Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
cornopean
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 3534

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:21 pm    Post subject: Re: The 545 people responsible.... Reply with quote
I think we should pay congressmen 2 mill a year. senators 4 mill a year and the president should make 10 mil a year.

we want the best. we'd better pay for it.

and all limited to one term.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Or, we could limit them to living as comfortably as the average american, and have no term limits.

That's paying for results.
Back to top
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 2562
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think we should go back as the founders intended and limit politicians terms by elections.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 4218

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anym wrote:
I think we should go back as the founders intended and limit politicians terms by elections.


I'm pretty sure that they didn't implement term limits for the federal government, so i don't see how they could have "intended" it.
Back to top
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 2562
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:
Anym wrote:
I think we should go back as the founders intended and limit politicians terms by elections.


I'm pretty sure that they didn't implement term limits for the federal government, so i don't see how they could have "intended" it.


I'm taking my position on term limits and sarcastically the constitutionalist attitude unfortunately one cannot properly display sarcasm using text.
Back to top
John_Quincy
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:59 pm    Post subject: The 545 ass clowns... Reply with quote
Fathom This: .00000181% of the Nations Apporoximate population is responsible for the Governship of the United states, or about 545 Ass Clowns. You can safely bet your Gonads that these are the Fuckers responsible for all the U.S troubles. But this is how Displaced the American Public has become where were so divided in reality, that true unity is a Farce. On a small scale: A home for instance, Parents earn good money, hell can even print their own when the well runs dry, fail to provide for the needs of some of their children, a couple of the kids are sick, but they don't want to pay too much for their healthcare, another one is hungry so one of the older ones is expected to help feed it, there's fighting going on and they're told to please stop it, to no avail. Some of the older kids are letting their chore list go to hell but are demanding their allowance and regularily there's Kaos in the house and no one feels like they're getting treated fairly. Mom and Dad have their issues and always seem to work around the clock, but the dress good, eat good, attend social gatherings regularly, mingle and visit with the neighbors, Drop the groceries off, check in on the kids who have some bitching to do while the little one are left crying. They're told to Frick'n settle it. So who's responsible for this domestic fiasco?
Back to top
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:06 pm    Post subject: Re: THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES Reply with quote
JLV wrote:
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?


SPAM ERASED BY ADMIN.

PLEASE DON'T SPAM AS YOUR FIRST POST.

THANK YOU.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:30 pm    Post subject: Re: THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES Reply with quote
JEQuidam wrote:
JLV wrote:
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?


Those of you who are interested in this subject, please visit Thirty-Thousand . org and read all 16 Questions and Answers on that page.

Thirty-Thousand . org is a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.


Now this is just annoying. Talk about being full of oneself:

Quote:
Q14: Who would advocate and support the creation of such an amendment?

A14: Only that small portion of the citizenry who could be described as patriots; that is, those who understand the principles of freedom and liberty upon which this great nation was founded and, furthermore, are willing to make personal sacrifices to defend those freedoms. Unfortunately, most of the inhabitants of this blessed nation take our remaining liberties entirely for granted and naively assume that what is will always be so.


Man, talk about throwing shit. This answer essentially says: "If you agree with us, you are a patriot, if you disagree then you are a stupid lazy bum (or worse)."

Another problem I have with this is the organizations premise:

Quote:
this report argues that most of the state legislators who voted on that amendment did not actually understand it. The hypothesis proposed is that this amendment initially was mistaken for the original House version which it clearly resembles; more specifically, the legislators could not have easily detected the subtle last-minute alteration that had been made in the haste of an adjourning Congress. To the extent that any legislators did understand the amendment’s anomalies, then there were a variety of reasons for them to allow the prevailing misperception to persist.


So, they are saying:

1. The founders read this article, but didn't understand it.
2. Those that did understand it had reasons not to want it included in the Bill of Rights.
3. We want it included in the Bill of Rights now, so we are arguing that it should have been included; ergo, this particular article deserves special priviledge over the Ten articles that WERE ratified because ... we say so.
Back to top
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:24 pm    Post subject: Re: THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
Another problem I have with this is the organizations premise...


