What Is Wrong With America ?

[House]

I didn't vote for Obama.

Romney isn't the only Mormon and I wasn't referencing him.

I'm a member of the Independent party.

So much fail in one post, jesus Christ! (of later day saints? )

What amazes me is that Obama won the last election.

Not a person in this forum voted for him but he still won...

There's a thread gloating about Obama's reelection floating around here somewhere (are you really going to make me hunt it down?), so I'm pretty sure people here on USMB voted for him.

Edit: Bam.

 

[protectionist]

Once again, you're misrepresenting my view. I'm not saying we can, or should, be completely free of state coercion. I'm saying it should only be used when necessary. There's no need for all of us to be pursuing the same goals. Government should protect our freedom to pursue our own goals, not dictate to us what they should be.

In a democracy, it is the majority who decides what is "necessary", not you.

In a pure democracy, perhaps. But our founders steered clear of such a fiasco, instead choosing a constitutionally limited democratic republic as our form of government. The Constitution states what is necessary, not you, and not the majority.

FALSE! Sure the Constitution states what is necessary, but so do the American people, the majority, through their elected representitives, in a democratic republic.

 

[protectionist]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

. Yeah the people I want running The united States are those who don't know anything about making money or building things. You know...the successful! We'd all be better off if the country was run by welfare queens or community organizers.

The working poor know all about making money. The hard way. That's what we need more of in govt (and less millionaires)

 

[protectionist]

But I'll try one more time.

You can "try" or whatever you envision, until you turn blue. I'm not reading one more word of your useless, worthless, idiocy. I didn't create this thread so a jerk can come in here and smudge it up with a bunch of mindless trash. You seem to have mental problems of some sort. They're not my problem. If you want to address THE TOPIC, feel free to do so.

Look at the coward run for the hills when someone puts a spot light on his duplicitous clap trap.

So if someone doesn't keep himself trapped within your long-winded, go nowhere displays of idiocy, responding to what doesn't deserve the dignity of a response, you call him a coward, right ? HA HA HA.. Well I've already called you an idiot, so this worthless exchange has already had it's only clear explanation. Now if you want to debate me on something meaningful (that doesn't include your silly word games), just say the word, and I'll be happy to hand you your ass, after I'm finished kicking it enough times to satisfy me. So what's it gonna be, boy ? Immigration ? Muslims ? Minimum wage ? Taxes ? You name it, and I'll "run" toward you.

 

[dblack]

In a democracy, it is the majority who decides what is "necessary", not you.

In a pure democracy, perhaps. But our founders steered clear of such a fiasco, instead choosing a constitutionally limited democratic republic as our form of government. The Constitution states what is necessary, not you, and not the majority.

FALSE! Sure the Constitution states what is necessary, but so do the American people, the majority, through their elected representitives, in a democratic republic.

Bright red words don't make it so. The Constitution's limits on the power of the majority are what make democracy viable. Unlimited democacy would be a suicide pact for anyone who could ever expect to have a minority opinion.

 

[Bumberclyde]

I didn't vote for Obama.

Romney isn't the only Mormon and I wasn't referencing him.

I'm a member of the Independent party.

So much fail in one post, jesus Christ! (of later day saints? )

What amazes me is that Obama won the last election.

Not a person in this forum voted for him but he still won...

Lots of people who might have voted for a Republican on the basis of immigration, national defense, affirmative action, death penalty, gun control, etc, didn't, because they fear Republicans' spending cut mindset. They fear cuts in Social Security (this a huge number of voters), VA benefits, food stamps, etc. They also worry that Republicans talk a good fight on national security, but with all their tax & spending cuts, they won't back it up with the money necessary.

So maybe they didn't vote for Obama (I didn't). But they didn't vote for Romney either ( I didn't)

The republicans put a guy in magic underwear up against Obama in the last election. What the fuck did you all expect?

 

[protectionist]

In a pure democracy, perhaps. But our founders steered clear of such a fiasco, instead choosing a constitutionally limited democratic republic as our form of government. The Constitution states what is necessary, not you, and not the majority.

FALSE! Sure the Constitution states what is necessary, but so do the American people, the majority, through their elected representitives, in a democratic republic.

Bright red words don't make it so. The Constitution's limits on the power of the majority are what make democracy viable. Unlimited democacy would be a suicide pact for anyone who could ever expect to have a minority opinion.

Who said anything about "unlimited" democracy ? So you just change the subject as you go along to dodge the original points ? Bringing us back to them, it's not only the Constitution that states what is necessary. The people, who by MAJORITY, vote elect representitives, state what is necessary, and this is carried out by the congress and president, as a result of majority votes from the people.

