Presidential Election: 2012

[FoolKiller]

I think the EPA is a great thing and I've outlined why above. You think the opposite of me, and that is just silly in my opinion.

You think it is a great thing that non-elected officials have the power to create law, that when they create bad law you, as a citizen of a Democratic Republic, have no ability to stop them, not even after a set period of time?

Do you think it is silly that the power to create law is given solely to Congress by the Constitution, yet groups such as the EPA are allowed to create regulations with legal penalties?

No matter what you think of the EPAs actions the agency's simple existence is arguably in violation of the US Constitution. I think it is silly to cheer a possibly illegal entity telling you what you can and can't use in your home.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

They shouldn't necessarily be talking about it at all. I can already hear one particular old man saying something about the federal government not having the power to not only regulate these things, but not even form the agency and give them power to regulate, and that environmentalism is yet another thing that should be decided upon by State governments, or even privatized altogether.

I think there needs to be more overhead at least for this group compared to those that have far too much.

You think it is a great thing that non-elected officials have the power to create law, that when they create bad law you, as a citizen of a Democratic Republic, have no ability to stop them, not even after a set period of time?

Do you think it is silly that the power to create law is given solely to Congress by the Constitution, yet groups such as the EPA are allowed to create regulations with legal penalties?

No matter what you think of the EPAs actions the agency's simple existence is arguably in violation of the US Constitution. I think it is silly to cheer a possibly illegal entity telling you what you can and can't use in your home.

Once again FoolKiller makes a fine point.

 

[Dapper]

No matter what you think of the EPAs actions the agency's simple existence is arguably in violation of the US Constitution. I think it is silly to cheer a possibly illegal entity telling you what you can and can't use in your home.

Honestly, I really don't care about the constitution. Having dead people tell me how to live is rather ludicrous. I'd prefer people who understand how the world is, not how it was, make important decisions like how much head ache inducing fumes come out of your car's tail pipe right into my and my kid's faces.

 

[fld200]

Honestly, I really don't care about the constitution. Having dead people tell me how to live is rather ludicrous. I'd prefer people who understand how the world is, not how it was, make important decisions like how much head ache inducing fumes come out of your car's tail pipe right into my and my kid's faces.

You SHOULD care about the Constitution of the United States, it's what gives you the RIGHT to speak freely on this forum, or any other forum about issues like this. The US Constitution ISN'T dead people telling you how to live, read it, and it's what is supposed to be the structure of the United States Government. The Constitution is also a "Living" document, which can be changed, by your ELECTED officials, and you ELECT them by VOTING which is a CONSTITUTIONAL right to all US Citizens.

 

[Omnis]

Honestly, I really don't care about the constitution. Having dead people tell me how to live is rather ludicrous. I'd prefer people who understand how the world is, not how it was, make important decisions like how much head ache inducing fumes come out of your car's tail pipe right into my and my kid's faces.

The constitution doesn't tell you how to live. It tells the government what it can and can't do.

You SHOULD care about the Constitution of the United States, it's what gives you the RIGHT to speak freely on this forum, or any other forum about issues like this. The US Constitution ISN'T dead people telling you how to live, read it, and it's what is supposed to be the structure of the United States Government. The Constitution is also a "Living" document, which can be changed, by your ELECTED officials, and you ELECT them by VOTING which is a CONSTITUTIONAL right to all US Citizens.

The Constitution doesn't give you any rights. If it did, then by the same logic it would take your rights away. We inherit our rights naturally, by being humans. The constitution was supposed to be a safeguard against an out of control government.

 

[fld200]

The constitution doesn't tell you how to live. It tells the government what it can and can't do.



The Constitution doesn't give you any rights. If it did, then by the same logic it would take your rights away. We inherit our rights naturally, by being humans.

Different kind of rights we're talking about here.

I.E. Voting for the officials in Washington, though some may debate this is flawed (it is slightly), As Americans, we all have the same rights granted to us by both the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independance

 

[Northstar]

it's what gives you the RIGHT to speak freely on this forum, or any other forum about issues like this.

Fairly certain the constitution has no affect on this, or any other non-government forum as they are private entities. That is why they can ban you for not using the shift key.

Seriously though, I don't see a problem with the constitution, it's not like it's saying "thou shall not go faster than 20mph", it's just a list of basic rights that every citizen has and what powers the government has. Besides if it wasn't for the constitution we would probably have a church run country currently(It's bad enough that it's currently influenced by it).

