Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 90 of 189 FirstFirst ... 80 89 90 91 100 ... LastLast
Results 2,226 to 2,250 of 4715

Thread: The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

  1. #2226
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,574
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    It is quicker to list what I would keep.


    If it is not listed above, it gets cut.
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


    But... We are not talking about me. What programs have the democrats suggested cutting. Let's cut them!
    So do we eliminate the Army (specifies can raise armies but does not explicitly allow for a standing army like it does for the Navy), Air Force, CIA, NSA and Veteran's Affairs since they are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution? If you do a little homework you will learn why you want your intelligence apparatus under civil control rather than exclusively military control. I guess those duties could be delegated to the militias once we repeal the Militia Act of 1903 that established the national guard system assuming of course one or many state militias would want to maintain such a program.
    "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less" General Eric Shinseki

  2. #2227
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,441
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    I don't understand how so many people can hate her so much.
    Replace "people" with "rednecks" and ask yourself again.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  3. #2228
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Packing to move out of the icebox.
    Posts
    13,728
    Quote Originally posted by Brocktoon View post
    So do we eliminate the Army (specifies can raise armies but does not explicitly allow for a standing army like it does for the Navy), Air Force, CIA, NSA and Veteran's Affairs since they are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution? If you do a little homework you will learn why you want your intelligence apparatus under civil control rather than exclusively military control. I guess those duties could be delegated to the militias once we repeal the Militia Act of 1903 that established the national guard system assuming of course one or many state militias would want to maintain such a program.
    Let's reset for a moment and forget everything you know about the US government and think in terms of the writers of the constitution. In the late 1700's an "army" was an organized group of armed persons trained in combat. A "navy" is a fleet of boats.

    So what it actually says is yes, you can have "and support" an army (covers all armed forces) but that no funding can be for a duration of more than two years.
    "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

  4. #2229
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Packing to move out of the icebox.
    Posts
    13,728
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    One of the questions of this upcoming election is regarding Iran and Israel and the continued tension between the two countries.

    What do you think that President Obama would do if reelected in terms of these two countries? What do you think that Mitt Romney would do if elected in terms of these two countries?
    Do you think either would move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? Will either take military action against Iran to prevent the creation of nuclear weapons? Will either do anything at all?
    Interesting.... Looks like Obama agrees that Jerusalem should be the capital. LINK

    Now I wonder if they will move the embassy there.
    "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

  5. #2230
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wherever
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Now I wonder if they will move the embassy there.
    Very unlikely considering the costs involved and how it'd significantly reduce the chance of ever achieving Mideast Peace. Also the official US position on Jerusalem's status is different than both parties' platforms.

    I honestly think Obama forcing the change was just political posturing. He knows nothing will happen so why not pander to Jewish voters?
    Last edited by Blide; 06 Sep 2012 at 10:05 AM.

  6. #2231
    Cyburbian Planit's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2005
    Location
    In a 480 square foot ex baseball nacho stand
    Posts
    7,843

    here's another winner

    Federal student loans are unconstitutional and put the country on a path toward a WWII-style Holocaust, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) told his constituents yesterday
    "Whatever beer I'm drinking, is better than the one I'm not." DMLW
    "Budweiser sells a product they reflectively insist on calling beer." John Oliver

  7. #2232
    Cyburbian Brocktoon's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Promoting synergies...
    Posts
    3,574
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Let's reset for a moment and forget everything you know about the US government and think in terms of the writers of the constitution. In the late 1700's an "army" was an organized group of armed persons trained in combat. A "navy" is a fleet of boats.

    So what it actually says is yes, you can have "and support" an army (covers all armed forces) but that no funding can be for a duration of more than two years.
    That sounds a lot like you are interpreting the document and applying modern values. The founder were very leery of a standing army. That is why they are referred to as armies in plural or army in lower case to an effort to not require a standing federal Army. Furthermore the Constitution required well regulated militias and not a standing federal army was very intentional. The framers remember how Oliver Cromwell used a British standing army to create a protectorate or military dictatorship. Navy was different since you cannot raise a navy quickly like you can in army and was essential for protecting trade. As for the Air Force I am not arguing it should not exist but should it be a separate branch or should it part of the well regulated militias as provided for in the Constitution if you go by the strict interpretation of the Constitution.