In some instances, the people directly, enact law, by MAJORITY votes in referendums and initiatives. All part of a democratic republic. Where you get the idea that the majority of the people do not state what is necessary, and me too for that matter (as part of that majority), is anybody's guess. But then, who cares, really ?

 

[protectionist]

What amazes me is that Obama won the last election.

Not a person in this forum voted for him but he still won...

Lots of people who might have voted for a Republican on the basis of immigration, national defense, affirmative action, death penalty, gun control, etc, didn't, because they fear Republicans' spending cut mindset. They fear cuts in Social Security (this a huge number of voters), VA benefits, food stamps, etc. They also worry that Republicans talk a good fight on national security, but with all their tax & spending cuts, they won't back it up with the money necessary.

So maybe they didn't vote for Obama (I didn't). But they didn't vote for Romney either ( I didn't)

The republicans put a guy in magic underwear up against Obama in the last election. What the fuck did you all expect?

We expect posters to come in here with a modicum of intelligence and maturity, and not think that using 4 letter curse words somehow strengthens or enhances their post.

 

[RKMBrown]

A teenager might not qualify as meeting the definition of pedophilia, but does meet the definition of a "child"

Child - A person who is below the age of adulthood; a minor (person who is below the legal age of responsibility or accountability).  child - Wiktionary

Wrong again. How can anyone be this wrong all the time.
Teenager

thirteen
fourteen
fifteen
sixteen
seventeen
eighteen
nineteen

It's not as hard as you are making it. See the TEEN? That means teenager.

You can be an adult teenager, and you can be a young teenager.

Eighteen is not a child in any state in the nation.

Seventeen is a child in any state in the nation. And for some things, so is 20. I'm beginning to focus on your problems.

1. You can't understand >> Has a teenager of 13 TO 17 reached the age at which legally binding contracts can be entered into ? No. Have they reached the age at which they can join the military ? No. Can they vote ? Can they buy alcoholic beverages ? No. Do they meet the definition of a child. Yes.

2. You don't know how to get lost.

You say 17 is a child in any state in the nation. Yet, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in most states. Are you saying you think our government encourages sex with children?

 

[protectionist]

You wouldn't be stealing it any more than they stole it,

Jack opens a lemonaide stand. He sells 40 cups of lemonaide for $1 dollar each. You stick a gun in his face and take the $40.

According to Communist logic, you didn't steal it - because somehow he stole it by proving a product that people want....

to have it in the first place (in many cases, the taxation would be less of a steal) As for what they'll have the next year, when Clinton raised taxes on the rich, there was lots of money there to be taxed, after that (year after year) Is simple history eluding you ?

The problem with you Communists is that you actually are quite insane. I mean, don't get me wrong, you're evil - you seek to take by force the fruits of anothers' labor; but you're also insane, with the justifications you try to offer for your evil.

Funny, It seemed to me that is exactly what some capitalists do. They do it by underpaying their employees and keeping the lion's share of the take for themselves.

And I strongly question your honesty. You make a statement you know is false, and then critique the subject of it. You know damn well that nobody thinks that the lemonade seller stole the $40 by providing a product that people want....And you're pretty stupid if you think anybody's going to accept that. Marxists would only see a business owner as a thief if he was underpaying people working for him.

HA HA. Some of the things you guys try to get away with in here is quite remarkable. Might be a good place for psychologists to study aberrated mentalities.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Lots of people who might have voted for a Republican on the basis of immigration, national defense, affirmative action, death penalty, gun control, etc, didn't, because they fear Republicans' spending cut mindset. They fear cuts in Social Security (this a huge number of voters), VA benefits, food stamps, etc. They also worry that Republicans talk a good fight on national security, but with all their tax & spending cuts, they won't back it up with the money necessary.

So maybe they didn't vote for Obama (I didn't). But they didn't vote for Romney either ( I didn't)

The republicans put a guy in magic underwear up against Obama in the last election. What the fuck did you all expect?

We expect posters to come in here with a modicum of intelligence and maturity, and not think that using 4 letter curse words somehow strengthens or enhances their post.

What a fucking weenie you are.

Now address my point... If you even can.

 

[protectionist]

1) Taxation to fund necessary functions of our government, such as for national defense and other items listed in the Constitution are the normal process of Government. Taxation and borrowing against future taxation to redistribute income from peter's labor to pay paul to sit on his ass is theft.

2) If companies are not paying workers the agreed upon sum we have a court system to take care of that. If people don't like the agreed upon sum they are free to go elsewhere.

3) No one said workers voluntarily accept underpayment. That's some dumb ass strawman you are trying to make up that no one is getting paid what they deserve because the man is keeping you down. You are a coward. You work for the man then complain about it, you are not worth of your job, and clearly being paid to much.

1. I didn't say anything about taxing to pay someone to sit on their ass. Note: the most ass-sitting ass sitters are the super rich, who never get their hands dirty.

2. By not providing enough taxes (like to pay ICE agents and CBP officers, & build the Mexican border fence) THAT is causing & perpetuating the most welfare drain.

3. "agreed upon sum", "court system to take care of that", " free to go elsewhere" >> all rationalizations of cheapskate employers.

3. Of course workers are not getting paid what they should, and of course it is very often the greed of the employers that is the reason. Millions of workers get less tha 10 bucks an hour. You call that acceptable ? Sure you do, because like many others, you are living in a denial dream world, manufactured to maximize profits regardless of the effects. And you bitch about govt regulation. Govt wouldn't have to step in to kick your greedy ass, if you acted properly in the first place.

>> 1. I didn't say anything about taxing to pay someone to sit on their ass. Note: the most ass-sitting ass sitters are the super rich, who never get their hands dirty.

Then what is taxing my income to pay someone to sit on their asses? I call if theft, if not theft what do you call it comrade?

>> 2. By not providing enough taxes (like to pay ICE agents and CBP officers, & build the Mexican border fence) THAT is causing & perpetuating the most welfare drain.

Nonsense we pay enough taxes the problem is our government does not want to spend what we give them on things like protecting our borders. Not when they can spend it on protecting Afghanistan's, Israel's, Europe's, Japan's, Iraq's, ... borders. We could give our government 100% of our income and they still wouldn't spend it on protecting our border. Why? Because they want the welfare drain. Why? Because it creates a population the needs government to live. Why? Because then they are our masters.

>> 3. "agreed upon sum", "court system to take care of that", " free to go elsewhere" >> all rationalizations of cheapskate employers.

Cheapskate employers get the employees they deserve. It's a symbiotic relationship.

>> 3. Of course workers are not getting paid what they should, and of course it is very often the greed of the employers that is the reason. Millions of workers get less tha 10 bucks an hour. You call that acceptable ? Sure you do, because like many others, you are living in a denial dream world, manufactured to maximize profits regardless of the effects. And you bitch about govt regulation. Govt wouldn't have to step in to kick your greedy ass, if you acted properly in the first place.

Why the hell should we pay a 15year old kid the same amount to bag our groceries as we would a plumber with 15years professional experience?

1. You're NOT paying someone to sit on their asses. You're paying someone if he is unable to provide for himself, which could very well be YOU someday.

2. If we paid enough taxes, we wouldn't have debts and deficits. And it sounds like you don't know much about what's going on in Afghanistan or Iraq, etc. Your theory about the welfare drain & creating a population is sheer lunacy.

3. So then they shouldn't BE cheapskates. They should pay a good living wage, right ?

4. Why the hell should we pay a 15year old kid the same amount to bag our groceries as we would a plumber with 15years professional experience? I suppose we shouldn't. Why do you ask ? I don't recall ever advocating they be paid the same. I only said all workers should get a living wage for full time work, that's all.

 

[protectionist]

The republicans put a guy in magic underwear up against Obama in the last election. What the fuck did you all expect?

We expect posters to come in here with a modicum of intelligence and maturity, and not think that using 4 letter curse words somehow strengthens or enhances their post.

What a fucking weenie you are.

Now address my point... If you even can.

I didn't expect anything in particular from the Republicans. I've learned to expect one thing in American politics > the UNexpected. Like how I did that without cursing ?

 

[pvsi]

Please be brief. I will briefly state that there probably are 100 things (or more) wrong with America, but I will state just one for now >>

America is too much run by rich people. Members of Congress, the President and Vice-President, and members of the Supreme Court are generally all rich people. What do they know about middle class, lower middle class, and poor people's lives ? How can they make decisions about things they have no experience with, or have long forgotten from years past ? When have these people ever been unemployed, and out looking for a job, with a wide variety of things being used against them ? (credit reports, smear talk from former employers often untrue, etc). The last time I applied for a job I was told I would never get hired because employers require RECENT employment in that job occupation (within last 2 years). There's probably a long list of ways people can be denied a job, that shouldn't exist, and don't make sense.

You are right. In my words, I believe what is wrong with America is the fact that money controls media.

 

[dblack]

FALSE! Sure the Constitution states what is necessary, but so do the American people, the majority, through their elected representitives, in a democratic republic.

