The Wild West

Got a show idea? Post them here!

Moderators: Loki, exposno1, Parrot, Quasigriz, NickDupree, nmoore63, robroydude, Spinny Spamkiller

Re: The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:44 am

It's always better to keep a discussion focused on one or two key points whenever possible. Otherwise it quickly runs off into so many tangents that no one remembers the original idea behind the post. That, however, appears to be impossible on this forum.

One person states, “Obama’s takeover of GM was patently illegal”.

Which generates the response, “Oh yeah? If Bush didn’t kill civilians in Iraq . . .”

If you want to discuss a particular topic and go through the history of the particulars that is fine. In fact, I wish it would happen more often. I’d love to see more topics thoroughly fleshed out such as the BP mess. Does the average Joe know that policies begun in the Nixson administration had such long term consequences that they led in part to the BP fiasco? No, most people don’t know and don’t care to know that much information. But it’s important and really doesn’t require that much brain power to comprehend.

Which brings me to another point. Most people on this forum would be surprised, no “shocked” is a better word, to learn that the Tea Party is just as disgusted at the Bush administration as they are the Obama administration. Maybe more. Remember when Democrats assumed control of the House and Senate? The news coverage wanted you to believe that was a “public mandate” in favor of Democrats. Actually, the opposite was true. Republican voters booted out big government politicians who claimed to be fiscally responsible but voted the reverse. This was the genesis of the Tea Party. They were the ones who started cleaning house.

And I agreed with them. As disgusted as I was with Clinton, Bush made me puke. I could fill this forum with enough pages of my complaints against those two Presidents that the server would crash. But that’s not the point of this post.

The point here is that the Obama administration has pushed illegal activities to a whole new level, one of absolute disregard for the law. We are nothing more than a Banana Republic where the government can assume control of corporations and issues mandates by fiat. It flagrantly picks and chooses which laws to ignore and makes Clinton and Bush look like pikers. But many would rather gloss over the obvious Wild West show we are witnessing and spend their time bashing Bush. It’s just so much more fun than having to address the facts.

In my opinion I really don’t care if our next President is Republican, Democrat or Swahili. They just need to understand we are a nation of laws. As it stands now we’re pretty much on par with Venezuela and Russia when it comes to respecting the law. It’s one thing to disagree with a law, a totally other thing to flagrantly disregard that law. And Obama even surpasses FDR in that category. There is no more law.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Tue Nov 22, 2011 12:26 pm

hondo69 wrote:It's always better to keep a discussion focused on one or two key points whenever possible. Otherwise it quickly runs off into so many tangents that no one remembers the original idea behind the post.


So you want to focus on your hatred for Obama rather then go off on a tangent about SOLVING the problems you are complaining about?
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:48 pm

It amazes me you have the ability to type since that requires a functioning brain.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:20 pm

hondo69 wrote:I have a requirement.

You must use facts for your arguments, lobbing grenades is nothing but a cheap substitute.


LOL!
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby Runicmadhamster » Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:52 pm

hondo69 wrote:
In my opinion I really don’t care if our next President is Republican, Democrat or Swahili. They just need to understand we are a nation of laws. As it stands now we’re pretty much on par with Venezuela and Russia when it comes to respecting the law. It’s one thing to disagree with a law, a totally other thing to flagrantly disregard that law. And Obama even surpasses FDR in that category. There is no more law.


It seems to me that a new president needs to understand that the US is a nation of OLD laws, and that new ones need to be written to match the current political climate. For example a new president needs to realise that the current laws regarding gun control hearken back to time when your house/town/village could be attacked by outlaws and that it made sense for guns to be readily available to all, and that those gun laws need updating.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:48 am

Runicmadhamster wrote:It seems to me that a new president needs to understand that the US is a nation of OLD laws, and that new ones need to be written to match the current political climate.


I think you'd be hard pressed to find many people who would disagree with that statement.

The sad part of it all is that old laws are seldom amended or tossed out altogether in a clear and clean fashion. Instead, we get, "paragraph 2.6.4 is to be replaced by . . ." some new language and then a huge pile of new paragraphs tacked onto the old laws. This causes confusion among different government agencies and many times overlapping language to boot, all of which is difficult to sort out by the public. It also keeps the lawyers happy with plenty of job security in all the newly created grey areas.

And it's not an accident, all by design. The more confusion you can create then the more flexibility is built into the cake. You can interpret a law one way, I can interpret it another. If enough fuzziness is built in then both interpretations can be deemed "correct". Just take a look at our tax code for a few thousand examples. Even CPA's can't sort it out.

