Lets talk politics.... :(

It's not like there's actually only 2. It's just that the other two have so much more money and influence backing them that the others only really serve to siphon votes away from the major 2 (as those who don't want to vote for those 2 don't all want to vote for the same parties).

Your trying to decide which pile of shit looks less like a pile of shit. Obama is a Marxist and any American who doesn't want to make the founding fathers roll over in their graves wouldn't vote for him. Just listen and add logic to what he says anyone who votes for him and says they have been listening I tell them this "You have been listening but, you haven't been hearing what he is saying". The only redeeming trait about him is the fact he is pro-choice. Other than that he's a piece of shit.

McCain is possibly the worse republican ever since hoover but, the bright side is that he is the worse republican ever. Since he is such a weak republican (by party standards) that means he is less likely to follow party lines and is willing to compromise with people across the aisle. Hardcore republicans call McCain a liberal republican which besides sounding like an oxymoron is actually a good thing. He's closer to the center in all the party bullshit. The downside to McCain is he believes that life begins at conception.

Either way they both suck and I honestly want neither of them as the next president.

A suggestion to fix this. After these elections get out there and inform the average idiot that they can and should vote a third party since the current system is just "Pick the lesser of two evils". All these politicians will lie to keep their cushy jobs. The only real way to bring about change is to make these parties actually stop their infighting and put the people before the party like it should be.

Just the way things happened. Technically, we have a three party system but, the third party is a fledgling so it hasn't had time to grow even though it is arguably the oldest party since many of the founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson were libertarians. In recent years the party has begun to grow and began what felt like a grassroots movement (usually tied with the FairTax system as a political platform)

America has a Socialist/Communist party, a Green party (environmentalist), Anarchist party, Libertarian (Bob Barr), Constitutional party (Ron Paul),etc,etc

Um.....so do you actually think that plan would help anything?

Also as a note I don't really like the ideas behind other parties much either especially libertarians. Green is the one I prefer most out of all of them but I don't like plenty of things they want to do too. And I don't really care if the founding fathers roll over in their graves...they didn't live in the present and are already rolling over in their graves because black people and women can vote.

We are still number 2 or 3...try agian. Number 8 to move up in (the other eight are in East Asia, I.E Hong Kong South Korea...only the top twentey for Living standards)

So I'll still take Amercia for $300


though Bush really fucked us over. It wasn't even debatable who much we rocked untill we came along. The biggest agruement aginast us was..."alot of you are fat!" Now more of us are fat now that we are becoming poorer.


Witch in my book proves, if an Amercian presdient is a sex fiend...he becomes an EPIC leader.

But no one is willing to do this. McCain promises to cut corruption and waste? Come on. Additionally, taxes should be flexible. You want tax cuts in times of economic stagnation to stimulate growth, but then you need taxes in times of economic prosperity in order to pay for the tax cuts in the past and in the future.

Even with tax cuts, we don't just leave the economy to grow as fast as possible. Too much economic growth tends to be uncontrolled and lead to instability and inflation.



At the core, this is the philosophical argument concerning health care, and pretty much every social program. At one extreme, you could just leave people who don't have the resources to take care of themselves to die, or on the other, you could force everyone on the same government health care plan.

We certainly use the collective approach on a number of important services: police, fire, rescue. We could abolish the police, return their funding to the people, and let those who could afford it protect themselves with mercenaries and their right to bear arms. However, most people will tell you this is a bad idea. Same with fire and rescue. Why are certain things valid as a collective endeavor and certain things not?



It's free once you assume higher taxes as the norm, as you said.



This is something I see from a lot of people who have it made, most of whom were born into pretty decent lives, and who, by merely being competent, could be successful. If you are someone trying to get out of extreme poverty, you have to work hard, but you also have to probably have some luck. You have to overcome lousy schools, lack of parental support in many cases, possibly not having healthcare, having to take care of your parents/siblings at a young age, limited access to educational resources, and a host of other challenges. Sure, some people succeed, but it's possible to work pretty hard and still fail.

Consider W. Bush. He made some mistakes in his life, pre-presidency, like getting straight Cs in college. However, his moneyed family and friends were able to help him out. To be politically fair, John Kerry did much of the same. If you're a poor person trying to pull yourself up from your bootstraps, one mistake dooms you. You have to be perfect. Clearly not an equal standard.