    What about the intelligence community? It is vital to our national defense but leaving it to the military during peace time proved tragic... best example was the time between WWI and WWII. George Washington was very aware of the value of spies and intelligence both in military and diplomacy.
    "If you don't like change, you're going to like irrelevance even less" General Eric Shinseki

  8. #2233
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Packing to move out of the icebox.
    Posts
    13,728
    Quote Originally posted by Brocktoon View post
    That sounds a lot like you are interpreting the document and applying modern values. The founder were very leery of a standing army. That is why they are referred to as armies in plural or army in lower case to an effort to not require a standing federal Army. Furthermore the Constitution required well regulated militias and not a standing federal army was very intentional. The framers remember how Oliver Cromwell used a British standing army to create a protectorate or military dictatorship. Navy was different since you cannot raise a navy quickly like you can in army and was essential for protecting trade. As for the Air Force I am not arguing it should not exist but should it be a separate branch or should it part of the well regulated militias as provided for in the Constitution if you go by the strict interpretation of the Constitution.

    What about the intelligence community? It is vital to our national defense but leaving it to the military during peace time proved tragic... best example was the time between WWI and WWII. George Washington was very aware of the value of spies and intelligence both in military and diplomacy.
    No, this is based on the founders interpretation if the constitution. I would suggest that you read federalest paper 26.

    As for intelligence, even as you noted, it was and should be a component of the military (or Department of Defence as we call it today).
    "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

  9. #2234
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,550
    Quote Originally posted by Planit View post
    Federal student loans are unconstitutional and put the country on a path toward a WWII-style Holocaust, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) told his constituents yesterday
    The rump wing of that party is going to ruin it. BushCo chased the rest of the smart people away and now all they have left is these losers. The national candidate and his election staff is third-rate. Just collapse already so we can have a decent opposition party!
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  10. #2235
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    11,044
    You want to know why the R's are most likely going to lose this election?

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...imbaugh/56843/

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...tory?track=rss

    http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-...-romney-2012-9

    Look no further than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the other hate mongering radio talk hosts. Although I can't stand Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, they aren't even on the same level as these idiots.

    Rush Limbaugh. "What if Ayman al-Zawahiri and other Al Qaeda leaders gave up Osama bin Laden for the express purpose of making Obama look good?" Limbaugh asked his listeners Wednesday. "Giving Obama stature, political capital? 'Obama got Osama!' I mean, really."
    The Republican party needs to focus on Fiscal issues, remove the blowhards and clearly distance themselves from said radio hosts, and then attempt to create a party that doesn't focus on social issues or religious issues. THAT would be a conservative party that has a shot at winning.

    I look forward to what happens to the party if they lose. Will Rush win, and try and make Romney out to be not conservative enough and THAT is why he lost. Or will the rational republican emerge and we will see the shedding of the dead weight in the party and a new phoenix emerge that can focus on real issues.

    I obviously hope for the ladder, but expect the former.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  11. #2236
    moderator in moderation Suburb Repairman's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2003
    Location
    at the neighboring pub
    Posts
    5,573
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    I look forward to what happens to the party if they lose. Will Rush win, and try and make Romney out to be not conservative enough and THAT is why he lost. Or will the rational republican emerge and we will see the shedding of the dead weight in the party and a new phoenix emerge that can focus on real issues.

    I obviously hope for the ladder, but expect the former.
    I fear you may be right about the former.

    It really is a shame that Jon Huntsman had to bow out so early. In his interviews since, he has hardly been a ringing endorsement of Romney. It is quotes like this:

    I will not be attending this year's convention, nor any Republican convention in the future until the party focuses on a bigger, bolder, more confident future for the United States — a future based on problem solving, inclusiveness, and a willingness to address the trust deficit, which is every bit as corrosive as our fiscal and economic deficits.

    and the fact that he was able to serve successfully on the Federal level under different parties that makes me think he could have been a viable alternative (and may be an alternative in the future).

    He had approval ratings that tapped 90% on occassion in Utah as governor and left office with an 80% approval rating, meaning that his approaches were generally moderate (or at least moderate enough) to pull support from both sides. While he did lean toward restricting abortion, I don't think he would do so on a Federal level and would likely leave it as a silent issue. He supported a civil union bill--which would be a step in the right direction and took some guts in conservative Utah. He believes in climate change. He believes evolution & religion are not mutually exclusive concepts. He has obvious foreign policy credibility & understanding, particularly regarding China. He responds intelligently to stupid things said by his Republican counterparts.