Bright red words don't make it so. The Constitution's limits on the power of the majority are what make democracy viable. Unlimited democacy would be a suicide pact for anyone who could ever expect to have a minority opinion.

Who said anything about "unlimited" democracy ?

You imply it every time you object to the notion that the power of government should be limited in scope. You keep coming back to the idea that, if the majority wills it, anything goes.

 

[protectionist]

1. you earn what your work is worth to the employer, if you don't like it get more education and/or skills

2. ridiculous, but typical of libtardian thinking

3. even more ridiculous, but also typical.

1. FALSE! You should earn what your work is worth to the employer + what is required for you to make a living. If the employer pays less (for 40 hrs/wk) than what is required, then the employer's offer is worthless.

2. You say it's ridiculous that acting immorally endangers your immortal soul ? You are pitiful.

3. As I said, I'm a Conservative, not a lib.

False? WTF?

Do you have any understanding of business or economics at all? An employer has a fixed amount of cost with regard to tasks that must be done in order for the business to move forward and thrive. That means that if task X is worth 7.50 per hour (lets not forget the other attended costs associated with a wage) to complete, then that is all they will offer. If an employee needs 12 dollars and hour to survive, then they skip the 7.50 per hour job and continue looking until they find the 12 dollar an hour job.

That is reality. It is also what a Conservative would advocate.

I'd say it's what a REAGANIST would advocate. And where do you get this "worth 7.50 per hour" stuff ? Based on what ? That being the most the employer could pay "in order for the business to move forward and thrive" ?

If that were the case, then I'd say that employer is not capable of being in business, and he shouldn't be. If he's not able to pay an adequate wage, he's unable to do business, and should be doing the same as all the rest of us who can't afford to own our own business. >> go out and Get a Job.

 

[protectionist]

Bright red words don't make it so. The Constitution's limits on the power of the majority are what make democracy viable. Unlimited democacy would be a suicide pact for anyone who could ever expect to have a minority opinion.

Who said anything about "unlimited" democracy ?

You imply it every time you object to the notion that the power of government should be limited in scope. You keep coming back to the idea that, if the majority wills it, anything goes.

FALSE! IN YOUR MIND, I imply it, and only there. Fact is, I never imply, insinuate, or infer anything, ever. And I haven't said that I "object to the notion that the power of government should be limited in scope." YOU said that. And I also didn't say that "if the majority wills it, anything goes". YOU said that too.

Hereafter, would it be OK if I say my words, instead of you saying them ?

 

[francoHFW]

May be if we started paying people 10.10- not teen agers- we'd start to get good service, some pride, and less domestic horror stories...life just goes to hell under Pub savage capitalism...hater dupes.

 

[protectionist]

Wrong again. How can anyone be this wrong all the time.
Teenager

thirteen
fourteen
fifteen
sixteen
seventeen
eighteen
nineteen

It's not as hard as you are making it. See the TEEN? That means teenager.

You can be an adult teenager, and you can be a young teenager.

Eighteen is not a child in any state in the nation.

Seventeen is a child in any state in the nation. And for some things, so is 20. I'm beginning to focus on your problems.

1. You can't understand >> Has a teenager of 13 TO 17 reached the age at which legally binding contracts can be entered into ? No. Have they reached the age at which they can join the military ? No. Can they vote ? Can they buy alcoholic beverages ? No. Do they meet the definition of a child. Yes.

2. You don't know how to get lost.

You say 17 is a child in any state in the nation. Yet, the age of consent is 16 or 17 in most states. Are you saying you think our government encourages sex with children?

I told you before, I'm not going to read your posts. And I asked you a bunch of questions in this thread, which you, like a gutless coward, have been running from ever since, and have never even half-adequately answered. So you don't have a toe to stand on to be asking me anything, at this point.

 

[dblack]

Who said anything about "unlimited" democracy ?

You imply it every time you object to the notion that the power of government should be limited in scope. You keep coming back to the idea that, if the majority wills it, anything goes.

FALSE! IN YOUR MIND, I imply it, and only there. Fact is, I never imply, insinuate, or infer anything, ever. And I haven't said that I "object to the notion that the power of government should be limited in scope." YOU said that. And I also didn't say that "if the majority wills it, anything goes". YOU said that too.

Hereafter, would it be OK if I say my words, instead of you saying them ?

Oh, blue this time. Nice!

How 'bout you just answer a straight up question? Do you accept the idea that the Constitution limits the scope of government, regardless of whether it is pursuing the will of the majority or not? Because you've indicated otherwise. If I'm reading that wrong, feel free to correct me.