That involves another question at the heart of liberal vs. conservative. Does "equal opportunity" involving giving everyone exactly the same thing(from a government standpoint) and letting them go at it, or should it also involve giving additional help and support to those who are at a steep disadvantage?

Well, sorry for intervening in the tax - talk, but you should take a look at the tax in the European countries (the Skandinavian ones, Germany etc) all have way higher taxes than you in the US. Denmark has 25% VAT, plus you have to pay to the official state pension font and so on. In the end about 1/3 of your money is going to the state each month.
Anyways: here is a slight table that makes it easier to see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world. You are still on the green end of the tax - line.

Yeah 25% VAT on top of our 50% income tax(for the higher-middle-class).


"The United States has one of the widest rich-poor gap of any high-income nation today, and that gap continues to grow.[16] In recent times, some prominent economists including Alan Greenspan have warned that the widening rich-poor gap in the U.S. population is a problem that could undermine and destabilize the country's economy and standard of living.[17]"

You may have a very high average standard of living, but if you remove the top 1% of society from all countries in the statistic, I'm pretty sure America would drop quite a bit.


Of course it's not free, it's something you all pay a little bit of in order to make sure everyone has access to equally good treatment.

Say what you want about him, but Micheal Moore has made a pretty fair film for once, Sicko. It's much more balanced than the other stuff he has done, you should watch it.
I doubt you will though.

So I take it your against smaller government, lower taxes on all social classes, Free market economics, ownership of personal property, maintaining the rights granted by the constitution, America becoming isolationist and not constantly at war with other nations, increase in personal privacy rather than domestic spy programs (anti-patriot act), removing government interference on abortion, removal of subsidies of industries to allow them to prosper of fail on their own merits?

I see, then we are on two very different wavelengths and debating is useless since our two different logic are like comparing apples and oranges.

On the subject of the gap of rich and poor. The rich do things to continue to make them rich such as invest and manage their money properly. The poor continue to not save money and in reality just waste it rather than put it in the proper places. Buying $20 worth of lottery tickets a week isn't a good plan for retirement or investment. While there are some people where they just can't get a break but, no system is perfect. This idiotic idea of redistribution of wealth will just prove without a doubt that the smart people will invest and save money while the idiots do the opposite. Even with income redistribution the smart and ambitious will succeed while the dependent and weak will continue to hold out their hands for money. The only way to make that not come true is to remove ownership of everything and place it in the hands of the government. Remove wages to make everyone work to get only the basic 3 meals, a place to live, a passable education. Only then will you remove any gap between poor and rich because we'll all be poor at that point.

Before you go and say "You don't know what the poor have to go through, you don't understand their struggles".

Let me give you a little story. When I was born my parents we beyond dirt poor. It took my parents over a year to save up to buy a regular NES at the time the super NES was out which was in the early 90's. We were so poor that my school lunches were free. With hard work from both of my parents we were able to climb up the economic ladder, from a point of earning $1000 less a year we would have been food stamp dependent to the point both of my parents earned 1k a week a piece. So from food stamps to a combined income of over 100k. The proverbial rags to riches story but,its doesn't end there. In the year 2001 my parents lost their jobs (worked at the same company). We had just bought a new $80,000 Winnebago. We fell so far behind in payments the RV was repossessed. My family had to declare chapter 13 bankruptcy we lost our home. My parents found new jobs delivering straight trucks (Ryder, U-Haul, Penske) and Rv's for a living. Around 2003 my father fell ill with pneumonia and nearly died. After three months in the hospital he came out and it took him 7 months to get to the point he could actually leave the house. During that time I worked in a chemical manufacturer (Enforcer Brand Products) to help make ends meet since my parents worked in a team for their job if one is down the other is down as well. Basically, I worked to keep food on the table while our bills which included a $1,300 monthly bankruptcy payment a 1,2000 a month rent,etc. Eventually he recovered and started to work again, slowly but, steadily. In 2004 on thanksgiving he had a heart attack. Several more months in the hospital for him. In 2005 my mother was hospitalized with heart problems due to a combination of a childhood illness and smoking. Two values needed to be repaired while a third needed to be replaced. She was hospitalized for three months and they did open heart surgery while had her down for six weeks...I think. Several months later she had the middle toe on her right foot amputated due to a clot cutting off circulation. In 2006 my father had a second heart attack. He was also required to have open heart surgery to have a bypass done since one of his arteries was 90% blocked. During the operation they didn't use a filter (to catch clots and other things). Blood clot broke free from somewhere and embedded itself in his right eye and he lost most of his sight in his right eye. To give you an idea how much he kept. Hold a dime about 1 inch to 1 1/2 inches from your right eye. He sees that little area of that dime, the rest is black.

The entire time through all those medical procedures which we were uninsured we had to pay 2,500 a month (bankruptcy and rent) along with two vehicle payments, three insurance policies, Utilities,etc.

After all that please excuse me when I'm skeptical when people use the excuse "But, my medical expenses...." Go fuck yourself. My parents did it and if they can do it some jack off can do it but, they won't because they don't want to work for it.



I have actually watched his movies (and Al Gore's) and I think he's an idiot whose arrogance dwarfs his size. While I agree that something needs to be done about the system I believe the answer is to get the federal governments fat, money grubbing fingers out of it and let the companies do what they do best. Hell even walmart the fucking devil company offers health insurance plans. They are fixing the problem and we don't need some incompetent politician at the helm. The Federal Government has failed the people at every turn so their track record speaks for itself.

As I posted before, what is "equal opportunity"? Is it just giving everyone the exact same thing and letting them go at it, or should it involve some additional support to those who are at a steep disadvantage?

Consider your own story as compared to my family's. My dad has had a good job at the FRB, we've never had any trouble affording things that wouldn't be considered luxuries, getting extra classes outside of school for academic enrichment. And my dad's father was an engineer at Exxon-Mobile who could afford to send his son to good private schools and eventually UPenn with no student loans.

There is room for errors, room for learning the value of hard work, room for some allowance of unforseen events. You say a lot of people are successful because they work hard, which is true, but many of them had to learn that skill. How many kids screw up in school when they are immature? How many young adults don't quite take their jobs seriously enough? If you start out with a cushion, you have a chance to fail some and learn. If you start out at the very bottom, even the smallest error can be fatal.

What about your own family? What if there were no food stamps or school lunches? Would it have been possible to get by just by working harder, or would the limit have been strained just too far?



In many cases, being born rich. They can often fail and fail again with little to no consequence.



Sure, there are bad examples of alcoholics and gamblers, but there are plenty of people who would love to save for higher education and retirement but can't because rent, utilities, food, and other essentials are beyond their means as is. Reagan's "Welfare Queen" is largely a myth created to serve an agenda.



Maybe your parents were able to succeed through exceptionally hard work, or maybe they got a few lucky breaks in addition to the bad luck medically, but there are a lot of people who work pretty damn hard and still don't make it.

On the topic of heath insurance, why are certain services, such as police, fire, and rescue considered pretty much universally valid as collective endeavors? We could disband the police, send the saving back to the people, and let people defend themselves with their 2nd amendment rights or by hiring mercenaries. If your house burns down, sucks for you. However, we don't do this, and almost no one would support such a shift.

Healthcare, Police, and Fire and Rescue largely serve the same purpose: the prevent loss of life and loss of property. What makes healthcare different so that it is completely invalid as a collective endeavor?



The New Deal helped a lot of people. The FRB has kept inflation in check through hard times in the US, and held a lot of market impulses in check. The government stepped in in the case of civil rights, when no other body was prepared or willing to move towards racial equality.

In fact, the government had to step in during the industrial revolution, probably hurting economic growth to some extent, but preventing corporate behavior what was exploitative and would be considered completely appalling by today's standards. Companies forced workers to live in company towns and shop at company stores, keeping them in a state of perpetual debt paying for overpriced housing and goods: essentially, they were indentured servants. Bigwigs hired mercenaries(Pinkertons) to violently end attempts by organized labor to oppose these practices. Dominant companies used horizontal integration to force their smaller competitors to go bankrupt, buy them out, and use their monopolies to charge exorbiant prices and run a fat profit.

Even staunchly conservative economists don't consider these tactics appropriate, and realize that the industrial era market didn't simply correct itself. Even once you accept Milton Friedman's idea that the moral responsibility of a corporation is to make money, the corporation is still expected to play within a set of rules considered "honest and just", determined by society. Friedman himself said as much, and this set of rules is determined by the government. Having no rules, as we discovered in the late 19th century, didn't work.

Yes we see thing very differently.
I'm against lower taxes, the extremes of free market economics, certain things in the constitution, and isolationism.

Apparently, equal opportunity is the mentality that we should all have the equal opportunity to depend on the Governments handout programs.


Ever hear of food drives and the salvation army? They exist and are willing to help if you ask nicely. They are more efficient in aid than the government and they have less money to throw around. If we earned that little bit less. My parents would have gone to them for some food.

Someone being born poor can achieve the entire world (Oprah, J.K. Rolling, Jim Carey, P. Diddy, Celene Dion). You teach your children to work hard, be honest and never give up hope. Just because someones family did something to have money either by working harder, saving, cutting out things they didn't need,etc does that mean because someone in your family didn't do it that means the other family must suffer because your family squandered their chance?[/quote]




The "Welfare Queen" isn't a myth, Nacey Pelosi's "People working a minimum wage job and supporting a family" is a myth. Nobody can support a family on minimum wage because minimum wage jobs are Fast Food and similar jobs. Honestly, if you work at McDonalds at the cash register or work the Fry-a-lator you shouldn't have a family.




I should rephrase: "Recent Federal Government has failed the people at every turn'. Implying that since the Carter administration the government has failed us on massive scales. Though a few highlights from each administration do make the case that they weren't all bad. Though the cons far outweigh the pros of those admins.




I agree with this idea. I disagree with Libertarian platform on the subject of Unions (I was a member of a Union for a time) though I dislike the GM and Ford Unions demanding $50/hr paychecks. Which has choked the thin "profits" the company gets whenever it actually is in the black. I don't want totally unbridled Free market economics. I do not want a return to the Rockefeller era but, I do want minimal government interference. No Government bailouts, if a company fails then let it fail instead of taking over it (Freddie Mac and Fanny May). Just like the people, you succeed or fail based on your own merits, decisions, and actions. Make laws to protect the people from being hurt/coerced/etc. Make laws to prevent discrimination on sex,race,etc. Write laws that prevent companies from intimidating their employees like how Wal-mart will intimidate and harass its employees if they try to start a union,etc
I do like the idea of minimum wage laws as long as they are reasonable. $7.15/hr isn't reasonable, high school and college students don't need to earn 300/wk assuming Full time student/Job since I know many of those. If you are older than the norm for college students then you should have another job that pays more than McDonalds or Burger King.

@Ramsus: I do believe voting for another party will help. Maybe no just one vote but, if more people vote for another party instead of basically voting for the same thing. Then you will bring about change. Voting Democrat or Republican and expecting things to change is like putting your hand on a burning stove top and expecting things to be any different.
Voting either Democrat or Republican is the status quo. If you want anything to really change. Then vote somewhere else and get the corrupt, special interest pandering politicians of both parties out of office.

(I apologize for the double post but, the previous one was long enough)



I'm not for extreme free market economics (Industrial revolution and such things like Whitelion mentioned)

Exactly, what do you disagree with in the Constitution (I was really referencing the bill of rights). So which right do you believe we don't need? Would it be the right to assemble? The freedom of the press? Freedom of religion? The freedom of petition? The right to a trial by your peers? Prohibiting the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without, due process of law. The right against unlawful search and seizure. The right against cruel and unusual punishment.

Man, I can see it now. Those are just terrible, terrible things.

I also disagree with isolationism but, I also don't believe we should have troops in every corner of the world.

Sure, charity is efficient when it works, but it is also inconsistent. The resources of charitable organizations can vary wildly, and historically, charity alone has never been enough to help everyone.



Sure, it's always possible to go from nothing to everything, but if you are at the very bottom, you generally need some extraordinary talent or a good break of luck to make it. Even your situation was better than a lot of what we see. You had two parents who were there to impress upon you the value of working hard. Many people don't. While hard work and frugality seem like common sense to a lot of us, one has to learn these values.



The "welfare queen" came out of a hyperbolic media portrayal of a small number of people who were committing welfare fraud. There will always be someone who is lazy and tries to cheat the system, but the perpetuated idea that everyone who is on some form of welfare is a lazy ass who wants to live off government handouts is completely false.



