New Government

[Malice]

I thought I would post this here...its would be ineteresting to hear.
Please be serious and dont start spouting out go Communist! or just post links...post something interesting...

if you were given a free hand to reshape the Federal Government or scrap it and start over, what would you do?

[Malice]

I personally gotta say the government that was described in the movie Starship Troopers. (I am filling in the gaps from what they described to what I kinda "see)

There are two classes of people:
Citizens - Those that have the right to vote
Non-Citizens - Those that dont have the right to vote.

All people start out in life, as a Non-Citizen. They are subject to the laws, but dont have the right to vote to change the laws. A Non-Citizen must perform public duty, which usually means joining the armed forces, to gain Citizenship.

Then from there they gain the right to vote and also serve as a law-maker.

This should shut up those up that comment but don't act. If they complain about the state of the union, and its problems, they have to serve, and can then have a voice.

[Matt]

I'm not sure I would change that much. I would reform it. Add term limits to Congress (1 term per Senator and 3 per Congressman. Keep things constantly changing) and possibly the Supreme Court as well, maybe even make the Supreme Court a matter of election. I'd definitely try and regulate campaign finance and the lobbyist system, though I'm not sure how much leeway could be made there.

[Matt]

Also, this is about as radical as I would go in revisions...I would strongly look into making the Executive Branch more than one President. Perhaps a Tribunal or something along those lines. When the founders first created the Executive Branch, its essential responsibility was war and treaties. It has grown into far more as time progressed. I think we should consider expanding it to allow more balance into the office.

[The Senator]

Executive Branch

The President of the United States would not be elected by the people. Instead, he or she would be the leader of the party in control of the House of Representatives. The Vice President would then be the leader of the party in control of the Senate. That system would avoid the two-year nonsense and waste of money that comes with nationwide Presidential campaigns. Considering Congressional elections take place every two years, Americans wouldn't be forced to live with the same President for 4-8 years.

I would also install a six-year term limit on the Presidency. So, the President could be in charge for as little as two years or as many as six, depending on public sentiment.

The President would still have a cabinet, would still live in the White House, would still be able to appoint justices and whatnot. So most of the same executive privileges would still exist.

The Legislative Branch

I wouldn't change much, except install term limits. Two terms for Senators (12 years in office), and eight terms for Congressmen (16 years).

Reverting back to the Presidency, here's how things would play out in Congress.

The House Majority Leader would be President, and the Senate Majority Leader would be Vice President. So, if this system was in place today, Steny Hoyer would be President, and Harry Reid would be Vice President.

The Judicial Branch

I would increase the number of Supreme Court Justices to fifteen. The current nine members would be permanent members of the court, whereas the other six would be appointed to fill out four-year terms.

Bill of Rights

FIRST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

SECOND AMENDMENT
Congress will make no laws which infringe on a person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, regardless of gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, nationality, age or personal identity.

THIRD AMENDMENT
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

FOURTH AMENDMENT
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

FIFTH AMENDMENT
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

SIXTH AMENDMENT
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law

SEVENTH AMENDMENT
The United States will not partake in cruel or unusual punishment. No citizen shall be put to death unless ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court. No citizen will be subjected to excessive bail, and the United States will not engage in any military practices which engage in cruel interrogation methods.

EIGHTH AMENDMENT
The role of the states should not be infringed upon by the federal government, less they go against the rights guaranteed by this Constitution.

NINTH AMENDMENT
Every citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote.

[Zen]

Philosopher King/benevolent dictatorship.


a system should be devised that puts people in power who would rather not be, who specifically have no interest in power.

i do not think that person should be elected in the public spectacle arena like how our political process is now.

i am rather fond of just throwing a dart at a spinning map, enlarge that state... throw a dart at that state... enlarge that town... so on and so forth until you have a house equally divided by all eligible inhabitants and you fire a dart and theres your next "benevolent" dictator

so basic eligibility requirements would come into play like a minimum level of education...and a minimum level of community service work, which would in turn drive just about everyone to reach at the very least a certain level of education and help their communities for a certain amount of time

something akin to "associates in arts, and 10 years of community service"

maybe throw an Age on it... somewhere in the 30-40 range as a minimum

im not sure about a maximum... maybe 90 er so.

make the turnover relatively fast, something like once every 4 years.

Rulers would have history as a guide to past decisions made, and set precedents for the future, along with advisors which are made up from many folk including past rulers.

i would like to see a precedent set that we simply don't attack other nations, we only defend ourselves and our allies. no invasion, only protection.

...hey you asked
:woot:



As scary and as arbitrary as this system may sound, just reflect back to the MANY times a president has been horrible, lackluster, great, ingenious...

i would argue that most of the american populous has just as much of an ability to be those things in those orders (IF NOT BETTER) when given a chance... experience has proven throughout the years to mean Nothing in terms of intentions, only in terms of ability to persuade other stubborn colleagues does it pay off...

so do away with that system, and put in place one that streamlines the process...

yeah... certain things will be more up in the air and change from time to time... like ideas such as abortion and others, but as time wears on history will set precedents for the most part, instead of a long....arduous grinding process of political persuasion that alienates people all the time, i am for a more erratic process that alienates some folks some of the time. i think Chaos has a place in the political spectrum, it breeds strength and true character... and it keeps people intimately involved in the political process.

i also think you would get the philosopher king that those great greek thinkers always wished for, more often than not.

as to who would throw the dart... make some person chosen by national lottery or something, and have the map be scrambled.

:oldrazz:

[Matt]

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. It is like communism, looks great on paper, but power corrupts.

[SuBe]

I personally gotta say the government that was described in the movie Starship Troopers. (I am filling in the gaps from what they described to what I kinda "see)

There are two classes of people:
Citizens - Those that have the right to vote
Non-Citizens - Those that dont have the right to vote.

All people start out in life, as a Non-Citizen. They are subject to the laws, but dont have the right to vote to change the laws. A Non-Citizen must perform public duty, which usually means joining the armed forces, to gain Citizenship.

Then from there they gain the right to vote and also serve as a law-maker.

This should shut up those up that comment but don't act. If they complain about the state of the union, and its problems, they have to serve, and can then have a voice.

I can agree with that. I like the "Non-Citizens" with out the right to vote, But, I brough that up in the "Could you be President" thread and got lambasted for it. I believe that it would be tough to get that to go through as you would have liberal parties (whom ever they may be) attack you for being racist, sexist, whateverist. But, I personally believe that you have to weed out the non-contributors in our system. But, I don't think that you have to serve in the Military to become a citizen. Not everyone has the ability to do so, but you could serve the public by being a teacher, a postal worker, a garbage man, firefighter, police officer, etc. Contribute for a minimum of 36 months, then you are a Citizen.

I'm not sure I would change that much. I would reform it. Add term limits to Congress (1 term per Senator and 3 per Congressman. Keep things constantly changing) and possibly the Supreme Court as well, maybe even make the Supreme Court a matter of election. I'd definitely try and regulate campaign finance and the lobbyist system, though I'm not sure how much leeway could be made there.
I have no problem what-so-ever with term limites for Congress. But Supreme Court Elections would get in the way of their duty to the legal system. They would be more worried about getting elected than doing what is right for the Constitution.


I personally would enact the Fairtax, and sit back and watch the Economy explode and rights revert back to the people.

I would create a 10th Amendmant Comission that would review all Federal programs and decide whether that program could be better utilized in the Private Sector, the local Government or the State Goverments.

[Matt]

I can agree with that. I like the "Non-Citizens" with out the right to vote, But, I brough that up in the "Could you be President" thread and got lambasted for it. I believe that it would be tough to get that to go through as you would have liberal parties (whom ever they may be) attack you for being racist, sexist, whateverist. But, I personally believe that you have to weed out the non-contributors in our system. But, I don't think that you have to serve in the Military to become a citizen. Not everyone has the ability to do so, but you could serve the public by being a teacher, a postal worker, a garbage man, firefighter, police officer, etc. Contribute for a minimum of 36 months, then you are a Citizen.


I have no problem what-so-ever with term limites for Congress. But Supreme Court Elections would get in the way of their duty to the legal system. They would be more worried about getting elected than doing what is right for the Constitution.


I personally would enact the Fairtax, and sit back and watch the Economy explode and rights revert back to the people.

I would create a 10th Amendmant Comission that would review all Federal programs and decide whether that program could be better utilized in the Private Sector, the local Government or the State Goverments.

But as of now, they are worried about paying back the favor by sticking strictly to the political views of whoever appointed them as opposed to the constitution...sooo....

[SuBe]

But as of now, they are worried about paying back the favor by sticking strictly to the political views of whoever appointed them as opposed to the constitution...sooo....
That is not necessarily true because once they are appointed they are appointed to life. They don't "owe" anything to that person legally. But, an election would change the dynamic. Instead of servicing the Constitution, they would be Vote Buying on the bench.

[Malice]

This is fascinating.

[Zen]

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. It is like communism, looks great on paper, but power corrupts.

a true statement if there ever was one, but absolute power would mean their rule would last more than 3 or 4 years, they do not have absolute power when they have term limits that are so short.

i think when you look back on the few enlightened rulers of the past they started out great and slowly got corrupted, i am not completely sure that 4 years is long enough bring out the worst in people...

perhaps 3 years,

plus as history plays on ...every 3 or 4 years... people will remember the injustices they lived under during others reign and will endeavor to not stray into those areas.

the only thing i get anxious about under what i propose is war... so i only support defensive military pursuits

[Zen]

I personally gotta say the government that was described in the movie Starship Troopers. (I am filling in the gaps from what they described to what I kinda "see)

There are two classes of people:
Citizens - Those that have the right to vote
Non-Citizens - Those that don't have the right to vote.

All people start out in life, as a Non-Citizen. They are subject to the laws, but don't have the right to vote to change the laws. A Non-Citizen must perform public duty, which usually means joining the armed forces, to gain Citizenship.

Then from there they gain the right to vote and also serve as a law-maker.

This should shut up those up that comment but don't act. If they complain about the state of the union, and its problems, they have to serve, and can then have a voice.

i am completely for people earning the right to participate, that merely birth alone doesn't mean you can vote... earn the vote, as liberal as some of my positions are, people should not be given anything if they have done nothing.

i like your citizen/non-citizen example, social lobbyists be damned. :up:

[The Senator]

I personally gotta say the government that was described in the movie Starship Troopers. (I am filling in the gaps from what they described to what I kinda "see)

There are two classes of people:
Citizens - Those that have the right to vote
Non-Citizens - Those that dont have the right to vote.

All people start out in life, as a Non-Citizen. They are subject to the laws, but dont have the right to vote to change the laws. A Non-Citizen must perform public duty, which usually means joining the armed forces, to gain Citizenship.

Then from there they gain the right to vote and also serve as a law-maker.

This should shut up those up that comment but don't act. If they complain about the state of the union, and its problems, they have to serve, and can then have a voice.

I don't endorse any of this, but I have one question:

Do those who can't join the armed services because of medical problems remain non-citizens?

[Malice]

I don't endorse any of this, but I have one question:

Do those who can't join the armed services because of medical problems remain non-citizens?
I would imagine the military is not the only way to become a citizen...
They are espacing me at the moment

[Malice]

I think my biggest issue with the government now is that fact the the majority of constituent opinion seems to be ignored at times. That is what it seems to me....

[The Incredible Hulk]

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. It is like communism, looks great on paper, but power corrupts.

hey now! in Sid Meier's Civilization, communism kicked ass and made all kinds of crazy money....plus you could nuke people without getting Congress' approval...

OK maybe you're right :)

[The Incredible Hulk]

In all seriousness, I'd rather see a true Democratic society as opposed to the Representative Republic we have in place now. The entire electoral college and delgate system needs to be scrapped.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'd like to see the dissolution of political parties, and have elections based on an individual's values, as opposed to the "team approach" that is rampant in tis country now.

[The Senator]

In all seriousness, I'd rather see a true Democratic society as opposed to the Representative Republic we have in place now. The entire electoral college and delgate system needs to be scrapped.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'd like to see the dissolution of political parties, and have elections based on an individual's values, as opposed to the "team approach" that is rampant in tis country now.

And then watch as the country falls apart. There's a reason why we have representatives-- because the American people aren't intelligent enough to do things for themselves. Over 40% of Americans don't read the newspaper on a regular basis, and frankly, I don't want those people voting for an economic stimulus package or deciding whether we should go to war. I don't want racists, bigots, members of the Minute Men, religious figureheads, rapists, or drug addicts to have as much say as lawyers, consultants, professors, doctors, economists or business executives. I want people who know how the system works, and who went to school to learn the ins and outs of law and politics. I think it works perfectly as it is.

The current government is like a lake covered in algae. The algae is the really gross part no one likes and is disgusted with, a lot like to partisan bickering and legislative gridlock. But underneath that, there's so much that works, so much that does what it's suppose to. And obviously, someone like me--who not only studies this every day, but actually works in our government-- understands this.

