planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Nov 19, 2018 6:48 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules






Post new topic Reply to topic

Obama rate his presidency.
A 12%  12%  [ 3 ]
B 48%  48%  [ 12 ]
C 20%  20%  [ 5 ]
D 4%  4%  [ 1 ]
F 16%  16%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 25
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: Nebraska, USA
Steve C wrote:
Here is a small portion of our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

We are way past the point to which our Gov't has become destructive, IMHO.


And your point is?

That part of the Declaration can be used to defend my side of the discussion as much as you feel it supports yours. I could argue that a "a long train of abuses and usurpations." have been purpetrated on those less fortunate.

We get it, you feel that the government needs to be thrown off of so you can keep your money.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
Steve C wrote:
Here is a small portion of our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

We are way past the point to which our Gov't has become destructive, IMHO.


And your point is?

That part of the Declaration can be used to defend my side of the discussion as much as you feel it supports yours. I could argue that a "a long train of abuses and usurpations." have been purpetrated on those less fortunate.

We get it, you feel that the government needs to be thrown off of so you can keep your money.


Hope, wrong again, I think the Gov't needs to get back to what our founding fathers had designed it to be, Smaller less intrusive. WE ALL GAIN...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
Steve C wrote:
Here is a small portion of our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

We are way past the point to which our Gov't has become destructive, IMHO.


That part of the Declaration can be used to defend my side of the discussion as much as you feel it supports yours. I could argue that a "a long train of abuses and usurpations." have been purpetrated on those less fortunate.


Correct, our Gov't has gotten too big and the poor have been affected the most. In my lifetime, we've spent multiple of trillions of dollars on the poor. Are they better off? Do they mostly vote democrat?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Steve C wrote:
Is it fair to you that you pay so much in taxes? Maybe in your country it is, I don't know. I just doesn't sound fair to tax me more than someone else so that they can have more stuff. I work hard. What is fair?


In addition to 30% income tax, we also pay 25% VAT. The basics, that's to say.

I have no issue with paying my taxes that to you might find astronomically high, because I do understand the purpose. It is the society in general that benefits. There is variety of benefits, starting from free health care (a fee of $ 20 will cover any medical treatment, including such as brain/hearth surgery), all educations are free, eventual unemployment being covered, regulated working times of 40 hours/week (I work 32 hours), guaranteed paid 4 -5 weeks of vacations, 1 year paid of work for staying home with the newborn child (the parents can split it between themselves), children and home support, free preschools, homes/care for elders, all kinds of sporting and cultural engagements, covered in the case of being sick, social support for those who have fallen out of the mentioned safety nets (have not been employed long enough - 6 months min), and so on and so on. Of course, it also covers the retirement (there is a state guaranteed minimum retirement level of some $ 1000 per person in the case you have not worked/earned enough or even not at all).

But all you appear to be able to see is... someone else will benefit of your back. So, maybe so. And maybe you would too, if it happens to you to come in the situation.

On the end, it is about what kind of society the majority of people want to live in. Strangely enough, whenever I watch some informative reportage on the living in the USA, it strikes me how people got to work so hard and often more than one or two jobs, more than 5 days a week, not seeing their kids enough, being terrified of losing their jobs and the health insurance and their homes along it, and even the retirement funds, losing the savings meant for their children college. Far too much stress and anxiety.

As far as taxing more the rich people, and mentioning Jesus teachings in that regard, funny that Obama did so too:

"For me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that for unto whom much is given, much shall be required," Obama said, quoting the Gospel of Luke


The Gov't has the right to do it, if that is what the majority of people approve as right. So if the majority of people in the USA are happy with rich people not paying more taxes, and with the way how they got to work so hard just to manage the ends and keep paying for their incredibly expensive military that is there mostly to protect, increase and insure the richness of that rich fraction of the society (you could defend your country by a fraction of that, in the case of real need), then so you'll have it.


Last edited by Prema on Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: Nebraska, USA
Steve C wrote:
pubpokerplayer wrote:
Is it fair that someone has a mere 500k to live on whilst others are struggling to get by on 15k?

(Surely no one earns $15k and expected to live on it? Surely they have that income topped up by benefits?)


What does fairness have to do with how much someone makes? The person making $500k most have done something in his life (like go to school and work upwards from the bottom) than the person making $50k, right?


So... as you would have it, that $15k guy should pay say 20% of his income, leaving him $12,000 to live on (try it sometime!)

and the $1 million dollar guy who has hidden half of his income, as you don't blame him, pays his 20% on his post-hidden income of $500,000, leaving him to live on only $800,000 for that year.

Is that right, am I seeing it your way?

BTW, I wonder what percentage of those making a million, or even $500,000 a year, started from scratch and earned their way up to that level vs those who inherited the money to get started. I suspect it is a lot easier to get to that top level if you don't have to worry about where your meal or education (particularly upper education) money is going to come from.

Pub,

to answer your question, there are many who do earn $15k or in that "neighborhood". the current povertly leve in the USA for a family of 4 is considered to be $18k - $23k. In looking for that number, I came across this...

Quote:
Many American citizens might think that the government doesn't care about those who fall below or who are dangerously close to the poverty line, but in reality, government programs such as Social Security, food stamps and EITC actually reduce American poverty by around 10.9%. Therefore, the U.S. government is actually helping to reduce poverty levels in America. However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that the median income has been declining, especially when the American economy should be rising and bringing that median income level with it.


Quote:
As you can see, the U.S. population consists of a variety of different income classes, which is quite normal for any nation, but that doesn't change the fact that the American income median is at its lowest since 1996, and that there is something definitely wrong with that.

The middle-class incomes have stayed neutral or have been declining while the wealthier classes have been getting richer. In fact, in 1988, the average American taxpayer was earning around $33,400. In 2008, that average had fallen to $33,000. The richest 1% of Americans, on the other hand, saw their incomes rise about 33% in the same time period
.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
Steve C wrote:
pubpokerplayer wrote:
Is it fair that someone has a mere 500k to live on whilst others are struggling to get by on 15k?

(Surely no one earns $15k and expected to live on it? Surely they have that income topped up by benefits?)


What does fairness have to do with how much someone makes? The person making $500k most have done something in his life (like go to school and work upwards from the bottom) than the person making $50k, right?


So... as you would have it, that $15k guy should pay say 20% of his income, leaving him $12,000 to live on (try it sometime!)

and the $1 million dollar guy who has hidden half of his income, as you don't blame him, pays his 20% on his post-hidden income of $500,000, leaving him to live on only $800,000 for that year.

