I think I know how to repay US's national debt. Create a tax on using words like "Marxism", "Socialism", "Fascism" and the such. Given how easily these words are used when discussing anything even tangentially related to the government, it shouldn't take long for the money to pile up.
My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957
| mrjuju said: ^^ Can we also charge people $5 whenever they compare someone or something to Hitler? The internet would be able to fund 100 Americas at that point... |
No taxes on the internet!
EDIT : Wrong,Wrong Thread, Sorry to all who read that
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murders will foam up about their waist and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"...
....and I'll look down and whisper "no."
- Rorschach
TheRealMafoo said:
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.
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.
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
| MontanaHatchet said: Reagan, Reagan...wasn't he that guy who multiplied our national debt several times in the course of a few years, thus setting a precedent for future presidents to make the problem even worse? Doesn't this massive debt hurt out relation with other countries, and won't it eventually hinder our economy as we are forced to pay it off, billion by billion? I'm not saying that Reagan is a horrible president, but I think democrats generally have their flaws far overblown compared to republicans. |
Exactly. Republicans have completely lost their high ground on fiscal responsibility. They have become Keynsians who don't believe in raising taxes when necessary, which is combining two completely different ideologies for an even worse result than either one of them could do on their own.
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
I agree with the OP on this one,
I live in a welfare state but I highly admire the US for not being one.
Where I come from it's not the rich that end up paying for the welfare state, it's the young single talented people with ambition that get numb struck by taxes leaving them with only 43 percent of what they earn in there hands.
And people end up being surprised that kids stay so long with their parents these days :).
How can you possibly misspell QWERTY? It's spelled correctly on the damn keyboard.
akuma587 said:
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.
Kasz216 said:
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.
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
We don't need a second amendment. If we were seriously having a revolution, I wouldn't be buying one legally. I'd be illegally getting one off the black market and picking off our oppressors. Why do we need a right to have a revolution? That's just stupid. It's common sense that we'd fight back. Having AK-47's under your bed is completely insane.
Did somebody compare women and blacks to frogs in this thread? What the eff?
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
