News Stories

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

"The Homeland Security Department paid contractors millions of dollars to develop
and study surveillance systems that could covertly track pedestrians and check
under people's clothing with airport-style body scanners as they enter train
stations, bus depots or major events, newly released documents show."

See:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ans04_ST_N.htm

Amusing.... didn't they just flat out deny they had studied any such program just a few days ago? Oh yeah, its the way they worded their response that had all the flags of "we're lying with weasel words".

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

When America was founded, not everybody had a right to vote. The Founding Fathers were against a pure Democracy. Hence why we are a Constitutional Republic, NOT a true Democracy. And I don't believe everybody should be allowed to vote either.

Well back in the good old and revered days of our founding fathers states had more leeway on who could vote or not vote. Often times you have to be a white landowner and some places required you to be a protestant. Also we can't forget women and blacks didn't have the right to vote in those days either. I can't really find a way to separate this without it being discrimination in someway. If you don't like how some else votes because he might have a different background, belief system etc. then that's too bad. The law says that person just has to be a citizen to be able to register to vote. That's the heart of why this country is a republic and not a democracy.

You comparison is also completely off base. The founding fathers did not have a problem with pure democracy because they didn't want everyone to vote but instead because they felt that a pure democracy would lead the majority to force their will on the minority. That's why they favored a society based around laws not the whims of the people. As John Adams put it "A government of laws, not of men."

[Vexx]

Came across this lovely bullet item list of the documented lies and scams the Governor of Wisconsin has pulled in his short stint as the Koch Brother's pawn.

http://filterednews.wordpress.com/20...by-gov-walker/

Originally Posted by excerpts

"Even Fox News’ Shepherd Smith couldn’t swallow that one,"
"Forbes — yes, the conservative Forbes! — says Walker is lying"
"Even the hyper-conservative Wall Street Journal calls out Walker"

And apparently even the recent estimates of "damage to the Capital" are bogus -

Walker admin: The protesters did $7.5 million of damage to the Capitol building by putting signs on marble walls with tape.
The truth: No professional estimate for clean-up has been performed. The Walker-appointed state facilities administrator would not support that estimate and said he’s not seen any damage by the protesters.

For those of you overseas... the MISinformation news sources (like FOX) are so amazingly unconnected to reality that its no wonder the country seems schizophrenic at times.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

When America was founded, not everybody had a right to vote. The Founding Fathers were against a pure Democracy. Hence why we are a Constitutional Republic, NOT a true Democracy. And I don't believe everybody should be allowed to vote either.

Wait, really? You're going to use the argument that because the constitution originally only allowed white males to vote it's ok to disenfranchise people today? Do you even see how fucked up that is? Seriously? Do you not see the end result of such lines of thinking?

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

Well back in the good old and revered days of our founding fathers states had more leeway on who could vote or not vote. Often times you have to be a white landowner and some places required you to be a protestant. Also we can't forget women and blacks didn't have the right to vote in those days either. I can't really find a way to separate this without it being discrimination in someway. If you don't like how some else votes because he might have a different background, belief system etc. then that's too bad. The law says that person just has to be a citizen to be able to register to vote. That's the heart of why this country is a republic and not a democracy.

You comparison is also completely off base. The founding fathers did not have a problem with pure democracy because they didn't want everyone to vote but instead because they felt that a pure democracy would lead the majority to force their will on the minority. That's why they favored a society based around laws not the whims of the people. As John Adams put it "A government of laws, not of men."

You're twisting what they believed around to suit your ideals. You know why they only wanted business or property owners to have the ability to vote? Because those people actually had a stake, and were actually creating something. Someone who doesn't pay taxes, doesn't own a home, doesn't create anything, shouldn't be allowed to vote. You're on welfare? You shouldn't have a say in how things work. It was decided to be a State issue, not a Federal one though.

You get too much of these people in Congress, who have no concept about the Constitution, or the Federal Government's role.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdPr...layer_embedded

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Wait, really? You're going to use the argument that because the constitution originally only allowed white males to vote it's ok to disenfranchise people today? Do you even see how fucked up that is? Seriously? Do you not see the end result of such lines of thinking?

Did I say only whites could vote? Did the Constitution say ANYWHERE that only whites could vote? No. What the hell have you guys been taught in Public Schools? Twisting my words to suit your thinking. You want to talk about Disenfranchising people? How about the people who work and pay taxes, and watch their hard earned money go to people who do NOTHING.

This is truly becoming a war between the producers and the takers.

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/lawdem/u...y_to_vote.html

1774
At the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, the Framers of the Constitution could not agree on who should be given the right to vote. As a result, the Constitution only states that members of the House of Representatives were to be elected by the people of each state who, under state law were eligible to vote for the lower house of their state legislature. The Constitution, therefore, left to each state government the power to decide who could vote. As a result, many of the early battles over the right to vote took place at the state level

It was a state issue. It was not in the Constitution, nor did I say that it was.

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdPr...layer_embedded

2nd bill of rights?

no wonder conservatives still can't forgive FDR for even suggesting adding that to the constitution

[Anh_Minh]

Justinstrife: So, what about employees who do pay taxes, even if they don't own a home?

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

You're twisting what they believed around to suit your ideals. You know why they only wanted business or property owners to have the ability to vote? Because those people actually had a stake, and were actually creating something. Someone who doesn't pay taxes, doesn't own a home, doesn't create anything, shouldn't be allowed to vote. You're on welfare? You shouldn't have a say in how things work.

You get too much of these people in Congress, who have no concept about the Constitution, or the Federal Government's role.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhdPr...layer_embedded

No, its you who is twisting it. Like I said the relationship between the founding fathers belief in having a constitutional government has nothing to do with possibly some of them believing in allowing only certain people to vote.

Welfare didn't exist in those days either so the land owner clause was mainly keep the poor from having a voice in government whether they be white or not. It was at the heart elitism. Whether you like it or not the country is filled with a lot of different people with different set of lifestyles if we start singling out a group we more favor then its become a government not of the people but of the few "chosen" people.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Justinstrife: So, what about employees who do pay taxes, even if they don't own a home?

They pay taxes and contribute. Though they should pay some kind of property taxes if they want their kids enrolled in public schools(which should be a State issue and not a Federal issue).

Originally Posted by Slick_rick

No, its you who is twisting it. Like I said the relationship between the founding fathers belief in having a constitutional government has nothing to do with possibly some of them believing in allowing only certain people to vote.

Welfare didn't exist in those days either so the land owner clause was mainly keep the poor from having a voice in government whether they be white or not. It was at the heart elitism. Whether you like it or not the country is filled with a lot of different people with different set of lifestyles if we start singling out a group we more favor then its become a government not of the people but of the few "chosen" people.

If you are not paying taxes, why should you have a say in how our taxes are spent? Or how high taxes should be?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly...67323.html?x=0

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...f-Income-Taxes

I don't even know why I bother in here. Most of the people here are still in school, and haven't seen the real world yet(most but not all). You claim political biases by organizations like Fox, but turn a blind eye to those same biases on the other side by NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, etc. You pick out bad things that Republicans say or do, but turn a blind eye to the ones that Democrats do. There is no neutral or moderate thinking here. It's like DemocraticUnderground Lite.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

If you are not paying taxes, why should you have a say in how our taxes are spent? Or how high taxes should be?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly...67323.html?x=0

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...f-Income-Taxes

Because government affects your life regardless of what taxes you pay, thus everyone needs to have a way of being involved in government actions.

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

If you are not paying taxes, why should you have a say in how our taxes are spent? Or how high taxes should be?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly...67323.html?x=0

Do they spend money at all? Then guess what they are almost certainly paying some form of tax. The vast majority on people aren't on welfare for an extended period of time and a lot of them are single mothers and the elderly. They have a stake in how government is run and how things go. Also voting has a lot more to do with than just taxes.

But, I generally agree with your article. We should tax people more especially the middle and upper class and lower the ceiling for being middle class to a much more reasonable amount. I don't think taxing the truly poor will do anything to solve our financial situation at all though.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

If you are not paying taxes, why should you have a say in how our taxes are spent? Or how high taxes should be?

Eh do the math. Even the rich pay a smaller portion than the lower end, that portion of the total income will result in a larger numerical value compared to the higher portion of what the lower end pays.

And with inflation, how can the lower income afford high taxes and purchase of necessities at the same time?

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rep...f-Income-Taxes

don't be surprised when people here try to do downplay that organization since they'll say it's the think-thank arm of GOP, just like Rassmussen = pro GOP poll... and to top it all... FNN = GOP mouthpiece. Like I said... don't be surprised.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by flying ^

don't be surprised when people here try to do downplay that organization since they'll say it's the think-thank arm of GOP, just like Rassmussen = pro GOP poll... and to top it all... FNN = GOP mouthpiece. Like I said... don't be surprised.

The Heritage Foundation does do extensive analysis and provides useful insight AS LONG as you understand who funds them and pulls their chain, just like any other think tank. Open access to funding sources and information sources lets a reader calibrate the data being received themselves.
For example, the Heritage Foundation was initiated by Joseph Coors back in 1973. Its useful to read up on his views on politics.
Current donors can be found following the links from the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Her...dation#Funding

Taking analyses at face value isn't really a very bright move no matter what your feelings on various matters.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by flying ^

don't be surprised when people here try to do downplay that organization since they'll say it's the think-thank arm of GOP, just like Rassmussen = pro GOP poll... and to top it all... FNN = GOP mouthpiece. Like I said... don't be surprised.