Is that right, am I seeing it your way?

BTW, I wonder what percentage of those making a million, or even $500,000 a year, started from scratch and earned their way up to that level vs those who inherited the money to get started. I suspect it is a lot easier to get to that top level if you don't have to worry about where your meal or education (particularly upper education) money is going to come from.

Pub,

to answer your question, there are many who do earn $15k or in that "neighborhood". the current povertly leve in the USA for a family of 4 is considered to be $18k - $23k. In looking for that number, I came across this...

Quote:
Many American citizens might think that the government doesn't care about those who fall below or who are dangerously close to the poverty line, but in reality, government programs such as Social Security, food stamps and EITC actually reduce American poverty by around 10.9%. Therefore, the U.S. government is actually helping to reduce poverty levels in America. However, that still doesn't excuse the fact that the median income has been declining, especially when the American economy should be rising and bringing that median income level with it.


Quote:
As you can see, the U.S. population consists of a variety of different income classes, which is quite normal for any nation, but that doesn't change the fact that the American income median is at its lowest since 1996, and that there is something definitely wrong with that.

The middle-class incomes have stayed neutral or have been declining while the wealthier classes have been getting richer. In fact, in 1988, the average American taxpayer was earning around $33,400. In 2008, that average had fallen to $33,000. The richest 1% of Americans, on the other hand, saw their incomes rise about 33% in the same time period
.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0912/which-income-class-are-you.aspx


Nope, the person making $15k will still, as today, pay no income taxes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Steve C wrote:
I can't find my previous post or maybe it got deleted or something.

Again, we're talking income tax. The top 1% wage earners pay roughly 38% of the taxes. The top 5% pay 54% and the top 10% pay 65% of the income taxes. I ask you all, is this fair?


You did not mention that the bottom 50% that are below median income level, and who earn 13 % of the income, pay only 3% of the taxes.

You might think that the bottom 50% should be paying 13% of the taxes, corresponding to their income share. And that top 1% who earn 19% of income should be paying 19% in taxes and not 38%. That would be the simple math of "equality" and "fairness" But that picture where 50% of earners contribute just 3% in taxes tells how bad the distribution of income in the USA is. It tells that half of the working population in the USA can't earn enough even for the taxman to come and collect from them more than those 3%. You yourself complained how devastating the taxation is on the folk there, yet they pay so little in taxes.

Increase the incomes to that bottom group so that they can afford to be taxed too. If you don't, then don't complain how the rich are contributing so much more then them in taxes. Then, yes, go and tax those who got far more beyond their needs.

In the mean time, you got to tax those who got incomes worth of taxing. The rich and wealthy, even after being taxed, keep staying rich and wealthy. If on the end, hypothetically speaking, it would turn out that only 10% of income takers stand for 99% of the taxes, it would not have to mean that the taxation system/distribution is so badly unfair. But it will depict the picture of the totally screwed up income distribution where 90% of people can't get decent incomes to be taxed. Not yet there, though, but it has been reported that the income inequality has been on the increase and has been more extreme than any time since the Great Depression.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:
I can't find my previous post or maybe it got deleted or something.

Again, we're talking income tax. The top 1% wage earners pay roughly 38% of the taxes. The top 5% pay 54% and the top 10% pay 65% of the income taxes. I ask you all, is this fair?


You did not mention that the bottom 50% that are below median income level, and who earn 13 % of the income, pay only 3% of the taxes.

You might think that the bottom 50% should be paying 13% of the taxes, corresponding to their income share. And that top 1% who earn 19% of income should be paying 19% in taxes and not 38%. That would be the simple math of "equality" and "fairness" But that picture where 50% of earners contribute just 3% in taxes tells how bad the distribution of income in the USA is. It tells that half of the working population in the USA can't earn enough even for the taxman to come and collect from them more than those 3%. You yourself complained how devastating the taxation is on the folk there, yet they pay so little in taxes.

Increase the incomes to that bottom group so that they can afford to be taxed too. If you don't, then don't complain how the rich are contributing so much more then them in taxes. Then, yes, go and tax those who got far more beyond their needs.

In the mean time, you got to tax those who got incomes worth of taxing. The rich and wealthy, even after being taxed, keep staying rich and wealthy. If on the end, hypothetically speaking, it would turn out that only 10% of income takers stand for 99% of the taxes, it would not have to mean that the taxation system/distribution is so badly unfair. But it will depict the picture of the totally screwed up income distribution where 90% of people can't get decent incomes to be taxed. Not yet there, though, but it has been reported that the income inequality has been on the increase and has been more extreme than any time since the Great Depression.


I always cringe when I read "fairness" and "equality". Who is to decide? You?

America is about opportunity for all (yes we've had some problems in the past and we've learned from our mistakes) but that doesn't mean the outcome is equal. You might have a great idea, the power to act on it and the ability to make it happen. I may have to work harder, which I did, to make it. We both should have the same opportunity for greatness. This is the difference between America and most other countries, IMHO. But, again, some decisions made in life will change or could change anyone's path. It's up to you to try.

You mention "distribution", I think many believe we should be redistributing wealth from one segment to another. Is that what you advocate?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5227
Steve C wrote:
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:
I can't find my previous post or maybe it got deleted or something.

Again, we're talking income tax. The top 1% wage earners pay roughly 38% of the taxes. The top 5% pay 54% and the top 10% pay 65% of the income taxes. I ask you all, is this fair?


You did not mention that the bottom 50% that are below median income level, and who earn 13 % of the income, pay only 3% of the taxes.

You might think that the bottom 50% should be paying 13% of the taxes, corresponding to their income share. And that top 1% who earn 19% of income should be paying 19% in taxes and not 38%. That would be the simple math of "equality" and "fairness" But that picture where 50% of earners contribute just 3% in taxes tells how bad the distribution of income in the USA is. It tells that half of the working population in the USA can't earn enough even for the taxman to come and collect from them more than those 3%. You yourself complained how devastating the taxation is on the folk there, yet they pay so little in taxes.

Increase the incomes to that bottom group so that they can afford to be taxed too. If you don't, then don't complain how the rich are contributing so much more then them in taxes. Then, yes, go and tax those who got far more beyond their needs.

