  That decision could have far reaching impact.  Like Am.2 in Florida, a gay marriage ban.  Will the people pass it, and then the court over turn it?  Who knows, but Heller v. District of Columbia may have set a liberal precedent, by Conservative judges. 

The issues are not always so simple as liberal v. conservative or Republican v. Democrat, we live in a very complex society, with a range of opinions that can't be labled left and right, right and wrong, or black and white.

In other words, don't worry, the world isn't going to fall apart around you for the next 4-20 years with a liberal controlled government, it didn't fall apart for liberals over the last 20.  It may be kinda bad, but this is no Great Depression or WW.  We just like to bitch.

This is why Roberts really isn't that bad of a guy, way better and more fit for the job than Alito.  I obviously prefer liberal justices to conservative justices because of my own political leanings, but Roberts is totally qualified and is a very talented judge. 

I hate this term so much as most people who use it don't even really understand that judges are supposed to make law, and that they HAVE to make law (common law) if they are doing their job, but Roberts doesn't "legislate from the bench."

That term is thrown around so much it isn't even funny.  People pretty much claim someone is legislating from the bench when a court makes a decision they don't agree with, which is just bullshit.  Anyone who bitches about judges legislating from the bench really doesn't understand how the judicial system works.  Judges can legislate from the bench at times, but people bring up the issue way too often.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

steven787 said:

The funny thing is, that our country has matured to the point that on any one issue, a significant majority of people will have a similar opinion.  We are so polarized by such a small degree that everything is blown out of proportion.  We argue over degree.

Examples:

War.  Most Americans ARE moralist, they believe our military should be used to make the world better.  The question is to what degree.  In 2003, enough people thought that meant invading a coutry. 

Abortion. Most Americans support some type of abortion.  Very few are against the morning after pill, most are against partial birth abortions.  But this is really a bigger issue of health care and morality, but it is the one area.

Taxes.  Most Americans believe in some type of graduated tax system.

Imminent domain.  Most Americans think that should the government should be able to force land sales in some cases, but where is the line draw.  Is it okay for a highway?  for national security purposes? for education? for economic stimulation?

etc.

The point is that, we argue over the details.  Because we don't have much to talk about we think it's the end of the world all the time.

American conservatism and liberalism aren't too far apart.  They both like a strong military, they both support some type of health care subsidy, they both support graduated taxes, they both support some type of gun restrictions, they both support sometype of goverrnment interference in markets.  It goes on and on.  The left calls the right fascist (which some on the right are, but most aren't) and the right calls the left socialist (which some are, but most aren't.)

Now, voting in line with the party doesn't make the person "more left" or "more right" it makes them in line with their slighty off center party.  Voting against their party may mean they are lining up with the opposite side, but it also may be extremist...For example: the left leaning and right leaning members of congress who voted against the "bail out"(not the ones who voted against it because they are in contested districts).

Okay, when Roberts was chosen, everyone thought that he would take on abortion.  Once he got on the supreme court, what did he say, it's "settled as a precedent."

Crazy right?  Wrong, you don't move up that far, in anything relating to law, by letting your opinions effect your interpretation of the law.  Even on the DC handgun issue, the "liberal" justices and some "conservative" lower court judges were against the "conservative" decision because the hand gun ban was voted in by a voter initiative.  The constitution protects the rights of citizens from the government, not necessarily from themselves.  If a super majority of the population can't decide on a law, then who can.  That decision could have far reaching impact.  Like Am.2 in Florida, a gay marriage ban.  Will the people pass it, and then the court over turn it?  Who knows, but Heller v. District of Columbia may have set a liberal precedent, by Conservative judges. 

The issues are not always so simple as liberal v. conservative or Republican v. Democrat, we live in a very complex society, with a range of opinions that can't be labeled left and right, right and wrong, or black and white.

In other words, don't worry, the world isn't going to fall apart around you for the next 4-20 years with a liberal controlled government, it didn't fall apart for liberals over the last 20.  It may be kinda bad, but this is no Great Depression or WW.  We just like to bitch.

 

Great post.

I will say this though (and I am not predicting this any time soon)

When the US comes to an end (and it will end, all things do), it won't be gradual. It will be an all the sudden kind of thing. Very few will see it coming. I worry, because I feel every additional step we take away from who we used to be, is one step closer to that end.

If I had to guess, the end it beyond my lifetime. over 100 years out. But we will fall apart because of the things we do to ourselves, not because of what other do to us. The slower we destroy ourselves, the longer this country lasts.

This is what I am arguing for. A slower demise of what America was. What we do today, could add dozens of years to this countries lifetime.



Politicians say stupid things with out thinking that become catch phrases, "drill, baby, drill", "energy independence", "bipartisan", and my personal favorite: "Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench".

Judges don't have a choice, no matter what they do, they are making law. Even their smaller decisions on what to allow as evidence and the behavior of the people in the courtroom all make up the standard, precedent, and norms of the legal system.

Even if the supreme court doesn't take a case, they are still making law by not questioning the legality of the lower courts decision.

The problem, of course, is that you don't know how they will behave once they are in.  This has nothing to do with who they were appointed by.

Just look at the conservatives appointments who went left on key issues: Souter, Kennedy, O'Conner, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, and Warren.

There were some on the left who voted right on some issues, but the Dems didn't have as many appointments

Damn law and it's non-partisan nature.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

TheRealMafoo said:

Great post.

I will say this though (and I am not predicting this any time soon)

When the US comes to an end (and it will end, all things do), it won't be gradual. It will be an all the sudden kind of thing. Very few will see it coming. I worry, because I feel every additional step we take away from who we used to be, is one step closer to that end.

If I had to guess, the end it beyond my lifetime. over 100 years out. But we will fall apart because of the things we do to ourselves, not because of what other do to us. The slower we destroy ourselves, the longer this country lasts.

This is what I am arguing for. A slower demise of what America was. What we do today, could add dozens of years to this countries lifetime.

 

Thanks.  The U.S. will evolve.  That is the beauty of having a country that is full of pretty educated people, spread far out, with nice stuff and no physical threat of invasion.

Since we are looking into the crystal ball:

Internationalism and technology will make national governments around the world less important.  There will be resistance, but in the end, there is no stopping the flow of information.  Even if the nationalist and internationalist start WWIII, and the Nationalists win, they will still end up setting up new international orginizations by default.  I don't think there will be major war though.  Local governments, international legal bodies will fill many of the roles of national governments.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.