[SuBe]

And then watch as the country falls apart. There's a reason why we have representatives-- because the American people aren't intelligent enough to do things for themselves. Over 40% of Americans don't read the newspaper on a regular basis, and frankly, I don't want those people voting for an economic stimulus package or deciding whether we should go to war. I don't want racists, bigots, members of the Minute Men, religious figureheads, rapists, or drug addicts to have as much say as lawyers, consultants, professors, doctors, economists or business executives. I want people who know how the system works, and who went to school to learn the ins and outs of law and politics. I think it works perfectly as it is.

The current government is like a lake covered in algae. The algae is the really gross part no one likes and is disgusted with, a lot like to partisan bickering and legislative gridlock. But underneath that, there's so much that works, so much that does what it's suppose to. And obviously, someone like me--who not only studies this every day, but actually works in our government-- understands this.
What's wrong with the Minute Men? These people are doing things that the government should be doing. That is exactly what this country was founded on. Not, put everything in the hands of the Government and let them figure it out, but to do it your self.

[The Senator]

What's wrong with the Minute Men? These people are doing things that the government should be doing. That is exactly what this country was founded on. Not, put everything in the hands of the Government and let them figure it out, but to do it your self.

They're racists, bigots, and possible murderers who have taken the law into their own hand. They have scapegoated an entire race of people, and I personally find that deplorable. If they were actually concerned citizens working for the greater good of society, and not ignorant yokels who hate Mexicans because they "took er jerbs!!1!!1!," then maybe I could live and let live. But obviously, that's not the case, so I think society would be better off without them.

[wiegeabo]

In all seriousness, I'd rather see a true Democratic society as opposed to the Representative Republic we have in place now. The entire electoral college and delgate system needs to be scrapped.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I'd like to see the dissolution of political parties, and have elections based on an individual's values, as opposed to the "team approach" that is rampant in tis country now.


While I disagree on getting rid of the Republic system and the electoral college (I'd modify the college, but it's been mathematically proven the EC is the most fair way to elect in our system), I wouldn't mind getting rid of politcial parties one bit.

God forbid someone actually vote on people and laws based issues rather than party lines. That seems to be a big problem with the current system. Granted, parties are probably the most efficient was to gathering campaign financing and support, but that doesn't mean it's the best way, or the way it should be done.

[EdRyder]

I personally gotta say the government that was described in the movie Starship Troopers. (I am filling in the gaps from what they described to what I kinda "see)

There are two classes of people:
Citizens - Those that have the right to vote
Non-Citizens - Those that dont have the right to vote.

All people start out in life, as a Non-Citizen. They are subject to the laws, but dont have the right to vote to change the laws. A Non-Citizen must perform public duty, which usually means joining the armed forces, to gain Citizenship.

Then from there they gain the right to vote and also serve as a law-maker.

This should shut up those up that comment but don't act. If they complain about the state of the union, and its problems, they have to serve, and can then have a voice.

Out of the dozens of countries around the world that practice a form of mandatory service, Im pretty sure were the only country at the moment who offer military service as a path to "expedited citizenship".

Now ,as for conscripted service=The reasons for exemption vary widely.I believe in Russia you're exempt if you're currently a student.Finland offers a form of exemption for consciences objectors.(I read somewhere that Jehovah's Witnesses man lighthouses there)Other countries have service merely suspended for medical reasons(pregnancy)

As for Service as a mandatory path to citizenship.-I cant think of a single country that practices it.
The most extreme example i can think up is if you're conscripted in Greece,and you dodge it ,you cant obtain a passport or leave the country.

[The Master Planner]

And then watch as the country falls apart. There's a reason why we have representatives-- because the American people aren't intelligent enough to do things for themselves. Over 40% of Americans don't read the newspaper on a regular basis, and frankly, I don't want those people voting for an economic stimulus package or deciding whether we should go to war. I don't want racists, bigots, members of the Minute Men, religious figureheads, rapists, or drug addicts to have as much say as lawyers, consultants, professors, doctors, economists or business executives. I want people who know how the system works, and who went to school to learn the ins and outs of law and politics. I think it works perfectly as it is.

The current government is like a lake covered in algae. The algae is the really gross part no one likes and is disgusted with, a lot like to partisan bickering and legislative gridlock. But underneath that, there's so much that works, so much that does what it's suppose to. And obviously, someone like me--who not only studies this every day, but actually works in our government-- understands this.

The First Amendment applies to all, including idiots, racists, bigots, etc. It would be pretty friggin' pointless to enact a law guaranteeing freedom of speech only for those who agree with the views of the "powers that be", or even the majority of people. Under our current systems, fallacious arguments fail on their merits because others promptly have the chance to denounce them. Ku Klux Klanners have their freedom of speech, but nowadays the only place you see them is on Springer and a few websites.

So, my reforms:
Enact the FairTax.
Throw out the fallacious "separation of church and state" precedent that is more often than not, used against the religiously inclined.
Enact strict term limits.
Rule that the First Amendment includes the internet and the broadcast media. Currently, the mainstream media is clogged with airheads who all agree with each other. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would hae done this if they'd had TV and internet around at the time.

[SuBe]

So, my reforms:
Enact the FairTax.
Throw out the fallacious "separation of church and state" precedent that is more often than not, used against the religiously inclined.
Enact strict term limits.
Rule that the First Amendment includes the internet and the broadcast media. Currently, the mainstream media is clogged with airheads who all agree with each other. I'm sure the Founding Fathers would hae done this if they'd had TV and internet around at the time.
:up: :woot: :woot: :up:

[The Senator]

The First Amendment applies to all, including idiots, racists, bigots, etc. It would be pretty friggin' pointless to enact a law guaranteeing freedom of speech only for those who agree with the views of the "powers that be", or even the majority of people. Under our current systems, fallacious arguments fail on their merits because others promptly have the chance to denounce them. Ku Klux Klanners have their freedom of speech, but nowadays the only place you see them is on Springer and a few websites.

If Cletus P. Yokel knows nothing about atomic weapons, except that he likes them because "they done make a purdy big cloud," I don't think he should decide whether or not we drop an atomic bomb on Tehran. And that goes back to my original point, which you distorted into some rant on how bigotry is wonderful and how I want to violate free speech: I don't trust average Americans to lead this country. That's why I'm a staunch opponent of direct democracy on a national level. If most Americans don't know enough about the issues they're voting on, then they shouldn't be allowed to make a crucial decision in a life-or-death situation.

[The Senator]

Throw out the fallacious "separation of church and state" precedent that is more often than not, used against the religiously inclined.
.

You know why it's used against the religiously inclined? Because the religious zealots who have hijacked this country have been using their religious views to justify laws which have nothing to do with religion in the first place. Separation of church and state means that the federal government can't regulate the church, and vice versa. And yet, lawmakers stand on their pedestal and shout about how issues like abortion and gay marriage go against religion, that they are an abomination and that because there are good moral institutions out there that oppose it, they should be illegal across the board. Nevermind the fact that at least four religious denominations in this country-- three of which are Christian--have come out in favor of homosexual marriage and involvement in the church community. Nevermind the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Bible whatsoever, that is a completely different practice then going out and slaughtering your neighbor. As for the marriage debate, I tend to agree with the argument that marriage should be up to the church, but... when lawmakers say it goes against the churches' wishes, and when several churches say "hey, we want equality, too" and let gay folks get married... their wishes are automatically ignored.

Religion should never, ever enter into decisions which affect an entire group of people and how they live, especially in a country which prides itself on equality. If those who wear their religion on their sleeve use their faith to cram their crap down non-believers' throats, then they're no better than the Islamic extremists and other terrorists who thrive on oppression, too. That's why separation of church in state is enacted. To the religiously inclined who don't screw everything up, sorry, but a few overzealous crackpots ruined it for the rest of you.

[SuBe]

True Democracy = 2 wolves and 1 sheep.

[Chris B]

Two things that I would do: abolish presidential term limits and once again giving the state legislatures the ability to pick Senators.

[The Incredible Hulk]

The current government is like a lake covered in algae. The algae is the really gross part no one likes and is disgusted with, a lot like to partisan bickering and legislative gridlock. But underneath that, there's so much that works, so much that does what it's suppose to. And obviously, someone like me--who not only studies this every day, but actually works in our government-- understands this.

good analogy, although I respected your opinions before you told me you were in government

[SuBe]

Two things that I would do: abolish presidential term limits and once again giving the state legislatures the ability to pick Senators.
I do not have a problem with States picking their representatives. But, abolishing presidential term limits I'm not sure of. So, let's comprimise, you can have Unlimited Presidential Term limits, but they have to have a Super Majority of Delegates at Elections?

[The Senator]

good analogy, although I respected your opinions before you told me you were in government

So... I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying that you respected me before I admitted I worked for our government, and that you still respect my opinions? Or that you respect my opinions less because I'm in government?

[SuBe]

So... I don't understand what you're saying... are you saying that you respected me before I admitted I worked for our government, and that you still respect my opinions? Or that you respect my opinions less because I'm in government?
What do you do for us? Might I ask? A Postal Carrier works for our government, a Ticket Maid works for a our Government, as do many other menial jobs.

[rdh007]

good analogy, although I respected your opinions before you told me you were in government
I wish there were more people in government whose opinions I respect. That should be what we all pray for. To be led by people we can respect.

[rdh007]

What do you do for us? Might I ask? A Postal Carrier works for our government, a Ticket Maid works for a our Government, as do many other menial jobs.

I think that he's actually Paul Wolfowitz.

[The Senator]

What do you do for us? Might I ask? A Postal Carrier works for our government, a Ticket Maid works for a our Government, as do many other menial jobs.

I work in the Senate for a Senator who has to remain nameless on the forum for professional reasons. It's kind of like an internship, but better.

[Chris B]

I do not have a problem with States picking their representatives. But, abolishing presidential term limits I'm not sure of. So, let's comprimise, you can have Unlimited Presidential Term limits, but they have to have a Super Majority of Delegates at Elections?

What do you mean by a super majority of delegates? You lost me there.

[The Master Planner]

You know why it's used against the religiously inclined? Because the religious zealots who have hijacked this country have been using their religious views to justify laws which have nothing to do with religion in the first place. Separation of church and state means that the federal government can't regulate the church, and vice versa. And yet, lawmakers stand on their pedestal and shout about how issues like abortion and gay marriage go against religion, that they are an abomination and that because there are good moral institutions out there that oppose it, they should be illegal across the board. Nevermind the fact that at least four religious denominations in this country-- three of which are Christian--have come out in favor of homosexual marriage and involvement in the church community. Nevermind the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Bible whatsoever, that is a completely different practice then going out and slaughtering your neighbor. As for the marriage debate, I tend to agree with the argument that marriage should be up to the church, but... when lawmakers say it goes against the churches' wishes, and when several churches say "hey, we want equality, too" and let gay folks get married... their wishes are automatically ignored.

Religion should never, ever enter into decisions which affect an entire group of people and how they live, especially in a country which prides itself on equality. If those who wear their religion on their sleeve use their faith to cram their crap down non-believers' throats, then they're no better than the Islamic extremists and other terrorists who thrive on oppression, too. That's why separation of church in state is enacted. To the religiously inclined who don't screw everything up, sorry, but a few overzealous crackpots ruined it for the rest of you.

One of the biggest issues concerning this argument is the public display of the Ten Commandments. Okay, I understand that if you don't believe in a Supreme Being, or believe in a different one than Christ and the God of Abraham, you could take issue with numbers one through four. But who could object to everything between "Honor your father and your mother" to "You shall not covet your neighbor's stuff"? Every religion has the same basic rules of morality, like "You shall not murder" and "You shall not commit adultery."

[The Master Planner]

Besides, "separation of church and state" isn't even in the Constitution.

As for the gay marriage and abortion issues, most religious people I know don't want to "cram our beliefs down your throats", as many like to say, but wish the issues voted on by the people and the legislatures instead of having Supreme Court Justices "cram their opinions down our throats," because they have legitimate concerns over these issues. Then, if you want to allow or disallow abortion or gay marriage, you may simply vote yes or no.

I do agree with you on this: Everyone makes a big deal about low voter turnout, but I'm glad that those with no interest and no knowledge of the issues usually stay home on Election Day. Except when you have the "Rock the Vote"-type promotions, in which MTV and its ilk encourage ignorant, stoned teenagers to vote "because it's cool".

[The Senator]

One of the biggest issues concerning this argument is the public display of the Ten Commandments. Okay, I understand that if you don't believe in a Supreme Being, or believe in a different one than Christ and the God of Abraham, you could take issue with numbers one through four. But who could object to everything between "Honor your father and your mother" to "You shall not covet your neighbor's stuff"? Every religion has the same basic rules of morality, like "You shall not murder" and "You shall not commit adultery."

I object to it. Yeah, we're all against murder. But you know what? I don't think society should be told to honor their parents. I don't think society should be told not to covet their neighbors goods. And I certainly don't think society should be told to worship the Christian God and only the Christian God.

That's where the flaw is. The Ten Commandments are religious commandments that cater to only a select few religions. Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Deists, Taoists and others don't need to have Christian propaganda crammed down their throats at places which are supposed to be impartial to all that nonsense anyway.

[The Senator]

Besides, "separation of church and state" isn't even in the Constitution.

You're obviously wrong and unable to read the Constitution. And even if the language is "flawed," then I still think its terroristic for Christians to pass laws in the name of God and use God as a way to beat down other people.

As for the gay marriage and abortion issues, most religious people I know don't want to "cram our beliefs down your throats", as many like to say, but wish the issues voted on by the people and the legislatures instead of having Supreme Court Justices "cram their opinions down our throats," because they have legitimate concerns over these issues. Then, if you want to allow or disallow abortion or gay marriage, you may simply vote yes or no.

So, only terroristic Christians have legitimate concerns over gay marriage? Because they believe society will cave in because two men will get married, that makes their concerns more legitimate? What about the hundreds of thousands of gay people who want to be left alone? Like me? I don't want those morons dictating how I live because their Magic Finger in the sky thinks it's icky for two men to be in a loving relationship together.

Your Supreme Court argument is flawed too. The Supreme Court declared that a law in Texas which criminalized homosexual behavior was unconstitutional. Surely, you wouldn't argue against that. And you also wouldn't argue that the Supreme Court, which has a right-wing, terroristic Christian sway to it these days, is too liberal, right? Because that would just prove your blindness to contemporary politics.

And I don't think the American people should decide whether abortion should be legal or not. Why? Because half the pro-lifers out there are religious wingnuts who think that babies are taken out of the mother's womb alive and cut into teeny tiny pieces in front of the mother, and then flushed down a toilet. Or something similar to that. I want people who have a thorough knowledge of laws and precedent to decide on these issues. Abortion is a legal matter. Gay marriage is a religious matter. These issues aren't like approving budget grants for school districts or deciding on whether or not to build a new library in the middle of town. These are legal matters which should be decided by experts or the institutions they affect-- not Cletus P. Yokel and the Yokel clan.

[SuBe]

What do you mean by a super majority of delegates? You lost me there.
If someone is elected to president and after two terms, they want to run again, they have to win by a super Majority of the delegates of our Electorial College to become president again.

Lets say, you have a Very Successful President. The Economy is Great, blah, blah, blah. That President runs and wins reelection on his 2nd term. Reelection comes up again, now, he would have to win by at least 3/4 of the Country would have to vote him in to win election again.

[Handsome Rob]

You're obviously wrong and unable to read the Constitution. And even if the language is "flawed," then I still think its terroristic for Christians to pass laws in the name of God and use God as a way to beat down other people.


Uhhhh . . . he's right. "Separation of church and state" does NOT appear in the U.S. Constitution. I've read the entire thing, and it isn't in there. The closest you'll get to it is the First Amendment.

[Malice]

Separation of Church and State is a rule of thumb if anything
its not listed as far as I know in any of the law docs.

[Malice]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[rdh007]

I believe Tom Jefferson once said something like it is as though there is a separation of church and state. Nevermind, here it is:

Mr. President

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.


http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

[sithgoblin]

I would get rid of the electoral college and have the people vote directly for their president. I would also make the organisation that runs the elections independent, rather than controlled by the party in office.

[wiegeabo]

I would get rid of the electoral college and have the people vote directly for their president. I would also make the organisation that runs the elections independent, rather than controlled by the party in office.

I agree with the second, but not the first. Although I would make some reforms to the college.

[Chris B]

If someone is elected to president and after two terms, they want to run again, they have to win by a super Majority of the delegates of our Electorial College to become president again.

Lets say, you have a Very Successful President. The Economy is Great, blah, blah, blah. That President runs and wins reelection on his 2nd term. Reelection comes up again, now, he would have to win by at least 3/4 of the Country would have to vote him in to win election again.

I see. Its definately not a bad idea, but I don't know if there should be an exception like that in the Electoral College for a two-term President running for reelection. I think a simple majority would be enough.

[wiegeabo]

I see. Its definately not a bad idea, but I don't know if there should be an exception like that in the Electoral College for a two-term President running for reelection. I think a simple majority would be enough.

The President only needs a simple majority of EC votes now.

[Handsome Rob]

I would get rid of the electoral college and have the people vote directly for their president. I would also make the organisation that runs the elections independent, rather than controlled by the party in office.

I like the electoral college, because it gives a little more weight to the smaller states in who becomes President. But, I love your second idea. :up:

[teseract]

One of the biggest issues concerning this argument is the public display of the Ten Commandments. Okay, I understand that if you don't believe in a Supreme Being, or believe in a different one than Christ and the God of Abraham, you could take issue with numbers one through four. But who could object to everything between "Honor your father and your mother" to "You shall not covet your neighbor's stuff"? Every religion has the same basic rules of morality, like "You shall not murder" and "You shall not commit adultery."

Why do people object? Well because:

A.) The ten commandments are part of the christian rule book, they are not the law of the land, as you probably noticed, since committing Adultery is not criminal and not honouring your parents isn't a crime either. Therefore, it's very obvious, that the ten commandment are not the basis of the law. They may have a few good ides one can take (like: thou shall not murder) but in their entirety they are not important.


B.)A courthouse, is a state institution. The state is by the constitution bound to not endorse a religion. If a display, that is clearly christianity based, is shown inside a state institution it becomes a de facto endorsement of said religion. This leads to a direct deterioration of the trust other religions or non-religious people have into state institutions, which means a de facto weakening of Authority for these institutions. Oh, and please don't distort the truth, the ten commandment incident was not about a public display of them it was about a display of them INSIDE a courthouse. It's really very easy. I as an atheist for example would not trust a court to handle my issues, if he shows this kind of favouritism towards christianity.


C.) Since there is the “non-endorsement clause” there is only one way to make sure that you could display the ten commandments in a courthouse without endorsing christianity and that is showing the RELIGIOUS rules of all religions (not even only the major ones). So, you would have your precious ten commandments next to islamic rules about eating pork and Buddhist rules about harming even insects. This is nice and dandy if you want to make an exhibit about “Religious Rules of the World” but we're in a friggin' courthouse! If you want that go to a museum for Darwin's sake.


Besides, "separation of church and state" isn't even in the Constitution.

Wrong, the non-endorsement clause implicitly is separation of Church and State because a non-endorsement would be de facto impossible if Church and State were not separated. The Treaty of Tripolis states it even explicitly


As for the gay marriage and abortion issues, most religious people I know don't want to "cram our beliefs down your throats", as many like to say, but wish the issues voted on by the people and the legislatures instead of having Supreme Court Justices "cram their opinions down our throats," because they have legitimate concerns over these issues. Then, if you want to allow or disallow abortion or gay marriage, you may simply vote yes or no.
No, they really have no legitimation on it, because they are not manoeuvred into a position were they HAVE to take an abortion or marry a homosexual. Both things don't tangent the lives of religious people the slightest or change their lives even a little bit. As for the Supreme Court argument. You may have noticed that there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about marriage. It states, however, the right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever that is. In case of a Homosexual person, I'd wager it's the desire to be together with the person he or she loves. Therefore, state bans would be in direct hindrance to that right and therefore be unconstitutional. Ergo, it's not only the right but the obligation of the Supreme Court to trash state legislation to ban gay marriage. The rights of the constitution are not up for "majorities vote". They must be enforced even against the majority, if necessary. Now, this whole discussion about a constitutional amendment is legitimate, however, the reasons are not. It's outrageous that people want a change to the constitution because a non-criminal behaviour collides with their religious believes. It shows a severe lack of respect for the integrity of the Constitution itself, to individual rights, to human nature and a lack of respect to people, different than oneself.

As for Abortion, that's another issue, however, in my opinion, prohibiting it out of religious reasons will cause much more harm to all the people involved than it will do good.

[cerealkiller182]

^^^^Booyashaka :D well stated

[Kelly]

I would leave it as is, and reform in the following areas...
*medical care
*Social Security
*Campaign Reform--Where the true leader, not the one that can dole out millions comes out on top....



@Incredible Hulk

Are you saying a Direct Democracy as opposed to a Represenative Democracy, because if you are, that would be impossible in a country of our size.....that works in small townships in the Northeast, but in our country as a whole......sorry, but I don't have time to vote on every issue that comes along..........

[cerealkiller182]

I could totally find the time. You just have to set up a certain system so as to not drop what you are doing in order to vote. It would also be voluntary so u would probably only vote on issues you believe in strongly.

[The Senator]

Why do people object? Well because:

A.) The ten commandments are part of the christian rule book, they are not the law of the land, as you probably noticed, since committing Adultery is not criminal and not honouring your parents isn't a crime either. Therefore, it's very obvious, that the ten commandment are not the basis of the law. They may have a few good ides one can take (like: thou shall not murder) but in their entirety they are not important.


B.)A courthouse, is a state institution. The state is by the constitution bound to not endorse a religion. If a display, that is clearly christianity based, is shown inside a state institution it becomes a de facto endorsement of said religion. This leads to a direct deterioration of the trust other religions or non-religious people have into state institutions, which means a de facto weakening of Authority for these institutions. Oh, and please don't distort the truth, the ten commandment incident was not about a public display of them it was about a display of them INSIDE a courthouse. It's really very easy. I as an atheist for example would not trust a court to handle my issues, if he shows this kind of favouritism towards christianity.


C.) Since there is the “non-endorsement clause” there is only one way to make sure that you could display the ten commandments in a courthouse without endorsing christianity and that is showing the RELIGIOUS rules of all religions (not even only the major ones). So, you would have your precious ten commandments next to islamic rules about eating pork and Buddhist rules about harming even insects. This is nice and dandy if you want to make an exhibit about “Religious Rules of the World” but we're in a friggin' courthouse! If you want that go to a museum for Darwin's sake.




Wrong, the non-endorsement clause implicitly is separation of Church and State because a non-endorsement would be de facto impossible if Church and State were not separated. The Treaty of Tripolis states it even explicitly


Excellent points :up:


No, they really have no legitimation on it, because they are not manoeuvred into a position were they HAVE to take an abortion or marry a homosexual. Both things don't tangent the lives of religious people the slightest or change their lives even a little bit. As for the Supreme Court argument. You may have noticed that there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about marriage. It states, however, the right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever that is. In case of a Homosexual person, I'd wager it's the desire to be together with the person he or she loves. Therefore, state bans would be in direct hindrance to that right and therefore be unconstitutional. Ergo, it's not only the right but the obligation of the Supreme Court to trash state legislation to ban gay marriage. The rights of the constitution are not up for "majorities vote". They must be enforced even against the majority, if necessary. Now, this whole discussion about a constitutional amendment is legitimate, however, the reasons are not. It's outrageous that people want a change to the constitution because a non-criminal behaviour collides with their religious believes. It shows a severe lack of respect for the integrity of the Constitution itself, to individual rights, to human nature and a lack of respect to people, different than oneself.

Also, even if religious institutions are opposed to gay marriage... there are religious institutions which support the idea as well. This includes Christian institutions, such as the United Church of Christ and the Lutherans. Once religious institutions say two men or two women can marry, I think the debate on a nationwide ban is over. Marriage should be up to religious institutions. Since there are religious institutions which accept it, then the argument that it goes against religious principles is null and void. The holier-than-thou conservative evangelicals will just have to get over it.

[The Master Planner]

So, only terroristic Christians have legitimate concerns over gay marriage? Because they believe society will cave in because two men will get married, that makes their concerns more legitimate? What about the hundreds of thousands of gay people who want to be left alone? Like me? I don't want those morons dictating how I live because their Magic Finger in the sky thinks it's icky for two men to be in a loving relationship together.

First off, not only "terroristic Christians" like me have these concerns. I don't say that society will "cave in" when Bruce marries Blake but we've already seen what happens over time when the institution of marriage, which as been around roughly since the beginning of time, is fiddled with. Ask any kid whose parents divorced just because someone wasn't "happy." Second, the legalization of gay marriage will open the door to gay adoption, which is also a point of concern, and other concerns like polygamy. After all, when two gay guys get married, who's to say a Mormon or Muslim man can't take two or three more wives? Let's not even mention the custody battles which might soon ensue. If our hypothetical Bruce and Blake get divorced after marrying and adopting a kid, who gets the kid, Bruce, Blake, the surrogate mother, the egg donor...?

And I don't think the American people should decide whether abortion should be legal or not. Why? Because half the pro-lifers out there are religious wingnuts who think that babies are taken out of the mother's womb alive and cut into teeny tiny pieces in front of the mother, and then flushed down a toilet. Or something similar to that. I want people who have a thorough knowledge of laws and precedent to decide on these issues. Abortion is a legal matter. Gay marriage is a religious matter. These issues aren't like approving budget grants for school districts or deciding on whether or not to build a new library in the middle of town. These are legal matters which should be decided by experts or the institutions they affect-- not Cletus P. Yokel and the Yokel clan.

Are you afraid that the majority of Americans might agree with Cletus and disagree with you? And what you are referring to is partial birth abortion, an absolutely barbaric procedure which I'm sure would be illegal if you did it to a dog or cat. I'm not going to describe the actual procedure on a public board except to say that what you wrote is pretty accurate except that they dispose of the dead baby in a biowaste container. I think the legal precedents on abortion are extremely contradictory. How can you explain the fact that Scott Peterson gets the death penalty for killing both his wife and his unborn son, but if Laci had chosen to abort that same kid, it's perfectly legal and a constitutional right?

[wiegeabo]

First off, not only "terroristic Christians" like me have these concerns. I don't say that society will "cave in" when Bruce marries Blake but we've already seen what happens over time when the institution of marriage, which as been around roughly since the beginning of time, is fiddled with. Ask any kid whose parents divorced just because someone wasn't "happy." Second, the legalization of gay marriage will open the door to gay adoption, which is also a point of concern, and other concerns like polygamy. After all, when two gay guys get married, who's to say a Mormon or Muslim man can't take two or three more wives? Let's not even mention the custody battles which might soon ensue. If our hypothetical Bruce and Blake get divorced after marrying and adopting a kid, who gets the kid, Bruce, Blake, the surrogate mother, the egg donor...?


That's a heck of a slippery slope argument. But, by definition, slippery slope arguments aren't good ones.

Instead of asking the kid involved in the divorce, I'd like to ask the government why Blake and Bruce, who love each other, can't get married, but it's legal for Brittany Spears to marry a guy and divorce him 53 hours later. Or why it's legal for a man and woman who don't love each other to get married at all. Hell, the government won't allow to gay men to marry one another, but it would probably allow a gay man and gay woman to marry because they happen to be of opposite gender. How is that protecting marriage?

I don't know why adoption would be so different. It's just two people adding to their family. There are already plenty of gay couples with children (adopted or otherwise) that raise them fine. And the custody battle situation with surrogate mothers already exists between straight couples getting divorced who used one. The laws would just apply the same way.


I don't know how this leads into polygamy since gay marriage would still be between just two people. I guess one could make the argument that if gays have the freedom to marry, people should have the freedom to marry as many people as they want?

I guess, to some degree, I agree with that. It shouldn't be up to government who can get married, it should be up to the church. If a church doesn't want to marry gays, they don't have to. And the government has no right to force the issue one way or the other. If a church does want to marry gays, they can. And the government has no right to force the issue one way or the other.

[The Senator]

First off, not only "terroristic Christians" like me have these concerns. I don't say that society will "cave in" when Bruce marries Blake but we've already seen what happens over time when the institution of marriage, which as been around roughly since the beginning of time, is fiddled with. Ask any kid whose parents divorced just because someone wasn't "happy." Second, the legalization of gay marriage will open the door to gay adoption, which is also a point of concern, and other concerns like polygamy. After all, when two gay guys get married, who's to say a Mormon or Muslim man can't take two or three more wives? Let's not even mention the custody battles which might soon ensue. If our hypothetical Bruce and Blake get divorced after marrying and adopting a kid, who gets the kid, Bruce, Blake, the surrogate mother, the egg donor...?

So...... you're saying that if two homosexual men get married, that will cause Mormons and Muslims to start taking on multiple wives? The amount of intelligible thought you put into your argument astounds me, and I'm surprised you were able to hammer it out in complete sentences.

I don't think anyone except for terroristic Christians believe that gay marriage will open the door to polygamy. But regardless of what you and they think, you're completely missing the point: The intentions of myself and the gay community is not to grant heterosexual men the ability to take on multiple wives. Rather, it is our intentions to take on one partner who we wish to spend the rest of our lives with. The majority of the homosexual population would agree with me, as that's the fundamental argument of granting marriage rights to gay couples. Not to allow Mormons and Muslims to engage in polygamous behavior.

The other senseless argument you make is that it would open the door to gay adoption. You didn't support it with an actual point, though you used it to segue into polygamy. So my real understanding is that you have no argument against it, except that it would destroy the make-up of the traditional family... which is already crumbling due to rising divorce rates and other fun, heterosexual activities such as wife beating and/ or child molestation.


Are you afraid that the majority of Americans might agree with Cletus and disagree with you? And what you are referring to is partial birth abortion, an absolutely barbaric procedure which I'm sure would be illegal if you did it to a dog or cat. I'm not going to describe the actual procedure on a public board except to say that what you wrote is pretty accurate except that they dispose of the dead baby in a biowaste container. I think the legal precedents on abortion are extremely contradictory. How can you explain the fact that Scott Peterson gets the death penalty for killing both his wife and his unborn son, but if Laci had chosen to abort that same kid, it's perfectly legal and a constitutional right?

No. I'm afraid that the majority of Americans don't have a legal degree-- which is true-- and are therefore unable to make an intelligent decision based on the precedents established in this country. Of course, the first statement in this section of your response proves the ignorance over this topic which is constantly thrown out there. I wasn't describing any procedure used in an abortion facility. They don't take babies and put them on a paper slicer and cut them in half, or what have you. Of course, that's a common misconception about this issue which has spread like a wildfire. But I'm not here to get into the technicalities of partial birth abortion, especially when I don't agree with the procedure in the first place.

The problem with your Peterson family comparison is quite simple: Laci wanted to have the child. It's as simple as that, really. It's her choice. She didn't choose to have the baby murdered by her husband. However, had she decided to abort the child a few months earlier, that procedure would be perfectly legal, because it coincides with the laws set forth by this country. In simple terms, abortion is legal; murder is not.

[Handsome Rob]

I don't think anyone except for terroristic Christians believe that gay marriage will open the door to polygamy. But regardless of what you and they think, you're completely missing the point: The intentions of myself and the gay community is not to grant heterosexual men the ability to take on multiple wives. Rather, it is our intentions to take on one partner who we wish to spend the rest of our lives with. The majority of the homosexual population would agree with me, as that's the fundamental argument of granting marriage rights to gay couples. Not to allow Mormons and Muslims to engage in polygamous behavior.


OK, but what about the polygamous community? Would you support polygamous marriages? If you wouldn't, what would you say when they called you a "bigot" for saying that ONLY two people have the right to enter into marriage? If you wouldn't, what would you say when they say, "Who are you to tell us that we all can't get married?"

For anyone to say that marriage should only be between two people is equally as discriminatory as saying that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

[rdh007]

Doesn't a marriage between two people only affect those two (and of course any children even more) when there is a divorce? It is a decision made by those two alone. With a third party, what happens when he/she only wants to divorce one? All three were married together. Two adults or call the whole thing off.

[The Senator]

OK, but what about the polygamous community? Would you support polygamous marriages? If you wouldn't, what would you say when they called you a "bigot" for saying that ONLY two people have the right to enter into marriage? If you wouldn't, what would you say when they say, "Who are you to tell us that we all can't get married?"

For anyone to say that marriage should only be between two people is equally as discriminatory as saying that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

You're missing my point. My point is that marriage should be up to the church. And because several churches support gay marriage, the debate should be over with. There's no reason to pursue a law banning gay marriage because it affects religious communities or voids the constructs of the 'traditional marriage,' when marriage itself is defined by the church.

Polygamous marriages, on the other hand, are denounced by just about every denomination, at least in the United States. Even the Mormons have condemned it.

But if you want to know my take on it... polygamous marriage should be illegal. So if you want to call me a bigot in that regard, go right ahead. But my point is that two men in a loving, stable relationship shouldn't be prohibited from getting married because there are religions which oppose it. There are religions which support it, and that's all that matters.

[wiegeabo]

Although I may not like the idea of polygamy, that's my personal issue. Again, it should be up to church, not the government. Although, like jman said, you'd be hard pressed to find an accepting denomination.

As for the above issues of divorce in a polygamous marriage, that be up to the lawmakers and courts, just like it is for regular divorce.

[BlackLantern]

I would define marriage as between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS....plain and simple...adults as in 18 and over...none of that emancipated crap. as far as the government....shorten term limits on both the House and Senate....6 terms for the House and 3 terms for the senate....Any amendments to the Constitution must be subject to popular vote....

[The Master Planner]

That's a heck of a slippery slope argument. But, by definition, slippery slope arguments aren't good ones.

Instead of asking the kid involved in the divorce, I'd like to ask the government why Blake and Bruce, who love each other, can't get married, but it's legal for Brittany Spears to marry a guy and divorce him 53 hours later. Or why it's legal for a man and woman who don't love each other to get married at all. Hell, the government won't allow to gay men to marry one another, but it would probably allow a gay man and gay woman to marry because they happen to be of opposite gender. How is that protecting marriage?

I don't know why adoption would be so different. It's just two people adding to their family. There are already plenty of gay couples with children (adopted or otherwise) that raise them fine. And the custody battle situation with surrogate mothers already exists between straight couples getting divorced who used one. The laws would just apply the same way.

I don't know how this leads into polygamy since gay marriage would still be between just two people. I guess one could make the argument that if gays have the freedom to marry, people should have the freedom to marry as many people as they want?

The "slippery slope", while not the best of methods for argument, does have its merits. Once you open the door to something for one minority group, other minority groups demand privileges that suit their customs. To take a random example, a perfectly innocent Supreme Court ruling that married couples have a right to contraception led to a ruling based on that precedent that unmarried people have that right to contraception, and building on that, the result of Roe v. Wade. If you thought this was a slippery slope, permit me to slide all the way to the bottom: Who's to stop two pedophiles from marrying each other to adopt a child? Once you have the right to one thing, people will hire lawyers and fight for the right for a bunch of other things.

Britney Spears' abuse of the marital institution, as I said earlier, is one of the sad results of the no-fault divorce laws. Divorce used to be an option for spouses who were abused or cheated on, or faced other serious problems. Now we have people divorcing their spouses because they're "not happy" or they want to "find themselves." Which makes me wonder exactly how you lost yourself in the first place. A lot of people fear gay marriage will only weaken the marital institution further. There is also concern about future court battles.

I have no question that our hypothetical Blake and Bruce love each other, and I have no question that they would love a child. But the sad fact is that marriage wasn't set up for pleasure and love alone; it was set up to ensure an ideal environment for the raising of children, the future of civilization. Ideally, children learn about gender roles through a mother and a father. We all know of divorced couples who leave their children without a father or a mother or the untimely death of a parent, but a gay couple, or a woman who intentionally sets out to be a single mother, is condemning their kid to the loss of a parent even before birth.

[The Master Planner]

So...... you're saying that if two homosexual men get married, that will cause Mormons and Muslims to start taking on multiple wives? The amount of intelligible thought you put into your argument astounds me, and I'm surprised you were able to hammer it out in complete sentences.

You'll be surprised at what I can hammer out in complete sentences, my friend.

I'm afraid that the majority of Americans don't have a legal degree-- which is true-- and are therefore unable to make an intelligent decision based on the precedents established in this country.

Let me ask you: what law school is your legal degree from? An educational degree, or lack thereof, does not qualify or disqualify a person from having an honest opinion. Not in this country, at any rate.

The problem with your Peterson family comparison is quite simple: Laci wanted to have the child. It's as simple as that, really. It's her choice. She didn't choose to have the baby murdered by her husband. However, had she decided to abort the child a few months earlier, that procedure would be perfectly legal, because it coincides with the laws set forth by this country. In simple terms, abortion is legal; murder is not.

Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean it's morally right. Slavery was legal once. Segregation and discrimination were legal once. Anti-semitism and the murder of Jews were legal in Germany once. And besides, Susan Smith chose to murder her two sons once. You could say she was just performing 20th trimester abortions. The results were, and are, the same--dead children.

[The Senator]

The "slippery slope", while not the best of methods for argument, does have its merits. Once you open the door to something for one minority group, other minority groups demand privileges that suit their customs. To take a random example, a perfectly innocent Supreme Court ruling that married couples have a right to contraception led to a ruling based on that precedent that unmarried people have that right to contraception, and building on that, the result of Roe v. Wade. If you thought this was a slippery slope, permit me to slide all the way to the bottom: Who's to stop two pedophiles from marrying each other to adopt a child? Once you have the right to one thing, people will hire lawyers and fight for the right for a bunch of other things.

Britney Spears' abuse of the marital institution, as I said earlier, is one of the sad results of the no-fault divorce laws. Divorce used to be an option for spouses who were abused or cheated on, or faced other serious problems. Now we have people divorcing their spouses because they're "not happy" or they want to "find themselves." Which makes me wonder exactly how you lost yourself in the first place. A lot of people fear gay marriage will only weaken the marital institution further. There is also concern about future court battles.

I have no question that our hypothetical Blake and Bruce love each other, and I have no question that they would love a child. But the sad fact is that marriage wasn't set up for pleasure and love alone; it was set up to ensure an ideal environment for the raising of children, the future of civilization. Ideally, children learn about gender roles through a mother and a father. We all know of divorced couples who leave their children without a father or a mother or the untimely death of a parent, but a gay couple, or a woman who intentionally sets out to be a single mother, is condemning their kid to the loss of a parent even before birth.