Of course they do. It is math :

E.g A rich man earns $100,000 per month and his lower end employee earns $1,000 per month. The rich pays 3% tax and the employee pays 5%. Doing the math -

Rich man = $100,000 x 3% = $300

Employee = $1,000 x 5% = $50

Obviously the rich pays more. However,

Rich man's remaining salary = $100,000 - $300 = $99,700

Employee's remaining salary = $1,000 - $50 = $950

So who has more to spend in the end? And in times of inflation like this, who can afford to live, or even survive, better?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Did I say only whites could vote? Did the Constitution say ANYWHERE that only whites could vote? No. What the hell have you guys been taught in Public Schools? Twisting my words to suit your thinking. You want to talk about Disenfranchising people? How about the people who work and pay taxes, and watch their hard earned money go to people who do NOTHING.

This is truly becoming a war between the producers and the takers.

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/lawdem/u...y_to_vote.html

1774
At the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, the Framers of the Constitution could not agree on who should be given the right to vote. As a result, the Constitution only states that members of the House of Representatives were to be elected by the people of each state who, under state law were eligible to vote for the lower house of their state legislature. The Constitution, therefore, left to each state government the power to decide who could vote. As a result, many of the early battles over the right to vote took place at the state level

It was a state issue. It was not in the Constitution, nor did I say that it was.

And that worked out exactly as I said it did until the constitution was amended to make it illegal to deny voting rights based on race, then later based on gender. But I suppose it's my liberal public school education that made up the 15th amendment and 19th amendment.

Also, your whole "WAA! THE POOR ARE STEALING MY MONEIS!" claim is bullshit. First off, we have historically low federal tax rates. Second off, who exactly is doing nothing while taking your hard earned tax dollars? Most people on public assistance programs are working their asses off every day but it's still not enough. The concept of able bodied people sitting on their asses doing nothing while on the public dole is a right wing strawman with no real basis in reality. So who are we really talking about here? Disabled people and seniors on social security? Poor people who are working but need food stamps to help feed their kids? Who's taking your money?

I don't even know why I bother in here. Most of the people here are still in school, and haven't seen the real world yet(most but not all). You claim political biases by organizations like Fox, but turn a blind eye to those same biases on the other side by NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, etc. You pick out bad things that Republicans say or do, but turn a blind eye to the ones that Democrats do. There is no neutral or moderate thinking here. It's like DemocraticUnderground Lite.

Or maybe they're people who paid attention in history class, can see the kind of society the extreme right wing's views will lead to and rationally decided they want nothing at all to do with it. Nice job there with logical fallacies though.

[Slick_rick]

Originally Posted by flying ^

don't be surprised when people here try to do downplay that organization since they'll say it's the think-thank arm of GOP, just like Rassmussen = pro GOP poll... and to top it all... FNN = GOP mouthpiece. Like I said... don't be surprised.

It hard to with that the article what everything actually means because they use percentage of taxes paid. We know they had a lot of middle class tax breaks that doesn't mean that the rich still in the end didn't pay less money towards taxes. Also the brackets shifted so that even if you made more money in 2006 than 2000 you might be in a lower tax bracket. Also it really fails to address that before Reagan that burden was much more on the rich than it is nowadays. Since Reagan it has only shifted more and more away from them. 250,000 is an awful lot to make and still be considered middle class imho.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by flying ^

don't be surprised when people here try to do downplay that organization since they'll say it's the think-thank arm of GOP, just like Rassmussen = pro GOP poll... and to top it all... FNN = GOP mouthpiece. Like I said... don't be surprised.

A selfullfilling prophecy, now that you said it

Justin's idea of giving voting rights to those who pay enough taxes is not really surprising, nor is it responsible. One cannot take away that false front of a democratic system (one cannot take away their inalienable right to be lied at - every 4 years), the hope in the people, that they basically can influence the system. This creates only unrest and maybe something like civil war or a poor vs. rich Apartheit system.
I mean in the end, the big money that pays proportionally the smallest amount of taxes really has a say in politics. They can really shape how things are done in the USA. So in general, I would not give Justin's idea too much attention. Since the last thing the corporate USA's elite wants is unrest in their system (hence no chance for this idea to become a reality in the near future).

[Ithekro]

Sounds like a new party will be required soon to cut through the crap from the current dominate two. The question would be what it would need as an agenda and leaning to gain votes from the people? Extreme parties don't get anywhere unless the balance of the other two parties is off of center too far.

Weird. I'll be old enough to run for President by the time of the election in 2012.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Sounds like a new party will be required soon to cut through the crap from the current dominate two. The question would be what it would need as an agenda and leaning to gain votes from the people? Extreme parties don't get anywhere unless the balance of the other two parties is off of center too far.

Weird. I'll be old enough to run for President by the time of the election in 2012.

Both the major parties in the US are guilty of doing everything in their power to ensure their immortality by denying any other party the chance to be more than outlier (e.g. the "wasted vote" syndrome). At the moment, you can basically choose from "Corporate 1" or "Corporate 2" ... it just depends on which group of corporations you want screwing you for the next election cycle. In the last eight years, it appears that a few of the biggest corporate lobbies (or their actual masters) now own both sides of the aisle (which have both Progressives and Tea Partiers infuriated) as well as a dominant ownership of the SCOTUS (which seems to think "corporations are more equal than people" to borrow from Animal Farm).