NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments.

I'd repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments.

Why the 14th and 17th?

EDIT: I agree with the 16th and would add the 22nd.

I'd repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments.

I've never been too fond of the third or seventh.

Why the 14th and 17th?

14th=undermines the 10th and threatens federalism
17th=same as above (the original purpose of senators was to represent the states at the federal level), as senators are no chosen by their state legislatures

14th=undermines the 10th and threatens federalism
17th=same as above (the original purpose of senators was to represent the states at the federal level), as senators are no chosen by their state legislatures

The 14th is important in protecting civil rights. Efforts for decentralization should not override the protected rights of the citizens.

The 14th is important in protecting civil rights. Efforts for decentralization should not override the protected rights of the citizens.

Agreed, but government should be as de-centralized as possible, to make it as difficult as possible for potential dictators to tyrannize the country.

I'd repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments.



All of them! And I'm not joking.

I'd preemptively repeal the 67th ammendment (allowing mutants to keep and bear arms)

None of them.

BTW, this is the constitution: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.table.html

Which country's constitution?

Amendment XXI Repeal of Prohibition (1933):eek:

just kidding..............



Amendment XVI Income Tax (1913)
Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

not that I am against income tax (in fact I do taxes for a living) I just think it is unfair the way it works.

Which country's constitution?
You really can't put two and two together on this one, Fass? Come on now, we know your smarter than that.

You really can't put two and two together on this one, Fass? Come on now, we know your smarter than that.

The US is not the default option outside the US, you know, but perhaps you've never been?

Since some people are confused, let's just post that pesky 10th amendment.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

It specifically says powers not granted by the Constitution are relegated to the states. The 14th amendment is part of the constitution so unless you know some magic trick I don't know, it can't be a violation of the 10th amendment.

The 14th amendment ensures that the power given to the Federal government to protect individuals is maintained. Without the fourteenth amendment any state could violate the basic rights the US Constitution is supposed to guarantee. The 14th amendment is the most critical protection an individual can have in our country. I'm a big fan of small government, a constitutional government, but the 14th amendment is certainly not something I would take away from the feds.

We should be speaking out against the violations to the current constitution that the feds make not taking away the protections of individuals.

The US is not the default option outside the US, you know, but perhaps you've never been?
Never said it was, but "playing dumb" is not a very good way of getting your point across. People tend to ignore you when you think your being cute. Just an observation.

A better way of stating your point would have been to say to the original poster "You should have specified that you meant the American Constitution, because many different countries have constitutions."

Or you could be juvenile about it, whatever. *shrugs shoulders*

Never said it was, but "playing dumb" is not a very good way of getting your point across. People tend to ignore you when you think your being cute. Just an observation.

I wasn't playing. :p

A better way of stating your point would have been to say to the original poster "You should have specified that you meant the American Constitution, because many different countries have constitutions."

And be a condescending prick in stead? ;)

I wasn't playing. :p



And be a condescending prick in stead? ;)
/hijack

Anyway, we don't amend our constitution, we rewrite it and just insert things, so I'd like to remove the following bits:

Art. 5, chapter 1 of the Instrument of Government (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____6307.aspx): The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the Act of Succession shall be the Head of State. The provisions of this Instrument of Government which relate to the King shall apply to the Queen if the Queen is Head of State.

And the entire Act of Succession. (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6311.aspx)

Basically, I want the monarchy to end.

Agreed, but government should be as de-centralized as possible, to make it as difficult as possible for potential dictators to tyrannize the country.
Except, of course, the 14th doesn't give any major abilities to the federal government or the state legislatures, instead it restricts the power of both in favor of the people.

I'd repeal the Second Amendment. Let the U.S. military, state National Guards, and local and state police carry guns.

I would do away with the direct election of senators. There needs to be a body that isn't suject to the emotions of the people. The House was to give in to the heat of emotion. The senate was to look at the long range. No one today looks ahead and says "What will be good for the nation 50 years from now?"

I would do away with the direct election of senators. There needs to be a body that isn't suject to the emotions of the people. The House was to give in to the heat of emotion. The senate was to look at the long range. No one today looks ahead and says "What will be good for the nation 50 years from now?"I'd accept that if the Senate became the lesser house in Congress. I actually RP Sarzonia that way.

I would soooo repeal the 18th ... that thing has got to go! It infringes on our basic liberties on no less than three levels. The first, and most important, being the freedom to choose! The second being the use of religious sacramental wine that ...

*man runs in*

*whispers*

:eek:

Oh ... ummm ... sorry folks ... I uhhhh ... that is .... ok so two men walk into a bar ...

Amendment XVI (Income tax)
Or at least stipulate it to only be a flat tax

Amendment 16 -the income tax (1913)

What a travesty this one has become. Started out as a populist movement to punish the extremely wealthy and wound up becoming a burden on the people who voted for it. In effect, it has made middle class Americans, who pay taxes, the employees of the US government for at least 3 months of the year.
As for the ultrawealthy-they hide their money in trusts and non-profits to avoid paying what they really owe. They paid off pols to write those things into existence.

Agreed. It should be a luxury tax. That way you pay taxes every time you purchase anything that is a luxury and you can only avoid it if you don't have luxuries. Thus it's unavoidable and scaled (poor people spend a smaller percentage of income on luxuries).

Agreed. It should be a luxury tax. That way you pay taxes every time you purchase anything that is a luxury and you can only avoid it if you don't have luxuries. Thus it's unavoidable and scaled (poor people spend a smaller percentage of income on luxuries).

Meh ... not really ... poor people tend to drink more alcohol and they tax the hell out of booze.

1-10, 14, 22, 25, 26.

Meh ... not really ... poor people tend to drink more alcohol and they tax the hell out of booze.

If you buy booze then you deserve to pay tax on it. And poor people may buy more, but rich people buy more expensive alcohol. Every executive I know has a fully stocked bars with liquors you've probably never heard of.

If you buy booze then you deserve to pay tax on it.

And why is that exactly? Because the religious right wants to make it more difficult to "sin". It is a way of punishing the poor man for his vices. That's why taxes on alcohol and tobacco are known as "Sin taxes."
Every executive I know has a fully stocked bars with liquors you've probably never heard of.

I've heard of them, but I used to run a liquor store. And my license to sell liquor was 37 thousand dollars a year. So the government gets paid twice. Taxes me to sell it, and taxes the drinker to buy it. Oh, yeah, and then sales tax, so the state gets a cut too. So make that three times. And that's just if there isn't a county or city tax. Or if it's an import, then there'd be another tax on it...

I would repeal the 2nd amendment, and then, even though its not an amendment, the DOMA act of '96. Then all this fuss about gay marraige wouldn't really need to happen because homosexuals would already have the right to marry.

Keeping in mind I'm not from the USA, I would repeal the 2nd Amendment, given it is being used totally against what the framers intent was when "the right to bear arms" became a right. It was for an armed militia in case the government ever went rogue on the people. It was never meant that every shcmuck could bear arms to shoot their neighbours. It is probably the most misunderstood Amendment in the American Constitution and usually by the gun happy NRA.

Keeping in mind I'm not from the USA, I would repeal the 2nd Amendment, given it is being used totally against what the framers intent was when "the right to bear arms" became a right. It was for an armed militia in case the government ever went rogue on the people. It was never meant that every shcmuck could bear arms to shoot their neighbours. It is probably the most misunderstood Amendment in the American Constitution and usually by the gun happy NRA.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, Stephistan. Also true in ancient Rome:
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt - When catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults.

The 14th is important in protecting civil rights. Efforts for decentralization should not override the protected rights of the citizens.

This is common knowledge. It's really pointless to argue it.

No conservative really cares about states rights (e.g. recent law moving medical lawsuits out of states' hands into federal courts). They don't care about low taxes (that's why Bush keeps talking about "revenue neutral tax adjustments. He's just trying to get the money from the poor instead of the rich). They don't care about government spending (Bush's Iraq war). They don't care about government handouts (Bush's energy bill).

Whenever they argue about any of those things it's code for something else.
Oppose civil rights? Call it being pro-states' rights.
Oppose consumer protection? Call it corporation's civil rights.
Oppose affordable medical care? Call it "government handouts."
Oppose reproductive rights? Call it having a culture of life.
Oppose life? Call it building a strong military.
Oppose sanity? Call it "liberal elitism."
Oppose the slightest shred of decency? Call it conservatism.
Oppose ethics? Call it "criminalizing politics."

Womens Voting and make Alcohol illegal again.

The part of the 13th which stipulates that slave labor can be used in prisons.

The part of the 14th which the courts interpreted to apply to corporations.

End womens suffrage now!


Whats that?

It does?

Oh...

Nevermind.

And why is that exactly? Because the religious right wants to make it more difficult to "sin". It is a way of punishing the poor man for his vices. That's why taxes on alcohol and tobacco are known as "Sin taxes."

Um, are you even reading thread. I know three pages is a lot to read, but try reading posts before you reply. We were talking about luxury taxes. Do you know what those are? They are taxes on anything that is not a required thing for living. Alcohol is a luxury. It has nothing to do with sinning. Next.

I've heard of them, but I used to run a liquor store. And my license to sell liquor was 37 thousand dollars a year. So the government gets paid twice. Taxes me to sell it, and taxes the drinker to buy it. Oh, yeah, and then sales tax, so the state gets a cut too. So make that three times. And that's just if there isn't a county or city tax. Or if it's an import, then there'd be another tax on it...
Um, okay. Still not on topic.

If anyone ever did repeal the 2nd Amendment, they'd have to pry my cold from my cold, dead fingers or get their head blown off trying.

If anyone ever did repeal the 2nd Amendment, they'd have to pry my cold from my cold, dead fingers or get their head blown off trying.

No problem. Missles can fly miles upon miles and hit only your house. How far does your Colt (cold) shoot?

No problem. Missles can fly miles upon miles and hit only your house. How far does your Colt (cold) shoot?

I'll die, gun in hand, a hero.

I'll die, gun in hand, a hero.

Uh-huh. Cuz that's how it works. If you say you're a hero, well, then it must be true. And here I thought that was decided by other people. I can't wait to go to the bar tonight. "Hey, baby, I'm a hero."

Uh-huh. Cuz that's how it works. If you say you're a hero, well, then it must be true. And here I thought that was decided by other people. I can't wait to go to the bar tonight. "Hey, baby, I'm a hero."

I'll be one if I die defending our most important freedom.

Second Amendment - Too confusing; property in firearms is protected just fine by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Militias (should) belong to the individual states, not the Federal Government. (<awaits in fear the terrible wrath of both the pro- and anti-gun lobby> :eek: )

Third Amendment - Security in one's home is protected just fine by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Sixteenth Amendment - Reducing the Federal Government to functions actually authorized by the Constitution, this Amendment would be entirely unnecessary. Keep most functions of government, as well as taxes needed to fund them, in the States, close to the people they actually effect. Doing so strengthens control and boosts effectiveness.

I'll be one if I die defending our most important freedom.

Again, pretty much not how it works. Tons of people think their shananigans are heroic, it doesn't make it so, but thanks for playing.

Second Amendment - To confusing; property in firearms is protected just fine by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Militias belong to the individual states, not the Federal Government. (<dons pro- and anti-gun lobby resistant armor suit>)

Third Amendment - Security in one's home is protected just fine by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Sixteenth Amendment - Reducing the Federal Government to functions actually authorized by the Constitution, this Amendment would be entirely unnecessary. Keep more functions of government in the States, close to the people they actually effect, to strengthen control and boost effectiveness.

*claps*

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

If you want the people to elect a president, let them elect who they want.

If you want the people to elect a president, let them elect who they want.

I don't agree. I'm all for term limits. I think that's why Congress is so corrupt. I personally think being a congressman or President should not be a life-long job. These guys should have to deal with the world they're creating.

I don't agree. I'm all for term limits. I think that's why Congress is so corrupt. I personally think being a congressman or President should not be a life-long job. These guys should have to deal with the world they're creating.

It isn't a life-long job if the people don't want it to be. I say let the people decide when to limit a president's terms.

It isn't a life-long job if the people don't want it to be. I say let the people decide when to limit a president's terms.

Really? Would you be comfortable having GWB as President for a few more terms? The rule was made because it's known that the longer a person is in office, particularly the President, the more power they garner. Imagine a Supreme Court all chosen by the same President. Not particularly unbiased, methinks. There are many parts of the Constitution meant to protect us from the people. This limit is very consistent with that.

I would repeal the entire US Consitution and write a new one for the 21st century, you old bats.

Really? Would you be comfortable having GWB as President for a few more terms? The rule was made because it's known that the longer a person is in office, particularly the President, the more power they garner. Imagine a Supreme Court all chosen by the same President. Not particularly unbiased, methinks. There are many parts of the Constitution meant to protect us from the people. This limit is very consistent with that.

I though Bush was a horrible choice for his first term, but that doesn't mean I want to eliminate democratic elections of presidents completely.

As for the Supreme Court nominations, I don't particularly like presidential nominations anyways, but it is in the job discription, and the people are free to take the nominations into account when judging his performance.

I though Bush was a horrible choice for his first term, but that doesn't mean I want to eliminate democratic elections of presidents completely.

As for the Supreme Court nominations, I don't particularly like presidential nominations anyways, but it is in the job discription, and the people are free to take the nominations into account when judging his performance.

But they don't. Nope, I don't trust the people. I don't think most people realize the danger of allowing a President that many terms. We do many things to protect us from the people. The Supreme Court is there specifically to protect us from people voting in laws that violate the Constitution. Constitutional amendments are designed to prevent changes by a simple majority. The electoral college protects us from the people. The people are a bunch of chattering monkeys which is how we got here in the first place.

Every executive I know has a fully stocked bars with liquors you've probably never heard of.

Oh, sure ... that was awfully presumptive. :p Just because I can't afford one, doesn't mean I haven't heard of Rolls Royce.

Oh, sure ... that was awfully presumptive. :p Just because I can't afford one, doesn't mean I haven't heard of Rolls Royce.

It wasn't an ignorance point. I'm just saying there are tons of really obscure really expensive liquors that for some reason seem to be a status symbol to some rich people. Personally, I like Ciroc.

It isn't a life-long job if the people don't want it to be. I say let the people decide when to limit a president's terms.

The keys to the United States Constitution are the concepts of separation, checks, and balance of power. In theory, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are pitted against each other in such a fashion that no one branch possesses too much power or influence. There is a fourth branch of government, however, that is not usually quoted along with the first three: The People. Like any other branch of the Federal Government, The People are subjected to similar separation, checks, and balances. The most obvious examples of this are the Electoral College and the idea of term limits.

Checks and limitations on the power of The People are necessary for the same reasons as on any other branch: The People are often, if not usually, corupt, ignorant, rash, uneducated, and generally unfit to run a country all by themselves. Sure, the overall "democratic" nature of the nation will be reduced, but then "democracy" is essentially a logical fallacy. An idea or policy is not justified or desirable simply because a majority say so; Democracy at its very heart is a bandwagon fallacy of monumental proportions.

If The People are to have power over the workings of government, then I demand that The People be subjected to the same checks and balances that any other branch of government must submit to. Frankly, the people are unfit to rule over me without restriction. For the sake of liberty, their ability to exercise power should be severely limited, along with the rest of the government.

4 and 22

4 and 22

4? Do you know why that right was gelled into the US Constitution? Do you recognize the ability to abuse without it?

The keys to the United States Constitution are the concepts of separation, checks, and balance of power. In theory, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches are pitted against each other in such a fashion that no one branch possesses too much power or influence. There is a fourth branch of government, however, that is not usually quoted along with the first three: The People. Like any other branch of the Federal Government, The People are subjected to similar separation, checks, and balances. The most obvious examples of this are the Electoral College and the idea of term limits.

Checks and limitations on the power of The People are necessary for the same reasons as on any other branch: The People are often, if not usually, corupt, ignorant, rash, uneducated, and generally unfit to run a country all by themselves. Sure, the overall "democratic" nature of the nation will be reduced, but then "democracy" is essentially a logical fallacy. An idea or policy is not justified or desirable simply because a majority say so; Democracy at its very heart is a bandwagon fallacy of monumental proportions.

If The People are to have power over the workings of government, then I demand that The People be subjected to the same checks and balances that any other branch of government must submit to. Frankly, the people are unfit to rule over me without restriction. For the sake of liberty, their ability to exercise power should be severely limited, along with the rest of the government.

There should be no checks on the people in the administration of government. The government exists of the people. There should only be checks on the people in the spectrum of policy making, which is provided for (albeit poorly) within the constitutional limits of government ability.

Limit the ability of government, not the choices of the people.

I would like to point out that it is a horribly ineffectual amendment in the first place, as it does not bar ideologies or parties from holding onto the executive branch for generations.

The republicans and democrats in the US, for example, are as close in ideology as can be and instead bicker over inconsequential hot topic issues.

Limit the ability of government, not the choices of the people.


In a democracy, the people are the government. Limiting the one necessarily requires the limiting of the other. If the people expect me to allow them to rule over me, they can very well expect severe limitations on the choices they can enforce. Autocracy and democracy are, after all, two sides of the same coin: in the first, there is one despot; in the second, over 290 million. Giving everyone an equal chance to be dictator does not make dictatorship any more moral or just.

In a democracy, the people are the government. Limiting the one necessarily requires the limiting of the other. If the people expect me to allow them to rule over me, they can very well expect severe limitations on the choices they can enforce. Autocracy and democracy are, after all, two sides of the same coin: in the first, there is one despot; in the second, over 290 million. Giving everyone an equal chance to be dictator does not make dictatorship any more moral or just.

Not true. In a republic, the people are not the government by definition.

In a democracy, the people are the government. Limiting the one necessarily requires the limiting of the other. If the people expect me to allow them to rule over me, they can very well expect severe limitations on the choices they can enforce. Autocracy and democracy are, after all, two sides of the same coin: in the first, there is one despot; in the second, over 290 million. Giving everyone an equal chance to be dictator does not make dictatorship any more moral or just.

The president is a public servent and thus the people should be able to choose the public servent they want.

And what is bad about a dictator if he is working for the people?

It wasn't an ignorance point. I'm just saying there are tons of really obscure really expensive liquors that for some reason seem to be a status symbol to some rich people. Personally, I like Ciroc.

Well if you can get me some of those liquors, I'll TG you my address. ;)

Um, are you even reading thread. I know three pages is a lot to read, but try reading posts before you reply. We were talking about luxury taxes. Do you know what those are? They are taxes on anything that is not a required thing for living. Alcohol is a luxury. It has nothing to do with sinning. Next.

Sure, I was reading the thread. You should try looking up words before you insult people.

A luxury tax is on things like high end cars, or a boat. A sin tax is a form of a luxury tax specifically placed on items deemed vices- like alcohol. It is also known as a pigovian tax. You may have been attempting to discuss luxury taxes, but by specifically refering to alcohol you opened the door to the subset of luxury taxes known as 'sin taxes'. With all the Jesus-freaks present on this forum, it is easy to mistakenly read puritanism in support for such a tax. My other comments were specifically refering to the over-taxation of items deemed "vices".

http://www.investorwords.com/4594/sin_tax.html
http://www.investorwords.com/2907/luxury_tax.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

Ok fine, you morons ... let's repeal the 16th. Guess what ... now, when you get a hole in the road in front of your house, YOU have to go get people together to fill it.

That's right ... people who don't live on your street and who don't give a flying fuck about your neighborhood now have to pony up some money to make sure that the people who live on your street don't ruin their tyres driving to work.

Yeah ... good luck with that.

Sorry, folks, but the 16th amendment guarantees that you don't have to pay too much out of pocket expense for something the State should pay for.

Go ahead, though ... repeal it ... I will laugh at you as you break you car on something you're used to the State paying for you. Sorry, folks ... but I'm glad to pay 1/1000th of a cent to take care of someone else's road before I'm willing to pay $2000 to fix something in front of my own driveway.

Fuckin' anti-16th monkeys ... don't even know what benefit they gain from it, but want to abolish it all ...

Ok fine, you morons ... let's repeal the 16th. Guess what ... now, when you get a hole in the road in front of your house, YOU have to go get people together to fill it.

That's right ... people who don't live on your street and who don't give a flying fuck about your neighborhood now have to pony up some money to make sure that the people who live on your street don't ruin their tyres driving to work.

Yeah ... good luck with that.

Sorry, folks, but the 16th amendment guarantees that you don't have to pay too much out of pocket expense for something the State should pay for.

Go ahead, though ... repeal it ... I will laugh at you as you break you car on something you're used to the State paying for you. Sorry, folks ... but I'm glad to pay 1/1000th of a cent to take care of someone else's road before I'm willing to pay $2000 to fix something in front of my own driveway.

Fuckin' anti-16th monkeys ... don't even know what benefit they gain from it, but want to abolish it all ...




I know exactly the benefits I get from the 16th amendment, and frankly I still hate it. I believe that people should do things for other people. We should help each other before we go to the government. But, since the 16th amendment guarantees that the government can and will help with problems we have as long as we're loud enough about it, we stop asking others for help first. If there's a hole in the road, who should be the first ones you turn to in order to fix it? Your neighbors. If there's anyone in your community who can help, you should ask them. Of course, this will never happen because 99.9% of people are complete asses and therefore would never help anyone unless there was something in it for themselves. However, that doesn't mean the government has to take over in that role. It just means you're gonna live in a shitty neighborhood unless you all decide to pitch in.

Stop letting b—hes and n—ers vote

The president is a public servent and thus the people should be able to choose the public servent they want.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29

And what is bad about a dictator if he is working for the people?

That if is very important. Dictatorship works fine, I suppose, if one can find a person trustworthy enough. I'm not holding my breath.

Ok fine, you morons ... let's repeal the 16th. Guess what ... now, when you get a hole in the road in front of your house, YOU have to go get people together to fill it.

That's right ... people who don't live on your street and who don't give a flying fuck about your neighborhood now have to pony up some money to make sure that the people who live on your street don't ruin their tyres driving to work.

Yeah ... good luck with that.

Sorry, folks, but the 16th amendment guarantees that you don't have to pay too much out of pocket expense for something the State should pay for.

Go ahead, though ... repeal it ... I will laugh at you as you break you car on something you're used to the State paying for you. Sorry, folks ... but I'm glad to pay 1/1000th of a cent to take care of someone else's road before I'm willing to pay $2000 to fix something in front of my own driveway.

Fuckin' anti-16th monkeys ... don't even know what benefit they gain from it, but want to abolish it all ...
Thanks for that i think this 16th ammendment is pretty col.

something you're used to the State paying for you.

Wouldn't repealing the 16th Amendment just stop the Federal government from levying an income tax, not the State? And the State fixes the roads near me, not the Federal government.

That if is very important. Dictatorship works fine, I suppose, if one can find a person trustworthy enough. I'm not holding my breath.

Democratic elections eliminate that if. If the people believe that the president is performing his job well, then they reelect him. So regardless of whether you think the president is doing a good job, he must be pleasing to the people or he would have been ousted.

Sure, I was reading the thread. You should try looking up words before you insult people.

A luxury tax is on things like high end cars, or a boat. A sin tax is a form of a luxury tax specifically placed on items deemed vices- like alcohol. It is also known as a pigovian tax. You may have been attempting to discuss luxury taxes, but by specifically refering to alcohol you opened the door to the subset of luxury taxes known as 'sin taxes'. With all the Jesus-freaks present on this forum, it is easy to mistakenly read puritanism in support for such a tax. My other comments were specifically refering to the over-taxation of items deemed "vices".

http://www.investorwords.com/4594/sin_tax.html
http://www.investorwords.com/2907/luxury_tax.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
Did I mention that they were vices or that they should be taxed because they were vices? Sin taxes aren't just taxes on vices they are taxes that are disproportionate because they are vices. Someone else brought up alcohol and I mentioned that alcohol would rightfully be taxed as a luxury. I said anything that is a luxury should be taxed. Thus, talking about sin taxes is off-topic. Now if you don't think when discussing things it is necessary to stay on-topic more power to you. If assumption and guessing is your modus operandi then great. However, my point was and remains clear so one must conclude that the only way you could assume that we were talking about sin taxes or even referencing them obliquely would be to not read my posts.

Oh, and a side-point, people whose arguments stand on their own don't have to resort to schoolyard tactics like calling people "jesus freaks".

Another side-point - luxury tax - A tax on products not considered essential

That's according to your own source. Let's see what I had to say about it past posts since you pretend to correct me. Here's the post you were replying to. One would think you would at least read that.

We were talking about luxury taxes. Do you know what those are? They are taxes on anything that is not a required thing for living. Alcohol is a luxury. It has nothing to do with sinning. Next.

A sin tax may be a luxury tax but a luxury tax is not necessarily a sin tax. We were talking about luxury taxes. Luxury taxes on alcohol are only sin taxes if they're disproportionate which no one suggested. You argued a strawman and you've compounded your error by pretending I used luxury tax wrong. Alcohol wasn't mentioned as a vice, it was mentioned as luxury that is also common among poor people. If anything it was suggested by my colleague that we tax alcohol less than other luxuries.

Ok fine, you morons ... let's repeal the 16th. Guess what ... now, when you get a hole in the road in front of your house, YOU have to go get people together to fill it.

That's right ... people who don't live on your street and who don't give a flying fuck about your neighborhood now have to pony up some money to make sure that the people who live on your street don't ruin their tyres driving to work.

Yeah ... good luck with that.

Sorry, folks, but the 16th amendment guarantees that you don't have to pay too much out of pocket expense for something the State should pay for.

Go ahead, though ... repeal it ... I will laugh at you as you break you car on something you're used to the State paying for you. Sorry, folks ... but I'm glad to pay 1/1000th of a cent to take care of someone else's road before I'm willing to pay $2000 to fix something in front of my own driveway.

Fuckin' anti-16th monkeys ... don't even know what benefit they gain from it, but want to abolish it all ...

The Federal Department of Transportation doesn't fix the roads in front of my house. You know that right? No one is talking about repealing all taxes. We are talking about repealing income taxes. But your argument is compelling. I mean, how can anyone argue with an argument that appears to be ignorant of the actual nature of that which they speak and then calls everyone monkeys. I'm floored by the strength of your argument. Maybe if I practice really hard I can be so eloquent. What do you think?

Wouldn't repealing the 16th Amendment just stop the Federal government from levying an income tax, not the State? And the State fixes the roads near me, not the Federal government.

Ding, ding, ding!!

I'd repeal the 2nd. Also, the 18th and 21st, but those two already cancel each other out.

The 14th is important in protecting civil rights. Efforts for decentralization should not override the protected rights of the citizens.

Exactly. And that is probably why he wants it repealed. most people who want the 14th repealed are anti-civil-rights, because they are white Christian, heterosexual males who never knew discrimination, and they want to continue to discriminate against others and hold them down, as it is the only way they can insure their continued superiority and power base.

They can't maintain it on their own, they have to hold down others to maintain it. Quite pathetic, really.

Agreed, but government should be as de-centralized as possible, to make it as difficult as possible for potential dictators to tyrannize the country.

You mean, like George Bush and the Republican Congress are currently DOING??

Which country's constitution?

Well, of course, the United states Constitution. Is there any other country that MATTERS??

Amendment XXI Repeal of Prohibition (1933):eek:

just kidding..............



Amendment XVI Income Tax (1913)


not that I am against income tax (in fact I do taxes for a living) I just think it is unfair the way it works.

I would not repeal the 16th Amendment, but I would amend it to make sure the bottom half of this country pays NO FUCKING TAXES whatsoever on their wages. We need those wages to LIVE ON. To hell with the rich, THEY can afford it.

Originally, the income tax WAS supposed to be levied only against the more wealthy elements of society, and even then, only as a temporary measure to finance The Great War (now known as World War I.)

The US is not the default option outside the US, you know, but perhaps you've never been?

As if any other country actually mattered??

Never said it was, but "playing dumb" is not a very good way of getting your point across. People tend to ignore you when you think your being cute. Just an observation.

A better way of stating your point would have been to say to the original poster "You should have specified that you meant the American Constitution, because many different countries have constitutions."

Or you could be juvenile about it, whatever. *shrugs shoulders*

Or you get people like me making intentionally juvenile resposes. See above.

Exactly. And that is probably why he wants it repealed. most people who want the 14th repealed are anti-civil-rights, because they are white Christian, heterosexual males who never knew discrimination, and they want to continue to discriminate against others and hold them down, as it is the only way they can insure their continued superiority and power base.

They can't maintain it on their own, they have to hold down others to maintain it. Quite pathetic, really.

Yeah, there is nothing that aggrevates me more than someone who is morally or logically inconsistent because of personal biases. I am not going to say that I am always logically consistent, but it is not because I am being purposefully obtuse like these individuals.

Anyway, we don't amend our constitution, we rewrite it and just insert things, so I'd like to remove the following bits:

Art. 5, chapter 1 of the Instrument of Government (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____6307.aspx): The King or Queen who occupies the throne of Sweden in accordance with the Act of Succession shall be the Head of State. The provisions of this Instrument of Government which relate to the King shall apply to the Queen if the Queen is Head of State.

And the entire Act of Succession. (http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_PageExtended____6311.aspx)

Basically, I want the monarchy to end.

what the hell is wrong with the benign monarchy y'all have over there in Sweden? As I understand it, y'all pretty much do whatever you want over there and are pretty much left to it.

I spent 3 weeks in a different monarchy (Thialand) and I didn't find it the least oppressive or offensive...in fact, in many ways, the culture and way of life was far superior to the United States, in all honesty. If I could speak Thai fluently, I might've even considered staying.

Amendment XIX

Except, of course, the 14th doesn't give any major abilities to the federal government or the state legislatures, instead it restricts the power of both in favor of the people.

Actually, the 14th makes sure that the rights granted to people by the Federal Government are respected by the states and municipalities as well.

Example...you are protected against, say, double jeopardy by the Federal Constitution...and you also can "plead the Fifth" that is, you cannot be forced, by the Federal Constitution...to self-incrimination.

Yet, until the 14th came along, you COULD get tried twice for the same crime, on a state level...and you COULD be forced to self-incriminate.

You really wanna repeal the 14th? Think carefully about that one!

I know, most people who don't like the 14th don't like it because of the civil rights aspect, they hate any and all civil rights accorded to non-white, non-Christian, non-heterosexual, non-males...believing that they, and they alone, should have all the rights and freedoms in this country. They just won't come out and say so, because they know they will get jumped on for expressing such beliefs. so they use code words.

I would do away with the direct election of senators. There needs to be a body that isn't suject to the emotions of the people. The House was to give in to the heat of emotion. The senate was to look at the long range. No one today looks ahead and says "What will be good for the nation 50 years from now?"

Actually, this would not particularly bother me...as Senators are supposed to represent the States before the Federal Government, whereas the House is supposed to represent the people.

You actually might have some better decisions coming out of the Senate if they didn't have to worry as much about kowtowing to the voters on every little thing. You might then be able to have a body of people who could make unpopular decisions that were, albeit unpopular...also the correct decisions.

Amendment 16 -the income tax (1913)

What a travesty this one has become. Started out as a populist movement to punish the extremely wealthy and wound up becoming a burden on the people who voted for it. In effect, it has made middle class Americans, who pay taxes, the employees of the US government for at least 3 months of the year.
As for the ultrawealthy-they hide their money in trusts and non-profits to avoid paying what they really owe. They paid off pols to write those things into existence.

3 months, my ass! The average worker works until mid-June, to pay off direct and indirect taxes...THEN working people begin to labor for themselves.

This is why I say that the bottom half should not have to pay ANY. Period.

We already earn little enough as it is.

1-10, 14, 22, 25, 26.

You have GOT to be fucking kidding, right??
You'd wipe out the entire Bill Of Rights, and the 14th?

Jesus Christ, are you sure of what you are talking about here?

And why is that exactly? Because the religious right wants to make it more difficult to "sin". It is a way of punishing the poor man for his vices. That's why taxes on alcohol and tobacco are known as "Sin taxes."


I've heard of them, but I used to run a liquor store. And my license to sell liquor was 37 thousand dollars a year. So the government gets paid twice. Taxes me to sell it, and taxes the drinker to buy it. Oh, yeah, and then sales tax, so the state gets a cut too. So make that three times. And that's just if there isn't a county or city tax. Or if it's an import, then there'd be another tax on it...

And the beauty of it?? Sales tax is added after all the other taxes, so you, the consumer, are paying taxes on taxes!!

Keeping in mind I'm not from the USA, I would repeal the 2nd Amendment, given it is being used totally against what the framers intent was when "the right to bear arms" became a right. It was for an armed militia in case the government ever went rogue on the people. It was never meant that every shcmuck could bear arms to shoot their neighbours. It is probably the most misunderstood Amendment in the American Constitution and usually by the gun happy NRA.

Exactly why I would repeal the 2nd, as well. I don't want every schmuck in the country to have a gun so they can go around shooting their neighbors, or anyone else they don't like, or with whom they disagree. And there are plenty of mental cases out there that can, would, and DO exactly that.

Where is MY right to be protected from YOUR gun??

This is common knowledge. It's really pointless to argue it.

No conservative really cares about states rights (e.g. recent law moving medical lawsuits out of states' hands into federal courts). They don't care about low taxes (that's why Bush keeps talking about "revenue neutral tax adjustments. He's just trying to get the money from the poor instead of the rich). They don't care about government spending (Bush's Iraq war). They don't care about government handouts (Bush's energy bill).

Whenever they argue about any of those things it's code for something else.
Oppose civil rights? Call it being pro-states' rights.
Oppose consumer protection? Call it corporation's civil rights.
Oppose affordable medical care? Call it "government handouts."
Oppose reproductive rights? Call it having a culture of life.
Oppose life? Call it building a strong military.
Oppose sanity? Call it "liberal elitism."
Oppose the slightest shred of decency? Call it conservatism.
Oppose ethics? Call it "criminalizing politics."


Exactly!
Several posts back, I mentioned how they speak with code words. Thank you, Domici, for giving us a sample of the code words.

Womens Voting and make Alcohol illegal again.

I am going to try very hard, as a woman, not to say what is on my mind at this very moment! I don't think the Mods would take kindly to what I might say.

I'll be one if I die defending our most important freedom.

I think there are freedoms FAR MORE IMPORTANT.
Like the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, the 9th, the 14th Amendments, for starters.
Not to mention MY right to be safe from YOUR gun.

Again, pretty much not how it works. Tons of people think their shananigans are heroic, it doesn't make it so, but thanks for playing.

I'm quite sure David Koresh thought HE was a hero, too. :rolleyes:

I don't agree. I'm all for term limits. I think that's why Congress is so corrupt. I personally think being a congressman or President should not be a life-long job. These guys should have to deal with the world they're creating.

Jocabia and I agree here.
The whole point of the 22nd, was to insure we didn't end up with a de-facto dictator. Without it, I'm sure we would be looking at King George in office right now, even harder to get rid of than Castro is.

I am in favor of term limits, and not just for Presidents, but Congressmen and Senators, too. Let them experience some of the world they help to create and impose on the rest of us! Why should they be shielded for life from what they imnpose on the rest of us?

Really? Would you be comfortable having GWB as President for a few more terms? The rule was made because it's known that the longer a person is in office, particularly the President, the more power they garner. Imagine a Supreme Court all chosen by the same President. Not particularly unbiased, methinks. There are many parts of the Constitution meant to protect us from the people. This limit is very consistent with that.

Exactly! Especially because of our two-party system, and winner takes all, it guarantees that up to 49.9% of the population will be disenfranchised.

How'd YOU like to be part of that disenfranchised minority for years and years and years without end?

I'm going to assume the guy who wants to get rid of the 22nd is a Republican, and just wants to get rid of it so Bush can run again, and cheat his way to yet a third term.

Well, my question to that guy is...how would you like it, then, if CLINTON got to be President for, oh, say, the next 40 years or so?? You'd be awful pissed off about that, wouldn't you?

Well, I'LL be good and pissed if the asshole Bush doesn't GET THE FUCK out of OUR WHITE HOUSE by 2009! I want his ass gone, never to return!

4 and 22

4??

Do you mean you would not have a problem with government agents bursting into your house with no cause or warrant, and just start grabbing things?

The president is a public servent and thus the people should be able to choose the public servent they want.

And what is bad about a dictator if he is working for the people?

Hmmm...let's ask Pat Robertson what he thinks about Hugo Chavez!!

Maybe if I practice really hard I can be so eloquent. What do you think?

Strangely enough ... that post was made long after I went to bed. Apparently one has to post in their sleep to be so eloquent.

Ok fine, you morons ... let's repeal the 16th. Guess what ... now, when you get a hole in the road in front of your house, YOU have to go get people together to fill it.

That's right ... people who don't live on your street and who don't give a flying fuck about your neighborhood now have to pony up some money to make sure that the people who live on your street don't ruin their tyres driving to work.

Yeah ... good luck with that.

Sorry, folks, but the 16th amendment guarantees that you don't have to pay too much out of pocket expense for something the State should pay for.

Go ahead, though ... repeal it ... I will laugh at you as you break you car on something you're used to the State paying for you. Sorry, folks ... but I'm glad to pay 1/1000th of a cent to take care of someone else's road before I'm willing to pay $2000 to fix something in front of my own driveway.

Fuckin' anti-16th monkeys ... don't even know what benefit they gain from it, but want to abolish it all ...


OH, HOLY SHIT...did you EVER just hit a raw nerve with me on this one!!
I live at the end of a dirt road, a private road...unpaved...and potholed as hell!
Why? Well, in our case, the developer of this area went bankrupt before he ever got the roads paved.

Everyone who moves in here is supposed to sign a road-maintenance agreement, but it is not enforced as we do not have a homeowners association or anything like that.

Some of our newer neighbors have refused to pay the $100 per year cost to re-fill the potholes with new stones (a neighbor who owns a landscaping business always takes care of the road - assuming he collects enough money to pay for the materials to do it.)

One neighbor went so far as to build another driveway across his property out to the main paved street and then barricaded off the entrance from our road, so that he wouldn't have to pay. Others claim that, because we live at the end of the road, and thus use more of it...we should have to pay more...and it is always a nasty fight every spring...so I know exactly what kind of assholes people would be about things like road repair!

Stop letting b—hes and n—ers vote

Okay. That's flame. And will be dealt wioth accordingly.

Democratic elections eliminate that if. If the people believe that the president is performing his job well, then they reelect him. So regardless of whether you think the president is doing a good job, he must be pleasing to the people or he would have been ousted.

Not really. Ever heard of Diebold?

Or how about Saddam's "re-election" a couple years ago, where he got nearly 100 percent of the vote?

Did you ever consider consolidating all your shit into one freakin' post, Lyric?

Did you ever consider consolidating all your shit into one freakin' post, Lyric?

No. I'm replying as I see fit, while reading thru the thread, and damned if I'm gonna spend all day playing around with HTML tags to make it one post instead of several posts dealing with several different subjects.

Stop letting b—hes and n—ers vote


Your comment was completely unnecessary OH. There was absolutely no need to say that since it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Osutoria-Hangarii: Official Warning for Trolling

Exactly why I would repeal the 2nd, as well. I don't want every schmuck in the country to have a gun so they can go around shooting their neighbors, or anyone else they don't like, or with whom they disagree. And there are plenty of mental cases out there that can, would, and DO exactly that.

Where is MY right to be protected from YOUR gun??

Even though you previously owned a firearm for protection and stated that you only got rid of it because you thought it was illegal to transport it over state lines? You do know that SCOTUS has ruled you have no right to be protected from crime by the state, right?

Stephistan also has completely misinterpreted the framers intent towards the 2nd and private ownership with her *sarcasm* completely unbiased *sarcasm* statements.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

Jocabia and I agree here.
The whole point of the 22nd, was to insure we didn't end up with a de-facto dictator. Without it, I'm sure we would be looking at King George in office right now, even harder to get rid of than Castro is.

It is not a dictator if there are free elections, no matter how you look at it. All the people have to do to get rid of him is vote.

I am in favor of term limits, and not just for Presidents, but Congressmen and Senators, too. Let them experience some of the world they help to create and impose on the rest of us! Why should they be shielded for life from what they imnpose on the rest of us?

Where do elected officials live, Mount Olympus?

Hmmm...let's ask Pat Robertson what he thinks about Hugo Chavez!!

:confused:

Not really. Ever heard of Diebold?

Or how about Saddam's "re-election" a couple years ago, where he got nearly 100 percent of the vote?

I do not support election fraud or forced voting through violence, that is not democracy and it doesn't apply.

the rights granted to people by the Federal Government

At the danger of being a pedant I'd like to point out that the Federal Government does not grant rights. The theory is that you have those rights inherently, they're part of your existance. The Bill of Rights and other rights-protecting documentation are not to give you those rights, they're to reaffirm that the government cannot take those rights away. Madison didn't want a Bill of Rights because he was afraid people would think those are all the rights you have, which is why he stuck the 9th Amendment in there.

No conservative really cares about states rights (e.g. recent law moving medical lawsuits out of states' hands into federal courts). They don't care about low taxes (that's why Bush keeps talking about "revenue neutral tax adjustments. He's just trying to get the money from the poor instead of the rich). They don't care about government spending (Bush's Iraq war). They don't care about government handouts (Bush's energy bill).

Please don't think that Bush represents all "conservatives". There are those of us who do care about those things and we hate Bush just as much as you. Conservatives come in many forms, but right now the worst kind is running the country.

It isn't a life-long job if the people don't want it to be. I say let the people decide when to limit a president's terms.

Yeah. They did a find job with Strom Thurmond. A man whose entire being had so deteriorated that he couldn't even talk. A man whose only claim to voter support was his "heroic" support for segregation. A man who couldn't even understand the legislation on which he was voting. And he stayed in office until he died.

I think that one of the options that the framers proposed ought to be revived.

You can be president or Senator or whatever else as many times as you like. But once you do two terms in a row you have to sit out an election. Go back to your real job for a while.

Please don't think that Bush represents all "conservatives". There are those of us who do care about those things and we hate Bush just as much as you. Conservatives come in many forms, but right now the worst kind is running the country.

Well he represents the majority of them, because that's who voted for him.

If you call yourself a conservative but don't vote then you're a conservative the way an unemployed grad-student is a philosopher or art-historian. Conservatives who vote chose Bush over McCain.

They're for unprovoked wars of aggression. They're for torture. They're for racism. They're for crushing the middle class. Bush represents conservatives because conservatives vote for him more than any other option.

Well he represents the majority of them, because that's who voted for him.

If you call yourself a conservative but don't vote then you're a conservative the way an unemployed grad-student is a philosopher or art-historian. Conservatives who vote chose Bush over McCain.

They're for unprovoked wars of aggression. They're for torture. They're for racism. They're for crushing the middle class. Bush represents conservatives because conservatives vote for him more than any other option.
Do you have any fucking idea what "least worst" means? Jesus Christ, some people are idiots :(

Where do elected officials live, Mount Olympus?

Uh, in a way, yeah, they do.

We pay for all of their expenses for everything, and then pay them a salary. Sure their salary is taxed, but they don't have to actually live off of the money they make. And what the governemnt makes off of their income tax doesn't even come close to covering what we, the taxpayers, shell out for them.

The Preesident makes 400,000 a year. Then he gets a 50,000 dollar bonus. We do tax it....but not that extra 50,000. We pay for his room, his food, vacation, everything. We even pay to decorate the damn White House each year for Christmas. This gets to be a pretty big tab we taxpayers(I shouldn't say we, I haven't personally had to pay taxes yet) are picking up.

Did I mention the fact that we also do all of that for their families, and the Secret Service?

Did you know that when the President stays in a hotel anywhere, the reserve the entire floor, the floor above, and the floor below? I think it'd be a safe bet to say the president doesn't stay in too many Motel 6's either.

Politicians don't really have to live on what they earn. Maybe IF they get kicked out of office, but sometimes that's a humongous if.

Besides, it's practically impossible to be a politician without being outrageously rich, anway. It's not like they don't have all of the wealthy-favoring legislation working for them both before and after they become politicians anyway.

Even though you previously owned a firearm for protection and stated that you only got rid of it because you thought it was illegal to transport it over state lines? You do know that SCOTUS has ruled you have no right to be protected from crime by the state, right?

Stephistan also has completely misinterpreted the framers intent towards the 2nd and private ownership with her *sarcasm* completely unbiased *sarcasm* statements.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf
That wasn't my only reason for getting rid of the gun. But, being as I had a permit for it in Texas, and not yet in Pennsylvania, I did think it possible that it could be considered a crime to have transported it over state lines. My main two reasons were....one, my mom wouldn't want a gun in her house, and, as I ended up having to move in with her...well...it is her house.

Second, moving up to the country, where she lives, and now I do too...there just wasn't any real need for it, anymore. Not likely anyone could even find us up where we are now. I lived in a pretty wild and wooly neighborhood back in Texas that made having a shotgun a good idea.

And I know about that particular SCOTUS ruling. that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I believe all of our citizens should have a right to be protected from crime, and feel safe in their homes. And their neighborhoods. And when you know some whacked-out idiot might well be carrying a gun...well, you just don't feel too safe!

I just don't want everyone and anyone to be able to own a gun, and the 2nd Amendment basically gives anyone and everyone the "right" to own a gun. I believe that with rights should come responsibilities...and if you want to own a gun, you should first be able to show you will be a responsible gun owner, including no criminal history, no mental-health history...and pass a gun-safety course so that you know how to use (and more importantly, how NOT to use,) your gun.

I don't have a problem with private citizen ownership of guns, I just have a problem with the idea that no responsibilities are necessarily attached to that right.

I do not support election fraud or forced voting through violence, that is not democracy and it doesn't apply.

Sure it does. There's plenty of evidence to suggest malfeasance in the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004. There's a reason they don't want a paper trail! Sorry, but when a company that donates heavily to the Republican Party comes out with a voting machine that leaves no paper trail, that includes secret coding they will not allow independent scrutiny of...and the CEO of that company comes out and promises to "deliver Ohio to the President" do you not see how that looks more than a little fishy?

As to the Pat Robertson comment...someone said a dictatorship was not a bad thing if the people wanted it...and if he was working for the people. Well, for all intents and purposes, that describes Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Yet Pat Robertson, not long ago, called for Chavez's assassination!

Mainly because he won't play ball the way America wants him to play.

Well he represents the majority of them, because that's who voted for him.

If you call yourself a conservative but don't vote then you're a conservative the way an unemployed grad-student is a philosopher or art-historian. Conservatives who vote chose Bush over McCain.

They're for unprovoked wars of aggression. They're for torture. They're for racism. They're for crushing the middle class. Bush represents conservatives because conservatives vote for him more than any other option.
My thoughts exactly!

Uh, in a way, yeah, they do.

We pay for all of their expenses for everything, and then pay them a salary. Sure their salary is taxed, but they don't have to actually live off of the money they make. And what the governemnt makes off of their income tax doesn't even come close to covering what we, the taxpayers, shell out for them.

The Preesident makes 400,000 a year. Then he gets a 50,000 dollar bonus. We do tax it....but not that extra 50,000. We pay for his room, his food, vacation, everything. We even pay to decorate the damn White House each year for Christmas. This gets to be a pretty big tab we taxpayers(I shouldn't say we, I haven't personally had to pay taxes yet) are picking up.

Did I mention the fact that we also do all of that for their families, and the Secret Service?

Did you know that when the President stays in a hotel anywhere, the reserve the entire floor, the floor above, and the floor below? I think it'd be a safe bet to say the president doesn't stay in too many Motel 6's either.

Politicians don't really have to live on what they earn. Maybe IF they get kicked out of office, but sometimes that's a humongous if.

Besides, it's practically impossible to be a politician without being outrageously rich, anway. It's not like they don't have all of the wealthy-favoring legislation working for them both before and after they become politicians anyway.


Actually, yes...in a way, they DO live on Mount Olympus. Have you ever heard of "inside the Beltway thinking" versus "outside the Beltway thinking." Inside the Beltway is a different reality from the one the rest of us live.

The 14th is important in protecting civil rights. Efforts for decentralization should not override the protected rights of the citizens.

The fourteenth amendment was a statement about the extent of state's rights, it has nothing to do with civil rights. Saying that, "No state shall...deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" does not mean that an illegal immigrant gets the same rights as a law-abiding citizen, but rather say that a state cannot infringe upon these rights.

I favour the repeal of the second and instead allow the right to bear arms to stand on the precedent that has been set by previous rulings. The reason is simple. Currently, while I believe the case for guns is a reasonably strong one, I don't like that the NRA and other pro-gun groups don't have to argue their cases except to say that the 2nd ammendment guarantees them the right to bear arms. Seriously, I think we should be debating the merits of guns in society on a case by case basis, rather than applying a blanket statement to all situations involving guns. There is plenty of great research out there to show that concealed carry laws do reduce crime where they are instated, but you never hear gun advocates making a case based on what makes sense. Instead we get the 2nd ammendment spiel. Frankly, that's not good enough for me. They should be showing that their policies are good for society rather than just citing the second to dismiss those who have the misplaced but good intention to improve society by restricting firearms.

I also favour repealing the 22nd. People should have the freedom to elect who they want. If a candidate is really that bad, someone should be able to run against him and win. After all, the candidate would have the financial backing of all those who were dissatisfied with the current seat-holder and the added advantage that no one really liked the seat-holder. The problem lies not within the politicians, but within the people. This should make sense. After all, if the politician is lousy, it was the people's choice to pick a lousy politician. I'm sick of these campaigns to "get out and vote". No. Stay at home unless you're going to take the time to consider your vote's effect on the system and you're sure that you know the consequences of electing your candidate. Then go vote. If people put a little more thought into each ballot they cast, we wouldn't find ourselves complaining as much about the people we pick to do the job of running this country for us, or at least if we did, it would be for the right reasons.

Well he represents the majority of them, because that's who voted for him.

If you call yourself a conservative but don't vote then you're a conservative the way an unemployed grad-student is a philosopher or art-historian. Conservatives who vote chose Bush over McCain.

They're for unprovoked wars of aggression. They're for torture. They're for racism. They're for crushing the middle class. Bush represents conservatives because conservatives vote for him more than any other option.

And I chose Badnarik over Bush. I do vote, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either Bush or Kerry, so I voted Libertarian. I would have preferred Kerry over Bush, but I didn't want to be blamed for the things Kerry would have done too.

I didn't say that Bush doesn't represent the majority of conservatives, I said that he doesn't represent all of us. It's not an all or nothing proposition. That would be like saying that Bush represents all Americans because Americans voted for him more than any other option.

They're for unprovoked wars of aggression. They're for torture. They're for racism

I'll agree, Republicans are for those things. But not all conservatives are Republicans.

The first, and second. That way liberals and conservatives in the us can argue about something better than religion and guns. Who cares about freedom of press and all that:P

Originally Posted by Osutoria-Hangarii
Stop letting b—hes and n—ers vote

Oh my god i finally understand what this chap was talking about that is so bizzare.


I would repeel the 5th.

Sure it does. There's plenty of evidence to suggest malfeasance in the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004. There's a reason they don't want a paper trail! Sorry, but when a company that donates heavily to the Republican Party comes out with a voting machine that leaves no paper trail, that includes secret coding they will not allow independent scrutiny of...and the CEO of that company comes out and promises to "deliver Ohio to the President" do you not see how that looks more than a little fishy?

I don't know if voting fraud took place, I think it is possible. But this isn't about voter fraud, as I am referring to fair elections.

As to the Pat Robertson comment...someone said a dictatorship was not a bad thing if the people wanted it...and if he was working for the people. Well, for all intents and purposes, that describes Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Yet Pat Robertson, not long ago, called for Chavez's assassination!

Mainly because he won't play ball the way America wants him to play.

Pat Robertson is a fool, I can't argue with that.

And I know about that particular SCOTUS ruling. that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I believe all of our citizens should have a right to be protected from crime, and feel safe in their homes.

Any chance you know the name of the case?

Democratic elections eliminate that if. If the people believe that the president is performing his job well, then they reelect him.

Democratic elections do not eliminate the if, as it is perfectly possible, in the absense of restrictions on the arbitrary power of The People, for The People to elect a tyrannical madman. At the most, democratic elections only guarantee that at least some portion of the population is as insane as the individual it is electing to office.

All the amendments to the danish constitution make sense to me (as there have been amendments in the danish constitution, I find it relevant to this discussion... even if it probably should be about the american one).

I can remember two of them... there is a third however.

Let's see... the third one was to forbid people of icelandic nationality born after 1953 to be citizens of Denmark. Prior to this, they had been citizens with equal voting rights and everything else (residence and so forth). After this, the people who were icelandic after 1953 were not considered citizens of Denmark, because they had decided to become independent back in 1944 (with US help, and from what I hear, they want the danish military back *chuckle*). The third one also included a change to the free setting up of organisations. Henceforth, it was forbidden to set up an organisation which promoted or used violence or terror. This was due to the fact that the nazis had been able to set up such organisations to spread violence and terror in danish society.

Some fifty to a hundred years before that, they... *thinks* Ahh crap, I don't remember two of em'

Point is, they all made sense (I read them and how it used to be before). So there are no amendments to the danish constitution that I would want to repeal. I don't know the US constitution well enough to know which amendments I would want to repeal.

Keeping in mind I'm not from the USA, I would repeal the 2nd Amendment, given it is being used totally against what the framers intent was when "the right to bear arms" became a right. It was for an armed militia in case the government ever went rogue on the people.


As I've argued in my own post, the controversy over the "true" intent of the Second Amendment is essentially irrevelant. The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments all work to guarantee the right to own property; firearms are simply another form of property.


It was never meant that every shcmuck could bear arms to shoot their neighbours.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman#Rhetorical_use

And I chose Badnarik over Bush. I do vote, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for either Bush or Kerry, so I voted Libertarian. I would have preferred Kerry over Bush, but I didn't want to be blamed for the things Kerry would have done too.

I didn't say that Bush doesn't represent the majority of conservatives, I said that he doesn't represent all of us. It's not an all or nothing proposition. That would be like saying that Bush represents all Americans because Americans voted for him more than any other option.



I'll agree, Republicans are for those things. But not all conservatives are Republicans.

And any vote that was not for Kerry was for Bush. Because Kerry was the only one who actually stood a real chance of unseating Bush.

Keeping in mind I'm not from the USA, I would repeal the 2nd Amendment, given it is being used totally against what the framers intent was when "the right to bear arms" became a right.

And you know this how? If the framers didn't want us to keep and bear arms then why is it in the Constitution of the United States?

It was for an armed militia in case the government ever went rogue on the people. It was never meant that every shcmuck could bear arms to shoot their neighbours. It is probably the most misunderstood Amendment in the American Constitution and usually by the gun happy NRA.

I suggest you re-read the 2nd amendment.

Second Amendment - Too confusing; property in firearms is protected just fine by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Militias (should) belong to the individual states, not the Federal Government. (<awaits in fear the terrible wrath of both the pro- and anti-gun lobby> :eek: )

Actually, no. If you take away the 2nd amendment then any state can ban guns and there goes the neighborhood.

Third Amendment - Security in one's home is protected just fine by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

Do you even know what the 3rd amendment is?

Sixteenth Amendment - Reducing the Federal Government to functions actually authorized by the Constitution, this Amendment would be entirely unnecessary. Keep most functions of government, as well as taxes needed to fund them, in the States, close to the people they actually effect. Doing so strengthens control and boosts effectiveness.

This is the Amendment I would repeal.

4 and 22

Why do you want to eliminate the right to an illegal search and seizure?

You mean, like George Bush and the Republican Congress are currently DOING??

Sorry. I don't see a dictatorship here.

Well, of course, the United states Constitution. Is there any other country that MATTERS??

There are several countries that matter. In fact all countries matter however, the US is the shortest written constitution and the longest lasting.

Long Live the United States of America

I would not repeal the 16th Amendment, but I would amend it to make sure the bottom half of this country pays NO FUCKING TAXES whatsoever on their wages.

Thanks to current tax laws, they don't. You can think Bush for that.

Actually, yes...in a way, they DO live on Mount Olympus. Have you ever heard of "inside the Beltway thinking" versus "outside the Beltway thinking." Inside the Beltway is a different reality from the one the rest of us live.

For once, I agree with Lyric. That is why no President should come from those inside the beltway.

I'll agree, Republicans are for those things. But not all conservatives are Republicans.

I'm against Torture! I'm against wars of aggression (the Iraq was was NOT a war of aggression but that is a different debate for a different thread) and I sure as hell am against Racism.

I"m a republican.

And any vote that was not for Kerry was for Bush. Because Kerry was the only one who actually stood a real chance of unseating Bush.

Actually, no. Joseph Lieberman actually had a better chance but he was to conservative for the democrats.

In reality, I probably would've voted for Lieberman if he was the nominee.

And any vote that was not for Kerry was for Bush

I was able to vote for Badnarik because I was confident my state was going to Kerry. Had it been closer I probably would have voted for Kerry. I don't know if I would have regretted it, but I wouldn't have felt really good about it.

I'm against Torture! I'm against wars of aggression (the Iraq was was NOT a war of aggression but that is a different debate for a different thread) and I sure as hell am against Racism.

I"m a republican.


Fair enough, let me make a qualification I should have made before. The Republicans in charge are for those things, but not all Republicans. I'm guilty of generalizing just as much as the person I was accusing of generalization.

Actually, no. If you take away the 2nd amendment then any state can ban guns and there goes the neighborhood.


Well, we currently have a Second Amendment, and the states are in the habit of restricting firearms ownership anyway.

The right to own firearms would be better protected, in my opinion, if we got rid of all this sacred ideological mumbo-jumbo and simply defended it as a logical extention of the right to own property. The anti-gun lobby claims in regard to an "ambiguous" Second Amendment would be immediately irrevelant, and firearms ownership would have a far stronger Constitutional foundation based on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment would extend this protection into the individual states as well.

Militias or having to fight off totalitarian governments are not concepts the average person can really relate to. But being left alone by the government when one is simply minding one's own business and has done nothing wrong? That idea will get people's support.

(Of course, this vital paradigm shift is not likely to occur as the pro-gun lobby is infested with statists (http://www.rnc.org/) who are in the habit of ignoring individual liberties, like ownership of property, when they aren't convienient...)

Some states do have better protections for firearms rights than the Federal government.

Article 1, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution

Every man shall have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself, and the state.

Well, we currently have a Second Amendment, and the states are in the habit of restricting firearms ownership anyway.

There's a difference between restricting and banning.

The right to own firearms would be better protected, in my opinion, if we got rid of all this sacred ideological mumbo-jumbo and simply defended it as a logical extention of the right to own property.

I doubt that'll work. Its already protected and that's good enough for me.

The anti-gun lobby claims in regard to an "ambiguous" Second Amendment would be immediately irrevelant, and firearms ownership would have a far stronger Constitutional foundation based on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

The anti-gun lobby wants to ban all guns and you know it.

The Fourteenth Amendment would extend this protection into the individual states as well.

What? To ban all guns?

Militias or having to fight off totalitarian governments are not concepts the average person can really relate to.

Not according to the founding fathers.

But being left alone by the government when one is simply minding one's own business and has done nothing wrong? That idea will get people's support.

And with guns in hand, it can be done. We do have that right to do so too.

(Of course, this vital paradigm shift is not likely to occur as the pro-gun lobby is infested with statists (http://www.rnc.org/) who are in the habit of ignoring individual liberties, like ownership of property, when they aren't convienient...)