Fire and rescue doesn't uphold the laws. Letting houses burn down wouldn't have any effect on criminal proceedings. They are there primarily to prevent loss of life in fires, many of which are caused by natural disasters or electrical accidents that don't really have a direct culprit.

Sure, a few volunteer groups would spring up, but they wouldn't have nearly the effectiveness, reach, or consistency of a collectively run government force. There are volunteer groups out there trying to run charitable healthcare programs, but they simply don't have the resources or reach to stop the problem alone.



Fannie Mae, or FNMA, was originally a government program that was later privatized, which hasn't been working out too well lately.

While the FRB did bail out Bear Sterns, they let Indy Mac fail. I think if there weren't already so many problems, they might have let Bear Sterns fail too to send a signal to Wall Street.



That's a unusual position, considering the rest of your positions, as well as the fact that most research shows minimum wage to be an ineffective way of helping low wage workers earn more money.



I think he was referring to the so called idea of "strict constitutionalism" espoused by the conservatives on the US supreme court.

Isolationism, as a whole, might have worked 100 years ago, but is pretty much an idiotic policy in today's world.

While I was in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grade I saw my parents for a grand total of two hours a day, if that. My parents were out the door before I woke up for school (I got up at 6 a.m. and rode my bike to school during 3rd and 4th). They arrived home a couple hours before I went to sleep which was about 8-9 p.m. So I saw my parents between 6-8 p.m. Even then I saw my father for maybe 30 minutes. Which was enough for him to eat then he went to sleep. The only "values" they tried to instill in me was "believe in Jesus and you'll go to heaven". Outside the fact they paid for my dinner (since I skipped breakfast and lunch was free) and gave me a roof over my head. They had little involvement in my life. Even to this day I only see them for maybe a week every 3-4 months. I still live at home and during this latest stint they haven't been home in 3 months. Not a big deal since my childhood gave me a strong self reliance.



Medicare (maybe medicaid I forget which) has a 31% fraud rate. One man was able to con the system for over 100,000 individual medical claims before anyone caught on. One man currently wanted by the U.S. Marshals was able to scam Medicare for 3 million in claims. They paid 1.5 million to him before catching on. The Miami Herald found out that Medicare loses 2.5 billion in south Florida alone also Medicare reportedly loses 60 billion or more nationally every year. The American Government and politicians are far too incompetent to effectively and efficiently run such a large program. You can look it up the facts are there, every large hand out program that United States Government has is riddled with bureaucracy, inefficiency, corruption, mismanagement and fraud. Do you really expect Socialist Health care to really be any different? If you answered yes. You have no connection to reality.



I disagree, Police and fire fighters were originally volunteers and they we "adequate" for their situation. While you are correct that they wouldn't be as effective as a disciplined force, they would be able to provide enough protection for suburban areas. Urban areas are a different beast to wrestle. Arguing over this point has nothing in connection to the original argument. Fire and Police departments are controlled by state governments instead of the Federal Government. While they follow the rules and regulations of the Federal Government to keep the standards the same across the country. It does not directly control them and if the Federal Government was in charge of those departments then calling for help would take longer than waiting in line at the DMV.




I see. I guess I fall into "strict constitutionalism" but, my interpretations are broad enough to work with just about everything. I see the first ten as set in stone and can't be amended,repealed,restricted or changed and anyone who attempts to do so should be met with any and/or all forms of resistance. I just disagree with people on the "right to an education" or the "Right to free health care" since that is a slippery slope. With that logic, anyone who feels entitled to something automatically claims they have a right to it. Eventually, it would all boil down to "I have a right to drive" "I have a right to have a house" "I have a right to do whatever I want even if it infringes on the rights of others". See my point? My idea of a "right" should be something you are willing to die to protect. If you are not willing to die for it then you can't call it a "right".



I already stated I disagree with it but, its a Damned if you do and Damned if you don't scenario for America. If we try to protect a country from invasion then we're accused of killing women and children. If we oust a dictator to promote democracy and freedom we are accused of perpetrating a war for ulterior motives. If we fight a group that doesn't stand and fight (Viet Cong, Radical Islam,etc) and would rather mix in with civilians and use them and religious buildings as shields, we are the bad guys even with them killing their shields when they kill us (kids with Grenades in hand baskets, Suicide Bombers,etc). Every time America attempts to do anything we are automatically the great Satan. If the world constantly treats us as the Great Satan then why even bother sacrificing our men and women protect any other nation?