In the mean time, you got to tax those who got incomes worth of taxing. The rich and wealthy, even after being taxed, keep staying rich and wealthy. If on the end, hypothetically speaking, it would turn out that only 10% of income takers stand for 99% of the taxes, it would not have to mean that the taxation system/distribution is so badly unfair. But it will depict the picture of the totally screwed up income distribution where 90% of people can't get decent incomes to be taxed. Not yet there, though, but it has been reported that the income inequality has been on the increase and has been more extreme than any time since the Great Depression.


I always cringe when I read "fairness" and "equality". Who is to decide? You?

America is about opportunity for all (yes we've had some problems in the past and we've learned from our mistakes) but that doesn't mean the outcome is equal. You might have a great idea, the power to act on it and the ability to make it happen. I may have to work harder, which I did, to make it. We both should have the same opportunity for greatness. This is the difference between America and most other countries, IMHO. But, again, some decisions made in life will change or could change anyone's path. It's up to you to try.

You mention "distribution", I think many believe we should be redistributing wealth from one segment to another. Is that what you advocate?

I just want to stop you there, because no matter what you think, equality and fairness is not what America is known for, no matter what the constitution says.

Don't kid yourself, the constitution was written in 1787 and the things that it stands were not followed then and not are not even followed today. I'm not saying it isn't an important and well written document, just that it has never been followed as it was written. "Some.problems over the years"? You've had some 'problems' for the past 225 years and they are still happening today!

I'm not saying that other countries haven't had or don't have problems, but you cant sot there and tell us that America is fair and equal today. You may well have worked hard for what you have and good for you if you have, but it doesn't work that way for everyone whether you kid yourself that it does or not.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
minchy wrote:
Steve C wrote:
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:
I can't find my previous post or maybe it got deleted or something.

Again, we're talking income tax. The top 1% wage earners pay roughly 38% of the taxes. The top 5% pay 54% and the top 10% pay 65% of the income taxes. I ask you all, is this fair?


You did not mention that the bottom 50% that are below median income level, and who earn 13 % of the income, pay only 3% of the taxes.

You might think that the bottom 50% should be paying 13% of the taxes, corresponding to their income share. And that top 1% who earn 19% of income should be paying 19% in taxes and not 38%. That would be the simple math of "equality" and "fairness" But that picture where 50% of earners contribute just 3% in taxes tells how bad the distribution of income in the USA is. It tells that half of the working population in the USA can't earn enough even for the taxman to come and collect from them more than those 3%. You yourself complained how devastating the taxation is on the folk there, yet they pay so little in taxes.

Increase the incomes to that bottom group so that they can afford to be taxed too. If you don't, then don't complain how the rich are contributing so much more then them in taxes. Then, yes, go and tax those who got far more beyond their needs.

In the mean time, you got to tax those who got incomes worth of taxing. The rich and wealthy, even after being taxed, keep staying rich and wealthy. If on the end, hypothetically speaking, it would turn out that only 10% of income takers stand for 99% of the taxes, it would not have to mean that the taxation system/distribution is so badly unfair. But it will depict the picture of the totally screwed up income distribution where 90% of people can't get decent incomes to be taxed. Not yet there, though, but it has been reported that the income inequality has been on the increase and has been more extreme than any time since the Great Depression.


I always cringe when I read "fairness" and "equality". Who is to decide? You?

America is about opportunity for all (yes we've had some problems in the past and we've learned from our mistakes) but that doesn't mean the outcome is equal. You might have a great idea, the power to act on it and the ability to make it happen. I may have to work harder, which I did, to make it. We both should have the same opportunity for greatness. This is the difference between America and most other countries, IMHO. But, again, some decisions made in life will change or could change anyone's path. It's up to you to try.

You mention "distribution", I think many believe we should be redistributing wealth from one segment to another. Is that what you advocate?

I just want to stop you there, because no matter what you think, equality and fairness is not what America is known for, no matter what the constitution says.

Don't kid yourself, the constitution was written in 1787 and the things that it stands were not followed then and not are not even followed today. I'm not saying it isn't an important and well written document, just that it has never been followed as it was written. "Some.problems over the years"? You've had some 'problems' for the past 225 years and they are still happening today!

I'm not saying that other countries haven't had or don't have problems, but you cant sot there and tell us that America is fair and equal today. You may well have worked hard for what you have and good for you if you have, but it doesn't work that way for everyone whether you kid yourself that it does or not.


I can tell you that the idea is there but what you and I think is equality might be different. As it stands, if I grow up in one part of town and you in another we should have the same opportunities, right? But, as I've stated before, the decisions I make and the ones you make can and will make a difference. I can do nothing about what upbringing you have other than to tell you that the decisions made by you could affect your life.

America does stand for freedom and we do stand for opportunity. Our founding fathers did have it right and it will be hard to maintain, as they said.

There is no reason why we can't follow our constitution, it was written for us. We have certain rights that out founders say are unalienable, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It says nothing about equality of outcome.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
I don't expect most to understand or know the Declaration of Independence or our US Constitution, hell I don't know a lot (but I am learning more and more) but we do need to understand it's principles and rights.

For instance. We all know about freedom of speech or right to bear arms bit did you know we don't have a protected right to vote? This one always sparks debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: Nebraska, USA
It shouldn't surprise anybody. How long did it take for women to get to vote? How long for people of color? One could use those as examples as to the failings in a document written over 200 years ago. Times change... and what was "right" then may not be relevant today.

Is it reasonable to expect a document from the 1700s to be totally relevant today? A document that talked of inalienable rights, yet failed to guarantee a large segment of the people the right to vote. A document signed by slave-owners that did nothing for a slave's pursuit of happiness.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Declaration is remarkable, but I accept that in some ways it is very flawed for today's world.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Last edited by Blake on Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5227
That all men are created equal.

That's something it says about equality, so why did slavery exist in everyday.life in America for so long? Why are there still, over 200 years later, some parts of or some citizens of America who still have issue with skin colour? Why did it take until the 26th (or maybe 24th, I can't remember) amendment along with supreme court rulings to allow all people regardless of skin colour or sex to be able to vote? Why is it that in some parts of America it is acceptable to use violence against homosexuals of those of different skin colour or religion?

If you don't believe these things are happening or have happened then you're kidding yourself.

It's easy to.say you believe in the constitution if you well of either by hard work or lucky birth. But there are a lot of people who really can't get there.

As I said before, I'm not saying that the American constitution is a bad document, but more like a utopian statement which hasn't been realised yet no matter how good anyone's intentions have been to date. And with you're political parties being almost at war with each other then you can't progress to reach that level. Nce again, I'm not saying that any other country has reached that utopian level yet either, but there are a lot of places that are nearer and the Scandinavian ones among the countries getting closer.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
It shouldn't surprise anybody. How long did it take for women to get to vote? How long for people of color? One could use those as examples as to the failings in a document written over 200 years ago. Times change... and what was "right" then may not be relevant today.

Is it reasonable to expect a document from the 1700s to be totally relevant today? A document that talked of inalienable rights, yet failed to guarantee a large segment of the people the right to vote. A document signed by slave-owners that did nothing for a slave's pursuit of happiness.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Declaration is remarkable, but I accept that in some ways it is very flawed for today's world.


Nothing is perfect from the start and we've made bad decisions and correct those.

We still don't have a right to vote...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
minchy wrote:
That all men are created equal.

That's something it says about equality, so why did slavery exist in everyday.life in America for so long? Why are there still, over 200 years later, some parts of or some citizens of America who still have issue with skin colour? Why did it take until the 26th (or maybe 24th, I can't remember) amendment along with supreme court rulings to allow all people regardless of skin colour or sex to be able to vote? Why is it that in some parts of America it is acceptable to use violence against homosexuals of those of different skin colour or religion?

If you don't believe these things are happening or have happened then you're kidding yourself.

It's easy to.say you believe in the constitution if you well of either by hard work or lucky birth. But there are a lot of people who really can't get there.

As I said before, I'm not saying that the American constitution is a bad document, but more like a utopian statement which hasn't been realised yet no matter how good anyone's intentions have been to date. And with you're political parties being almost at war with each other then you can't progress to reach that level. Nce again, I'm not saying that any other country has reached that utopian level yet either, but there are a lot of places that are nearer and the Scandinavian ones among the countries getting closer.


Again, I've never said what we did in the past was correct. Look at what our Gov't did to the Indians alone. Slavery was nothing compared to what we did to the Indians.

Who says we need to reach utopia? The only time I ever hear of utopia is when a socialist is talking. About peace and love and harmony. We will never achieve a utopian society nor should we try. We can only make sure all have the same opportunity of success.

We've come along way in our short history and I'm not going tout American success here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Look, when I say we need to get back to what the founders wanted, I'm not talking about denying anyone a vote or bringing back slavery. I'm talking about small limited Gov't with the people having more power and the States having more power. I want to repeal the 17th amendment and give the States their power back.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: Nebraska, USA
So you have an issue with a senator being elected by a vote of the citizens of the state? You would rather have then senators chosen by the state legislature?

So the people see l sellected to the state legislature gather and choose that state's Senator. It is as though they cannot trust citizens of the state to vote for the "right" person, instead the small band of politicians can make that choice for the silly citizens... how convenient. And who is behind the push to repeal the 17th amendment??? Of course it is the tool of the extremist far right... the Tea Party.

You have been arguing almost straight tea party mantra in this entire discussion, Steve. Repealing the 17th is but another point on their list. However even they have not advocated denying the vote to those getting government help...or have they???

Sorry, but I rather prefer to be able to vote for senators myself, thank you.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
So you have an issue with a senator being elected by a vote of the citizens of the state? You would rather have then senators chosen by the state legislature?

So the people see l sellected to the state legislature gather and choose that state's Senator. It is as though they cannot trust citizens of the state to vote for the "right" person, instead the small band of politicians can make that choice for the silly citizens... how convenient. And who is behind the push to repeal the 17th amendment??? Of course it is the tool of the extremist far right... the Tea Party.

You have been arguing almost straight tea party mantra in this entire discussion, Steve. Repealing the 17th is but another point on their list. However even they have not advocated denying the vote to those getting government help...or have they???

Sorry, but I rather prefer to be able to vote for senators myself, thank you.


Yes, because the original intent was we, the citizens, had our representatives in the house and the States had their representatives in the senate. Don't worry, you're not the only one who didn't/doesn't understand that. You are part of the ignorant... And it shows...

The citizens of the State vote and the State then selects who represents them. If you State is republican then your senators are (most likely) will be too. This is the original intent.

You didn't budge on the right to vote so I guess you understand that you don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
So you have an issue with a senator being elected by a vote of the citizens of the state? You would rather have then senators chosen by the state legislature?

So the people see l sellected to the state legislature gather and choose that state's Senator. It is as though they cannot trust citizens of the state to vote for the "right" person, instead the small band of politicians can make that choice for the silly citizens... how convenient. And who is behind the push to repeal the 17th amendment??? Of course it is the tool of the extremist far right... the Tea Party.

You have been arguing almost straight tea party mantra in this entire discussion, Steve. Repealing the 17th is but another point on their list. However even they have not advocated denying the vote to those getting government help...or have they???

Sorry, but I rather prefer to be able to vote for senators myself, thank you.


BTW, you have zero clue who and what the TEA party is.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Steve C wrote:

I always cringe when I read "fairness" and "equality". Who is to decide? You?


Of course it is not me to decide about it, neither I pretend so. But you put forward the question " I ask you all, is this fair?". So I thought you were inviting to discussing. So why go cringing now?


Quote:
America is about opportunity for all (yes we've had some problems in the past and we've learned from our mistakes) but that doesn't mean the outcome is equal. You might have a great idea, the power to act on it and the ability to make it happen. I may have to work harder, which I did, to make it. We both should have the same opportunity for greatness. This is the difference between America and most other countries, IMHO. But, again, some decisions made in life will change or could change anyone's path. It's up to you to try.



Well, America is not really about the opportunity to all, not more than in many other countries. I know that to be a popular slogan there, but it is not that much of reality. For example, the most important step stone for providing same opportunity to all citizens would be the schooling system. In America, you are born in a poor or even not so wealthy family, you are quite out of that opportunity. You need money to go get your kids into private schools that are better than the public free schools, and not to speak of college. You got one of the highest tuition fees for colleges in the wold (so compare that to tuition free colleges here in Scandinavia). So that is not exactly "same opportunity for greatness". You are the one talking about the difference between America and most other countries, so there you go. Unless with "most other countries" you do not consider undeveloped countries, you are much behind actually.

Quote:
You mention "distribution", I think many believe we should be redistributing wealth from one segment to another. Is that what you advocate?


In a way, yes, the progressive taxes are meant to bring some little bit of redistribution of the wealth across different segments. Yes, that is what is being advocated, among other. In a way you seemed to be understanding little bit of that too, when we were discussing the flat tax rate for all segments of incomes. You do understand why those people who don't earn more than 15 k do not pay taxes, don't you?
I am not advocating any communistic idea here, if that's what you might be fearing of. However, the society where the greed for wealth and the accumulation of it in a tiny small segment of society is a bad news, in my opinion. And along the concentration of money, the power of ruling the society comes too.

Your concept of equal opportunity and no redistribution of wealth appears to be that of what you got in the forest: all the animals in forest have gotten same and equal opportunity that the forest is offering, and what they managed to get their teeth at is theirs and nobody else's... and that is the Constitution.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6405
Location: Nebraska, USA
Steve C wrote:
Blake wrote:
So you have an issue with a senator being elected by a vote of the citizens of the state? You would rather have then senators chosen by the state legislature?

So the people see l sellected to the state legislature gather and choose that state's Senator. It is as though they cannot trust citizens of the state to vote for the "right" person, instead the small band of politicians can make that choice for the silly citizens... how convenient. And who is behind the push to repeal the 17th amendment??? Of course it is the tool of the extremist far right... the Tea Party.

You have been arguing almost straight tea party mantra in this entire discussion, Steve. Repealing the 17th is but another point on their list. However even they have not advocated denying the vote to those getting government help...or have they???

Sorry, but I rather prefer to be able to vote for senators myself, thank you.


Yes, because the original intent was we, the citizens, had our representatives in the house and the States had their representatives in the senate. Don't worry, you're not the only one who didn't/doesn't understand that. You are part of the ignorant... And it shows...

The citizens of the State vote and the State then selects who represents them. If you State is republican then your senators are (most likely) will be too. This is the original intent.

You didn't budge on the right to vote so I guess you understand that you don't.


You have called me ignorant once too often.

I don't give a damn what you think was the "original intent"... amendments are done because it was felt that it needed to be improved. Things have changed over the last 238 years. Those who wrote the Constitution understood that would happen, and I would hope that you do to.

You have arrogantly acted as though you are the only one who understands the Constitution, the only one who understands economics, the only one who really cares about the poor, and the only one who understands the Tea party. You have constantly put down our President, liberals, the poor, and those who may have voted for anything other than what you believe.

You have said that YOU could solve the welfare issues quickly. Of course you have also that you feel that they should not be able to vote... as though they are criminals of some sort.

No, Steve... it is you who does not understand. You seem to feel that all but a select few (for whom you speak as though you are spokesperson for the "we") are incapable of having intelligent thought, are out to get Steve's money, and are uneducated fools.

You have gone too far, Steve. This unintelligent, incapable, uneducated, citizen needs a common ground to have a conversation or debate and it appears we do not have one. About that beer, I think I will pass on that. As I said you have gone too far, and called me (and most of this nation) or implied ignorance and inability to understand too often. You and I have nothing further to discuss.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Anyway, Steve, there is a zero chance that Obama's proposal of increasing the taxes for the very rich section of people would ever pass the Congress. Besides that Congress happens to be Republican, they all are quite wealthy people themselves and they are to protect the interests of rich section of people.

Another thing, Obama spoke about closing Guantanamo, again. I did not know that he already did issue the executive order to close it down, 6 years ago. But it was pushed back by the Congress. So it is up to the Republicans. Will they do it? I greatly doubt so. But keep blaming Obama for not doing it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Steve C wrote:
[I can tell you that the idea is there but what you and I think is equality might be different. As it stands, if I grow up in one part of town and you in another we should have the same opportunities, right?


It shows how that concept of the same opportunities in America is still so much un developed.

As it stands, if you grow up in a family with low income then you do not have the same opportunity to education as those kids growing up in financially better circumstances. I already mentioned that in some other countries, like in Scandinavia for example, the education on all levels is tuition free. Poor or rich, it makes no difference, the same opportunity is there. Furthermore, everybody with a permanent residence is entitled to the economical support in the case of going to a college (even some lover levels of education), which is presently up to some USD 1,300 per month and it consists of one part non-returnable and one part affordable student loan. And it is not age limited from down, and it is limited up to the age of 56 years for a non-returnable part and 47 years age some limits for the loan part.

In other words, you may be an orphan with nobody in this world to support you, you may have a zero in incomes, no job whatsoever, and you still got the same opportunity for the education all the way up, in any professional direction, just like anybody else.

How's about that in America?

Quote:
America does stand for freedom and we do stand for opportunity.


A way to go...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:

I always cringe when I read "fairness" and "equality". Who is to decide? You?


Of course it is not me to decide about it, neither I pretend so. But you put forward the question " I ask you all, is this fair?". So I thought you were inviting to discussing. So why go cringing now?


Quote:
America is about opportunity for all (yes we've had some problems in the past and we've learned from our mistakes) but that doesn't mean the outcome is equal. You might have a great idea, the power to act on it and the ability to make it happen. I may have to work harder, which I did, to make it. We both should have the same opportunity for greatness. This is the difference between America and most other countries, IMHO. But, again, some decisions made in life will change or could change anyone's path. It's up to you to try.



Well, America is not really about the opportunity to all, not more than in many other countries. I know that to be a popular slogan there, but it is not that much of reality. For example, the most important step stone for providing same opportunity to all citizens would be the schooling system. In America, you are born in a poor or even not so wealthy family, you are quite out of that opportunity. You need money to go get your kids into private schools that are better than the public free schools, and not to speak of college. You got one of the highest tuition fees for colleges in the wold (so compare that to tuition free colleges here in Scandinavia). So that is not exactly "same opportunity for greatness". You are the one talking about the difference between America and most other countries, so there you go. Unless with "most other countries" you do not consider undeveloped countries, you are much behind actually.

Quote:
You mention "distribution", I think many believe we should be redistributing wealth from one segment to another. Is that what you advocate?


In a way, yes, the progressive taxes are meant to bring some little bit of redistribution of the wealth across different segments. Yes, that is what is being advocated, among other. In a way you seemed to be understanding little bit of that too, when we were discussing the flat tax rate for all segments of incomes. You do understand why those people who don't earn more than 15 k do not pay taxes, don't you?
I am not advocating any communistic idea here, if that's what you might be fearing of. However, the society where the greed for wealth and the accumulation of it in a tiny small segment of society is a bad news, in my opinion. And along the concentration of money, the power of ruling the society comes too.

Your concept of equal opportunity and no redistribution of wealth appears to be that of what you got in the forest: all the animals in forest have gotten same and equal opportunity that the forest is offering, and what they managed to get their teeth at is theirs and nobody else's... and that is the Constitution.


So I continue to read your tripe and see why America is great and we conservatives need to do everything in our power to stop socialism/liberalism. I never back down from a question and with asking mine I see that you are the problem here in America and you don't even know it. Fairness, I showed you tax rates and I still hear from you and others like you that we need to tax the rich more because it isn't fair that they have more. This saddens me to no end. Human nature is to make yourself better but along comes a Gov't full of socialists with their notions that life should be fair for all. With attitudes like that it's no wonder America is going down the tubes.

No thank you...

America IS the land of opportunity. Why do so many people want to come here? Why are people fleeing to get here? It's because we offer them freedom. I look around and see people from all over Asia come here and excel in school and make businesses for themselves and go the college. They didn't have much when they came here but they do work hard. This is America. Hard work, freedom and opportunity.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Blake wrote:
Steve C wrote:
Blake wrote:
So you have an issue with a senator being elected by a vote of the citizens of the state? You would rather have then senators chosen by the state legislature?

So the people see l sellected to the state legislature gather and choose that state's Senator. It is as though they cannot trust citizens of the state to vote for the "right" person, instead the small band of politicians can make that choice for the silly citizens... how convenient. And who is behind the push to repeal the 17th amendment??? Of course it is the tool of the extremist far right... the Tea Party.

You have been arguing almost straight tea party mantra in this entire discussion, Steve. Repealing the 17th is but another point on their list. However even they have not advocated denying the vote to those getting government help...or have they???

Sorry, but I rather prefer to be able to vote for senators myself, thank you.


Yes, because the original intent was we, the citizens, had our representatives in the house and the States had their representatives in the senate. Don't worry, you're not the only one who didn't/doesn't understand that. You are part of the ignorant... And it shows...

The citizens of the State vote and the State then selects who represents them. If you State is republican then your senators are (most likely) will be too. This is the original intent.

You didn't budge on the right to vote so I guess you understand that you don't.


You have called me ignorant once too often.

I don't give a damn what you think was the "original intent"... amendments are done because it was felt that it needed to be improved. Things have changed over the last 238 years. Those who wrote the Constitution understood that would happen, and I would hope that you do to.

You have arrogantly acted as though you are the only one who understands the Constitution, the only one who understands economics, the only one who really cares about the poor, and the only one who understands the Tea party. You have constantly put down our President, liberals, the poor, and those who may have voted for anything other than what you believe.

You have said that YOU could solve the welfare issues quickly. Of course you have also that you feel that they should not be able to vote... as though they are criminals of some sort.

No, Steve... it is you who does not understand. You seem to feel that all but a select few (for whom you speak as though you are spokesperson for the "we") are incapable of having intelligent thought, are out to get Steve's money, and are uneducated fools.

You have gone too far, Steve. This unintelligent, incapable, uneducated, citizen needs a common ground to have a conversation or debate and it appears we do not have one. About that beer, I think I will pass on that. As I said you have gone too far, and called me (and most of this nation) or implied ignorance and inability to understand too often. You and I have nothing further to discuss.


Blake, being ignorant means you just need to learn (if you want to).

Adding those amendments like not being denied a vote based on color, sex, age, servitude took too long and shouldn't be changed. Changing the original intent shouldn't have happened but that's what makes the document so great, it can change (and change back - look at prohibition)

I never said I could solve the welfare issues QUICKLY. But, you can put the working poor to work building roads and bridges. WE can change the mindset that "you can't make it".

You were a teacher and for that I say thanks (a real big thanks).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Prema wrote:
Anyway, Steve, there is a zero chance that Obama's proposal of increasing the taxes for the very rich section of people would ever pass the Congress. Besides that Congress happens to be Republican, they all are quite wealthy people themselves and they are to protect the interests of rich section of people.

Another thing, Obama spoke about closing Guantanamo, again. I did not know that he already did issue the executive order to close it down, 6 years ago. But it was pushed back by the Congress. So it is up to the Republicans. Will they do it? I greatly doubt so. But keep blaming Obama for not doing it.


He shouldn't close Gitmo, it's a prison. A place to hold bad guys, real bad guys.

Just proposing raising taxes is wrong. He (the Gov't) just needs to get out of our way and let us (the people) solve this. Again, what does the Gov't suppose to do (rhetorical question)?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Steve C wrote:
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:

I always cringe when I read "fairness" and "equality". Who is to decide? You?


Of course it is not me to decide about it, neither I pretend so. But you put forward the question " I ask you all, is this fair?". So I thought you were inviting to discussing. So why go cringing now?


Quote:
America is about opportunity for all (yes we've had some problems in the past and we've learned from our mistakes) but that doesn't mean the outcome is equal. You might have a great idea, the power to act on it and the ability to make it happen. I may have to work harder, which I did, to make it. We both should have the same opportunity for greatness. This is the difference between America and most other countries, IMHO. But, again, some decisions made in life will change or could change anyone's path. It's up to you to try.



Well, America is not really about the opportunity to all, not more than in many other countries. I know that to be a popular slogan there, but it is not that much of reality. For example, the most important step stone for providing same opportunity to all citizens would be the schooling system. In America, you are born in a poor or even not so wealthy family, you are quite out of that opportunity. You need money to go get your kids into private schools that are better than the public free schools, and not to speak of college. You got one of the highest tuition fees for colleges in the wold (so compare that to tuition free colleges here in Scandinavia). So that is not exactly "same opportunity for greatness". You are the one talking about the difference between America and most other countries, so there you go. Unless with "most other countries" you do not consider undeveloped countries, you are much behind actually.

Quote:
You mention "distribution", I think many believe we should be redistributing wealth from one segment to another. Is that what you advocate?


In a way, yes, the progressive taxes are meant to bring some little bit of redistribution of the wealth across different segments. Yes, that is what is being advocated, among other. In a way you seemed to be understanding little bit of that too, when we were discussing the flat tax rate for all segments of incomes. You do understand why those people who don't earn more than 15 k do not pay taxes, don't you?
I am not advocating any communistic idea here, if that's what you might be fearing of. However, the society where the greed for wealth and the accumulation of it in a tiny small segment of society is a bad news, in my opinion. And along the concentration of money, the power of ruling the society comes too.