 

[Omnis]

I hate it when people have missed out on our long and storied history of the opinions forum.

 

[Dapper]

The constitution doesn't tell you how to live. It tells the government what it can and can't do.

You are right, it was a bad choice of words. Although, you even admit that dead folk have power over the government, which represents the people. Your clarification is leading to my underlying point. There are problems that are beyond the scope of the constitution's authors' imagination. The solutions to these problems are technically unconstitutional, and I don't care.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

You are right, it was a bad choice of words. Although, you even admit that dead folk have power over the government, which represents the people. Your clarification is leading to my underlying point. There are problems that are beyond the scope of the constitution's authors' imagination. The solutions to these problems are technically unconstitutional, and I don't care.

The opposite of having the legislation done years ago by now 'dead folk' is anarchy.

If laws are only valid if the person who wrote/voted on them is living, there would be no foundation in which a society can build. Your argument is approaching the bizarre.

Does e still equal MC^2? Well, Einstein is dead...

If someone robs your home, is it perfectly acceptable just b/c the person/people who wrote the laws forbidding such (we'll blame Moses for this one) are now pushing up daises?

No. Of course not...but in your ramblings you did bring up a decent point even though it was unintentional; our gov't representatives are temporary stewards of this nation. Why do they have the power and desire to be "fundamentally transforming the United States of America"?

The constitution limits that power to change the nation so that fewer 'dead folk' can continue to take away liberties and property. Government exists and works in its own self interest. People work in their own interest all the time. Why would elected officials and bureaucrats be any different than anyone else?

The only way to limit the size & scope of the Government, to have fewer 'dead folk' influencing our lives, is to cut spending. Most, if not all, of the country's economic, social, environmental, etc problems can be traced back to a large, bloated, inefficient, government working in its own self interest and outside of the walls of the Constitution.

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Our government at work

This just got a bit more interesting.


I guess Gibson Guitars didn't 'grease the wheels' enough. Do any of you think it's a-ok for federal agents to raid one business and leave another alone b/c the owner has the right bumper sticker on his car?

I found that out from here - just click the links.

 

[Keef]

You are right, it was a bad choice of words. Although, you even admit that dead folk have power over the government, which represents the people. Your clarification is leading to my underlying point. There are problems that are beyond the scope of the constitution's authors' imagination. The solutions to these problems are technically unconstitutional, and I don't care.

You obviously have no sense of morality if you don't understand the point behind humans' three inalienable rights. All the authors are guilty of is understanding morality and simply writing those three natural rights down so everybody else could understand them, too. What are you smoking thinking that dead people have power over anything?

 

[Dapper]

The opposite of having the legislation done years ago by now 'dead folk' is anarchy.

Where did I indicate I am anti-government?

If laws are only valid if the person who wrote/voted on them is living, there would be no foundation in which a society can build. Your argument is approaching the bizarre.

What are you talking about?

You obviously have no sense of morality if you don't understand the point behind humans' three inalienable rights. All the authors are guilty of is understanding morality and simply writing those three natural rights down so everybody else could understand them, too. What are you smoking thinking that dead people have power over anything?

Keef, I bet I can find a quote with you saying that "that's against the constitution," just like your view on the EPA. In my opinion that is you being a slave to a document written by some people whose beliefs would get them shunned from today's society. I am not not against the original US Constitution, but my thinking, and scope certainly aren't encapsulated by it.

 

[dylansan]

The dead people in question did not know everything. Sure, they had a pretty good idea of what would make a smoothly running country, but if it was perfect, we wouldn't have all the problems we have today. We have more information now than they did. We can make changes to the original ideas for the greater good of everyone (ever heard of an amendment?). Should we just ignore everything in the constitution and make up a totally new system? Of course not. But we can improve on the things we know more about. The only way to do that is to elect people who are actually competent when it comes to how countries function. We don't need a great leader, though that's helpful. We need someone smart enough to recognize the problems of society and come up with solutions to them. Neither Rick Perry nor Michelle Bachmann is that person (nor Obama for that matter).

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The dead people in question did not know everything. Sure, they had a pretty good idea of what would make a smoothly running country, but if it was perfect, we wouldn't have all the problems we have today. We have more information now than they did. We can make changes to the original ideas for the greater good of everyone (ever heard of an amendment?). Should we just ignore everything in the constitution and make up a totally new system? Of course not. But we can improve on the things we know more about. The only way to do that is to elect people who are actually competent when it comes to how countries function. We don't need a great leader, though that's helpful. We need someone smart enough to recognize the problems of society and come up with solutions to them. Neither Rick Perry nor Michelle Bachmann is that person (nor Obama for that matter).

The problem with that is, media and other outlets make a big scene with the people who say a certain thing or make for good coverage with a catch phrase or trendy slogan. When really the people who do say what needs to be fixed in a great way are always cast aside as crazy or something else. If you dont fit the image you're just not talked about...

 

[BrutherSuperior]

Keef, I bet I can find a quote with you saying that "that's against the constitution," just like your view on the EPA. In my opinion that is you being a slave to a document written by some people whose beliefs would get them shunned from today's society.

Who on the EPA's board did you vote for to represent you when it comes to environmental affairs?

No one...that's who.

When the EPA produces a new piece of legislation, it's a defacto law and defacto form of taxation. Why is it taxation? Think all those 'fees' and 'licenses' and 'permits' are really much different than a tax? They're not as they wind up in the same account.

No one hear voted for them and the EPA has no interest than to serve its own best interest. It's not like you can fire them or close their agency if they run over budget or do a poor job.

But if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside b/c they have a clever mission statement, there's little hope for you.

 

[YSSMAN]

This just got a bit more interesting.

I guess Gibson Guitars didn't 'grease the wheels' enough. Do any of you think it's a-ok for federal agents to raid one business and leave another alone b/c the owner has the right bumper sticker on his car?

Wait, a link from Breitbart? Are you serious? This schmuck can think himself a reporter all he wants, but sadly, his reputation does not give him the credentials necessary for anyone to believe anything he posts on his website. Well, unless you're a Regressive like most of the folks who visit his website daily. The man has an agenda, he recognizes it, and that's that.

Furthermore, is there a reason why you aren't spelling out the word 'because.' ? It is really abrasive to use 'b/c' so often. It makes your posts look far less credible in a thread that is full of reasoned discussion.

 

[Omnis]

So, Brad, you don't believe the story just because it's posted on Breitbart? The Gibson situation is real. Did you watch the press conference? This story is a perfect example of how American business is being crippled/bullied/persuaded into either shutting down or moving out of the country.

 

[Keef]

Wait, a link from Breitbart? Are you serious? This schmuck can think himself a reporter all he wants, but sadly, his reputation does not give him the credentials necessary for anyone to believe anything he posts on his website. Well, unless you're a Regressive like most of the folks who visit his website daily. The man has an agenda, he recognizes it, and that's that.

Furthermore, is there a reason why you aren't spelling out the word 'because.' ? It is really abrasive to use 'b/c' so often. It makes your posts look far less credible in a thread that is full of reasoned discussion.

Gibson has (once again) been raided by the US government, that is a fact. Doesn't matter where the news comes from, that much is a fact. Everybody wonders where the jobs are going, why do companies keep moving out of the US. Well, obviously the answer is because the government doesn't want them here.

Congrats on missing the point and attacking Bruther on two trivial fronts.

 

[FoolKiller]

You are right, it was a bad choice of words. Although, you even admit that dead folk have power over the government, which represents the people. Your clarification is leading to my underlying point. There are problems that are beyond the scope of the constitution's authors' imagination. The solutions to these problems are technically unconstitutional, and I don't care.

I am going to assume you have thoroughly studied and fully read the US Constitution to come to this conclusion.

I assume that, because from my non-academic studies and readings, your statement seems completely, and utterly wrong. Perhaps you can correct me, but the US Constitution is not limiting environmental policies from being in place. It allows Congress to make laws that fall within the limits of power granted to it by the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8) and then anything not granted to Congress and not strictly forbidden to be made into law (such as establishment of religion, restrictions of speech, etc) is to be overseen by the individual states (Amendment X).

So, see the US Constitution is not preventing any solutions for environmental policies. It does not allow for agencies of non-elected officials with the power of law to be created, as it grants that power solely to Congress, you know the guys that actually represent you (well technically) and have to answer to you at the end of the day. And while it does not give the Congress rights over environmental concerns over any land not owned by government it does say that because it isn't Congress' power and they don't limit environmental concerns that it is the responsibility of the states.

So, see the US Constitution is not forgetting environmental concerns might exist, but rather left them up to "West by God Virginia" to deal with so that the people who live in the affected areas and have a better idea of how regulations will affect everyone can make those regulations.


I do find it odd that someone from West Virginia supports an agency who is working very hard to enforce rules that risk harming the state's economy by removing some of 60% of the business taxes, $70 million dollars worth of property taxes, 30,000 jobs, and $2 billion in salaries through the regulation of coal power. Why worry about what you think dead guys are telling you to do when there are living guys, who may as well be dead for all you can talk to them, doing this.

 

[Dapper]

Pollution isn't a state problem, pollution regulations shouldn't be decided by states, and people that think federal regulations over things discussed in the last page aren't working shouldn't be allowed to vote on those regulations. This is true for a lot of things besides pollution also.

And I noticed your argument for coal is monetary based. That's not surprising.
I prefer the greatest mountain range in the world to stop being raped, thanks.

 

[Tornado]

Pollution isn't a state problem

Localized pollution in West Virginia is in my best interest to control (or, more accurately, support the actions of people who have no oversight by the people they control) rather than in the best interests of those who it actually effects? Why, pray tell?

and people that think federal regulations over things discussed in the last page aren't working shouldn't be allowed to vote on those regulations.

Also known as the "flip-the-table" approach to debate.

 

[Dapper]

Localized pollution in West Virginia is in my best interest to control (or, more accurately, support the actions of people who have no oversight by the people they control) rather than in the best interests of those who it actually effects? Why, pray tell?

Does general welfare sound familiar? Of course you have to understand air pollution is never localized first.

Also known as the "flip-the-table" approach to debate.

My view on why people who deny what the truth is about what is obviously bad for me and the environment shouldn't vote has a name in debating?

 

[ChaosStar79]

Pollution isn't a state problem, pollution regulations shouldn't be decided by states, and people that think federal regulations over things discussed in the last page aren't working shouldn't be allowed to vote on those regulations. This is true for a lot of things besides pollution also.

And I noticed your argument for coal is monetary based. That's not surprising.
I prefer the greatest mountain range in the world to stop being raped, thanks.

Sorry to butt in, but KY and WV would both suffer greatly if not for the coal industry. I know personally people who's entire (huge) family works in coal, from the mine to the truck, and there are many entire towns that are built in the same mountains that they mine. Houses with addresses that aren't determined by street but by mine and hollow. Literally hundreds of square miles of nothing but mountains and no other jobs to be had. At the Pound Gap where the plates jut out on either side of the road, it just looks like coal everywhere in them. The situation reminds me of Alaska where many locals are begging for more drilling in the vast wilderness, but the environmental concerns from outside keep it from happening. I personally have no problem with either and I do think that pollution would be best controlled locally. DC can barely function to pay the bills with it's own made up money, so how can we depend on them for anything of physical importance? Who is better to control the land than the people who live there and depend on it to survive?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Sorry to butt in, but KY and WV would both suffer greatly if not for the coal industry. I know personally people who's entire (huge) family works in coal, from the mine to the truck, and there are many entire towns that are built in the same mountains that they mine. Houses with addresses that aren't determined by street but by mine and hollow. Literally hundreds of square miles of nothing but mountains and no other jobs to be had. At the Pound Gap where the plates jut out on either side of the road, it just looks like coal everywhere in them. The situation reminds me of Alaska where many locals are begging for more drilling in the vast wilderness, but the environmental concerns from outside keep it from happening. I personally have no problem with either and I do think that pollution would be best controlled locally. DC can barely function to pay the bills with it's own made up money, so how can we depend on them for anything of physical importance? Who is better to control the land than the people who live there and depend on it to survive?

You're right. Remember, it was BHO himself that said that he supports a cap and tax plan that would cause energy prices to "necessarily skyrocket".

How?

Remember, the San Fransisco Chronicle interview that they conducted with the then Senator on January 17, 2008. When they published the article the next day, this little gem was omitted from the piece:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I've said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else's out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them.

The very definition of a Cap and Trade system is a Fraud. Here is a Primary System explaination of a Cap and Trade system really is.

Say you love Chocolate bars. But there is a shortage of all of the Cocoa trees in South America where the majority of the cocoa is produced. The Government in its infinite wisdom, decides that the US needs to cut back in their chocolate consumption by 35% by the year 2020.

To meet this goal, the US decides to issue "Chocolate certificates" at a rate of $5 a certificate to issue 10,000,000,000 certificates. This means that while you hold that certificate, you have the right to eat one chocolate bar.