    I'm not sure he has the charisma to lead creation of a 3rd party, but he could potentially be a 3rd party presidential candidate at some point. Maybe its because I have a high appreciation for technocrats like him that can remove personal feelings & political expediency from the decision-making process, focusing instead on rational approaches & reason.

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

  12. #2237
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wherever
    Posts
    1,186
    I honestly think the Republican Party over the next decade will go back to being a permanent minority party like it was prior to the 1990s. I just don't see a third party forming when Democrats are so willing to take in moderates.

  13. #2238
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    19,263

    Botched campaigns, skullduggery, manuevering, and other political foibles

    Whether or not Romney's '47%' comments and ensuing followup will end up costing him the 2012 Presidential election remains to be seen, but at this point it feels powerfully like a Mistake, and it's this sort of phenomenon this thread intends to examine and discuss.

    What are some historic political campaign screw-ups and/or skullduggery (doesn't have to be Presidential, but those tend to be the ones most are familiar with) that stand out in your memory?

    For the record, I doubt anyone would dispute that the award for Biggest Campaign F-up goes to Richard Nixon, who managed to get himself booted from office after winning the 1972 Presidential election by a landslide.

    A strictly middle of the road political campaign screw-up I recall was the Dukakis tank photo op. Up til then, there was a perception the guy was wimpy on defense but the unbelievability of the photo actually made that perception worse.
    People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor

  14. #2239
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    11,044
    Bush II. Mission Accomplished.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  15. #2240
    Cyburbian WSU MUP Student's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Lowering the PCI in the Hills
    Posts
    6,198
    How about H.W.'s "Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES!" pledge during his first campaign? That pretty much sunk his re-election effort a few years later after taxes were raised.
    "Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - 1980 Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan

  16. #2241
    Cyburbian ColoGI's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Colo Front Range
    Posts
    2,550
    Quote Originally posted by Maister View post

    What are some historic political campaign screw-ups and/or skullduggery (doesn't have to be Presidential, but those tend to be the ones most are familiar with) that stand out in your memory?

    .
    Just in terms of pure campaigning, this rich a--- is going to go down in history as one of the worst national campaigns ever in the US.

    Other than that, my campaign disasters - I'd say Nixon's first televised debate, Dukakis' bobblehead tank ride, Gary Hart sailing with a babe in view of the paparazzi, McCain's VP nomination disaster, Kerry not b---slapping the Swift Boaters like they deserved. Skullduggery would have to be anything Rove did, esp his whispering campaigns, and for me the worst was what was done to Max Cleland. But there are so many in that category, including the Rs' voter suppression efforts which are harmful to the country.

    My dad was a campaign manager for ~ 2 decades, mostly Republicans. I can hear him spinning in his grave at the sheer incompetence on display this year.
    -------
    Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.

  17. #2242
    Cyburbian
    Registered
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wherever
    Posts
    1,186
    Lets not forget McCain randomly deciding to suspend his campaign. I'm still not really sure what he thought he'd accomplish by doing that.

  18. #2243
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    19,263
    Quote Originally posted by Blide View post
    Lets not forget McCain randomly deciding to suspend his campaign. I'm still not really sure what he thought he'd accomplish by doing that.
    I obviously can't speak for McCain but I'm guessing his intent was by making a public demonstration that he was willing to focus all of his attention on dealing with the impending economic crisis - a very real problem instead of the usual political posturing one sees during campaigns - it would hopefully be perceived by the public as being somehow the ultimate hallmark of LEADERSHIP (see, he values fixing the country's problems at the expense of his own campaign). That was my read anyhow.

    Any boomers/X'ers have fond memories of Jimmy Carter's decision to do the Playboy interview?
    People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor

  19. #2244
    I'd have to say McGovern with Thomas Eagleton, though to be fair, conventions were entirely different beasts then than now.

    [COUGH]HoosierDanQualye[/COUGH]
    Je suis Charlie

  20. #2245
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    19,263
    Quote Originally posted by Gedunker View post
    I'd have to say McGovern with Thomas Eagleton, though to be fair, conventions were entirely different beasts then than now.
    Funny you should mention the Eagleton affair, this morning I happened to read an online article about the historic evolution of party conventions and was struck by how the author did NOT make any mention of the role that incident played in helping shape the national conventions into the highly scripted events they are today.
    People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor

  21. #2246
    Cyburbian michaelskis's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Packing to move out of the icebox.
    Posts
    13,728
    Quote Originally posted by Maister View post
    Whether or not Romney's '47%' comments and ensuing followup will end up costing him the 2012 Presidential election remains to be seen, but at this point it feels powerfully like a Mistake, and it's this sort of phenomenon this thread intends to examine and discuss.

    What are some historic political campaign screw-ups and/or skullduggery (doesn't have to be Presidential, but those tend to be the ones most are familiar with) that stand out in your memory?

    For the record, I doubt anyone would dispute that the award for Biggest Campaign F-up goes to Richard Nixon, who managed to get himself booted from office after winning the 1972 Presidential election by a landslide.

    A strictly middle of the road political campaign screw-up I recall was the Dukakis tank photo op. Up til then, there was a perception the guy was wimpy on defense but the unbelievability of the photo actually made that perception worse.
    Why is this not in the never ending political thread?

    Every candidate screws up at some point. It is the level of the screw up and how the people react to it that makes the difference. Now in the era where so many people have a video & audio recorder in their phone, everything a person does could end up on the nightly news or some pundant's talk show.
    "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. Time makes more converts than reason." - Thomas Paine Common Sense.

  22. #2247
    Chairman of the bored Maister's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2004
    Location
    on my 15 minute break
    Posts
    19,263
    Quote Originally posted by michaelskis View post
    Why is this not in the never ending political thread?
    .
    Moderator note:
    good point. Merged.
    People will miss that it once meant something to be Southern or Midwestern. It doesn't mean much now, except for the climate. The question, “Where are you from?” doesn't lead to anything odd or interesting. They live somewhere near a Gap store, and what else do you need to know? - Garrison Keillor

  23. #2248
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    11,044
    What says the throbbing brian?

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinio...tml?hpt=hp_bn7

    Do you think our country is less safe today because we allowed LGBT folks to serve openly? I know we talked about this last year when it was occurring and many of the military chimed in. One year later, it sure seems like it wasn't a big deal, and had no negative impacts.

    I think this is a pretty good indication that our country is slowly getting over our hyper-fear of change. If the military can accept people for who they are, not who they love, then I hope (and even pray) that our country will follow, and allow for people of all sexual orientations to be equal under the law.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  24. #2249
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,923
    Quote Originally posted by Hink View post
    What says the throbbing brian?

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/20/opinio...tml?hpt=hp_bn7

    Do you think our country is less safe today because we allowed LGBT folks to serve openly? I know we talked about this last year when it was occurring and many of the military chimed in. One year later, it sure seems like it wasn't a big deal, and had no negative impacts.

    I think this is a pretty good indication that our country is slowly getting over our hyper-fear of change. If the military can accept people for who they are, not who they love, then I hope (and even pray) that our country will follow, and allow for people of all sexual orientations to be equal under the law.
    Definitely less safe! I mean, all those GLBT folks who were serving, I mean…they’re still serving, so…and, well, recruitment is the same…and, you know, those two folks that resigned, and…cause, well. Its just less safe….

    This is a real non-issue to me just as allowing women to serve was.

    In the words of the late Bill Hicks “ANYONE who wants to serve in the military should be allowed in. End of f$%&*! Story…” Unless you don’t pass the physical…
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  25. #2250
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    11,044
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...es_115635.html

    This is the best article I have seen that describes why capital gains taxes are different from regular income. I wanted to get your thoughts on capital gains taxes, as I know many of you are much smarter than I when it comes to taxes and tax policy.

    I don't know if I have an opinion on whether or not capital gains taxes should be lower than regular income or not. I think I can see both sides at this point.

    Thoughts?
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

+ Reply to thread
Page 90 of 189 FirstFirst ... 80 89 90 91 100 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 9
    Last post: 02 Jul 2015, 12:07 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last post: 04 Sep 2013, 8:26 AM
  3. Rules discussion thread
    Cyburbia Issues and Help
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 16 Mar 2012, 9:37 AM
  4. The non-political political thread
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 19
    Last post: 17 Sep 2004, 1:17 PM