Fellfire: I am pleased to meet a defender of the status quo. It's not easy to find people who will so staunchly defend the oligarchy that currently governs this country. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this matter.

By the way, your statement relative to "Article the first" is quite wrong (that TTO wants "it included in the Bill of Rights now, so we are arguing that it should have been included"). As the amendment is worded, it should not be ratified.

If you plan to continue opposing the proposal to enlarge the federal House, please carefully read the materials referenced by the website. It's best to understand your opponents' arguments prior to criticizing them. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or if I can clarify anything.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:13 pm    Post subject: Re: THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES Reply with quote
JEQuidam wrote:
fellfire wrote:
Another problem I have with this is the organizations premise...


Fellfire: I am pleased to meet a defender of the status quo. It's not easy to find people who will so staunchly defend the oligarchy that currently governs this country. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this matter.


OH YES!! John Quincy you are so predictable. I knew your response would, of course, be to attack the poster; that is typical of someone who has no refutation for the argument. Thank you very much for proving my point:
fellfire wrote:
This answer essentially says: "If you agree with us, you are a patriot, if you disagree then you are a stupid lazy bum (or worse)."

In this case replace "stupid lazy bum" with "defender of the status quo".

JEQuidam wrote:
By the way, your statement relative to "Article the first" is quite wrong (that TTO wants "it included in the Bill of Rights now, so we are arguing that it should have been included"). As the amendment is worded, it should not be ratified.


That's even worse, are you unable to follow the logic? TTO is saying:

    "Article the first" was not ratified, but it should have been.
    But not the "Article the first" as it was written,
    Rather an "Article the first" as we (TTO) think it should have been written.


How else should someone read this (aside from the ad hominem attack)? Can you provide some logical reason for TTO without resorting to calling me unpatriotic because I am not convinced by their argument.

JEQuidam wrote:
If you plan to continue opposing the proposal to enlarge the federal House, please carefully read the materials referenced by the website. It's best to understand your opponents' arguments prior to criticizing them. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, or if I can clarify anything.


I did read the material referenced ... where do you think I got the references from. The question I have is did you read the material? Answer that and the questions I have raised above without resorting to name calling and we can debate the matter.
Back to top
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:26 pm    Post subject: Re: THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES Reply with quote
Fellfire: since you are opposed to enlarging the federal House, would you rather keep it the same size (435) or would you rather see it made even smaller?
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fellfire you are such a Bush&Cheney&Pelosi&Reid-enabler! Gosh-darn you!

Quote:
Fellfire: since you are opposed to enlarging the federal House, would you rather keep it the same size (435) or would you rather see it made even smaller?


I get the feeling that this guy has no desire to actually discuss what he's proposing, but to just knock down anyone that opposes him. It's his third post and he's already resorting to straw men. Jeez Louise.
Back to top
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm only trying to ask a simple question. The House is currently comprised of 435 Representatives. I argue that it should be much larger. I posted that argument on this thread because it was relevant to the topic that initiated this thread. So, which answer would you select:
A) I think it should be larger.
B) I think it should remain at 435 forever
C) I think it should be smaller.
D) I don't have enough information at this time to have an informed opinion.

That's all.
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You've already been challenged:

Quote:
That's even worse, are you unable to follow the logic? TTO is saying:

"Article the first" was not ratified, but it should have been.
But not the "Article the first" as it was written,
Rather an "Article the first" as we (TTO) think it should have been written.

How else should someone read this (aside from the ad hominem attack)? Can you provide some logical reason for TTO without resorting to calling me unpatriotic because I am not convinced by their argument.


I did read the material referenced ... where do you think I got the references from. The question I have is did you read the material? Answer that and the questions I have raised above without resorting to name calling and we can debate the matter.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm in agreement with Toxic here. You posted a message, I assumed it was for discussion, I disagreed with it. You retorted with an expected ad hominem attack and have yet to answer my questions. Then you made a strawman based on a false assumption:

John Quincy wrote:
Fellfire: since you are opposed to enlarging the federal House, would you rather keep it the same size (435) or would you rather see it made even smaller?


So, how about you answer some questions, then ask some, and then I can answer some ...
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 4 of 6

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites