Quantcast
The sad state of the US people.

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

steven787 said:

 

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.

Agreed, country borders are going to mean less and less each year that passes.  Fortunately the world will become so interdependent on each other economical that there probably will be a lot less wars that occur.

The U.S. needs to take more examples from the E.U. not necessarily in terms of economic policies (some of which they should adopt, IMO, like universal healthcare) but just chill the fuck out and quit being so hostile to foreign culture.

Its just like Colin Powell said, (loosely quoted), "What is wrong with being a Muslim in America?" When responding to how ridiculous McCain's campaign has been recently.  Our government may be pretty good at least at its core, but our culture really isn't that great except for our movies, literature and art.  Europe is a way more intellectually stimulating and culturally vibrant place.

 



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

steven787 said:

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?

Imminent domain sounds much more frightening than eminent domain.

 



Jackson50 said:

steven787 said:

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?

Imminent domain sounds much more frightening than eminent domain.

 

Not everyone thinks it is scary.  Sometimes infrastructure and national security demand a forced sale.  Sucks, but there are some times where tough decisions to be made.

Using imminent domain to build a shopping mall is an abuse and is frightening

Not using imminent domain to build an important highway, communication line or military installation CAN be just as frightening.

No one should be so beholden to their political beliefs to allow no bending.  There are times when rights, laws, and the demands of government defined in the constitution or by the people can interfere with one another.



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

You do know that the correct phrase is eminent domain, correct? I was making a joke about how substituting the word imminent (hanging threateningly over one's head) for eminent makes the phrase sound foreboding.



In the original post, I had it as eminent... then I edited it to imminent... then I changed it back... then I changed it back again.

Thanks, I'll leave it wrong to show the world how stupid I am. I am posting at work, and my Google is broken.



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

Around the Network
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Commando said:
What I am concerned about, is every other infraction against the constitution that nobody cares about and/or is in full support of.

What people need to realize is that in the United States we have the unaliable right to challenge our government via Petition and if that doesn't work, Violent Usurption. Yet no one cares and we let the government regulate our ownership/use of arms. What angers me is that nowdays the average American considers protest to be "Anti-American" and Fascism to be patriotic.

 

I agree. People have lost there way, and most don't care.

I remember seeing a female politician in Californian who wanted to ban automatic weapons hold up an AK47, and say "no one needs this to hunt a deer". She got an standing ovation.

The constitution does not give me the right to bare arms so I can hunt. I don't need it to kill deer. I need it to kill her if need be, or to kill any one in government who is "unjust". For that, I need the most powerful gun I can get. We are given the right to bare arms so we can uprise against an unjust government. It was put into place to keep government in line. When the people who we were given that right to protect us from, stand right in front of us and say "I want to take that away from you", and we cheer, something is very wrong in this country.

Oh, and I don't own a gun, nor do I wish harm on anyone. I just want to right to defend myself against my government.

 

Now as for some of the things here. I will not address them all individually, I will just make some blanket statements.

 

  • I don't care what color or what name Obama has. I just care that his is a socialist, and I hate his politics.
  • I gave over $2,000 in charities last year, and spent several days volunteering for "Habitat for Humanity". Far more then most here. To somehow claim that I want people do die in the streets because I find it unconstitutional is 100% inaccurate, and offensive. Anyone who knows me, knows otherwise.
  • I make far less then $250,000 a year, so it's not my demographic I am fighting for. I am not black, so when I fight for there civil rights, I am not in that group either. I care about all americans equally.
  • Every wealthy person did not become so by putting down the working class. Most became so from the working class.
  • Every corporation is not evil.
EDIT: I just re-read this, and it sounds like I feel I have the right to kill anyone who is unjust in government. That is not what I mean. What I mean is when Government as a whole becomes unjust, and we must rebel against it, I am given the right to own the tools to do so.

 

Were their automatic weapons when the Constitution was drafted?  How could the Founding Fathers have that in mind?  Should we be allowed to have missles as private citizens?  Those are arms.  How about nuclear weapons?  Those are arms.  Are you in a militia?  Those are the people who are allowed to have arms under the Constitution.

You are stretching the Constitution in a way YOU want it to be interpreted, yet you are bemoaning people who do the same thing.  That is the definition of hypocrisy.

 

I don't think you understood how miltias worked back then...

People joined miltias when times were bad.  Not when they were good.  Just how, if the government went wrong or something else went wrong... people would need to join a miltia after it actually went bad.

If things are already bad... you can't get a gun.

Therefore peopel have the right to bear arms so they can join a miltia when needed.

Also miltias back then weren't under the control of the state government.  They were just groups of people with guns that worked with the government.

Your looking at it from what state miltias are now.  Which isn't what they were then.

Hence people have the right to bear arms so that should they ever need to form a milita they can.

 

Agreed, but the militia thing isn't even the real point. 

He claims to understand the original meaning of the Constitution but then goes off and interprets other parts of the Constitution in ways that the Founding Fathers would have been completely unaware of at the time.  A rifle back then was moderately effective at best.  A person with a machine gun now could slaughter hundreds of people if there were no police or people with other weapons to intervene.