My personal stance is this: Evil exists in the world and just like the school yard bully. You need to stand up to it and defeat it. Ignoring it will only leave you vulnerable to the next strike. Trying to appease it will only encourage it. You have to stand and fight. My definition of evil is any person, country, ideal,etc that is a threat to the freedom

You had two parents, both of whom were present, and both of whom impressed upon you the value of working hard by their own actions. Plenty of people don't even have that much. They are born to single mothers with no jobs who don't even care about them. Certainly makes it harder. And for myself, I certainly didn't have to learn as much self reliance as you as early. Just the luck of the draw?



I assume you mean medicare.

Firstly, politicians don't even run medicare. Medicare has a whole host of problems, some of which could be fixed fairly easily, some of which are complex, but there are other programs that are pretty successful in the fraud area.

In 2002, fraud for unemployment insurance was below 3%, hardly riddled with corruption and mismanagement. In fact, the more modern strategy of using federal mandates and money but administration on a state level has made a number of these programs quite effective, at least in achieving their stated goals. One can debate the worth of those goals.

Massachusetts recently enacted a universal healthcare system, as is widely known, and it has been pretty successful. I think it currently provides more benefits than needed, but from an implementation standpoint, it has been a success.

So yes, there is a foundation in reality for belief that social programs can succeed.



Firstly, law enforcement forces have almost never traditionally been volunteer(except in the mythology of the American west). Secondly, it doesn't matter whether it is state or federal(law enforcement has both), it is collectively run with our tax dollars. Either way, the point is, what justifies certain collective programs in contrast to other collective programs? Police and healthcare both have the primary objective of preventing harm to people.



Minimum wage doesn't help low wage workers become wealthier, in terms of real goods. Consider: if you arbitrarily raise the minimum wage, where do employers get the money to pay their employees more? They probably won't just eat the loss, so they will either downsize, or raise the prices of whatever they are selling. Neither scenario is desirable. If one has mroe money but goods are more expensive, then one is no richer. Additionally, min wage workers generally aren't working in the luxury yacht industry. The food industries, for example, employ a lot of low wage workers.

On downsizing, having a minimum wage, looked at one way, says that everyone deserves to make X dollars and hour, but looked at another, it says that anyone who can't do work worth X dollars and hour shouldn't have a job. If a worker can only do work worth $5 an hour market value but the min wage is $6 and hour, will he be hired? Probably not, unless there is a shortage of workers.

Your scenario of someone always being willing to work for less only shows one side of the issue. On the other side, employers will want to compete for the person who will do the best job, which has the opposite effect of driving up wages. Taken together, these do in fact tend to create a market value "low end wage" for many areas. Consider the $5.25 min wage we used to have, or whatever it was. It was so low that very few jobs, even entry level, payed min wage. I've worked as a janitor and as a low wage service sector employee, and in no case have I or anyone I worked with ever made minimum wage. Even some of the more incompetent employees did better.



While the founders were intelligent people, they couldn't be able to forsee all the issues the nation would eventually face, which is why the constitution can be amended. Additionally, on many issues, clarification is needed. I have a right to bear arms. Does that mean I get a Glock? An AK-47? A Tank? A nuclear warhead? It doesn't say all arms, nor does it specify which arms. What does it mean to interpret this strictly? If I were tasked interpreting the second amendment with perfect strictness, I'd have to conclude that I had a constitutional right to own any weapon in existence. Obviously, this is not a reasonable policy. In this case, restrictions seem to be called for.

On the issue of slipper slope, we can't give people everything they want, yes, but we also can't keep a rigid constitutional structure written in the 18th century. Unanticipated problems will spring up and need to be dealt with, and they may not fall under the bill of rights, or fall under the bill of rights only dubiously(such as the right to privacy/due process issue). Either way, truthfully, I'd be more willing to die for my right to be educated than for my right to have guns.



Sometimes, someone has to step in, and the US is often the only power that has the will and ability. I think we do deserve more international credit for our intentions and efforts.


You can't stand up to all the evil in the world at once. Right now for instance, we can't stand up to Russia in eastern Europe and fight extremists in the middle east at the same time, we don't have the resources. We need diplomacy, sanctions, carrots, etc. Anyone unwilling to compromise won't get anywhere in the field of international relations.

