Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What would you change about the U.S. government?

Page 5 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Jun 2010, 8:13 pm

ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:

He's speaking metaphorically to how the Supreme Court ruled recently that campaign contributions on the part of private corporations counts as protected speech under the first amendment and so they shouldn't be subject to harsh restrictions regarding how much money they are able to contribute or how they encourage their workers to contribute or independent ads that they may manufacture in regards to political matters (like the recent mailing that someone here got about their credit union being mad about something going on about banking reform measures).

.


I am an Aspie.. I don't do metaphors. I am literal minded and damned proud that I am.

And that is not what he said. He said plainly that the Court has held bribery as a form of protected (or free) speech. I want to know what case where that was hold by the majority of the court.

ruveyn


To look to the current Supreme Court to justify anything against corporate chicanery is to exhibit a particularly high order of frustrated expectation.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

12 Jun 2010, 9:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:
I am an Aspie.. I don't do metaphors. I am literal minded and damned proud that I am.

Unfortunately, rigid literal thinking is quite often insufficient for functioning properly in a complex world.

Quote:
And that is not what he said. He said plainly that the Court has held bribery as a form of protected (or free) speech. I want to know what case where that was hold by the majority of the court.

ruveyn

If I read correctly, he was basically equating campaign contributions with bribery. While campaign contributions are not bribes in the strictest sense of the word, politicians depend on those contributions to keep their jobs (money more than anything else decides who will win an election) and the politicians who accept campaign contributions from corporations know that once they are in office they are expected to represent the interests of the people who sent them—which is not the people who voted for them, but rather the people who financed their campaign.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 7:12 am

John_Browning wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I would interpret the 2nd amendment in the modern day to allow for citizens to own and operate military hardware, such as combat helicopters and tanks. However, special licensing and thorough background checks would be required.


Unfortunately this phenomenon exists. Blackwater, for example.

I think iamnotaparakeet means being able to get them without a class III dealer's license and a special occupational taxpayer's license or making those licenses available to private owners.


Something like that. As it is, the taxpayer financed military has quite a bit more hardware than the citizenry is allowed to have. Kind of a one-sided set up. The government already sees the populace as a group of people to leech off of, due to the virtual inability of its citizenry to do anything but complain I think. The right to bear arms is constantly being under attempt to be ignored or reinterpreted as it is. If all the lawful populace were actually disarmed, what then? It should be easier to own tanks.

Image



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

14 Jun 2010, 8:23 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I would interpret the 2nd amendment in the modern day to allow for citizens to own and operate military hardware, such as combat helicopters and tanks. However, special licensing and thorough background checks would be required.


Unfortunately this phenomenon exists. Blackwater, for example.

I think iamnotaparakeet means being able to get them without a class III dealer's license and a special occupational taxpayer's license or making those licenses available to private owners.


Something like that. As it is, the taxpayer financed military has quite a bit more hardware than the citizenry is allowed to have. Kind of a one-sided set up. The government already sees the populace as a group of people to leech off of, due to the virtual inability of its citizenry to do anything but complain I think. The right to bear arms is constantly being under attempt to be ignored or reinterpreted as it is. If all the lawful populace were actually disarmed, what then? It should be easier to own tanks.

Image


When tanks can conform to the miles per gallon requirements I'm sure congress will reconsider.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Jun 2010, 8:49 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I would interpret the 2nd amendment in the modern day to allow for citizens to own and operate military hardware, such as combat helicopters and tanks. However, special licensing and thorough background checks would be required.


Unfortunately this phenomenon exists. Blackwater, for example.

I think iamnotaparakeet means being able to get them without a class III dealer's license and a special occupational taxpayer's license or making those licenses available to private owners.


Something like that. As it is, the taxpayer financed military has quite a bit more hardware than the citizenry is allowed to have. Kind of a one-sided set up. The government already sees the populace as a group of people to leech off of, due to the virtual inability of its citizenry to do anything but complain I think. The right to bear arms is constantly being under attempt to be ignored or reinterpreted as it is. If all the lawful populace were actually disarmed, what then? It should be easier to own tanks.

Image


When tanks can conform to the miles per gallon requirements I'm sure congress will reconsider.


America has miles per gallon requirements on vehicles?

Are you referring to this: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =125458204 ?



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

14 Jun 2010, 5:35 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I would interpret the 2nd amendment in the modern day to allow for citizens to own and operate military hardware, such as combat helicopters and tanks. However, special licensing and thorough background checks would be required.


Unfortunately this phenomenon exists. Blackwater, for example.

I think iamnotaparakeet means being able to get them without a class III dealer's license and a special occupational taxpayer's license or making those licenses available to private owners.