The 'slippery slope' argument was used when the women's suffrage movement debuted concurrently with a push for African American voting rights. One of the arguments used against giving African Americans the right to vote was that it could lead to granting women the right to vote. There was a seventy-two year gap between the time African Americans received the right to vote and when women were able to vote. Now, almost a century later, African Americans and women vote all the time, and our society hasn't suffered because of it.

The next argument you raise is the idea that gay couples abandon the second parent. That's a false assumption, because most gay parents partake in an open adoption process which allows the birth parent(s) to play a significant role in their child's life. That's what I'm planning to do, and that's what many of my friends are planning to do. The other interesting refutation of your argument is that children suffer from growing up in a gay household. Unfortunately for you, most children grow up no different than they would had they been raised by a heterosexual couple.

To me, gay marriage is no more of a problem than the skyrocketing divorce rates, or cases of child and/ or spousal abuse, among heterosexual couples. Those issues, to me, should be looked into more by the proponents of "traditional marriage," because it outright affects the structure and sanctity of the "traditional marriage." It's quite obvious gay marriage is non-traditional; but that doesn't mean it should be overridden and denied.

[The Senator]

Let me ask you: what law school is your legal degree from?

It will be from the Washington College of Law at American University :up:

[The Master Planner]

It will be from the Washington College of Law at American University :up:

Well, congratulations, and I wish you all the best in your career, and that's not sarcasm. Just remember that the First Amendment does not only apply to lawyers...

[The Master Planner]

The 'slippery slope' argument was used when the women's suffrage movement debuted concurrently with a push for African American voting rights. One of the arguments used against giving African Americans the right to vote was that it could lead to granting women the right to vote. There was a seventy-two year gap between the time African Americans received the right to vote and when women were able to vote. Now, almost a century later, African Americans and women vote all the time, and our society hasn't suffered because of it.

Yes, but being black or a woman is out of one's control. Having sex with a person of your own gender is. We are talking about behavior. They say that gay people are genetically inclined to be that way, but a lot of self-destructive behaviors are genetically influenced, like alcoholism. One of my friends has a genetic inclination to alcoholism because her parents were both drunks. So she doesn't drink, because she knows what might become of her. I have a genetic inclination to obesity. All of my relatives are fat. So I eat a lot of healthy, nasty-tasting food and exercise. Genetic inclinations for behavior at least, can be modified by free will if your urges tend to be destructive to society.

The next argument you raise is the idea that gay couples abandon the second parent. That's a false assumption, because most gay parents partake in an open adoption process which allows the birth parent(s) to play a significant role in their child's life. That's what I'm planning to do, and that's what many of my friends are planning to do. The other interesting refutation of your argument is that children suffer from growing up in a gay household. Unfortunately for you, most children grow up no different than they would had they been raised by a heterosexual couple.

Three parents? The gay couple and the birth parent? Involved in the child's life at the same time? And you wondered why I said that the legal precendent might open the door for people petitioning for the right to polygamy?

To me, gay marriage is no more of a problem than the skyrocketing divorce rates, or cases of child and/ or spousal abuse, among heterosexual couples. Those issues, to me, should be looked into more by the proponents of "traditional marriage," because it outright affects the structure and sanctity of the "traditional marriage." It's quite obvious gay marriage is non-traditional; but that doesn't mean it should be overridden and denied.

I am deeply concerned about child and spousal abuse and the skyrocketing no-fault divorce rates. I hope I have made that clear. I think these are very serious problems to be urgently addressed. However, I still believe that gay marriage, along with the aforementioned problems, all do their part to weaken traditional marriage.

[wiegeabo]

Yes, but being black or a woman is out of one's control. Having sex with a person of your own gender is.

Wow. That is a very very big assumption that's never been proven one way or the other. I suppose one could choose to be with one's own gender, but I seriously doubt all gays do. I don't understand why people think that gays choose to be that way but straights can't. I never chose to be straight. I just am. I prefer women. Women do it for me, men don't. It's never been a conscious decision.

But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that gays do choose to be gay. What right do I, or government have, to deny them the choice to be in a loving, healty, relationship. It's your right to have an opinion against it, just like it's everyone's right to have an opinion against something. But I don't see how a public institution could be allowed to enforce it. I'm allowed to choose any religion I want, why can't I choose who I want to be with?

And if being gay is not a choice, but genetic, than gays should be treated as any other protected class and be given equal protection under the law. Just like other protected classes a person has no control over (race, gender, age) and classes they do have choice over (creed).


And the alcoholism/obesity analogy does not translate into this argument. There's a big difference between avoiding alcohol and unhealthy foods, and avoiding relationships with people you're actually attracted to.

[The Senator]

Three parents? The gay couple and the birth parent? Involved in the child's life at the same time? And you wondered why I said that the legal precendent might open the door for people petitioning for the right to polygamy?

That's not polygamy, moron. The three parents are not involved in a sexual relationship. The children see their birth parent(s) on weekends, not every morning in bed with their legal parents.

My partner and I aren't going to start dating the heterosexual mother of our child because we're two gay men happily in love with each other. The mother of our child is just a sacred vessel. Also, that's the beauty of a homosexual relationship-- we like men. But props to you for transpiring beyond ignorance into the absurd.

[Handsome Rob]

You're missing my point. My point is that marriage should be up to the church. And because several churches support gay marriage, the debate should be over with. There's no reason to pursue a law banning gay marriage because it affects religious communities or voids the constructs of the 'traditional marriage,' when marriage itself is defined by the church.

Polygamous marriages, on the other hand, are denounced by just about every denomination, at least in the United States. Even the Mormons have condemned it.

But if you want to know my take on it... polygamous marriage should be illegal. So if you want to call me a bigot in that regard, go right ahead. But my point is that two men in a loving, stable relationship shouldn't be prohibited from getting married because there are religions which oppose it. There are religions which support it, and that's all that matters.

But if those same religious denominations that endorse gay marriage were to come around on polygamy, would you now argue that "one man and three women in a loving, stable relationship shouldn't be prohibited from getting married because there are religions which oppose it. There are religions which support it, and that's all that matters."?

Let me give you a bit of the background that I'm coming from, and maybe this can shed some light on my "take" of what you've posted. My religious belief (Christian) on marriage is that it is between one man and one woman. That belief is rooted in what I've read in the books of the New Testament of the Bible. Therefore, because God has fixed morality, the definition of a "moral" marriage is fixed, as well. So, regardless of what anyone actually says about what makes a legitimate marriage, there is only one kind I will actually believe is legitimate. And, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what I think, either. That won't change the rightness or wrongness of it.

When I hear someone talk about how it's (wrongful) discrimination to not allow gay marriage, and that person doesn't have a religious basis for defining marriage (which I don't think you do--sorry, if I'm wrong), it doesn't make sense to me that the same person can turn around and say that another form of marriage is unacceptable. If you view wrongful discrimination in allowing only one form of marriage, how can you deny wrongful discrimination in allowing only two?

In other words, I base my definition of marriage on God as revealed in the Bible (which I consider to be in Authority over me), where it seems you base yours on . . . what? Your opinion? Please don't take that in a condescending manner . . . I'm just trying to figure out what you root your definition of "marriage" in while trying to give you a basis for my roots.

Good luck with finishing law school. My best friend got his JD at Vanderbilt. Whenever we get together without his wife and kids, we usually end up talking about government. I should know better than to argue law with him, because he'll "pwn" me every time. But, I'll usually wipe the floor with him on accounting and taxation. So, we even out--it's a good learning experience all around. :yay:

[The Senator]

My definition of marriage stems from my personal belief that two people, regardless of gender, should be able to join hands in a holy and spiritual union if they are so willing to devote the rest of their lives to each other. True love between two people knows no boundary, physical or metaphorical, and I feel that as long as those two people are willing to take such a huge leap, to share in each others' lives forever, they should be able to do so. It is not up to the government or the proprietors of this world's numerous faiths to stand in the way of love between two consenting adults. Their lives are nobody else's business.

I do not believe in the teachings of the Bible, nor do I follow a faith which explicitly condemns homosexual behavior. And as a homosexual myself, my views on marriage are quite clear. I am not going to follow a faith which condemns who I am.

[Handsome Rob]

My definition of marriage stems from my personal belief that two people, regardless of gender, should be able to join hands in a holy and spiritual union if they are so willing to devote the rest of their lives to each other. True love between two people knows no boundary, physical or metaphorical, and I feel that as long as those two people are willing to take such a huge leap, to share in each others' lives forever, they should be able to do so. It is not up to the government or the proprietors of this world's numerous faiths to stand in the way of love between two consenting adults. Their lives are nobody else's business.

I do not believe in the teachings of the Bible, nor do I follow a faith which explicitly condemns homosexual behavior. And as a homosexual myself, my views on marriage are quite clear. I am not going to follow a faith which condemns who I am.

That answers my question. :up:

And, for the record, one of the things I would do in my new government is abolish the institution of marriage. With the imposition of the FairTax, there would be no economic reason for marriage, and simple contracts ("civil unions") would handle the legal aspects of marriage (ownership of assets, medical decisions, etc.).

People who wanted to get "married" could do so by whoever would marry them--churches, judges, even best friends. Marriage would be a purely social institution--no government intervention or recognition needed. And, if people don't want to recognize ____ marriage, personally, they don't have to.

[wiegeabo]

That answers my question. :up:

And, for the record, one of the things I would do in my new government is abolish the institution of marriage. With the imposition of the FairTax, there would be no economic reason for marriage, and simple contracts ("civil unions") would handle the legal aspects of marriage (ownership of assets, medical decisions, etc.).

People who wanted to get "married" could do so by whoever would marry them--churches, judges, even best friends. Marriage would be a purely social institution--no government intervention or recognition needed. And, if people don't want to recognize ____ marriage, personally, they don't have to.

I like this. Although I'm still not sold on the FairTax. I prefer the idea of use taxes over income taxes.

[Arc-Light]

I personally gotta say the government that was described in the movie Starship Troopers. (I am filling in the gaps from what they described to what I kinda "see)

There are two classes of people:
Citizens - Those that have the right to vote
Non-Citizens - Those that dont have the right to vote.

All people start out in life, as a Non-Citizen. They are subject to the laws, but dont have the right to vote to change the laws. A Non-Citizen must perform public duty, which usually means joining the armed forces, to gain Citizenship.

Then from there they gain the right to vote and also serve as a law-maker.

This should shut up those up that comment but don't act. If they complain about the state of the union, and its problems, they have to serve, and can then have a voice.

Ahhh hmmmmm.....
" In his commentary on the DVD edition of the film, director Paul Verhoeven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Verhoeven) states unambiguously that the movie's message is "War makes fascists of us all", and that he sees the movie as a satire of American militarism. On the same commentary, screenwriter Ed Neumeier (who had previously worked with Verhoeven on RoboCop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoboCop)) broadly concurs, although he sees the satire as applying to the whole of human history, rather than solely to the U.S.
Since the filmmakers did not make these statements at the time of the film's release, viewers have interpreted it variously: as a satire, as a celebration of fascism, or as a simple tongue-in-cheek action film. "

Yeah Malice are you serious...............you Republicans scare me.

[The Senator]

That answers my question. :up:

And, for the record, one of the things I would do in my new government is abolish the institution of marriage. With the imposition of the FairTax, there would be no economic reason for marriage, and simple contracts ("civil unions") would handle the legal aspects of marriage (ownership of assets, medical decisions, etc.).

People who wanted to get "married" could do so by whoever would marry them--churches, judges, even best friends. Marriage would be a purely social institution--no government intervention or recognition needed. And, if people don't want to recognize ____ marriage, personally, they don't have to.

And that's a good platform, too. I sort of support the FairTax, just not at this moment in time. Once we've closed our deficit by a substantial margin, I'll be on board, just because of the possible economic backlash which could occur if enacted so soon.

With my hopeful profession (something in business or consulting; I'm think I'm gonna go for a JD/ MPA once I'm officially enrolled in the program), I won't have any personal economic concerns, so the FairTax seems like it would benefit me a lot.

[The Master Planner]

Wow. That is a very very big assumption that's never been proven one way or the other. I suppose one could choose to be with one's own gender, but I seriously doubt all gays do. I don't understand why people think that gays choose to be that way but straights can't. I never chose to be straight. I just am. I prefer women. Women do it for me, men don't. It's never been a conscious decision.

But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that gays do choose to be gay. What right do I, or government have, to deny them the choice to be in a loving, healty, relationship. It's your right to have an opinion against it, just like it's everyone's right to have an opinion against something. But I don't see how a public institution could be allowed to enforce it. I'm allowed to choose any religion I want, why can't I choose who I want to be with?

