Deception

[marharth]

@Little M

OK, you post out of a narcissist impulse to see yourself in print. Skip the electoral advice, that isn't debating it's expressing your opinion which is of no consequence to me. Debating? Is that what you call your posting style?

Look, more personal insults.

 

I am going to stop replying to you, you are either not intelligent enough to have a real conversion or you have talked yourself into thinking you are always right.

Edited July 12, 2011 by marharth

[kvnchrist]

With all this talk about old politicians. I wonder if the republicans and the Democrats of the early 60's would recognize or even want to be affiliated with them, seeing how they act theses days.

[Aurielius]

With all this talk about old politicians. I wonder if the republicans and the Democrats of the early 60's would recognize or even want to be affiliated with them, seeing how they act theses days.

The days of the solely fiscal republicans has passed unfortunately, the Libertarians are the closet thing to the old pre Nixon republican party. Though in some sense the foreign policy agenda seems to remain intact from that period. But the will to state the truth of one's real political thought processes and agenda seems to be a thing of the past. Which is unfortunate because the voting electorate might find it a refreshing change of pace, but as Twain once said "You will never go broke betting on the ignorance of the common man." We live in increasingly more illiterate times a trend that seems to be gaining not losing momentum, doing due diligence on candidates seems to beyond the purview of most voters..

[Sync182]

Warning: totally off-topic post ahead...

 

*looks at wrestling fixture*

 

Ooohh, look:

Aurielius vs Marharth

kvnchrist vs Ghogiel

 

*gets popcorn*

 

...

 

Seriously, guys...find each other in RL and slug it out in a park somewhere. Blasting each other on these forums is just...yeah. :rolleyes:

 

Or...agree to disagree, and chill. Please. :thumbsup:

[Amorous_Dead_Guy]

With all this talk about old politicians. I wonder if the republicans and the Democrats of the early 60's would recognize or even want to be affiliated with them, seeing how they act theses days.

The days of the solely fiscal republicans has passed unfortunately, the Libertarians are the closet thing to the old pre Nixon republican party. Though in some sense the foreign policy agenda seems to remain intact from that period. But the will to state the truth of one's real political thought processes and agenda seems to be a thing of the past. Which is unfortunate because the voting electorate might find it a refreshing change of pace, but as Twain once said "You will never go broke betting on the ignorance of the common man." We live in increasingly more illiterate times a trend that seems to be gaining not losing momentum, doing due diligence on candidates seems to beyond the purview of most voters..

 

Personally I have no issue with social conservatism, I am one, to a lesser extent myself. However, it is concerning to watch the party swing more drastically to the right than before, though I have no objection to policy, I am concerned about the prospect of how electable the party will be to the moderate majority in America. I read an article recently that claimed that in order for a Republican politician to receive any media coverage from their biggest outlet, FOX news, they needed to become increasingly extreme. I do agree with this, especially with the rise of the Tea party, and their radicalising effects. However, I do think that this is in reality a bi-product of Obamas presidency, undeniably he has forced the Democrat party further left than it is comfortable being (or should I say Liberal, they are nowhere near the left wing) And this in turn has had a radicalising effect on the Republican party who have swung further right. Without Obama in power, and especially if there is a Republican president, I feel that the party divide will decrease again, as the Republicans no longer require such a defining standpoint in order to make themselves popular in the media, and instead require sensible policies to maintain their popularity. A president-elect can never hope to really pass truly radical Social conservative reform, as they are prohibited from doing do by the federalist structure, the states would never allow it. Therefore, the perceived radical nature of the candidates will never properly be realised in office, and, in my opinion, the party will function as it has done previously, favouring the fiscal conservative wing.

[Aurielius]

Talking about deception, this administration has yet to pass a budget for over 800 days...but it's the republican's fault that one is not in place. Oh what a tangled web we weave...

 

E fructu arbor cognoscitur.

"The tree can be recognized by its fruits."

Edited July 12, 2011 by Aurielius

[SilverDNA]

Not to mention the three American rating agency's that have already announced that they will down rate The US. But what they did now with Itally is a shame, but now I would like to see what happens if the worst case comes to america and democrats and republicans can't get a compromises on the Budget.

Those three rating agency's vs. the 14th amendment and the pensioners. A rogue, anyone who thinks evil about it after what they done in 2008 now they are doing the exact opposite manipulation again...

 

The real scandal is that this behaviour of the political elite of a nation doing damage to it in the name of the citizens. Deception remember? And you have all to applaud to it afterwards because they are afterwards the great saviours and prevented a disaster..

:facepalm:... now haven't the parties not constructed this damage? .. Well then they shall pay with there money and raise their taxes 1st i say! No one should follow leaders that aren't going 1st as good example with there own political decisions..

The politicians have been since a long time now pulling this rope a bit stronger and stronger. ... I wonder how long it will take now till the majority of decent honest citizens stand up and say loud "No!" to that kind of political and economical fraud that is taken out on their backs because of the ruthless businesses gains of unscrupulous Banks and rating agency's that manipulate the market and have a lobbyist on every side of the political parties and politicians that spread in the name of the citizens the lies of those lobbyists as well as taking behind the back the Cheques of the banks to deliver the opinion of those to the people.

 

What can one do about it ...

Make up your mind who really profits from those political arguments gold weight every ounce of word the politicians give. Be a critic is democracy on it's honest, especial if a politician tries to grab into your wallet.

That's my 2 cents

 

[Aurielius]

@Silver DNA

Ok this is a summary of the 14th Amendment so am not exactly sure how that applies to your thesis.

Four principles were asserted in the text of the 14th amendment. They were:

 

1. State and federal ciizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.

2. No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.

3. No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."

4. No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

 

Care to explain?

Edited July 12, 2011 by Aurielius

[SilverDNA]

If i got it correctly "The validity of the public debt of the United States is not questioned." but I'm not an expert on US amendments.. but you might enlighten me if i went wrong there.

[Aurielius]

If i got it correctly "The validity of the public debt of the United States is not questioned." but I'm not an expert on US amendments.. but you might enlighten me if i went wrong there.

No, you have correctly quoted from one of the lesser clauses of the 14th Amendment. It was however in reference to the war debt of the Civil War and that the former Confederate States could not escape the requisite taxation to pay for it.The southern states argued that they were not part of the United States when it was incurred and hence not liable, not an argument that had much traction.

So if your contention is that it's validity( the national debt) could be questioned which would by nature be a constitutional challenge of the 14th Amendment...then I see how you were thinking. It should be noted that the 14th Amendment is one of the murkiest of the lot, it has been interpreted and reinterpreted at least six times by the Supreme Court, so not the firmest of constitutional ground to stand on or against.