Something like that. As it is, the taxpayer financed military has quite a bit more hardware than the citizenry is allowed to have. Kind of a one-sided set up. The government already sees the populace as a group of people to leech off of, due to the virtual inability of its citizenry to do anything but complain I think. The right to bear arms is constantly being under attempt to be ignored or reinterpreted as it is. If all the lawful populace were actually disarmed, what then? It should be easier to own tanks.

Image




i agree with iamnotaparakeet. the 2nd amendment is there to keep the government from having a monopoly on force. how can your right to be in a well armed, local, militia NOT be infringed upon by the limitations on what hardware you're allowed to own/train with? since the 2nd amendment guarantees the rights of individuals to arm themselves, after directly prefacing that right with an admonishment of the necessity of an armed military. it's pretty obvious what the founders were after, with it.

"battle rifle" meant something slightly different to them, however..... usually it would take more than a few seconds to gun down dozens of armed men with a single "battle rifle" of their day. a lot more. some divine intervention couldn't hurt, too....

so either rural americans (when us cityfolk start "armed militias" it's called a "gang" and it's rightly considered criminal.) should be allowed to own nuclear weapons and Reaper UAVs (possibly with the former jury-rigged to the latter by duct tape), or the 2nd amendment is a vaguely worded, centuries old document in desperate need of a rewrite.

it would probably be a good idea for the new version to have something specific about reasonable restrictions......

then again, if you only get 2 choices, "have all the guns you want" or "no guns for you," i'm more likely to vote for "no guns" than "Kalashnikovs for everyone."


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

14 Jun 2010, 7:15 pm

What I would really like the government to do is to raise the age of consent, to 51 years, but only for men.

Any woman over the age of 16 should be permitted to have sexual relations with any consenting male, provided the man has reached the age of 51.

For all other cases, we should look to Leviticus for inspiration on how to punish them.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

14 Jun 2010, 7:35 pm

What would I change about the US government?

Its nationality.

Huzzah for Good Queen Bess II!

And a 100% tax on coffee for colonies. Chuck that in your bay.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

14 Jun 2010, 7:49 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
-Make guns illegal - why the hell do people feel they have a right to dangerous weapons?
-Get them to stop trying to extradite Gary McKinnon, and instead offer him a job with a $1m salary
-Start a US version of the NHS

Can't think of anything else for the moment.


The United States exists because most of the people had their own guns and could make their own ammo and gun powder. When the citizens of this country are completely disarmed the U.S. will become just another quasi-socialist or state fascist tyranny. As it is, we are not that far from it now.

The main problem of the U.S. is government. We are ruled by fools, knaves, rent-collectors, empire builders and office holders.

ruveyn


Quote:
The rights of English subjects, and, after 1707, British subjects, to possess arms was recognised under English Common Law. Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, were highly influential and were used as a reference and text book for English Common Law. In his Commentaries, Blackstone described the right to arms.

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

Formerly, this same British common law applied to the UK and Australia, as well as until 1791 to the colonies in North America that became the United States. The right to keep and bear arms had originated in England during the reign of Henry II with the 1181 Assize of Arms, and developed as part of Common Law.


American gun ownership was hardly unique TO America at the time or even after. Citizens of the whole dominion could produce powder and shot. There are other much more pertinent and relevant reasons why the US exists. (Clashes within UK government at the time, the downright weird organisation of what passed for British army logistics, even the sheer imbecility of a handful of military decisions by people who should probably never been in position to command troops. The French already got a mention. Maybe even just THAT taxation decision. And lets be fair, the US still has tax. Lots of tax.)


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

14 Jun 2010, 8:30 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1LwzqxAb4c[/youtube]



richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

16 Jun 2010, 10:08 pm

nothing. i think we got a good set-up now


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

16 Jun 2010, 10:17 pm

The checks and balances are a good setup based on historical precedent, but there is the matter of career politicians.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Jun 2010, 12:34 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
The checks and balances are a good setup based on historical precedent, but there is the matter of career politicians.


That would suggest term limits are a good thing.

ruveyn



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

17 Jun 2010, 12:43 pm

Campaign finance reform and lobbying reform are absolute musts. Without it, congress becomes roadblock to any real change.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Jun 2010, 12:44 pm

ruveyn wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
The checks and balances are a good setup based on historical precedent, but there is the matter of career politicians.


That would suggest term limits are a good thing.

ruveyn


Yeah, it is good for them to have limits to how long they can mess things up, but I think a better thing would be "at-will" employment for them also.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

17 Jun 2010, 12:49 pm

skafather84 wrote:
change.


What The Frivolity is it with the usage of the buzzword CHANGE? It seems like Obama just had to keep stressing his frequency of word usage to the limit to make certain his mindless followers would just keep mimicking him "Change! Change! Change!" as if they were expecting him to turn into a wristwatch or something.