But there are an finite supply, and you don't want just one certificate. You can buy additional certificates from the government until their supply runs out, or if they do run out, you can buy from me because I have 1,000,000 chocolate certificates at a rate of $100 a certificate(because I am a rich fat cat who doesn't deserve all those chocolate certificates, according to some).

 

[Keef]

Pollution isn't a state problem, pollution regulations shouldn't be decided by states, and people that think federal regulations over things discussed in the last page aren't working shouldn't be allowed to vote on those regulations. This is true for a lot of things besides pollution also.

Doesn't matter who's problem it is. The Constitution says that the federal government is not allowed to tackle problems like this, and therefore whether or not the environment is an issue and what to do about it should be decisions made by the states, and by the people themselves.

And I noticed your argument for coal is monetary based. That's not surprising.
I prefer the greatest mountain range in the world to stop being raped, thanks.

Where the hell else are you going to get plentiful, affordable electricity?

We have enough coal to power the entire country right here within our own borders. We also have access to nuclear energy, but government regulation and propaganda has terrified the populace into raging against nuclear power (Germany shut down numerous reactors immediately after Fukushima in a knee-jerk emotional meltdown). Solar and wind power are only practical in parts of the country and are as yet cost prohibitive. Technology to make coal burning surprisingly clean exists now, the resource is hilariously plentiful, we have numerous unemployed Appalachian residents probably eager to jump into what is the safest and cleanest coal mining industry in the entire world, and it just makes all sorts of sense to use it as a stopgap until cleaner, renewable sources can be made cost-effective.

 

[YSSMAN]

So, Brad, you don't believe the story just because it's posted on Breitbart? The Gibson situation is real. Did you watch the press conference? This story is a perfect example of how American business is being crippled/bullied/persuaded into either shutting down or moving out of the country.

I don't buy much of anything that comes out of right-wing arena, particularly with that much spin placed upon it. The Gibson situation is real, I'm not here to deny that, but when Juszkiewicz is asking for Tea Party support following a Federal raid that may have been justified, red flags start flying for me. The raid could have been handled much better, I agree with that. However,

I find it quite interesting that everyone jumped immediately to a political conclusion as to why this happened, not because Gibson may have violated the Lacey Act. Objectivity is dead, apparently.

Congrats on missing the point and attacking Bruther on two trivial fronts.

I know that I differentiate from most of you on the political front, and that's fine. However, there are far more reliable sources available than Breitbart, and you know it. That is not a trivial point, but in this thread, the point is moot. I've grown to accept it.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, may have violated the Lacey act. So they're going to literally rob Gibson and throw their people in jail until they figure out what they'll try to charge them with. Guilty until proven innocent? Don't even pretend like there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Tornado]

Does general welfare sound familiar? Of course you have to understand air pollution is never localized first.

Unsurprisingly huge leap of logic here.

My view on why people who deny what the truth is about what is obviously bad for me and the environment shouldn't vote has a name in debating?

No.

"They don't agree with me so they don't have a clue what they are talking about so they aren't allowed to have an opinion" is flipping the table because you don't like where the debate is going. It has nothing to do with what the specific issue is, and I have to assume you know that.


Also not surprising, looking at your post history in this thread.

 

[Rich S]

Well if "conservatives" want a shot their going to have to go for Paul. Most republicans now arent fiscally conservative so I use quotation marks, LOL.

Bachmann walks & talks like a complete idiot. Her IQ cant be better than 100. She's extremist Christian & that's still resonating big time after her comments on gays.

The religion is a real "hot potato".....going there is a bad idea.

I'm bi-sexual and she peeves me off BIG TIME. I want to throw here in an old Gulag in Eastern Russia!

During the campaign if anybody comes into my racing room's supporting her I will "kick" them & report them to PSN. Seriously.....

All people TRULY care about is the economy. They want more money $$$ to spend. Fiscal conservative politics is the way to go for economic growth......gov. spending is "wasteful" it does not help because there's no profit incentive. People care very much about whats in it for them! The more incentive you have the better e.g. (capitalism).

Yes I Am Libertarian. I do not believe in a god either.

The government can help people, but private orgs would do better helping people.

I do not "hate" religious people because many are okay. I hate Bachmann though, because I garantee she's as fiscally liberal as George W Bush & as religiously fundamental as Fred Phelps.