And how far can you stretch arms?  Missles are arms.  Nuclear weapons are arms.  How is that any different?  Hell, handguns barely even existed back then.

People who claim they aren't interpreting the Constitution often turn right back around and interpret in a way clearly out of the contemplation of the Founding Fathers.

 

 

 I would like to point this out.

YES!  Arms does = Missles, Nukes, SCUDs, viral weaponry and anything else.

NO!!! This does not mean that the constitution is out of date!

The forfathers had the wisdom to intentionally word it so that whatever was invented in the future would still apply.

You see the point of this is, if the government can have it, so can the people.  Or more apropriatly, the people should be the arm bearers and not the goverment.  A large part of Englands oppression over the Scottish and Irish had to do with weapon seizure.  If at any point the government disallows the people to have any form of weaponry that the government itself has than Oppression of the people is in the cards.  IN laymans terms.  IT is the government who IS NOT TO BE trusted with weapons.  The idea that the PEOPLE are the ones who should control the weapons is the ultimate point of this. 

 



"Let justice be done though the heavens fall." - Jim Garrison

"Ask not your horse, if ye should ride into battle" - myself

Arms to the framers didn't include weapons of mass destruction. They do to us, and that just shows the shifting values and definitions.

To the framers arms were single-fire rifles and pistols.

If we go by the idea, like justice Thomas claims, that we should ONLY apply the constitution as it was originally intended then yes every free MAN could own a single-fire rifle or pistol, with women's sufferage we might be able to include women (but it would have to be worded a little differently).

But we don't look at the constitution that way. We have to apply it to modern times, which will not be 100% agreed upon.

If we are going to adapt it to modern fire arms, then we could adapt it to the modern conventions of what militias are. Both are taking it out of the context of the framers.

In 1789 everybody belonged to the militia, sure. But in 1790 as it shifted towards a regular army, that changed the definition of the word militia. What about the well regulated part? Should any one who wants to own a gun then be force to go through some training and indoctrinating? I don't know, I am just pointing out where interpretations pick and choose. Whether for or against the public right to own a gun, you are now changing the meaning.

As far as the idea that it was allowing the people to revolt, I have to disagree. The reason why the constitution was given so many ways to change and granted so many rights to the individual states (including the power to raise a militia, as implied by the norms of the time) was to make popular revolution unnecessary. It could be done on the state level, which was thought to better recognize the need of the people and be better organized to threaten the federal government; discouraging the abuse of it's power. This is very clear in the writing of the times from federalists (as to why it was included) and anti-Federalist (who called for protection of states rights).

The question isn't whether or not the Constitution should be interpreted, that would be impossible, it's to what degree and in which direction.

In the end we have to use reason and the general ideas about freedom and democracy which made up the spirit of the constitution to figure out how to live together.

Calling for one solid interpretation or another is irrelevant and unrealistic.

(Continuing the fight for Radical Moderatism.)



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

akuma587 said:
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.

 

Isn't that illegal?  I thought it was illegal for doctors to refuse treatment.

 



it's funny how people look at the Constitution, and see different things.

When I see it telling the american people that you have the right to weapons for the purpose of uprising against an unjust government, I assume they meant to allow me the tools needed to get the job done.

I don't think they would want me to still have a musket. I think they would want me to have whatever is needed. I don't think nukes are needed, but missiles, tanks, automatic weapons... whatever we would need to replace the government.

The entire point was for government to realize that if they start removing out liberties, there were real consequences. I think it's obvious that today there aren't any.



TheRealMafoo said:
it's funny how people look at the Constitution, and see different things.

When I see it telling the american people that you have the right to weapons for the purpose of uprising against an unjust government, I assume they meant to allow me the tools needed to get the job done.

I don't think they would want me to still have a musket. I think they would want me to have whatever is needed. I don't think nukes are needed, but missiles, tanks, automatic weapons... whatever we would need to replace the government.

The entire point was for government to realize that if they start removing out liberties, there were real consequences. I think it's obvious that today there aren't any.

 

 I think there are consequences though.  Every 2 years we the people have the ability to revolt non-violently.  If the majority does not agree with the policies or the direction of the government, then we get to clear house.  The real problem is the money involved in politics, not the ability to change our government on a regular basis.

I do agree however that we should have the right to bear arms that would be sufficient enough should the government say, suspend elections.  However, the Constitution does mention regulation, so give qualified people arms, but that doesn't mean anyone can have any weapon.  If you get training and licensed then you can get a wide array of weaponry as things stand.  I believe that most firearm related crime is carried out by those that have obtained their weapons illegally.  At one point I heard a stat in a documentary which I don't fully remember, but it was something like 3% of gun stores sell weapons illegally, accounting for over 70% of gun crime.  If I can find a link I'll post back.  But the point is the focus should be on illegal weapons first, then if there is still a major problem, look into tighter regulation, but focus on the main problem first.