@fpod: I was referring to the right to bear arms. as we don't really need a right to that as the point of it was to be allowed to revolt against the government if we felt like it. If we did that now they'd just shoot us and if that didn't work they'd poison the water and all sorts of other things that they're apparently legally allowed to do if they feel like. So we don't need the right to run around shooting each other for no reason, it just makes law enforcement harder and life more dangerous.

So you believe we should just let the government run rampant? Try to use its own corrupt systems to fight against it or just do nothing? It pisses away money on pork belly, worthless earmarks, corruption, decides who should get what and how much of it. Even though our government is to money as a open faucet is to water, people keep wanting to expand the government, raise taxes, put up more programs, tax and spend, tax and spend. That is the problem with bigger governments. All they do is take power away from the people. Just take and take until nothing is left. Once all the power of the people and their rights have been struck down then we'll be in a U.S.S.R. or Mao era Chinese communism.

Since the government has the "legal" right to poison our water and the various other things. You seem hypocritical to me for criticizing that and yet you want higher taxes, which means more programs, which means larger government interference in your daily life. If the government is allowed to do such horrible things, are able to dodge being held accountable with their waste WHY DO YOU WANT A BIGGER GOVERNMENT!?

How many more rights do we need to get rid of because "They aren't necessary". Freedom of speech? Christians can't thank their god at graduation or other public events. Internet and daily is being censored because "it offends people". How about Don Imus calling the Rutgers women's basketball team some nappy headed hoes? Who gets to set the standard? Is it you? Me? Politicians?

How about the freedom of having to quarter troops in peacetime? We should do everything to help out of troops. Not only pay taxes for their training,salaries, food, residence, and funerals but, we should also do our part to house and feed them when we aren't at war to help out the government.

How about protection again Searches and seizures and the requirement of court issued warrants. We don't need those. They only impede investigations. I mean, if you aren't doing anything illegal then you shouldn't have to worry.

The right to a fair and speedy public trial, Notice of accusations, Confronting one's accuser, Subpoenas, Right to counsel? The just allows the guilty to have a time span they need to dodge the law until they get off. It only aids the guilty and such. Those other minor details are just pure nonsense.

How about your Unenumerated rights? You don't need those.

Limiting the power of the Federal government? Nah, the government always knows whats best. Taxes those evil weathly people who abuse their employees. You know like, Bill Gates or Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Evil evil rich people.

How about those pesky 13th, 15th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, and 26th amendments?

If one right comes down. Who decides which ones stay? The Federal Government? The money of the special interest groups flowing into our politician's pockets show where their loyalties lie.

fpod do you realize that your over the top rant had very little to do with what I said in the previous post (or any ones previous that that really)? You're making a lot of weird assumptions about my views on stuff. Honestly I only intended to enter this topic the once and say what I had to say but I was compelled for some reason to reply to you (which was clearly a mistake and I should have know better than encourage you going into crazy rant mode). Frankly I unlike you admit that I don't have any grand solutions to the problems of our country or the world because I know that no matter what type of government (or lack of one if that's someone's thing) that there will be huge HUGE problems with whatever people choose to do because we're all too different to want the same things. So you can go on believing that taking away sick children's health care, encouraging the rich to continue stealing from the poor, and whatnot will make the word a better place but I'll always know that no matter what we do we won't do it perfectly and people will still suffer. I'm done arguing this with you now.

My point was: If we take away one right then who says which rights we get to keep? When it comes to your religion, who decides? Shirley Phelps Roper, you, me, George Lucas?

The fourth amendment; Do people like George Bush get to decide if we are allowed to keep it?

My points go on so it was hardly "over the top" since I can name different groups that want to take down each amendment to the Bill of Rights. All the way down to putting prohibition back into effect.

I don't believe I have grand solutions to the problems of our country either. I do however realize a mistake when its being made and I have the evidence to back it up as to why socialized health care is a bad idea.

I also know our Government is a complete failure when it comes to providing for those it already spoon feeds. All the information is in front of you and you can choose to educate yourself or you can choose to pass it up and remain in the dark.

I'm not saying let the sick children die or that the Ben Stein or Bill Gates are stealing from the poor (which is obviously an absurd idea). The only people who are stealing from the poor are the politicians who claim to be their champions. Giving with one hand and stealing with the other.