/violin

And any vote that was not for Kerry was for Bush. Because Kerry was the only one who actually stood a real chance of unseating Bush.

False. That's what they want you to think and then they make arguments for why they should have more power because of the amount of support they get. They being democrats AND repbulicans. The reason we don't change these things and don't get a third party in there is because they tell you to believe what you just said. A vote for Badnarik is a vote for Badnarik. If your candidate couldn't get enough votes to unseat Bush even when 'conservatives' are flipping to a third-party candidate, then that is your candidate's fault.

Thanks to current tax laws, they don't. You can think Bush for that.
Bullshit.
I have been in the bottom half my whole life, and I have always paid fucking taxes.
There may have been ONE year where I could not have been considered bottom half, because that was the year I got a windfall from a lawsuit settlement.

And that's another thing that ought not be taxable as "income." Lawsuit settlements!

I'm the one who actually suffered...largely in part because the goddamn government refuses to stand up for the equal employment rights of people like me....so, naturally, I sue under the State's laws...win my case...and there's Uncle Sam, who refuses to protect me in the same way New Jersey did...and Uncle Sam has his fucking hand out?!!? What's that sort of shit?!?!?

I'm against Torture! I'm against wars of aggression (the Iraq was was NOT a war of aggression but that is a different debate for a different thread) and I sure as hell am against Racism.

I"m a republican.

Are you for equal rights for ALL PEOPLE? Or do you support discrimination against some people? And I mean EQUAL RIGHTS...for ALL PEOPLE. Or do you support discrimination?

The main reason I hate Republicans is because the vast majority of them support discrimination.

Actually, no. Joseph Lieberman actually had a better chance but he was to conservative for the democrats.

In reality, I probably would've voted for Lieberman if he was the nominee.

Don't make me BARF!! Lieberman is a DINO...Democrat In Name Only. There is NO WAY any true to the blue Democrat was going to give Lieberman the nod in the primaries. Wasn't gonmna happen. He could switch parties tomorrow, and most of us on the left would be happy to be rid of him.

Much the same way many of you guys feel about a guy like, oh....say, Arlen Specter??

The one Republican I catually do respect is my one Republican Senator, Arlen Specter.

The other Senator, I SO hope gets his ASS kicked in next year's elections, and it looks like I am going to get my way, because Prick Santorectum (Rick Santorum) is not very popular this time out, and he's running against the son of the former popular governor Bob Casey.

If there is a God, we will be Santorum-free in 2006!!

False. That's what they want you to think and then they make arguments for why they should have more power because of the amount of support they get. They being democrats AND repbulicans. The reason we don't change these things and don't get a third party in there is because they tell you to believe what you just said. A vote for Badnarik is a vote for Badnarik. If your candidate couldn't get enough votes to unseat Bush even when 'conservatives' are flipping to a third-party candidate, then that is your candidate's fault.

The way the current Electoral System is set up, requiring 270 (or just over half) of all Electoral Votes to become President...makes it currently impossible for anyone not affiliated with the two major parties to become President...and you know it. to claim otherwise is disingenuous. A vote for Badnarik may as well have been a vote for Bush, because it was one more Kerry coulda gotten and didn't. And that is why Bush is still pResident.

If no candidate gets 270, the Election goes to the House. And you know they will vote along Party Lines. Thus, no third-party candidate, currently, stands a chance in hell of getting to be President.

Now, if you get a really ORGANIZED third party...and start winning some seats in the House and Senate...you may eventually, and forever, change the way things are done here in this country. But not now. Y'all third parties are setting your sights way too high. Start local.

Are you for equal rights for ALL PEOPLE? Or do you support discrimination against some people? And I mean EQUAL RIGHTS...for ALL PEOPLE. Or do you support discrimination?

The main reason I hate Republicans is because the vast majority of them support discrimination.

Everyone discriminates at some point. Maybe you are discriminating against a Republican right now!:p

Seriously though, maybe the US should try to drop the who party system. Just let candidates run as themselves, that way we can more easily observe their background, rather than being blinded by their party.

Personally, I think I would like income tax to be repealed. I think our government is just to goddamned big and burecratic and stopping income tax would force it to lose its obesity.

Bullshit.
I have been in the bottom half my whole life, and I have always paid fucking taxes.

Apparently you aren't low enough to not pay taxes. There is a cut off and those that are below that line don't pay taxes.

There may have been ONE year where I could not have been considered bottom half, because that was the year I got a windfall from a lawsuit settlement.

And I'm sure you paid a tax on that.

And that's another thing that ought not be taxable as "income." Lawsuit settlements!

I agree. Write your Congressman and Senators. Maybe we can get that law changed.

False. That's what they want you to think and then they make arguments for why they should have more power because of the amount of support they get. They being democrats AND repbulicans. The reason we don't change these things and don't get a third party in there is because they tell you to believe what you just said. A vote for Badnarik is a vote for Badnarik. If your candidate couldn't get enough votes to unseat Bush even when 'conservatives' are flipping to a third-party candidate, then that is your candidate's fault.

This is indeed 100% correct.

Are you for equal rights for ALL PEOPLE? Or do you support discrimination against some people? And I mean EQUAL RIGHTS...for ALL PEOPLE. Or do you support discrimination?

I'm for equal rights and oppose discrimination. That was why I opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment to the US Constitution.

The main reason I hate Republicans is because the vast majority of them support discrimination.

I'm opposed to discrimination. I can't stand both sides because of it.

Don't make me BARF!! Lieberman is a DINO...Democrat In Name Only. There is NO WAY any true to the blue Democrat was going to give Lieberman the nod in the primaries. Wasn't gonmna happen. He could switch parties tomorrow, and most of us on the left would be happy to be rid of him.

And now you know why the Dems have been losing elections. Its because of attitudes like this towards conservative democrats. Its sad really. A great party being hijacked by the left. The same on the republicans for being highjacked by the right.

Much the same way many of you guys feel about a guy like, oh....say, Arlen Specter??

Who is this you guys? I don't care if he's a republican or a democrat. As long as he does his job that he was elected to do, I don't care.

The other Senator, I SO hope gets his ASS kicked in next year's elections, and it looks like I am going to get my way, because Rick Santorum is not very popular this time out, and he's running against the son of the former popular governor Bob Casey.

And that is the only reason why he is running. What is Casey's platform that he's running on? I haven't heard a peep out of him and I have been keeping a close tab on this election.

If there is a God, we will be Santorum-free in 2006!!

Since the Dems didn't get their wish with the base closings, Santorum stands a good chance at getting re-elected. After all the Dems did try to blame the closing of the 911th Airlift Wing on him. I guess he is responsible for keeping it open.

Well, of course, the United states Constitution. Is there any other country that MATTERS??

No. :p

The main reason I hate Republicans is because the vast majority of them support discrimination.

Not really, it's just a wonderful stereotype the DNC likes to label the Repub's with in order to continue to enslave the minority vote. They also misuse the word discriminate, too.

A vote for Badnarik may as well have been a vote for Bush, because it was one more Kerry coulda gotten and didn't.

1. ;)

2. Doesn't that go the other way around, too?

The way the current Electoral System is set up, requiring 270 (or just over half) of all Electoral Votes to become President...makes it currently impossible for anyone not affiliated with the two major parties to become President...and you know it. to claim otherwise is disingenuous. A vote for Badnarik may as well have been a vote for Bush, because it was one more Kerry coulda gotten and didn't. And that is why Bush is still pResident.

If no candidate gets 270, the Election goes to the House. And you know they will vote along Party Lines. Thus, no third-party candidate, currently, stands a chance in hell of getting to be President.

Now, if you get a really ORGANIZED third party...and start winning some seats in the House and Senate...you may eventually, and forever, change the way things are done here in this country. But not now. Y'all third parties are setting your sights way too high. Start local.

If everyone voted for the best candidate instead of the fear voting you advocate, then the two parties would never be able to get 270. You'll never convince me that I should waste my vote on the clowns that are currently being put up by either of the two main parties. Apparently according to you I voted democrat in the first two elections and republican in the last two simply by not voting for either candidate in the presidential elections. It's hogwash. I will not endorse a candidate I don't agree with for any reason. The world would be a better place if everyone had such conviction.

I don't care how much it seems like I'm pissing into the wind, I'm going to do what's right, period.

You also base your assumptions on the idea that Kerry would have gotten my vote and the votes of other Badnarik voters had Badnarik not run. He wouldn't have.

Well, we currently have a Second Amendment, and the states are in the habit of restricting firearms ownership anyway.

The right to own firearms would be better protected, in my opinion, if we got rid of all this sacred ideological mumbo-jumbo and simply defended it as a logical extention of the right to own property. The anti-gun lobby claims in regard to an "ambiguous" Second Amendment would be immediately irrevelant, and firearms ownership would have a far stronger Constitutional foundation based on the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment would extend this protection into the individual states as well.

Militias or having to fight off totalitarian governments are not concepts the average person can really relate to. But being left alone by the government when one is simply minding one's own business and has done nothing wrong? That idea will get people's support.

I agree. That's what I was trying to say here:

I favour the repeal of the second and instead allow the right to bear arms to stand on the precedent that has been set by previous rulings. The reason is simple. Currently, while I believe the case for guns is a reasonably strong one, I don't like that the NRA and other pro-gun groups don't have to argue their cases except to say that the 2nd ammendment guarantees them the right to bear arms. Seriously, I think we should be debating the merits of guns in society on a case by case basis, rather than applying a blanket statement to all situations involving guns. There is plenty of great research out there to show that concealed carry laws do reduce crime where they are instated, but you never hear gun advocates making a case based on what makes sense. Instead we get the 2nd ammendment spiel. Frankly, that's not good enough for me. They should be showing that their policies are good for society rather than just citing the second to dismiss those who have the misplaced but good intention to improve society by restricting firearms.

Out of curiosity, if it's just regular property, couldn't it be registered just like some other property, like a car?

Everyone discriminates at some point. Maybe you are discriminating against a Republican right now!:p

Seriously though, maybe the US should try to drop the who party system. Just let candidates run as themselves, that way we can more easily observe their background, rather than being blinded by their party.

No, I'd rather keep the parties. Makes it easier to tell the good guys from the bad ones.

Hint: Democrat = good....Republican = bad.

No, I'd rather keep the parties. Makes it easier to tell the good guys from the bad ones.

Hint: Democrat = bad....Republican = good.
you filthy capitalist pig

you're sick for believing differently

you should be stoned to death

No, I'd rather keep the parties. Makes it easier to tell the good guys from the bad ones.

Hint: Democrat = good....Republican = bad.

Generalizations = worse

I'm a Rockefeller Republican...maybe...

No, I'd rather keep the parties. Makes it easier to tell the good guys from the bad ones.

Hint: Democrat = good....Republican = bad.

Just to be a pain in the ass:

Hint: Democrat = bad....Republican = good

Apparently you aren't low enough to not pay taxes. There is a cut off and those that are below that line don't pay taxes.



And I'm sure you paid a tax on that.



I agree. Write your Congressman and Senators. Maybe we can get that law changed.

1. Apparently I'm not low enough, because I have always paid taxes. Okay, most years I get a refund, but that is because I have employers withhold me at a higher rate intentionally. Granted, over the years, my actual percentage of income that got pissed away on taxes has varied between usually a high of about 13 percent, to a low of about 8 percent. The one year where I got the settlement, I ended up paying 22 percent. But that was an anomaly.

2. Yes, I paid taxes on it, because, by the time I got my settlement, laws had changed making lawsuit settlements subject to tax...whereas, previously, they were not.

3. No chance. They only fairly recently started counting lawsuit settlements as income for tax purposes. No way they are gonna reverse that. But, in my case, I feel it is a matter of principle. Why the hell should the Feds get to benefit from monies I got from a lawsuit...especially when the lawsuit was over employment discrimination that the Feds refuse to protect me from?

First, the Feds screw me by refusing to protect me. Then, when I win a case, because Feds only set the floor, not the ceiling, where discrimination laws are concerned...and because this happened in a State that saw fit to protect me (New Jersey) why the HELL should the Feds benefit from it?

For me, it is simply a matter of principle, and believe me, I tried to find every way possible to try to not allow the Feds to tax that money, but in the end, I failed to find a legal means with which to keep their hands off my money.

I used part of the money for my surgery...which was not covered by insurance...and uncovered medical expenses CAN legally be deducted from taxes, even if the procedure is elective or cosmetic...but, in the end, my standard deduction was higher than the cost of the surgery, so the Feds got to get their hands on the money.

1. Apparently I'm not low enough, because I have always paid taxes. Okay, most years I get a refund, but that is because I have employers withhold me at a higher rate intentionally. Granted, over the years, my actual percentage of income that got pissed away on taxes has varied between usually a high of about 13 percent, to a low of about 8 percent. The one year where I got the settlement, I ended up paying 22 percent. But that was an anomaly.

So far so good.

2. Yes, I paid taxes on it, because, by the time I got my settlement, laws had changed making lawsuit settlements subject to tax...whereas, previously, they were not.

That tends to happen unfortunately.

3. No chance. They only fairly recently started counting lawsuit settlements as income for tax purposes. No way they are gonna reverse that. But, in my case, I feel it is a matter of principle. Why the hell should the Feds get to benefit from monies I got from a lawsuit...especially when the lawsuit was over employment discrimination that the Feds refuse to protect me from?

To go to building up the infrastructure of the United States of America?

First, the Feds screw me by refusing to protect me. Then, when I win a case, because Feds only set the floor, not the ceiling, where discrimination laws are concerned...and because this happened in a State that saw fit to protect me (New Jersey) why the HELL should the Feds benefit from it?

Because they are the Feds. They want their money and they don't care where they get it from.

For me, it is simply a matter of principle, and believe me, I tried to find every way possible to try to not allow the Feds to tax that money, but in the end, I failed to find a legal means with which to keep their hands off my money.

One thing I noticed about Tax laws. There are several loopholes. You should've gone to one of those tax places. They probably could've gotten you to keep most of the money you won.

I used part of the money for my surgery...which was not covered by insurance...and uncovered medical expenses CAN legally be deducted from taxes, even if the procedure is elective or cosmetic...but, in the end, my standard deduction was higher than the cost of the surgery, so the Feds got to get their hands on the money.

Unfortunately, that's life. I don't like it either.

This is indeed 100% correct.

No. It's not correct. Because of the stardard requiring a winning candidate to carry more than half the electoral votes. See, if they did not do that, it would be far different. Used to be, for example, Presidential candidates did not even select their running mates....rather, it was whoever finished second in electoral votes got to be VP. And you had three and four parties in the running. when Abe Lincoln ran, in 1860, for example, he was in a four-way race. He did NOT capture over half the entire electoral votes, but that was not a requirement back then. You just had to get more than anyone else running against you to win.

NOW, you gotta get more than half. And there is no third party that is currently capable of doing this. Not the Libertairans, not the Greens, not nobody.

The only ways in which a third party has a chance is if you do the following things:

1. Get rid of the electoral college...or at least the electoral-college majority rule. See, without a majority in the E.C. the election goes to the House...who will certainly vote along party lines, thus insuring a Dem or a Rep gets the office of President.

2. Elect more third-party folks to the House and Senate. Third parties actually hoping to capture the Presidency are stupid, because you just can't do it yet. Need to concentrate more locally on getting some Senators and Congressmen elected on third-party tickets, and maybe a few Governors would be a good idea. THEN, you have a better chance at nailing the Presidency. So far, there are no third-party candidates in either House of Congress...and there is only ONE Independent (Jim Jeffords of Vermont...a former Republican turned Independent.)

3. Begin allowing Instant Runoff Voting. That way, people would be more compelled to vote their conscience, instead of just voting for the lesser of two evils. That way, if they felt strongly about, say, Ralph Nader, they could vote Nader first, and then say Gore second. And if there was no clear winner, the IRV would end up giving that vote to Gore. A lot of people in 2000 who voted Gore did so because they wanted to defeat Bush. Maybe, if they were assured of that possibility in an IRV ballot, more might have gone along with voting for, say, Nader...but I'm sure Nader was denied some votes that may have liked to vote for him, but were more interested in keeping Bush out (they failed anyway, but that isn't the point...do you see what my point is here?) My point is people often vote for who they think will win...or for someone they think CAN beat a guy that they want to vote AGAINST.

Allowing for IRV would cause more people to be comfortable voting for a third-party as a first choice, and then a major-party as their IRV.

THOSE are the things that need to be done in order to make the possibility of a third party capturing the Presidency become an actual possibility. And in the current scheme of things, with the major parties holding all the power, this is not going to happen. They will not willingly do anything to jeopardize their own hold on power. They like the system as it is.

THAT is why, if you really want to change things, Number 2 is the most important place to start. Get more third-party folks elected to higher office like Senators, Congressmen, and Governors.

I believe we have only ever had one established third-party candidate ever win a Governorship in modern history, and that would be Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, who ran on the Reform Party Ticket. And no Senators or Congressmen.

The Senate and the Congress is where the laws that are needed to be changed in order to make a third-party viable are going to be changed, if ever. And that is why, if you REALLY want to see a third party have any real chance, you need to get more of them elected to the Congress. FIRST. Then, worry about the Presidency later.

Currently, third-party Presidential campaigns are little more than vanity campaigns. They go in knowing they haven't got a hope in hell. ALSO...get some laws changed in your own states...through your STATE Congresses, allowing for greater ballot access. Many third-party Presidential candidates do not get on the ballots in all fifty states, due to the prohibitive ballot-access laws. You need to work to get those changed, too.

No. :p



Not really, it's just a wonderful stereotype the DNC likes to label the Repub's with in order to continue to enslave the minority vote. They also misuse the word discriminate, too.

Incorrect. I base my judgements of people on their actions. And the Republican Party has, as a whole, shown no interest, whatever, in protecting my people against unfair discrimination in the workplace. Only Arlen Specter ever even bothered to listen to me when I went to lobby on behalf of ENDA.

That is why Specter is also the only Republican who has earned my respect.

Santorum literally threatened to have me thrown out of his office if I would not leave immediately. And, mind, I came to HIS office, as a constitutent, and on a scheduled appointment...and, still he threw me out of his office. which is why I despise him. Like me or not, IT WAS HIS GODDAMN JOB to listen to me, a constituent...and he chose not only to not listen to me, but to throw me out of his office! I have never forgotten that, and I never will.

I see Republicans constantly in favor of rolling back civil rights, and eliminating programs that are designed to help level the playing field for minorities, so I have no choice but to see that for what it is...actual support of discrimination. Hence, I say Republicans tend to support discrimination. Democrats tend to oppose it.

But not in all cases, because I can think of at least one Democrat (besides Lieberman) who absolutely disgusts me. Zell Miller, of Georgia.

you filthy capitalist pig

you're sick for believing differently

you should be stoned to death

Flame. I don't have to put up with this.

Generalizations = worse

I'm a Rockefeller Republican...maybe...

From my political perspective, however, it is a generalization that is also usually correct.

From my political perspective, however, it is a generalization that is also usually correct.
boo hoo, trotsky :P

being pissy is no excuse for being an idiot

So far so good.



That tends to happen unfortunately.



To go to building up the infrastructure of the United States of America?



Because they are the Feds. They want their money and they don't care where they get it from.



One thing I noticed about Tax laws. There are several loopholes. You should've gone to one of those tax places. They probably could've gotten you to keep most of the money you won.



Unfortunately, that's life. I don't like it either.


Ummm...actually...my uncle IS a CPA. That's where I found out about the medical expenses loophole from....my uncle. In the end, despite our best efforts, my uncle and I were unable to come up with a way for me to itemize that would have resulted in a higher deduction than the standard deduction, though we tried like hell. Granted...we found several ILLEGAL ways, but no legal way.

And it isn't that I so much mind taxes, particularly....but tax on that specific money, from my lawsuit settlement, I opposed on priciple! Why sould they get their hands on money I won from a lawsuit...when the entire lawsuit was based upon something the Feds refuse to protect me from?

By the time I won the case, I was living in Texas, which has no State income tax. But if I was still living in New Jersey, I would have HAPPILY paid New Jersey taxes on that same lawsuit settlement. Why?? Because NEW JERSEY saw fit to actually represent me and my interests, and to protect me from the illegal and unfair practices of that employer. The Feds did not see fit to. And THAT is why I object to having had to pay Federal taxes on that money.

boo hoo, trotsky :P

being pissy is no excuse for being an idiot

That does it. I'm not putting up with you or your bullshit.

No. It's not correct. Because of the stardard requiring a winning candidate to carry more than half the electoral votes. See, if they did not do that, it would be far different. Used to be, for example, Presidential candidates did not even select their running mates....rather, it was whoever finished second in electoral votes got to be VP. And you had three and four parties in the running. when Abe Lincoln ran, in 1860, for example, he was in a four-way race. He did NOT capture over half the entire electoral votes, but that was not a requirement back then. You just had to get more than anyone else running against you to win.

Read the 12th Amendment of the United States of America. You have always needed the majority to win and you always had a set number of votes to win the Electoral College. If we didnt have that then why the hell did John Quincy Adams become President of the United States when he didn't win the majority of the Electoral Votes. He was elected by none other than the House of Representatives.

Lincoln gained 1,865,908 votes for 180 electoral votes, Douglas 1,380,202 for 12 electoral votes, Breckenridge 848,019 for 72 electoral votes, and Bell 590,901 for 39 electoral votes

Now lets do the math shall we? 12+72=96+19=115 Lincoln got 180. 180+115=195 electoral votes. He did get the majority. If he didn't, then by the XII amendment, it would've gone into the House of Representatives. You were saying?

NOW, you gotta get more than half. And there is no third party that is currently capable of doing this. Not the Libertairans, not the Greens, not nobody.

See previous post.

The only ways in which a third party has a chance is if you do the following things:

1. Get rid of the electoral college...or at least the electoral-college majority rule. See, without a majority in the E.C. the election goes to the House...who will certainly vote along party lines, thus insuring a Dem or a Rep gets the office of President.

I don't think this will pass muster. I doubt it highly that those states with a small number of electoral votes will support such a change.

2. Elect more third-party folks to the House and Senate. Third parties actually hoping to capture the Presidency are stupid, because you just can't do it yet. Need to concentrate more locally on getting some Senators and Congressmen elected on third-party tickets, and maybe a few Governors would be a good idea. THEN, you have a better chance at nailing the Presidency. So far, there are no third-party candidates in either House of Congress...and there is only ONE Independent (Jim Jeffords of Vermont...a former Republican turned Independent.)

I thought there was one in the House of Representatives.

3. Begin allowing Instant Runoff Voting.

This would require a Constitutional Amendment.

That way, people would be more compelled to vote their conscience, instead of just voting for the lesser of two evils. That way, if they felt strongly about, say, Ralph Nader, they could vote Nader first, and then say Gore second. And if there was no clear winner, the IRV would end up giving that vote to Gore. A lot of people in 2000 who voted Gore did so because they wanted to defeat Bush. Maybe, if they were assured of that possibility in an IRV ballot, more might have gone along with voting for, say, Nader...but I'm sure Nader was denied some votes that may have liked to vote for him, but were more interested in keeping Bush out (they failed anyway, but that isn't the point...do you see what my point is here?) My point is people often vote for who they think will win...or for someone they think CAN beat a guy that they want to vote AGAINST.

Which is the wrong way to vote. I would vote for the guy who I think can do the job. If that means a 3rd party then I will do it. The problem is that both parties have been so entrenched without a challenger for so long. What we need to do is get rid of the god damn primary and get the primary open across the nation. THat'll help some and it'll be a start. Voting laws need to be revamped.

Allowing for IRV would cause more people to be comfortable voting for a third-party as a first choice, and then a major-party as their IRV.

I can see the point but it'll still need a Constitutional Amendment and I don't think it'll pass.

THOSE are the things that need to be done in order to make the possibility of a third party capturing the Presidency become an actual possibility. And in the current scheme of things, with the major parties holding all the power, this is not going to happen. They will not willingly do anything to jeopardize their own hold on power. They like the system as it is.

And because they do, you'll have a hell of a time changing the system.

THAT is why, if you really want to change things, Number 2 is the most important place to start. Get more third-party folks elected to higher office like Senators, Congressmen, and Governors.

I agree 100%

I believe we have only ever had one established third-party candidate ever win a Governorship in modern history, and that would be Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, who ran on the Reform Party Ticket. And no Senators or Congressmen.

Ventura was an Independent.

The Senate and the Congress is where the laws that are needed to be changed in order to make a third-party viable are going to be changed, if ever. And that is why, if you REALLY want to see a third party have any real chance, you need to get more of them elected to the Congress. FIRST. Then, worry about the Presidency later.

Again, I agree with you 100%

Currently, third-party Presidential campaigns are little more than vanity campaigns. They go in knowing they haven't got a hope in hell. ALSO...get some laws changed in your own states...through your STATE Congresses, allowing for greater ballot access. Many third-party Presidential candidates do not get on the ballots in all fifty states, due to the prohibitive ballot-access laws. You need to work to get those changed, too.

for the 3rd time, I agree with you 100%

Ummm...actually...my uncle IS a CPA. That's where I found out about the medical expenses loophole from....my uncle. In the end, despite our best efforts, my uncle and I were unable to come up with a way for me to itemize that would have resulted in a higher deduction than the standard deduction, though we tried like hell. Granted...we found several ILLEGAL ways, but no legal way.

Ok! I didn't no this so please don't get mad at me :)

And it isn't that I so much mind taxes, particularly....but tax on that specific money, from my lawsuit settlement, I opposed on priciple! Why sould they get their hands on money I won from a lawsuit...when the entire lawsuit was based upon something the Feds refuse to protect me from?

If the feds didn't protect you then you wouldn't have been able to bring the lawsuit. Under federal law, companies cannot discrimate based on race, sex, or religion and lately, it is being stretched to sexual orientation.

By the time I won the case, I was living in Texas, which has no State income tax. But if I was still living in New Jersey, I would have HAPPILY paid New Jersey taxes on that same lawsuit settlement. Why?? Because NEW JERSEY saw fit to actually represent me and my interests, and to protect me from the illegal and unfair practices of that employer. The Feds did not see fit to. And THAT is why I object to having had to pay Federal taxes on that money.

As I said before. Life's unfair. I'm going through family crisis and I'm not home for it because of my university studies. I wish I was home but there really is nothing I can do. Life is very unfair :(

Read the 12th Amendment of the United States of America. You have always needed the majority to win and you always had a set number of votes to win the Electoral College. If we didnt have that then why the hell did John Quincy Adams become President of the United States when he didn't win the majority of the Electoral Votes. He was elected by none other than the House of Representatives.



Now lets do the math shall we? 12+72=96+19=115 Lincoln got 180. 180+115=195 electoral votes. He did get the majority. If he didn't, then by the XII amendment, it would've gone into the House of Representatives. You were saying?



See previous post.



I don't think this will pass muster. I doubt it highly that those states with a small number of electoral votes will support such a change.



I thought there was one in the House of Representatives.



This would require a Constitutional Amendment.



Which is the wrong way to vote. I would vote for the guy who I think can do the job. If that means a 3rd party then I will do it. The problem is that both parties have been so entrenched without a challenger for so long. What we need to do is get rid of the god damn primary and get the primary open across the nation. THat'll help some and it'll be a start. Voting laws need to be revamped.



I can see the point but it'll still need a Constitutional Amendment and I don't think it'll pass.



And because they do, you'll have a hell of a time changing the system.



I agree 100%



Ventura was an Independent.



Again, I agree with you 100%



for the 3rd time, I agree with you 100%


Thank you for agreeing with me three times. By the way, you may want to check your match, 185+ 115 = 295 not 195.

Also...on his first run, Ventura was a Reform Party candidate. THEN he ran as an Independent.

Double Post! Anyone else hate jolt?

Triple Post! I hate jolt.

Jolt Sucks ass! Quadruple post
LOL. Jolt needs a better server and a better IT guy.

Thank you for agreeing with me three times. By the way, you may want to check your match, 185+ 115 = 295 not 195.

It is late and I am tired so I'll thank you for correcting the math. And according to my handy dandy calculator, in 1861, you would've needed 148 electoral votes to win.

Also...on his first run, Ventura was a Reform Party candidate. THEN he ran as an Independent.

Ok, I'll agree there.

1. If the feds didn't protect you then you wouldn't have been able to bring the lawsuit. Under federal law, companies cannot discrimate based on race, sex, or religion and lately, it is being stretched to sexual orientation.



2. As I said before. Life's unfair. I'm going through family crisis and I'm not home for it because of my university studies. I wish I was home but there really is nothing I can do. Life is very unfair :(

1. Incorrect. The company's stand, from the get-go was that the Federal governemnt did not protect me, that gender identity was NOT a protected class, nor could Title VII be used in my case, nor could the ADA. They cited a 1984 case involving Amtrak to make their case.
My case was that Feds set the FLOOR, not the CEILING, where civil rights are concerned...that states and municipalities CAN and DO protect at levels higher than Feds, and that New Jersey was one such state that did. My side was upheld.

2. Doesn't mean it should HAVE to be unfair...or that we shouldn't work to make it LESS UNFAIR.

LOL. Jolt needs a better server and a better IT guy.

No kidding! I swear that the old servers where better than this. Well most of the time :D

1. Incorrect. The company's stand, from the get-go was that the Federal governemnt did not protect me, that gender identity was NOT a protected class, nor could Title VII be used in my case, nor could the ADA. They cited a 1984 case involving Amtrak to make their case.

Well I can understand that you wouldn't be covered under the American Disabilities Act. However, I can use that as a legitament defense because I AM under the ADA.

My case was that Feds set the FLOOR, not the CEILING, where civil rights are concerned...that states and municipalities CAN and DO protect at levels higher than Feds, and that New Jersey was one such state that did. My side was upheld.

Which is good. It establishes precendent. What I think needs to happen is to see what SCOTUS says on this issue. I'm sure your side still would've won though :)

2. Doesn't mean it should HAVE to be unfair...or that we shouldn't work to make it LESS UNFAIR.

We can only make it less. Life will always be unfair no matter what we do. Isn't it nice to have a nice convo instead of hitting eachother hard :)

According to Steph's logic, the word "people" in the 2nd amendment does not mean the collective people in this nation.... so I guess the rest of the bill of rights is purely limited to the state militias, since their "people" is the same "people" as the 2nd amendment.

According to Steph's logic, the word "people" in the 2nd amendment does not mean the collective people in this nation.... so I guess the rest of the bill of rights is purely limited to the state militias, since their "people" is the same "people" as the 2nd amendment.
good thing a joined a militia a few weeks ago

"We drink to protect"

I believe we have only ever had one established third-party candidate ever win a Governorship in modern history, and that would be Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, who ran on the Reform Party Ticket. And no Senators or Congressmen.

Actually, Walter Joseph Hickel was elected Governor of Alaska in 1990 on the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party ticket. However we was a Republican before that election, and went back to the Republicans in 1994.

But yeah, that was a fluke and its extremely difficult for 3rd parties to do anything.

Thank you for agreeing with me three times. By the way, you may want to check your match, 185+ 115 = 295 not 195.




Actually, at least in the school I went to, 185 + 115 = 300. :p

Actually, at least in the school I went to, 185 + 115 = 300. :p

Which would mean 150 electoral votes needed to win the election. :D

you filthy capitalist pig

you're sick for believing differently

you should be stoned to death

Osutoria-Hangarii: 1 week forumban for Flaming
Sarcasm or not, that does not belong here. Come back in a week with a better attitude.

Actually, at least in the school I went to, 185 + 115 = 300. :p
Quite correct. Guess I was tired when I posted, too.

Actually, Walter Joseph Hickel was elected Governor of Alaska in 1990 on the secessionist Alaskan Independence Party ticket. However we was a Republican before that election, and went back to the Republicans in 1994.

But yeah, that was a fluke and its extremely difficult for 3rd parties to do anything.

Thank you for that information and correction. I really did not know this, and thank you for the correction. Incidentally, I didn't know there WAS any sort of secessionist movement up there in Alaska. Then again, never been much into following Alaskan politics, either.

But, to my previous knowledge, only Jesse Ventura of Minnesota, had been elected to as high an office as Governor of a State...on a third-party ticket. I was wrong.

But there are no Senators or Congressmen who have been elected on third-party tickets, and THAT is where I believe the real effort ought to be made, if third-party people want to be taken serious and really build up an actual third-party...you're gonna have to do it from the ground up...and you are going to have to groom your long-term leaders, and get them into positions in the House and Senate...where they can begin to push for laws making the Presidential ballot easier for y'all to access. Also, it will give the country a chance to see your leaders in action, in an elective office.

Putting up vanity candidates for the President is not going to actually get your Party anywhere, and, in fact, is more likely to turn people off.

I know plenty of people, myself included, who were royally pissed at Nader for running in 2000, because, true or not, the perception is out there that Nader cost Gore the election, and stuck us with Bush.

You would notice that Nader got less than half the votes in 2004, than he did in 2000. that should tell you something.

I'm all in favor of third parties, I'd like to see some. But the way to build an actual, viable third party, is to start with the Senate and the House.

Incidentally, I'm aware that, for example, Milwuakee has, in it's history, elected three Socialist mayors.

But what you need to do is get your people behind a guy running on say, for argument's sake, the Green Party...for a Congressman's office. If he gets elected, it's big news, and he gets instant name recognition, as being a first to win a Congressional seat on a third-party ticket. Have him start laying the groundwork for those who will follow.

It will be frustrating, and it may take ten, twenty, even thirty years...but, eventually, if you work it right, you may eventually build an actual, viable third party, with a real chance at winning the Presidency...rather than just putting up celebrity candidates for vanity Presidential campaigns...and basically, being a stick in the spokes of the major parties, and pissing people off.

Instead, be a LOG in their spokes, and present a real, viable alternative. And it will take some time for y'all to get there. But it can happen.

But, as I said, first you need some laws changed, making ballot access easier. Instant Runoff Voting is an idea y'all should embrace and try to make happen. the Electoral College is another area you might try to attack. Personally, I'd like to see a "national bonus" added to the College, so that the winner of the overall popular vote is awarded an extra 50 College Points, so that whoever gets the popular vote is also the most likely to get the majority of the votes in the College.

Currently, there are 538 Electoral College votes. Adding a "national bonus" of 50 would make 588, thus, a candidate would need half of 590, or 295 Electorals to win. In the 2000 race, that would have tipped the College to Gore. As it should, since Gore DID win the popular vote in 2000.

But those are just some ideas on where to start, for those who really want to see third parties become viable. Gonna have to learn to walk before you get to fly. If you get a few of your guys into Congress, and they start doing a real good bang-up job, they will be noticed. And build cred for your third-party. Then they can begin to work on things like ballot access, IRV, and the Electoral College...to make it more possible one of your guys may actually manage to WIN a Presidential election.

The problem with third party groups in America is that they are trying to get elected in a two party system. The two main parties are going to be bigger, have more funds, and will be able to function better then the third party. Now this doesn't mean that third parties are useless or don't get elected to offices. Generally you tend to see the third party groups get elected to local offices or state governments but not to the senate or the house. Now third party groups play an interesting part in the two party system. While the main two parties focus on trying to get elected and the issues that they like the third party groups often force these main parties to focus on issues that they normally don't want to touch in elections. It happend with Ross Pero when he ran for president. He forced the other parties to take a public stance on issues that normally they wouldn't want to touch. Now once this happens the main two parties tend to absorb these ideals into their fold allowing them to effectively gain support from the people who supported the third parties. Once this happens the third parties really disolve until another issue is raised. This has happened with the green party and all sorts of third party movements. Its really interesting on a political level to see the third party have such an effect without being elected to office.