Your concept of equal opportunity and no redistribution of wealth appears to be that of what you got in the forest: all the animals in forest have gotten same and equal opportunity that the forest is offering, and what they managed to get their teeth at is theirs and nobody else's... and that is the Constitution.


So I continue to read your tripe and see why America is great and we conservatives need to do everything in our power to stop socialism/liberalism. I never back down from a question and with asking mine I see that you are the problem here in America and you don't even know it. Fairness, I showed you tax rates and I still hear from you and others like you that we need to tax the rich more because it isn't fair that they have more. This saddens me to no end. Human nature is to make yourself better but along comes a Gov't full of socialists with their notions that life should be fair for all. With attitudes like that it's no wonder America is going down the tubes.

No thank you...

America IS the land of opportunity. Why do so many people want to come here? Why are people fleeing to get here? It's because we offer them freedom. I look around and see people from all over Asia come here and excel in school and make businesses for themselves and go the college. They didn't have much when they came here but they do work hard. This is America. Hard work, freedom and opportunity.


Yes, America is the land of opportunity. Compared to Mexico, particularly. And some Asian countries, still, granted, perhaps... Not to mention some African countries... But, look, people are fleeing to get to other West countries too. So what's the point?

But don't get all self-satisfied about the greatness of it, try to look if there is anything to improve. The slogans from 50 and 60 years ago are getting old by now, and the ideas of couple of hundreds of years ago might need some dusting off. Don't get stuck in time.

Never mind, have a good time in getting rid of all the "socialists" in your country and Gov't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Steve C wrote:
Prema wrote:
Anyway, Steve, there is a zero chance that Obama's proposal of increasing the taxes for the very rich section of people would ever pass the Congress. Besides that Congress happens to be Republican, they all are quite wealthy people themselves and they are to protect the interests of rich section of people.

Another thing, Obama spoke about closing Guantanamo, again. I did not know that he already did issue the executive order to close it down, 6 years ago. But it was pushed back by the Congress. So it is up to the Republicans. Will they do it? I greatly doubt so. But keep blaming Obama for not doing it.


He shouldn't close Gitmo, it's a prison. A place to hold bad guys, real bad guys.


Yes, some of them may even be that.

So you will keep them all indefinitely, till they all die, without a legal process and/or trial, on Cuba. That would also tell something what America stands for, wouldn't it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:
Prema wrote:
Anyway, Steve, there is a zero chance that Obama's proposal of increasing the taxes for the very rich section of people would ever pass the Congress. Besides that Congress happens to be Republican, they all are quite wealthy people themselves and they are to protect the interests of rich section of people.

Another thing, Obama spoke about closing Guantanamo, again. I did not know that he already did issue the executive order to close it down, 6 years ago. But it was pushed back by the Congress. So it is up to the Republicans. Will they do it? I greatly doubt so. But keep blaming Obama for not doing it.


He shouldn't close Gitmo, it's a prison. A place to hold bad guys, real bad guys.


Yes, some of them may even be that.

So you will keep them all indefinitely, till they all die, without a legal process and/or trial, on Cuba. That would also tell something what America stands for, wouldn't it?


They have no rights but you can put them on trial for war crimes and then keep them there forever as far as I'm concerned. I will say, for those who are there that have gained US citizenship, they have rights and should be treated as Americans. That also means that we don't go hunt down and kill American citizens even if they are terrorist. Once you've become American, you're different and even though they might have become terrorist - they still deserve the same treatment as I do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
I ant to go back to Blake's dealing with our 17th amendment. Yes, I agree 100% that we should get rid of it. Our Constitution was written so that the people had the power and the States had the power when certain things weren't spelled out in the Constitution. This was called the 10th amendment. I don't think we should have taken away States rights.

Again, Blake, not everyone knows and understands this. I didn't a while back but have made myself learn it (should have learned more about this way back in high school, it's kind of fun).

Since the 17th amendment came along our Gov't has gotten bigger and more intrusive. That's the basis of my argument.

On a side note and completely off topic :-P I saw a rendering of what we might see from McLaren/Honda, it looked sweet...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:59 am
Posts: 790
Steve C wrote:
They have no rights but you can put them on trial for war crimes and then keep them there forever as far as I'm concerned. I will say, for those who are there that have gained US citizenship, they have rights and should be treated as Americans.

That also means that we don't go hunt down and kill American citizens even if they are terrorist.

Once you've become American, you're different and even though they might have become terrorist - they still deserve the same treatment as I do.

8O 8O 8O 8O :lol:
Sorry, don't mean to cause offence, but really!!!!????


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Steve C wrote:
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:
He shouldn't close Gitmo, it's a prison. A place to hold bad guys, real bad guys.


Yes, some of them may even be that.

So you will keep them all indefinitely, till they all die, without a legal process and/or trial, on Cuba. That would also tell something what America stands for, wouldn't it?


They have no rights but you can put them on trial for war crimes and then keep them there forever as far as I'm concerned. I will say, for those who are there that have gained US citizenship, they have rights and should be treated as Americans.


Never mind, by such kind of mentality and the rational you play straight into hands of terrorism. They should thank you for keeping Gitmo up in that way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Jimbox01 wrote:
Steve C wrote:
They have no rights but you can put them on trial for war crimes and then keep them there forever as far as I'm concerned. I will say, for those who are there that have gained US citizenship, they have rights and should be treated as Americans.

That also means that we don't go hunt down and kill American citizens even if they are terrorist.

Once you've become American, you're different and even though they might have become terrorist - they still deserve the same treatment as I do.

8O 8O 8O 8O :lol:
Sorry, don't mean to cause offence, but really!!!!????


What isn't true?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:
Prema wrote:
Steve C wrote:
He shouldn't close Gitmo, it's a prison. A place to hold bad guys, real bad guys.


Yes, some of them may even be that.

So you will keep them all indefinitely, till they all die, without a legal process and/or trial, on Cuba. That would also tell something what America stands for, wouldn't it?


They have no rights but you can put them on trial for war crimes and then keep them there forever as far as I'm concerned. I will say, for those who are there that have gained US citizenship, they have rights and should be treated as Americans.


Never mind, by such kind of mentality and the rational you play straight into hands of terrorism. They should thank you for keeping Gitmo up in that way.