Many laws are so open ended that no one can predict what they really mean. Take Obamacare for example. When the magicians finally pulled the rabbit from the hat and revealed it to the world it was immediately deemed the worst piece of legislation ever written, and that's saying something.

Within the 2,000 plus pages of legal speak the phrase, "as determined by the Secretary" was inserted over 800 times, with the resulting meaning of, "hey, we're going to make it up as we go along". And they've been busing making it up as to date some 2500 additional pages have been added by the Secretary, and she's just getting started. Just to compound the error, she can also change her mind any time she pleases without going through Congress, without public input and without transparency. It's all based on whim and can change any time she pleases.

Ever wonder why so many businesses finally throw in the towel and move overseas?

It's not because they want to, it's because we leave them no other choice.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Wild West

Postby Runicmadhamster » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:11 pm

It sounds like what you guys need is a Constitution Version 2, written by the finest legal minds in America. A requirement should be that a 5 year old could understand the wording, as to avoid the wording arguments that seem to erupt over things like the second amendment. That way Amercia could be a modern day country, with a modern day set of laws governing it.

And as you said hondo that very few people could disagree with my statement regarding OLD America laws, i don't think that there would be a problem passing this as an idea of a politicians to run with.
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:15 pm

it was immediately deemed the worst piece of legislation ever written,


Passive voice is for making opinion masquerade as fact. "Was immediately deemed" BY WHOM? The republicans were screaming the day Obama took office - by the time the actual text of the bill was released, it was practically irrelevant to the debate! (Remember "death panels"? That turned out to be language that every health insurance today already uses.) I've no doubt there were huge problems with the bill, but those were caused by Obama trying to make it acceptable to the conservatives and industry he needed suport from.

Here is the key: If you have a crime bill, and the criminals are on board with it, you don't have a crime bill. Any bill that has a chance of solving the US health care problems will be met with the very kinds of opposition you are describing.
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:25 pm

Runicmadhamster wrote:It sounds like what you guys need is a Constitution Version 2, written by the finest legal minds in America.


But what if congress and industry wrote it instead? I think it is the people and the current political culture that is the problem, not the constitution. Conservatives devastated this country and are terrified that if Obama fixes anything then conservatism will be discredited. That is why we can't fix health care, get rid of the Bush tax cuts, or hold corporations responsible for anything. Conservatives want to lock in place the things that wrecked the country so they can't be blamed for their results. I do believe that conservatives are actively trying to hurt the country.
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby Runicmadhamster » Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:37 pm

Algr wrote:
Runicmadhamster wrote:It sounds like what you guys need is a Constitution Version 2, written by the finest legal minds in America.


But what if congress and industry wrote it instead? I think it is the people and the current political culture that is the problem, not the constitution. Conservatives devastated this country and are terrified that if Obama fixes anything then conservatism will be discredited. So they are pulling every trick they can to make things worse so that they can "solve" the problems with more of what wrecked things in the first place. I do believe that conservatives are actively trying to hurt the country.


I will use the second amendment as my example, as you probably know it states......

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Ok that is fine and dandy in the time that it was written, during those days a small Town in America may need a well regulated militia to protect it from attacks by Native Americans or gangs of outlaws.

But in today's modern world the chance of the small country town in the middle of no where being attacked at all is almost Nil. So therefore the justification for the second amendment is reduced.

My statement was less about left/right wing but more about the need to modernise, evolve(legally) and improve your country
User avatar
Runicmadhamster
Satrap
 
Posts: 2757
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:09 am

hondo69 wrote:In my opinion I really don’t care if our next President is Republican, Democrat or Swahili. They just need to understand we are a nation of laws. As it stands now we’re pretty much on par with Venezuela and Russia when it comes to respecting the law. It’s one thing to disagree with a law, a totally other thing to flagrantly disregard that law. And Obama even surpasses FDR in that category. There is no more law.


Okay, you want a president that respects the law. What is your plan to achieve this? All you've done is spout generic republican talking points. How will THAT help?

And why do your most loathed presidents seem to be the ones (Clinton and FDR) that left the country most improved from how they found it?
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:12 am

So Hondo, what does your concern for the rule of law motivate you to do about this?

http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/12159
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Sat Nov 26, 2011 2:57 am

Here's a few questions that might clear things up for some in this forum:

1] Since the passage of ObamaCare, how many Democrats have been running to the nearest microphone spouting, "Look at me, I voted for this legislation"?