I'm saying that even if your preferences are predetermined, your acting on them is your choice. I'm straight. I didn't choose it. I'm attracted to men. But since my beliefs dictate that sex is for marriage, I choose not to have sex until then. I act and I control my preferences. Unless a person is raped, having sex is a decision and a choice.

Your second point: There are a lot of things people can choose to do, but are illegal because they are destructive to society. You cannot choose to steal. You cannot choose to rape, do drugs, sell drugs, because acting that way is destructive. And with the prevalence of AIDS, homosexuality in itself has the potential to be destructive. Maybe it is unfair that AIDS predominately strikes gay men and certain drug users, but those are the facts. The healthcare system is being drained by diseases that are predominately related to people's poor choices; obesity is the most talked-about of these.

And if being gay is not a choice, but genetic, than gays should be treated as any other protected class and be given equal protection under the law. Just like other protected classes a person has no control over (race, gender, age) and classes they do have choice over (creed).

Gay people are equal under the law. They certainly are not discriminated against like black people or women were in an earlier time. They can vote and they can drink from the same water fountains straights do. They can apply for jobs, and if they think they are discriminated against in that respect, they can get a lawyer and sue like any other American.

And the alcoholism/obesity analogy does not translate into this argument. There's a big difference between avoiding alcohol and unhealthy foods, and avoiding relationships with people you're actually attracted to.

See above.

[The Master Planner]

That's not polygamy, moron. The three parents are not involved in a sexual relationship. The children see their birth parent(s) on weekends, not every morning in bed with their legal parents.

My partner and I aren't going to start dating the heterosexual mother of our child because we're two gay men happily in love with each other. The mother of our child is just a sacred vessel. Also, that's the beauty of a homosexual relationship-- we like men. But props to you for transpiring beyond ignorance into the absurd.

How many times have I tried to say: Marriage is not all about sex, cretin, but primarily about raising children. My parents haven't had sex in years, but they're still married. I didn't say or imply that any gay couple is having sex with the birth mother of an adopted child, I said that they are raising their child with the mother. How you completely misunderstood and/or twisted my argument is beyond my humble intellect.

[The Senator]

How many times have I tried to say: Marriage is not all about sex, cretin, but primarily about raising children. My parents haven't had sex in years, but they're still married. I didn't say or imply that any gay couple is having sex with the birth mother of an adopted child, I said that they are raising their child with the mother. How you completely misunderstood and/or twisted my argument is beyond my humble intellect.

The fundamental argument over my support for gay marriage isn't about sex, sweetheart. It's about being able to love each other, to embrace each other in a sanctimonious bond for the remainder of our lives. It's about being able to raise a family, it's about being able to live a normal life as two men who are in love with each other and want to be together. There are tons of gay men who would make excellent fathers, tons of gay women who would make excellent mothers. And on that same note, there are tons of single women who are forced to raise children by themselves. There are some men who are forced to raise children by themselves. So I don't see how this would be any different, except you're adding an extra father or an extra mother into the equation.

Back to polygamy... yeah, polygamy is about sex. It is about marriage. And without the two involved, I don't see how a relationship can be polygamous. That would imply that a group of friends are in a polygamous relationship if they had to take turns taking care of another friend's dog for the weekend. And actually, the way you describe polygamy, we're all polygamous perverts. People who work together on a project at work are in a polygamous relationship; people who ride/ share the subway together are in a polygamous; and children who are forced to work in reading circles in elementary school are in a polygamous relationship. So, everyones polygamous!

:dry:

[sithgoblin]

How many times have I tried to say: Marriage is not all about sex, cretin, but primarily about raising children. My parents haven't had sex in years, but they're still married. I didn't say or imply that any gay couple is having sex with the birth mother of an adopted child, I said that they are raising their child with the mother. How you completely misunderstood and/or twisted my argument is beyond my humble intellect.

So a couple with a child get divorced and each remarry. According to you, they are in a polygamous relationship?

[rdh007]

...so the FairTax seems like it would benefit me a lot.
And here I was thinking you weren't a Republican. Near as I can tell the FairTax would be a regressive tax and would hurt those of us who don't make 100K+

[zenile]

And here I was thinking you weren't a Republican. Near as I can tell the FairTax would be a regressive tax and would hurt those of us who don't make 1M+

Fixed that for you :woot:

[SuBe]

And here I was thinking you weren't a Republican. Near as I can tell the FairTax would be a regressive tax and would hurt those of us who don't make 100K+

Fixed that for you :woot:

Both you guy are obviously mistaken about the FairTax. There is a thread right below this, where Myself and Handsome Rob have answered every critique and question regarding the Fairtax. The FairTax UNTAXES the Poor. So, how is it going to be better for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year? It Taxes everyone equally above the Poverty level. Do your self a Favor, Actually Read the Thread.

Your ignorance is Showing.

The Fairtax is not a Right Vs. Left, Democrat Vs Republican Issue. It is an Issue of Freeing Americans from a Punishing, Confusing and Burdensome Tax Code while Increasing your Power over the Government. It would bring Jobs here and Get the Government out of your life. Why does the Government need to know how much you make every year? All they need to know is that you are Paying Taxes. The Fairtax would fix our Tax Code, Fix Social Security, Fix the Economy. Please read the Thread and Learn. At the End, AFTER you read everything, Post any question you like. I would be happy to answer, as I'm sure Handsome Rob would too.

Please keep in mind, that is not a Debate Thread. I tend to think of it as a Classroom. You can ask anything you like, but it is NOT ABOUT PARTISIAN CRAP.

[zenile]

Both you guy are obviously mistaken about the FairTax. There is a thread right below this, where Myself and Handsome Rob have answered every critique and question regarding the Fairtax. The FairTax UNTAXES the Poor. So, how is it going to be better for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year? It Taxes everyone equally above the Poverty level. Do your self a Favor, Actually Read the Thread.

Your ignorance is Showing.



We were actually implying that it would be worse for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year.

[wiegeabo]

From what I've read on the FairTax (which is far from everything) it replaces income tax with a Federal sales tax on goods and services. And everyone pays they same tax rate.

Ok. So, the way I see the theory is that, the more you buy, and the more expensive the things you buy, the more taxes you pay. Essentially, the more you buy, the more you pay.

Now, two things stand out at me. I can avoid paying taxes by curbing my consumption which can hurt the economy because consumption is slowing, and government has less taxes to work with (assuming, of course, more tax money makes a better government. Which is a big assumption).

Also, the Fairtax seems to be a progressive tax (more burden on the rich) on luxury goods, but a regressive tax (more burden on the poor) on necessities. By this I mean that, if the FairTax was 30%, a middle-class person buying a $100,000 house pays $30,000 in tax while a millionaire buying a $1,000,000 mansion pays $300,000 in tax. Sounds good. The rich pay more tax than the poor.

But housing, to some degree, is a luxury. On the other hand, everyone pays the same for necessities like food. So, a poor person buys a bag a groceries for $100 and pays $30 in tax. A rich person buys a bag of groceries for $100 and pays the same $30 in tax. But that $30 is a much larger percentage of the poor person's income than the rich person's income. So it seems that the poor are actually hurt far worse than the rich when it comes to necessities.

[QueerMike]

The North American Union and the Federal I.D. card are basically going to put an end to America and it's current
form of government, if it hasn't been done already.

[SuBe]

We were actually implying that it would be worse for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year.
I understand that. But, under the Fairtax, everyone benifits in not having Taxes deducted from your Paycheck, Zero Taxes for Investments, Increase in Jobs due to more Foreign Businesses moving to our Corporate Tax Haven, You get the Prebate that UNTAXES the Poor. Education is Not Taxed. And, everything would cost that same as it does today. You are mistaken about the FairTax.

This program would UNTAX the poor.

[SuBe]

From what I've read on the FairTax (which is far from everything) it replaces income tax with a Federal sales tax on goods and services. And everyone pays they same tax rate.

Ok. So, the way I see the theory is that, the more you buy, and the more expensive the things you buy, the more taxes you pay. Essentially, the more you buy, the more you pay.

Now, two things stand out at me. I can avoid paying taxes by curbing my consumption which can hurt the economy because consumption is slowing, and government has less taxes to work with (assuming, of course, more tax money makes a better government. Which is a big assumption).

Also, the Fairtax seems to be a progressive tax (more burden on the rich) on luxury goods, but a regressive tax (more burden on the poor) on necessities. By this I mean that, if the FairTax was 30%, a middle-class person buying a $100,000 house pays $30,000 in tax while a millionaire buying a $1,000,000 mansion pays $300,000 in tax. Sounds good. The rich pay more tax than the poor.

But housing, to some degree, is a luxury. On the other hand, everyone pays the same for necessities like food. So, a poor person buys a bag a groceries for $100 and pays $30 in tax. A rich person buys a bag of groceries for $100 and pays the same $30 in tax. But that $30 is a much larger percentage of the poor person's income than the rich person's income. So it seems that the poor are actually hurt far worse than the rich when it comes to necessities.
You are not adding into the Equation the Prebate. You do not pay taxes on food and Necessities with the Prebate.

[Malice]

Man, this THREAD (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=295916) might help form a new more respectable government

[The Master Planner]

So a couple with a child get divorced and each remarry. According to you, they are in a polygamous relationship?

If you want to split semantic hairs, technically no. What I am saying is the child's love and attachments in these situations is torn between this group of people instead of shared between the child and the parents.

[The Master Planner]

The fundamental argument over my support for gay marriage isn't about sex, sweetheart. It's about being able to love each other, to embrace each other in a sanctimonious bond for the remainder of our lives. It's about being able to raise a family, it's about being able to live a normal life as two men who are in love with each other and want to be together. There are tons of gay men who would make excellent fathers, tons of gay women who would make excellent mothers. And on that same note, there are tons of single women who are forced to raise children by themselves. There are some men who are forced to raise children by themselves. So I don't see how this would be any different, except you're adding an extra father or an extra mother into the equation.

Sex can be a wonderful, pleasurable thing, but it wasn't meant for pleasure alone, it was meant for procreation. It's pleasant so that people would want to have it, thereby having children and continuing the human race. I have no doubt that gay people would love and care for children, but when you have a child, the child's needs come first and your romantic life has to be put on the back burner! And what children want and need, barring some tragic happening, is a mom and a dad.

Back to polygamy... yeah, polygamy is about sex. It is about marriage. And without the two involved, I don't see how a relationship can be polygamous. That would imply that a group of friends are in a polygamous relationship if they had to take turns taking care of another friend's dog for the weekend. And actually, the way you describe polygamy, we're all polygamous perverts. People who work together on a project at work are in a polygamous relationship; people who ride/ share the subway together are in a polygamous; and children who are forced to work in reading circles in elementary school are in a polygamous relationship. So, everyones polygamous!

:dry:

You are completely entitled to disagree with my opinions and arguments, but if you can't understand my arguments or if you can't distinguish a work or school project partnership or two strangers on a subway and a committed marriage dedicated to the ideal raising of children, there's just nothing I can do.

(sees recent postings)

Finally! A change in subject.

[zenile]

Both you guy are obviously mistaken about the FairTax. There is a thread right below this, where Myself and Handsome Rob have answered every critique and question regarding the Fairtax. The FairTax UNTAXES the Poor. So, how is it going to be better for someone making less than $100,000 or $1 Million a year? It Taxes everyone equally above the Poverty level. Do your self a Favor, Actually Read the Thread.

Your ignorance is Showing.

The Fairtax is not a Right Vs. Left, Democrat Vs Republican Issue. It is an Issue of Freeing Americans from a Punishing, Confusing and Burdensome Tax Code while Increasing your Power over the Government. It would bring Jobs here and Get the Government out of your life.

Really?? Please explain this. Does this mean we're going to be disbanding Congress, remove the powers of the executive branch, AND allow me to drive 100 miles an hour in a school zone. I guess I do need to read up on this then :whatever:

Why does the Government need to know how much you make every year? All they need to know is that you are Paying Taxes. The Fairtax would fix our Tax Code, Fix Social Security, Fix the Economy.

Well, isn't the Government going to need to know how much I make if their going to calculate my prebate check each month?

Its obvious you've read all the talking points, but so have the rest of us and some just don't agree with it. Just because we don't spew the talking points out, doesn't make us ignorant.

[The Senator]

The North American Union and the Federal I.D. card are basically going to put an end to America and it's current
form of government, if it hasn't been done already.

There's no such thing as the North American Union, and there never will be. That's just propaganda spread around by a bunch of wackos as a fear tactic-- wackos who don't know anything about how or why the both the EU and AU came to be, and think that such organizations came about soley because those countries shared the same continent.

[The Senator]

Sex can be a wonderful, pleasurable thing, but it wasn't meant for pleasure alone, it was meant for procreation. It's pleasant so that people would want to have it, thereby having children and continuing the human race. I have no doubt that gay people would love and care for children, but when you have a child, the child's needs come first and your romantic life has to be put on the back burner! And what children want and need, barring some tragic happening, is a mom and a dad.



You are completely entitled to disagree with my opinions and arguments, but if you can't understand my arguments or if you can't distinguish a work or school project partnership or two strangers on a subway and a committed marriage dedicated to the ideal raising of children, there's just nothing I can do.

(sees recent postings)

Finally! A change in subject.

Yeah... I'm done too. If you want to think gay marriage opens the door to polygamy, or that open adoption between gay couples and the mother of the child is a polygamous relationship, then that only proves how much you don't know about the conventions of marriage. The definition of polygamy is multiple marriages, not multiple relationships. I can't debate that any further, and I simply won't. If you want to make up your own definitions, ignoring religious and secular definitions, then fine. There's no convincing you otherwise.

[rdh007]

For those who believe FactCheck.org:

Unspinning the FairTax
May 31, 2007

Summary
In our recent article on the second GOP debate, we called out Gov. Mike Huckabee as well as Reps. Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter for their support of the FairTax. We wrote that the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Tax Reform had “calculated that a sales tax would have to be set at 34 percent of retail sales prices to bring in the same revenue as the taxes it would replace, meaning that an automobile with a retail price of $10,000 would cost $13,400 including the new sales tax.” A number of readers pointed out that H.R. 25, the specific bill mentioned by Gov. Huckabee, calls for a 23 percent retail sales tax and not the 34 percent used by the Advisory Panel on Tax Reform. That 23 percent number, however, is misleading and based on some extremely optimistic assumptions. We found that while there are several good economic arguments for the FairTax, unless you earn more than $200,000 per year, fairness is not one of them.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

[SuBe]

Really?? Please explain this. Does this mean we're going to be disbanding Congress, remove the powers of the executive branch, AND allow me to drive 100 miles an hour in a school zone. I guess I do need to read up on this then :whatever:



Well, isn't the Government going to need to know how much I make if their going to calculate my prebate check each month?

Its obvious you've read all the talking points, but so have the rest of us and some just don't agree with it. Just because we don't spew the talking points out, doesn't make us ignorant.
These are not "talking points" they are actually apart of the FairTax Plan. The government won't be looking at your Wages and Earning like they do now, if you claim a Depandant, you get a little more in your Prebate, if you claim 2 Depandants, you get more in your Prebate. Not, having to file every year costing the US Economy $250-500 Billion dollars a year. The government shouldn't care whether you make $10,000 or $10 Million, only that you spend the money and they collect the Taxes.

You Ignorance is showing because you want to discuss an issue that you obviously don't know much about. If you actually understood the FairTax plan you would know that the IRS would be disbanded, that you would never be subject to Personal Audits. You claim to have researched the Plan, and Dare say that I'm just repeating talking points?!? You obviously have just read critiques, but not the Bill or the Plan at all. You could actuall read through the Thread about the FairTax and learn.

[SuBe]

For those who believe FactCheck.org:



http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html
If you want to see my rebuttal to this, please see either the FactCheck.org thread or the FairTax Thread. This article on the FairTax on FactCheck is full of lies and misdirection. Please do yourself a favor, read my response on the other Threads.

[zenile]

These are not "talking points" they are actually apart of the FairTax Plan. The government won't be looking at your Wages and Earning like they do now, if you claim a Depandant, you get a little more in your Prebate, if you claim 2 Depandants, you get more in your Prebate. Not, having to file every year costing the US Economy $250-500 Billion dollars a year. The government shouldn't care whether you make $10,000 or $10 Million, only that you spend the money and they collect the Taxes.

You Ignorance is showing because you want to discuss an issue that you obviously don't know much about. If you actually understood the FairTax plan you would know that the IRS would be disbanded, that you would never be subject to Personal Audits. You claim to have researched the Plan, and Dare say that I'm just repeating talking points?!? You obviously have just read critiques, but not the Bill or the Plan at all. You could actuall read through the Thread about the FairTax and learn.

Please direct me to where I said this wasn't the case.

[SuBe]

Really?? Please explain this. Does this mean we're going to be disbanding Congress, remove the powers of the executive branch, AND allow me to drive 100 miles an hour in a school zone. I guess I do need to read up on this then :whatever:



Well, isn't the Government going to need to know how much I make if their going to calculate my prebate check each month?

Its obvious you've read all the talking points, but so have the rest of us and some just don't agree with it. Just because we don't spew the talking points out, doesn't make us ignorant.
Both of these statements.

[Malice]

I say everyone should just be charged a 95% income tax, they keep the rest....

[zenile]

Wait, how do your bolded statements equate to me saying that the IRS would not be disbanded, and I would never be subjected to personal audits?

You said specifically, "If you actually understood the FairTax plan you would know that the IRS would be disbanded, that you would never be subject to Personal Audits" (sorry, not sure how to quote this :woot: )

I'm saying that I never said that it wouldn't. My statements were in response to your's saying that we would get government out of our lives (which is not the case, there will always be a government, just not the IRS...you seem to be forgetting the legislative, executive and judicial branches), and that the government would not need to know how much we make (which is not the case, because the prebate is based on your income as well).

So again, where did I say that the IRS would not be disbanded, and I would never be subject to personal audits?

[SuBe]

Wait, how do your bolded statements equate to me saying that the IRS would not be disbanded, and I would never be subjected to personal audits?

You said specifically, "If you actually understood the FairTax plan you would know that the IRS would be disbanded, that you would never be subject to Personal Audits" (sorry, not sure how to quote this :woot: )

I'm saying that I never said that it wouldn't. My statements were in response to your's saying that we would get government out of our lives (which is not the case, there will always be a government, just not the IRS...you seem to be forgetting the legislative, executive and judicial branches), and that the government would not need to know how much we make (which is not the case, because the prebate is based on your income as well).

So again, where did I say that the IRS would not be disbanded, and I would never be subject to personal audits?
#1: Get the Government out of your life: You would never be subject of a Personal Audit of your Finances.
#2: Get the Government out of your Life, part 2: Congress shall not be able to pass a tax on an item to control your behavior (ie. Tobacco Tax, Gas Tax, Alcohol Taxes, Etc).
#3: Prebate is Not based on Income! It is based on Number of Depandants you Claim. That is all, that is the only number you would ever need to give the goverment. How many people live in your house that you take care of. That is it. No other Paper work. And that has NOTHING to do with Income.
#4. I am not talking about ANARCHY, I'm talking about a New way of taxation, not NO GOVERNMENT.

[wiegeabo]

I still don't see how the FairTax wouldn't be a regressive tax on necessities. And necessities are typically what the poor and middle-class purchase.

[SuBe]

I still don't see how the FairTax wouldn't be a regressive tax on necessities. And necessities are typically what the poor and middle-class purchase.
Agreed. It's not, people at or below the poverty level would be UNTAXED and no one would ever have to pay taxes on Basic Necessities, whether you are poor, middle class, or upper class. No one would pay taxes to live. Which in our current system, you must pay the government just to live.

[wiegeabo]

But then we'd have to rely on government to set a proper poverty level (which they supposedly do now, but not very well, and that probably wouldn't change). And government would tell us what are necessities and what aren't. I'd rather make that decision for myself.

Sure we might be getting government out of our paychecks, but it looks like we're just moving them into another part of our lives. Now they, implicitly and explicitly, get to tell us what we can and cannot buy.



I wouldn't mind getting rid of income tax or the IRS. But, at least for the immediate future, I'm more in favor of lowering tax rates (possibly maintaining/raising them for the upper bracket while eliminating the lowest bracket), and eliminating all deductions, loopholes, and other things that require the IRS. The advantage here is that everyone gets bigger paychecks and, because we don't need tax laws to take into account our massive tax code system, we can get by with a drastically reduced IRS.

The higher paychecks offsets the lack of deductions when preparing taxes. Actually, you probably wouldn't need to file taxes at all. Your employer takes out a percentage, sends it off, and your taxes are done. Probably the only deductions I'd allow are for charitable donations since government should not decide which charities get money, the people should

I see this plan as something lasting 5-10-20 years, and being used a transition period to a more permanent tax code (whether it be FairTax, use taxes, or something else).

[SuBe]

But then we'd have to rely on government to set a proper poverty level (which they supposedly do now, but not very well, and that probably wouldn't change). And government would tell us what are necessities and what aren't. I'd rather make that decision for myself.

Sure we might be getting government out of our paychecks, but it looks like we're just moving them into another part of our lives. Now they, implicitly and explicitly, get to tell us what we can and cannot buy.



I wouldn't mind getting rid of income tax or the IRS. But, at least for the immediate future, I'm more in favor of lowering tax rates (possibly maintaining/raising them for the upper bracket while eliminating the lowest bracket), and eliminating all deductions, loopholes, and other things that require the IRS. The advantage here is that everyone gets bigger paychecks and, because we don't need tax laws to take into account our massive tax code system, we can get by with a drastically reduced IRS.

The higher paychecks offsets the lack of deductions when preparing taxes. Actually, you probably wouldn't need to file taxes at all. Your employer takes out a percentage, sends it off, and your taxes are done. Probably the only deductions I'd allow are for charitable donations since government should not decide which charities get money, the people should

I see this plan as something lasting 5-10-20 years, and being used a transition period to a more permanent tax code (whether it be FairTax, use taxes, or something else).
The Dept. of Human Services every Quarter puts together a report and submitts it to Congress every year all kinds of details, Census, Taxes Etc. On that report, it details exactly what you pay every month in taxes, (that includes Income, payroll, corporate, embedded, etc). Under the Fairtax, the Prebate is based on these figures. You receive all that you would pay in taxes back at the begining of every month.

The problem with Taxing the Higher Class a Higher Precentage is these are the people that give people jobs. The More they Higher, the lower the Unemployment Rate. The Problem of Raising taxes on Coroporations is that those taxes just translate to higher retail prices, which directly effect the Lower Class and Middle Class at a higher precentage than the Higher Class. Who does more driving? Lower and Middle Class Commutes to Work, etc. The Problem with Not Taxing the Lower Class is that it Breeds the Idea of "Why Work". Why would I want to achevieve more, if that means I'm going to have to pay higher Tax Rates?

What the Fairtax does is Untax the Poor, and Tax everyone else equally, at the Rate, not the Dollar. So, If I can afford to Purchase a $1 Million New Home and a $150,000 new Astin Martin, you pay the taxes associated with it. But, if you can only afford to purchase $100 in food for the next week and that's it, well, guess what. Now that food is untaxed because you received $196 at the beging of the month an that covered your taxes you would pay for tha food.

[teseract]

Yes, but being black or a woman is out of one's control. Having sex with a person of your own gender is. We are talking about behavior. They say that gay people are genetically inclined to be that way, but a lot of self-destructive behaviors are genetically influenced, like alcoholism. One of my friends has a genetic inclination to alcoholism because her parents were both drunks. So she doesn't drink, because she knows what might become of her. I have a genetic inclination to obesity. All of my relatives are fat. So I eat a lot of healthy, nasty-tasting food and exercise. Genetic inclinations for behavior at least, can be modified by free will if your urges tend to be destructive to society.


How the heck is gay behaviour "destructive to society?"

How is gay behavior "self-destructive"?

Just because YOU think it is, is not objective proof.

Or to be more specific. What is gay behavior? What exactly is that "self-destructive" behavoir? Anal sex, Oral sex, mastrubation? I'm really curious because as of now I haven't seen any form of sexual behavior gays engage in that isn't practiced in a far higher number by Heteros too.

Oh and another question:

Since when is "engaging in self-destructive" behavior a criterion for forbidding someone to marry? Can Billy-Bob not marry because he went out with five different hoes every saturday night, doing them in the ass without protection?

I'm really kind of baffled here, What are you complaining about in terms of gays that would not be as much condemnable in Heteros?

[The Master Planner]

To "teseract":
I believe that gay marriage is destructive to society for all the reasons I have outlined above. "jmanspice" and I had a rather entertaining debate on this.

Gay sex (primarily anal sex) can be self-destructive because of AIDS, not to mention its related illnesses and all the other STDs. It may be unfair, but AIDS strikes primarily gay men and drug users. These diseases cost our health care system millions each year and its going to get worse if the government somehow puts a universal healthcare plan in. And I am not attempting to offer objective proof, only my unvarnished opinion. The reader can do his own research if he wants objective proof.

I'm not singling out gays in my condemnations of promiscuity and destructive sexual behavior. Billy-Bob, Britney, Paris, et al. all play their part in the unraveling of the moral fiber of society. They should be shunned. The explosion of out-of-wedlock births are due to heterosexuals having sex irresponsibly.

I hope this makes my viewpoint clear. Now back to our regularly scheduled FairTax debate.

[Genesis 1.0]

I thought I would post this here...its would be ineteresting to hear.
Please be serious and dont start spouting out go Communist! or just post links...post something interesting...

if you were given a free hand to reshape the Federal Government or scrap it and start over, what would you do?

Personally, I think our government and it's foundation are just fine. It's the people at the helm, the people running it, the people making the legislation that are the problem. Hell, looking through the basic components of our government, it's near perfection on paper, it rovides balance, stability, and protection for it's most vital asset: the people.

However, any time you put the types of people that abound now into that system it becomes twisted and overrall, completely incapable of serving the people. I could go through and make a masterful design for a government but as long as the same types of selfish and corrupt behavior inhabit it, it's going to end up in the same boggled state as our own finds itself today.

[teseract]

To "teseract":
I believe that gay marriage is destructive to society for all the reasons I have outlined above. "jmanspice" and I had a rather entertaining debate on this.

Gay sex (primarily anal sex) can be self-destructive because of AIDS, not to mention its related illnesses and all the other STDs. It may be unfair, but AIDS strikes primarily gay men and drug users. These diseases cost our health care system millions each year and its going to get worse if the government somehow puts a universal healthcare plan in. And I am not attempting to offer objective proof, only my unvarnished opinion. The reader can do his own research if he wants objective proof.
But the point is, there is no "Gay sex" that is more dangerous or not. A man, giving another man a blow job is in terms of the act no different froma woman giving a man a blow job. There is no practical difference, besides it's simply wrong that AIDS strikes primaly gay men. gay sex doesn't exist, it#s the same sex Heteros engage in just that two men do it instead fo a man and a woman, so if you're anti-gay sex you're in reality anti-sex alltogether.

Oh, I have read many studies on the subject and they all come to the conclusion that it isn't homosexuality but promiscuity and risky sexual practices that cause STD's.

What about gays who, surprise surprise, don't engage in Anal sex?
What about the Heteros, who love doing Anal sex. Is their risk lower than those of gay men? So, what are you calling destructive behavior? The fact that it's two men or the fact that it's done in the ass? Is it the orientation or the practice?

I'm not singling out gays in my condemnations of promiscuity and destructive sexual behavior. Billy-Bob, Britney, Paris, et al. all play their part in the unraveling of the moral fiber of society. They should be shunned. The explosion of out-of-wedlock births are due to heterosexuals having sex irresponsibly.

Sorry but if you expect me to shun someone because he decides to do with his body what he wants then you're coockoo. And if that means the moral fiber of society is unraveling, heck, then let it unravel. The Freedom to decide what one wants to do with his own body is much more important.

I hope this makes my viewpoint clear. Now back to our regularly scheduled FairTax debate.

Quite honestly, I'm not sure if you're even clear about your viewpoints yourself.

[Malice]

I just thought of something...
Each Representative picks 7 random people from his/her district, and uses them as a sounding board for all legislation. They provide a voice for the regular people, basically giving real world answers to questions...

ehh...who knows...

[StorminNorman]

I think the current American Government CAN work just fine.

I would prefer taking out the IRS and implement the FairTax system. I would prefer Public Education to use School Vouchers. I would like the Alcohol age reduced and Weed and Hemp to be made legal.

But those are all changes that can come about through our current system.

The biggest change I would make is rebooting the parties so that they are both more in sync with their original purposes.

[SuBe]

I think the current American Government CAN work just fine.

I would prefer taking out the IRS and implement the FairTax system. I would prefer Public Education to use School Vouchers. I would like the Alcohol age reduced and Weed and Hemp to be made legal.

But those are all changes that can come about through our current system.

The biggest change I would make is rebooting the parties so that they are both more in sync with their original purposes.
I agree with you SN, I too have a more Libertarian Mentality. I believe that the Current Political Parties need to split up.

Far Left Democrats, Left Democrats, Middle Democrats, Left Republicans, Middle Republicans, and Far Right Republicans. How doesn't anything really ever get done, if Far Left Democrats and Middle Democrats can't agree. Same thing for Far Right Republicans and Left Republicans.

[Genesis 1.0]

I agree with you SN, I too have a more Libertarian Mentality. I believe that the Current Political Parties need to split up.

Far Left Democrats, Left Democrats, Middle Democrats, Left Republicans, Middle Republicans, and Far Right Republicans. How doesn't anything really ever get done, if Far Left Democrats and Middle Democrats can't agree. Same thing for Far Right Republicans and Left Republicans.

Oi, that's a headache. They can't come to a consensus as it is and you want to fragment them further?:huh:

Congress already seems to be unable to pass a bill under 6 months unless it's an election year based on Party lines and by doing what's suggested, you want to draw more. I won't even delve into the crap you'd have to endure when it comes to electing officials.:o

[wiegeabo]

Oi, that's a headache. They can't come to a consensus as it is and you want to fragment them further?:huh:

Congress already seems to be unable to pass a bill under 6 months unless it's an election year based on Party lines and by doing what's suggested, you want to draw more. I won't even delve into the crap you'd have to endure when it comes to electing officials.:o


An argument could be made that it's better for Congress to spend a lot of time passing a bill instead of just making laws left and right. All that extra debate and fighting could actually be good and produce a better bill, or strike a bad one down.

[Genesis 1.0]

An argument could be made that it's better for Congress to spend a lot of time passing a bill instead of just making laws left and right. All that extra debate and fighting could actually be good and produce a better bill, or strike a bad one down.

That argument withers under closer scrutiny.

For the past, well decade, Congress has debated and postured and fought along Party lines for various bills for months. When they finally do decide on something agreeable, the item has usually lost a vast amount of it's significance.

They key is to fnd a balance, a reasonable discussion, not a long drawn out squabble over nearly nothing.

[wiegeabo]

The argument doesn't whither just because the last few Congresses haven't been practicing it. The argument is still valid. I'd rather have a legislature that takes time to carefully examine new laws rather than pass them quickly because there's some 'pressing' issue.

I'd argue that well examined 'good' laws don't need to be changed very often because their built to be adaptable to the times. And if Congress would even just try to do that instead of bickering along party lines, there wouldn't be such a need for quickly passed laws.


But I know there are some situations and emergencies that need quick action. Nothing can be done about that. I'd also take a lot of responsibilities and powers away from Congress and give them back to the States. This gives Congress more time to focus on national issues, and the States more responsibilities of the local issues (which they would understand better anyway). And, some State powers I'd push back down to the localities (counties/cities).

Over the last few decades it seems like we've been passing the buck to higher levels of government, forcing them to divide their attentions on even more issues. Issues which could better be understood by lower, more local, levels of government. I think by reversing that trend, each level of government would have more time and resources to focus on the issues that are at their level.

[Superman4ever]

I personally gotta say the government that was described in the movie Starship Troopers. (I am filling in the gaps from what they described to what I kinda "see)

There are two classes of people:
Citizens - Those that have the right to vote
Non-Citizens - Those that dont have the right to vote.

All people start out in life, as a Non-Citizen. They are subject to the laws, but dont have the right to vote to change the laws. A Non-Citizen must perform public duty, which usually means joining the armed forces, to gain Citizenship.

Then from there they gain the right to vote and also serve as a law-maker.

This should shut up those up that comment but don't act. If they complain about the state of the union, and its problems, they have to serve, and can then have a voice.

That is insane! Absolutely insane and thank G-D you're not in control. Do conservatives think this way? Or is this a mad scientist out to rule the world? Conservatives, as of late, fallover themselves preaching about the freedoms we have and how awesome our democracy is (one of the reasons we're in Iraq is to force...um, spread Democracy) and you want to take that privilege away?

Holy crap. You want a military state. One that forces the world to do our bidding and forces it's citizens to follow, absolutely and unequivocally, the rule of law. The way you think international diplomacy wouldn't be allowed under any circumstance if your attitude toward your own citizens, your fellow country men, is so warped and fascist.

2 classes of citizens: Citizens (or the Ruling Authority) and Non-citizens (The slaves). My G-d!

I'd like to see a proportional representation. This way EVERYONE would have a voice (that's true democracy), and people wouldn't have to conform to either one of two parties. I like our system, but I'd tweak it a little.

[Genesis 1.0]

The argument doesn't whither just because the last few Congresses haven't been practicing it. The argument is still valid. I'd rather have a legislature that takes time to carefully examine new laws rather than pass them quickly because there's some 'pressing' issue.

I'd argue that well examined 'good' laws don't need to be changed very often because their built to be adaptable to the times. And if Congress would even just try to do that instead of bickering along party lines, there wouldn't be such a need for quickly passed laws.

Not just laws are passed through Congress but I take your point.

The fact of the matter is that you're speaking from a point of ideology and I'm speaking from reality. I'm telling you what it is and has been for the greater part of a decade.

SHOULD they closely examine bills and take the time to ensure they're worthwhile? Oh course. Who says no to that?

However, the fact of the matter is that Congress actually doing that, actually being productive in those long, drawn out sessions is the exception, not the rule. Passing bills quickly has the benefit of not allowing members of Congress to nitpick and basically find things to ***** about. The overrall useful nature of the item and it's positives and negatives are weighed and if they meet the standard, then it's put through before the crippling squabble can begin.

On the flipside, too many fast paced sessions allow for cracks and misinterpertations and you end up with a broken bill. Unfortunately, that risk is far more appealing than having no solution at all.

I don't think anyone wants to see Congress sit on a bill, arguing points so infinitesimal and insignificant that by the time the bill's passed it has no bearing on the issue it was set in motion to mediate.

[Genesis 1.0]

That is insane! Absolutely insane and thank G-D you're not in control. Do conservatives think this way? Or is this a mad scientist out to rule the world? Conservatives, as of late, fallover themselves preaching about the freedoms we have and how awesome our democracy is (one of the reasons we're in Iraq is to force...um, spread Democracy) and you want to take that privilege away?

Holy crap. You want a military state. One that forces the world to do our bidding and forces it's citizens to follow, absolutely and unequivocally, the rule of law. The way you think international diplomacy wouldn't be allowed under any circumstance if your attitude toward your own citizens, your fellow country men, is so warped and fascist.

2 classes of citizens: Citizens (or the Ruling Authority) and Non-citizens (The slaves). My G-d!

I'd like to see a proportional representation. This way EVERYONE would have a voice (that's true democracy), and people wouldn't have to conform to either one of two parties. I like our system, but I'd tweak it a little.

Talk about your overreactions.....

:o

[Superman4ever]

Talk about your overreactions.....

:o

LOL!

But MOSES, if it's not the craziest thing I've heard a Republican say in a while!

[Genesis 1.0]

LOL!

But MOSES, if it's not the craziest thing I've heard a Republican say in a while!

Nice play on Genesis.:hehe:

Hey now, easy on the Repub bashing there cowboy.:indy:

[wiegeabo]

Not just laws are passed through Congress but I take your point.

The fact of the matter is that you're speaking from a point of ideology and I'm speaking from reality. I'm telling you what it is and has been for the greater part of a decade.

SHOULD they closely examine bills and take the time to ensure they're worthwhile? Oh course. Who says no to that?

However, the fact of the matter is that Congress actually doing that, actually being productive in those long, drawn out sessions is the exception, not the rule. Passing bills quickly has the benefit of not allowing members of Congress to nitpick and basically find things to ***** about. The overrall useful nature of the item and it's positives and negatives are weighed and if they meet the standard, then it's put through before the crippling squabble can begin.

On the flipside, too many fast paced sessions allow for cracks and misinterpertations and you end up with a broken bill. Unfortunately, that risk is far more appealing than having no solution at all.

I don't think anyone wants to see Congress sit on a bill, arguing points so infinitesimal and insignificant that by the time the bill's passed it has no bearing on the issue it was set in motion to mediate.


Well, of course I'm arguing based on ideology. This whole thread is about how we would make or remake a new government, after all.

And, if the issues goes away by itself, was there a need for a law in the first place?

[Genesis 1.0]

Well, of course I'm arguing based on ideology. This whole thread is about how we would make or remake a new government, after all.

And, if the issues goes away by itself, was there a need for a law in the first place?

Idealism alone doesn't make a functioning government, you need a dose of reality as well to make anything work.

Uh yeah there was a need, especially if the situation is handled badly and then it takes an even more arduous process to fix whatever was screwed up.

[Superman4ever]

Nice play on Genesis.:hehe:

Hey now, easy on the Repub bashing there cowboy.:indy:

Not republican bashing, not at all, but Repubs are suppose to stand for liberty and are steadfast against dictatorship. Yet, lately, I've been wondering.

[Genesis 1.0]

Meh, just a little weering in the wrong direction.

A little while back I highlighted the history and we have a base, we just need to get back to the foundation.

[Superman4ever]

Meh, just a little weering in the wrong direction.

A little while back I highlighted the history and we have a base, we just need to get back to the foundation.

Hopefully.

[teseract]

Meh, just a little weering in the wrong direction.

A little while back I highlighted the history and we have a base, we just need to get back to the foundation.
Oh, Reps have a foundation, it's called the "religious right" and surprise surprise, they are quite totalitarian in their mindset.

[The Senator]

Oh, Reps have a foundation, it's called the "religious right" and surprise surprise, they are quite totalitarian in their mindset.

The religious right only counts for a third of the Republican base...

[Genesis 1.0]

Yeah....

I don't even bother anymore and the hell if I'm going to dig up that entire debate all over again.