Look, if we or any of our allies come across terrorist in the field of battle, what should they do? I think most would say kill them but don't we need to find a few things out about them first. I'm no military man but in battle with someone, I'd shoot first.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:59 am
Posts: 790
Steve C wrote:
Jimbox01 wrote:
Steve C wrote:
They have no rights but you can put them on trial for war crimes and then keep them there forever as far as I'm concerned. I will say, for those who are there that have gained US citizenship, they have rights and should be treated as Americans.

That also means that we don't go hunt down and kill American citizens even if they are terrorist.

Once you've become American, you're different and even though they might have become terrorist - they still deserve the same treatment as I do.

8O 8O 8O 8O :lol:
Sorry, don't mean to cause offence, but really!!!!????


What isn't true?

Apart from being factually incorrect** it's the sentiment behind the statements that is of concern, not the truth or otherwise.


**
1. The US does hunt down and kill US citizens suspected of / proven to be involved in terrorist activities - unless of course you think drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan don't count.
2. According to the National Defence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012, US citizens can be detained and treated in the same way as non-American terror suspects.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:40 pm
Posts: 6629
Steve C wrote:

Look, if we or any of our allies come across terrorist in the field of battle, what should they do? I think most would say kill them but don't we need to find a few things out about them first. I'm no military man but in battle with someone, I'd shoot first.


Look, this is about rounding hundreds of people and imprisoning them without being given a fair trial. Why is it so difficult to understand and accept otherwise such a simple concept of trying people in legal courts for whatever already alleged crimes? Why go running away from it? What is to be gain by that? Setting the best example to be followed by others?


779 prisoners have been brought to Gitmo in the aftermath of the 9-11 and the USA's invasion of Afghanistan. Assuming such a blank position that all of them were bad terrorists just because they were brought to Gitmo, and declaring them all of having no rights, is the sign of deep ignorance. Some of them might happen to bad guys terrorists, who knows. But some might simply be the people who happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time, and just imagine that some of them might be under the impression that their country had been under the foreign invasion (again) and they did that what you would probably do too in the circumstances: pick up your guns and go fight for your country against the invaders. And not many of them have actually even been captured by the US forces, but handed over by the local war lords who might have taken the chance to get rid of some of their rivals.

From those 779 prisoners, in these 13 years of the existence of Gitmo, 642 prisoners have been released. This very fact shows how ignorant you are about those prisoners there that you proclaimed all real bad guys just because they have been rounded there in, and that to be kept imprisoned for ever. Another 59 prisoners have been cleared for release long ago, but have been kept still imprisoned. This is the comment on that:

It is unacceptable that the U.S. government continues to hold men that its own national security experts have recommended for release or transfer, and that Congress has intervened to maintain this deplorable state of affairs.
http://www.closeguantanamo.org/Our-Miss ... qG2Jd.dpuf

and:

Guantánamo harms our nation every day it stays open, and it continues to serve as a potent symbol for terrorist recruitment. As President Obama explained in a speech in early 2009, "instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantánamo became a symbol that helped al-Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantánamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained." That remains true today.

----------------

So yes, indeed, presume guilty. And no fair trials, by any mean. No rights to non-Americans. That is the image of America that you are unfortunately representing here, and that helps create enemies of America, supplying them with only more the reasons and moral strength to keep what they are already up to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Ok, Jimbox01 and Prema, I am not aware of US or it's allies hunting down U citizens in the battlefield. I'll stand by my comment and say that the US cannot/should not retain without due process any American suspected in terrorism. The fact that it happens doesn't change my view. Once you've become a US citizen you still are guaranteed certain rights. So are you saying Jim that we've hunted down and killed American citizens in Yemen and Pakistan or just hunted down and retained? I stand for the constitution even if it means protecting someone that wants to kill me.

It's funny how the main stream media is in America when it comes to reporting the news about the war and such. For instance, during the Bush years, reporting was on a daily basis about how many soldiers had been killed but when Obama took over those figures somehow vanished or weren't spoken of very much at all. So, I might be a little ignorant on who's been caught. I will strive to find out more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
For those who care...

Liberals judge how well they're doing by how many people the Gov't is helping...
Conservatives judge how well they're doing by how many people don't need the Gov'ts help anymore...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7522
Steve C wrote:
Ok, Jimbox01 and Prema, I am not aware of US or it's allies hunting down U citizens in the battlefield. I'll stand by my comment and say that the US cannot/should not retain without due process any American suspected in terrorism. The fact that it happens doesn't change my view. Once you've become a US citizen you still are guaranteed certain rights. So are you saying Jim that we've hunted down and killed American citizens in Yemen and Pakistan or just hunted down and retained? I stand for the constitution even if it means protecting someone that wants to kill me.

I really don't understand your logic Steve, it seems you decide what punishment someone should receive, not based on their actions I.e an act of terrorism, but on their nationality.

Say two men are detained for plotting an attack, let's say on a hospital just for shock factor, one American born and raised and one an Afgan national.

You would propose that the Afgan be sent to Guantanamo, whilst the American was protected?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 21, 2015 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 1:23 am
Posts: 290
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Steve C wrote:
Ok, Jimbox01 and Prema, I am not aware of US or it's allies hunting down U citizens in the battlefield. I'll stand by my comment and say that the US cannot/should not retain without due process any American suspected in terrorism. The fact that it happens doesn't change my view. Once you've become a US citizen you still are guaranteed certain rights. So are you saying Jim that we've hunted down and killed American citizens in Yemen and Pakistan or just hunted down and retained? I stand for the constitution even if it means protecting someone that wants to kill me.

I really don't understand your logic Steve, it seems you decide what punishment someone should receive, not based on their actions I.e an act of terrorism, but on their nationality.

Say two men are detained for plotting an attack, let's say on a hospital just for shock factor, one American born and raised and one an Afgan national.

You would propose that the Afgan be sent to Guantanamo, whilst the American was protected?


Well, where they're sent to isn't the problem in my opinion. Gitmo is just a location. The American isn't going to be protected just he has certain rights under our laws. If they both killed others who are fighting against terrorism, then they both will get tried. I'm not sure why it's hard to grasp and perhaps I'm explaining it wrong. If you're guilty then you're guilty. What I'm trying to say is that Obama, or Bush for that matter, can't just go out and kill Americans because he suspects them of terror. So, protection is used wrong here by me and what I mean to say is that the American in your scenario will be tried but he's now going to be any more protected from justice until he goes to trial. Now, having said all this, I'm not a military man and I know we have a different justice system for a soldier so what I've said here might be different for a soldier.

Clear as mud?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group