what is wrong with america today...

[sgtmac_46]

Funny thing about self-improvement is you get nowhere if you ignore all criticism, even the constructive stuff.

Funnier still when those who talk about improving from criticism, are usually saying that only when they are providing the criticism, but never when they are receiving.

Does stating "We didn't need or even want Terri's Law." mean one hates America? Well, yes, but only to the haters of the constitution. Who by extension, hate America since they hate the guiding principles and laws that have held the nation together for the bulk of the nation's history.

I always find it ironic how 'important' the Constitution is, as it stands.

But, when it's convenient, it becomes a 'living document' subject to being rewritten to suit certain political interests. But I guess that would never happen here. Then, strict constructionists become 'closed minded' and rigid. Funny how views change, from issue to issue.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

artyon:

 

[Marginal]

Funnier still when those who talk about improving from criticism, are usually saying that only when they are providing the criticism, but never when they are receiving.

Aw, you're just peevish 'cause I'm making fun of typical right wing rhetoric. (Which is another thing wrong with America. Debate's been replaced by talking points.)

I always find it ironic how 'important' the Constitution is, as it stands.

But, when it's convenient, it becomes a 'living document' subject to being rewritten to suit certain political interests. But I guess that would never happen here. Then, strict constructionists become 'closed minded' and rigid. Funny how views change, from issue to issue.

Strict constructionists rely exclusively on their unique mental power that enables them to read the minds of men centuries dead. (It also extends to Terri Schaivo and Ciny Sheehan's son.) Then they decide on matters of modern law based on conclusions that solely fit their political agenda.

Either way, I don't know why you advocate necromancy as credible policy.

 

[mantis]

Hey guess, I would like to ask what you think is wrong with todays America? Me personaly, I think that the abortion is one thing wrong with America, also another is the continueing talk about President Bush, I mean come on we all have to admit that yes he has done things wrong but again what other president had to deal with what all Bush had to deal with. Like Katrina victoms, the war in Iraq, the tsunami, and now he has to worry about the levy system. I think he's doing a pretty good job.

Be free to post what you think, as long that it doesnt involve me .lol.
Thanks guys

shortly
arrogance
and ignorance

 

[CanuckMA]

From an outsider's point of view, arrogance and ignorance. I was rolling on the floor the way CNN was covering the defeat of the Canadian government by a vote of non-confidence. They made it sound like there was a revolution going on up here. A much too large number of American suffer from a total lack of understanding of anything beyond their own borders.

 

[sgtmac_46]

From an outsider's point of view, arrogance and ignorance. I was rolling on the floor the way CNN was covering the defeat of the Canadian government by a vote of non-confidence. They made it sound like there was a revolution going on up here. A much too large number of American suffer from a total lack of understanding of anything beyond their own borders.

We think the same things about advice from those living in other nations....arrogance and ignorance.

What did I say in another post? People who tell you that you should accept constructive criticism, usually only say that when they are GIVING the constructive criticism, not receiving.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Aw, you're just peevish 'cause I'm making fun of typical right wing rhetoric. (Which is another thing wrong with America. Debate's been replaced by talking points.)

I agree, talking points are childish...so stop it.

Strict constructionists rely exclusively on their unique mental power that enables them to read the minds of men centuries dead. (It also extends to Terri Schaivo and Ciny Sheehan's son.) Then they decide on matters of modern law based on conclusions that solely fit their political agenda.

You don't need to read their minds, try reading their words.

What's more, you might read some of your own posts, before you start talking about self-serving political arguments.

Either way, I don't know why you advocate necromancy as credible policy.

It could be complete lack of understanding on your part.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

People from other countries say we have no idea what goes on outsie our borders.

How do we know that THEY have any idea what goes on outside THEIR borders?

Id bet that the average Canadian is no more 'enlightened' than the average American.

 

[michaeledward]

People from other countries say we have no idea what goes on outsie our borders.

How do we know that THEY have any idea what goes on outside THEIR borders?

Id bet that the average Canadian is no more 'enlightened' than the average American.

I'll take that bet.

The 'average' Canadian, if such a thing exists, lives with 100 miles of the United States/Canadian border, and is exposed to radio and television broadcasts from within the United States. The reverse is not true.

Just ask the average American these questions.

How many 'States' are there in Canada (If you call them Provinces, you may get some confusion)?

Where is the Capital of Canada?

Who is the Prime Minister (President) of Canada?

What is the official language in Canada?

 

[shinbushi]

a
Taxes that are paid by the lower end of the economy scale and written off by the high end

This is just Liberal misinformation from IRS statics "the most affluent 20 percent of taxpayers still pay 63 percent of all US taxes"

 

[michaeledward]

This is just Liberal misinformation from IRS statics "the most affluent 20 percent of taxpayers still pay 63 percent of all US taxes"

Source this statistic please?

 

[shinbushi]

I'll take that bet.

The 'average' Canadian, if such a thing exists, lives with 100 miles of the United States/Canadian border, and is exposed to radio and television broadcasts from within the United States. The reverse is not true.

Just ask the average American these questions.

How many 'States' are there in Canada (If you call them Provinces, you may get some confusion)?

Where is the Capital of Canada?

Who is the Prime Minister (President) of Canada?

What is the official language in Canada?

1. Who cares
2. Ottawa
3. Who cares
4. Probably English and French but really Who cares. It is interesting how many USA bashing threads are on this board. WE are the current World Empire deal with it. You are just lucky we are much nicer than Rome was. Most of Europe are Has-been countries. You had your glory let us enjoy ours, until China become a Super Power.

 

[Floating Egg]

People really need to lay off Rome. They weren't that bad.

 

[shinbushi]

dupe post

 

[shinbushi]

Source this statistic please?

Form a quick google. http://www.factcheck.org/article285.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/taxtrump.htm

 

[Marginal]

I agree, talking points are childish...so stop it.

As long as they're being seriously presented, I'll persist in pointing out how useless they are.

You don't need to read their minds, try reading their words.

Anything written is open to interpretation. CLaiming you know exactly what was really meant means you claim to know and think exactly like the author of the document. That's a fantasy. It's accurate enough to call it necromancy.

What's more, you might read some of your own posts, before you start talking about self-serving political arguments.

Fact is, anyone telling you they've uncovered the real truth of a document is full of crap.

It could be complete lack of understanding on your part.

Nope.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Anything written is open to interpretation. CLaiming you know exactly what was really meant means you claim to know and think exactly like the author of the document. That's a fantasy. It's accurate enough to call it necromancy.

Then why post to a message board unless you have a reasonble hope that what you meant to say is what it's going to be interpreted roughly to say? Especially if you write enough to give people insight into your thoughts and beliefs that can become a guide to interpreting your posts?

 

[Marginal]

Then why post to a message board unless you have a reasonble hope that what you meant to say is what it's going to be interpreted roughly to say? Especially if you write enough to give people insight into your thoughts and beliefs that can become a guide to interpreting your posts?

Feel free to read what's been said, and what the responses to what's been said have been. They rarely mesh 100%. How many times have people had to clairfy or defend themselves against an accusation or implication that they never intended through what they've written here. Now take a statement or piece of writing, put it under close scrutiny, and let the discourse on that initial piece of writing drift as it invariably will over hundreds of years with massive cultural drift interjecting yet more poetential interpretations.

The fact that there are multiple schools of thought on constitutional law should at least hint to folks that the document is in fact, open to interpretation. Asserting that it is not is, (to borrow Sgt's favorite word....) disingenuous.

The other purported source of inerrancy in American life, the Bible seems to routinely fail at this as well. If it says what it says, then we all should agree on what it says. Since we do not, the piece is open to interpretation. If the piece is open to interpretation, then we cannot credibly claim that one faction has the true reading and that the other factions do not.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Well, first you start of with a premise that a person or group of people, who are putting down something as monumental, important, and far reaching as a document outling a system of government *wanted* to be understood. Or realized there would be a need to be understood, or took it for granted that they would be understood, because they had to be. You have to assume that anyway, that the person you are reading wanted to be understood in their intention, just as you want to be understood in yours and I want to be understood in mine. I sorta assume that you want me to understand what you aer saying, but not just 'interpret' what you are saying in whatever that comes out as for me with the justfication of 'well I just interpreted what you said to mean you intended to say *this* because it's impossible to really tell what you meant to say so my interpretation of your intention is as valid as anyone else's'

If you wrote a book that was m\pro-capitalism and anti-communism and you read me quoting your book to be pro-communism, I don't think you would be to happy with me, I don't think you would say my interpretation was valid; I think you would say I had at best taken you out of context and at worse had my own agenda and was trying to use you. If you happened to be an expert in your field, where having your sanction would be impressive for me, then you could say I had a strong motivation to selectivly re-interpret your words to mean what I wanted then to mean, not what you wanted them to mean.

But you start off writing the bookin the first place under the assumption that is at least possible for someone to have a reasonable accurate understanding of what you intended to say, otherwise you wouldn't even bother trying. I assume that the writers of the Constitution thought the same way; that it was and is possible to come up with a reasonably clear understanding of what they were trying to say. Otherwise, why bother reading it and trying to apply it?

I think that is where the problem comes up is not so much that people argue over what the Consitution says so much as they argue over what they want it to say. Otherwise, why are some articles never mentioned much and some articles get such heated controversy? Did the writers suddenly get stupid writing some articles and some amendments such that suddenly it's all open to 'interpretation' where sme of the interpretations are diameltrically opposed? "They made their point clear here so no discussion but over here, well who knows what they meant so you say it means this and I say it means that" Interestingly enough, interpretations of the Constitution seem to coincide with a prior beliefs. I thinkwe often read into the Constitution support for our own personal, moral, political, or whatever opinions or beliefs. Probably because it's easier to push forward a position based on "the Constituion says..." rather than "well I believe..." Who are you? Well the Constituion has Authority and Prestige.

I think the Constituion is the codification of ideals about freedom,liberty, and responsibility and the role of the state and the citizen. Within it our examples of how to apply those principals. Within it are also the mechanisms to adapt those ideals to new situations arise.

But you have t start with the premise that someone wants tobe understood, not for what you want them to say but for what they want to say. I assume you want me to understand what you intend. I may *disagree* with what you say, but I have to start from understanding what you say.

 

[michaeledward]

This is just Liberal misinformation from IRS statics "the most affluent 20 percent of taxpayers still pay 63 percent of all US taxes"

Some other quick google searches show us that


10% of America's Households hold 72% of total wealth.

10% of the U.S. Population holds 81% of the country's Real Estate.

10% of the U.S. Population owns 81% of the country's Stock.

10% of the U.S. Population owns 88% of the bonds.