2] No matter what you think of Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, or Bush Jr they acted largely within the boundaries of the law. Can you say the same about Obama?

Now I fully understand a large percentage of our population gets all their "news" from a few heavily slanted sources such as NPR and MSNBC. They would never pick up a Wall Street Journal or search the internet to gather information from a variety of sources in order to receive a clearer, bigger picture of the issues. As such, they never stumble across helpful tidbits like many Democrats are damning ObamaCare as the worst piece of legislation ever written, or the majority of the States are already or plan on suing over the matter. No, much easier to just say, "that's a Republican talking point". It's so much easier than expanding your horizons a bit.

But people that really pay attention understand at least a few basic facts of the big picture, such as every President has had their brushes with legal issues. Reagan fired air traffic controllers, Clinton had HillaryCare, Bush Jr. had the Patriot Act. But Obama has thrown the rule of law completely out the window and governing "Chicago Style". If he wants your business, he'll just come and take it. If he doesn't like your business, he just shuts you down. If you're his buddy you can break the law all you want and here, take a few hundred million dollars for your trouble. It's not an isolotated issue that pops up once or twice during a Presidential term, it's standard operating procedure for this administration.

And how do you stop it? Well, there is the Justice Department who is supposed to intervene in these matters. But that's no good when the Attourney General acts as "El Jefe" and rules our Banana Republic under direction from El Presidente. Then there is the Supreme Court who might tackle a few of the issues, but only if you allow them a few years to mull it over first. By then the damage is done.

What about the next President that comes into office? Do they take a page from Obama's book and rule by fiat? Maybe Sarah Palin comes into office and decides to place a ten dollar tax on every product that uses the recycled label. Or declares all public employee unions null and void. Do you think the general public might raise a stink? You betcha.

So at the end of the day it is the general public who has to cry foul when the line is crossed. Case in point, the 60 Minutes "news flash" that Nancy Peolosi made millions from insider trading raised quite a rukus recently. To most of the country this was nothing but old news that falls under the category of common knowledge. But there's this segment of the population that never had a clue. Seems that little tidbit never crossed their isolated little newswire over the past 10 years or so. And if you're looking for a big story that's the really important story behind the 60 Minutes "news flash" this is it. Most of us knew it all along.

We were just paying attention.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: The Wild West

Postby Algr » Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:03 pm

hondo69 wrote: ...Bush Jr they acted largely within the boundaries of the law. [/i]


Bush Jr? Really? All your delusions are doing is turning potential reformers against each other. You are locking the problems you complain about in place.

You couldn't care less about the rule of law, you just want to pick the dictator you think agrees with you.
User avatar
Algr
Contributing Member
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am

Re: The Wild West

Postby hondo69 » Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:56 am

Runicmadhamster wrote:
I will use the second amendment as my example, as you probably know it states......

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Ok that is fine and dandy in the time that it was written, during those days a small Town in America may need a well regulated militia to protect it from attacks by Native Americans or gangs of outlaws.

But in today's modern world the chance of the small country town in the middle of no where being attacked at all is almost Nil. So therefore the justification for the second amendment is reduced.

My statement was less about left/right wing but more about the need to modernise, evolve(legally) and improve your country


Just for arguments sake, how would you tweak the 2nd Amendment? Should it be eliminated altogether or would it be better to "revise" the Amendment in some way?

It is obvious the odds of attack by American Indians is less today than in the 1700's. And it is doubtful a British ship would anchor off Boston harbor and begin opening up with its cannons. These are "old" threats that no longer exist.

Are there any "new" threats we need to consider? Would would happen if that small country town in the middle of no where were overrun by foreigners running drugs? Or worse yet, what if it was discovered that our own Federal Government was actually aiding and abetting the bad guys by providing arms to these same drug runners? Does that town have the right to protect itself and its property?

Because at the end of the day it comes down to "rights". There are the rights of the people living in that town to consider. Plus, there are the rights of the town and even the rights of the State in which the town is located to consider. Remember the one thing the Framers feared most of all was a large, overbearing, heavy handed Federal Government that would trample the Rights of the States.

So when you're thinking about tweaks that could be made to the 2nd Amendment don't forget to consider all the parties affected and even planning ahead for future threats presently unimaginable. If you're not careful you'll end up with a Federal Government that picks and chooses which laws it decides to enforce.
Fugitive from the law of averages
User avatar
hondo69
Nomarch
 
Posts: 1860
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2011 3:06 am
Location: Austin, TX

PreviousNext

Return to New Common Sense Show Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests