If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Daily Show writer partners with Slate to crowdsource ideas for amending and rewriting the Constitution. Provide your ideas to the right   (hive.slate.com) divider line 592
    More: Survey, U.S. Constitution, VII  
•       •       •

9178 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 May 2012 at 1:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



592 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-28 03:27:56 PM

archichris: vygramul: archichris: But I think we both know you will still try to silence them because you believe it is just and fair that one man shall, under penalty of police persecution and seizure of his goods and treasure, be forced to support another man financially through taxation to provide basic social needs.

Your plan for enslaving people is a bit more slippery than just putting a collar on them, but in the end it amounts to the same thing. One man works or is punished, and another man benefits from the governments protection.

I just want things like they were under Reagan. Why do you hate Reagan?

Big whoop, laws are laws, they dont flush them all every time a president is elected and let him write a new batch. It doesnt change my point which is that you have demonized a particular group structure.....ie, people who combine capital for the purpose of profit in business, which is not so different in structure from another social grouping....ie labor unions. You can try all you want to make one group of people shut up and sit down while praising another group. It just makes you prejudiced and a bit ignorant.


Show me where I praised Unions? Ah, you can't.

Have fun tilting at windmills, since you cannot handle an actual opponent.
 
2012-05-28 03:34:30 PM

abb3w: Without the resources of a corporation to collectively protect reporters, the powerful will very quickly be able to silence the individuals who report wrongdoing by means of defamation suits that will beggar the reporters.


I am not suggesting outlawing corporations, merely ensuring that they are never recognized as people and that they are never endowed with rights belonging to humans. The New York Times does not have rights. The reporters, the editors, and the publishers have rights. The freedom of the press is not a right of a corporation, such as The Times. It is the right of the publisher and the staff, all of whom are people.
 
2012-05-28 03:40:57 PM

coeyagi: //Root Cause Analysis - Three words you'll never find together in the GOP playbook™


Nor the left's. Try talking to someone on the left about the long history of the health insurance industry. They never want to acknowledge that the government was there nearly from the beginning shaping, regulating, inconsistently incentivizing, etc. until we end up where we are today.

The left seems to justify every proposal with some variation of intentions justifying the means; lots of emotional arguments and generally little logic or substance. Combine this with the nearly complete lack of concern for long term costs/consequences and you have a party that is stunningly impulsive.

The right likes to pay lip service to the constitution, then find new exceptions to the extent that now the exceptions have nearly swallowed. They will usually attempt some form of logic.
You can even find some consistency in their means/process and not just the ends; it may be misguided, but various proposals aren't huge surprises AND their slight to moderate adherence to rules and things like the Constitution means you have a chance to beat them back with their own principles.

In the end, the results aren't that different from the left. They both screw us, it's just one is wearing a Team Red shirt and the other a Team Blue Shirt while doing it. Team Blue does it because they think it's right and their intentions are pure. Team Red does it because the Constitution doesn't apply to this specific act, oh and National Security/Terrorism/Child Pornography/Drugs.

Lewis Black was right when he said that the Republicans are a party of bad ideas, and the Democrats the party of no ideas.
 
2012-05-28 03:46:45 PM

Mell of a Hess: I got an idea - how 'bout we start following the constitution we already have?


You're just mad that that the Constitution doesn't say what you think it says. And no, crying "You too" doesn't mean that both cases are good. In fact, it just means both sides feel they have legitimate grievances. Luckily, the Constitution allows people to amend the Constitution to correct these problems if enough people have the same grievances. At least one person has said that he supports banning Congress from regulating local commerce with an aggregate effect on interstate commerce. That's not a goal I support personally, but dammit, at least he's suggesting things.
 
2012-05-28 03:52:24 PM

Ricardo Klement: mrshowrules: Ricardo Klement: mrshowrules: Ricardo Klement: mrshowrules: drdstny: Mine's just a little editing to account for the decline in IQs over the last 200 years:

"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed."

I would be happy with this.

There may not have been private ownership of machine guns in the 18th century, but there was private ownership of artillery.

they also owned slaves too, that is why it is important to be precise.

A Constitutional amendment clearly stating you have an absolute right to shiatty firearm. You might be able to buy automatic guns, pistols, grenades, artillery, anthrax also but those would be subject various sensible municipal, State and Federal laws put in place by elected Governments. In a perfect world.

Under anti-gun interpretations, it's hard to understand why they would have inserted the second amendment at all, given that the liberal argument is already covered in the body of the constitution:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; -- (Article I, Section 8)

We are talking about how we amend the Constitution. Your canned arguments don't apply. I would remove the 2nd amendment entirely if it was up to me.

Canadians don't have a second amendment (equivalent) and the queen hasn't re-conquered us or anything to my knowledge. We can all get guns if we want and many of us do. We just have sensible regulations regarding fire arm acquisitions (less shootings that way).

Let's see now, the Queen statement is a Straw Man, "canned arguments" is a Red Herring, and the fewer shootings being the result of regulation is Bare Assertion.

Hat Tri ...


"Canned argument" is not red herring. You are basing the right to bear arms on the 2nd amendment.

My post is relating to flushing the 2nd amendment. To used the same old tired arguments referencing/interpreting it doesn't apply. If I successfully repeal the 2nd amendment, have a gun is no longer a right. Rights-based arguments become instantly moot. You have to come up with new arguments as to why you should have the right to bear arms and I will simply say that you are silly to demand this as a constitutional right.

The Queen re-conquering us is not a Straw Man, it was a joke. However, assuming the 2nd amendment was repealed, what horrific hellscape do you think the US would become. How horrible would it be? What is the big fear? Seriously.

Fewer shootings as a bare assertion. 9,379 murders by firearms in the US. 144 in Canada. Canada is 1/10th the US. So let's say we were 10 times bigger 144 x 10 = 1,440 murders by firearms versus 9,379 in the US.

Over 6 times higher. Bare assertion implies that something is not supported by anything. My point is supported by two arguments.

a) the idea that less guns causes less shootings (crazy idea I know)
b) the stat I mentioned.

You can argue this if you like but it is far from a bare assertion. A bare assertion would be that Americans would lose weight if they didn't have so many guns.

0/3 I'm afraid.
 
2012-05-28 03:53:26 PM

pedrop357: coeyagi: //Root Cause Analysis - Three words you'll never find together in the GOP playbook™

Nor the left's. Try talking to someone on the left about the long history of the health insurance industry. They never want to acknowledge that the government was there nearly from the beginning shaping, regulating, inconsistently incentivizing, etc. until we end up where we are today.

The left seems to justify every proposal with some variation of intentions justifying the means; lots of emotional arguments and generally little logic or substance. Combine this with the nearly complete lack of concern for long term costs/consequences and you have a party that is stunningly impulsive.

The right likes to pay lip service to the constitution, then find new exceptions to the extent that now the exceptions have nearly swallowed. They will usually attempt some form of logic.
You can even find some consistency in their means/process and not just the ends; it may be misguided, but various proposals aren't huge surprises AND their slight to moderate adherence to rules and things like the Constitution means you have a chance to beat them back with their own principles.

In the end, the results aren't that different from the left. They both screw us, it's just one is wearing a Team Red shirt and the other a Team Blue Shirt while doing it. Team Blue does it because they think it's right and their intentions are pure. Team Red does it because the Constitution doesn't apply to this specific act, oh and National Security/Terrorism/Child Pornography/Drugs.

Lewis Black was right when he said that the Republicans are a party of bad ideas, and the Democrats the party of no ideas.


So vote Republican?

//false equivalency is rarely done so loquaciously, so you got that going for you
 
2012-05-28 03:53:34 PM

DeaH: abb3w: Without the resources of a corporation to collectively protect reporters, the powerful will very quickly be able to silence the individuals who report wrongdoing by means of defamation suits that will beggar the reporters.

I am not suggesting outlawing corporations, merely ensuring that they are never recognized as people and that they are never endowed with rights belonging to humans. The New York Times does not have rights. The reporters, the editors, and the publishers have rights. The freedom of the press is not a right of a corporation, such as The Times. It is the right of the publisher and the staff, all of whom are people.


Do the shareholders have rights? If so, then what are you suggesting, in tangible terms?
 
2012-05-28 03:55:43 PM

Serious Black: At least one person has said that he supports banning Congress from regulating local commerce with an aggregate effect on interstate commerce. That's not a goal I support personally, but dammit, at least he's suggesting things.


That would be me. I argue that the lack of an enumerated power combined with the 10th amendment already effectively banned Congress from doing that. The courts in the late 30s/early 40s drastically changed the interpretation of that clause in a way that transformed its power and effectively rendered the 10th null.

The atrocious case of Gonzales v Raich couldn't have happened without http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn leading the way.

Toss in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Carolene_Products_Co., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Atlanta_Motel_v._United_States , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._McClung, and it becomes impossible to find anything that the 10th amendment actually forbids the federal government from legislating.

In my post I forgot all about the 14th amendment and the effect that the Slaughter-House Cases had on it
 
2012-05-28 04:01:34 PM

mrshowrules: Ricardo Klement: mrshowrules: Ricardo Klement: mrshowrules: Ricardo Klement: mrshowrules: drdstny: Mine's just a little editing to account for the decline in IQs over the last 200 years:

"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed."

I would be happy with this.

There may not have been private ownership of machine guns in the 18th century, but there was private ownership of artillery.

they also owned slaves too, that is why it is important to be precise.

A Constitutional amendment clearly stating you have an absolute right to shiatty firearm. You might be able to buy automatic guns, pistols, grenades, artillery, anthrax also but those would be subject various sensible municipal, State and Federal laws put in place by elected Governments. In a perfect world.

Under anti-gun interpretations, it's hard to understand why they would have inserted the second amendment at all, given that the liberal argument is already covered in the body of the constitution:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; -- (Article I, Section 8)

We are talking about how we amend the Constitution. Your canned arguments don't apply. I would remove the 2nd amendment entirely if it was up to me.

Canadians don't have a second amendment (equivalent) and the queen hasn't re-conquered us or anything to my knowledge. We can all get guns if we want and many of us do. We just have sensible regulations regarding fire arm acquisitions (less shootings that way).

Let's see now, the Queen statement is a Straw Man, "canned arguments" is a Red Herring, and the fewer shootings being the result of regulation is Bare As ...


You're right. Guns are bad. Dialing 911 and getting the police on the line (or Canadian equivalent) is much faster and effective.

C'mon, it's so easy it's child's play! If you can't dial a few easy buttons on a phone fast enough, then the hypothetical burglar has every right to be in your house and do however he/she pleases with you and your family. It would be your fault for the police not getting there fast enough because of your not pushing some buttons on a phone in a prompt and timely manner.
 
2012-05-28 04:05:33 PM

coeyagi: So vote Republican?

//false equivalency is rarely done so loquaciously, so you got that going for you


Not necessarily. I primarily vote libertarian or independent when the candidate is one I agree on.

Just let's not pretend that the Republicans are the only ones who don't care too much for consequences or lack the desire/stomach for introspection and/or any kind of historical analysis.

I do think that being under a Republican stronghold government would be preferable to a Democrat one, but only in the sense that a sandwich with a piece of shiat covered in sugar would be preferable to one without any sugar.
 
2012-05-28 04:07:56 PM
Bypass the flyover states?
 
2012-05-28 04:10:08 PM
I would leave it pretty much as it is, except for a few amendments.

28. Marijuana and alcohol are legal in all 50 states; no dry counties allowed.
29. Senators can serve no more than 14 years or 2 terms, Congressman no more than 12 years or 5 terms.
30. Universal healthcare is guaranteed for all US citizens.
31. Any military campaign has to come with tax increases to pay for it.
 
2012-05-28 04:12:06 PM
For every 0.1% Federal expenditures exceed Federal receipts, each member of Cogress shall be required to endure 1 hour of sodomy, administered by this guy:

i216.photobucket.com
 
2012-05-28 04:16:03 PM

theBigBigEye: You're right. Guns are bad. Dialing 911 and getting the police on the line (or Canadian equivalent) is much faster and effective.

C'mon, it's so easy it's child's play! If you can't dial a few easy buttons on a phone fast enough, then the hypothetical burglar has every right to be in your house and do however he/she pleases with you and your family. It would be your fault for the police not getting there fast enough because of your not pushing some buttons on a phone in a prompt and timely manner.


I can get a gun if I want to. I choose not to. Home invasion is not something I worry about. The gun control laws just keep gun proliferation low and less likely to result in shootings.
 
2012-05-28 04:27:44 PM
- Rescind Citizen's United ruling

- Reinstate Glass-Steagall act

- Abolish the Federal Reserve (aka the new 2nd Bank of the United States) and have the US Treasury begin printing America's currency again like it used to be. This power should be in the hands of the people, not in the hands of greedy bankers that are unanswerable to the people.

- Make voter suppression a capital crime

- Make war profiteering a capital crime.

- Abolish Gerrymandering/redistricting. All districts to be redrawn as (as much as possible) equally sized squares. Lets watch the congress critters scamper around trying to figure out what to do then.

- All elections to be publicly financed. This allows the best candidate to get the job, not the best fundraiser to get the job.

- White collar crimes costing taxpayers more than $1 million will be considered capital crimes, and the perpetrators executed accordingly.


This is a good start.
 
2012-05-28 04:45:54 PM

archichris: MontanaDave: archichris:
We already spend over $500k on social programs every single time a child is born in this country...

Have you a citation to share with the rest of the class?

Its called a calculator, 4 million live births on average in america each year, divide the total domestic spending by that number. The way I add up social spending I get a number between 2 trillion and 2.2 trillion. That results in about $500k per child born in a year. If you pay about $5000 in annual income taxes like I do, that means It will take me 100 years to pay off that amount if I were born this year. Spare me the born yesterday puns. Its even worst though, because Im married so I would be paying off 1 million and it would take me 200 years.

Sounds like a stable domestic policy.

Of course the state could assume all of my expenses that actually keep me alive and take 95% of my income to do it. Then they could apply their standard 60% efficiency rate, which wastes my tax money on things other than taking care of me or paying bills, like administration, site based environmental impact studies of laser toner versus inkjet in the social security program offices, etc..... Of course then my standard of living would drop to almost nothing but everything would be almost free.


Word problems in math class must have given you serious trouble. Your assumption that each baby born in America is responsible to pay back the "social spending" incurred by the country in the year of their birth is absurd.

Good luck in your life's ventures, my friend. If you don't mind some unsolicited advice, I think you'll do well to focus on areas other that mathematics and economics.
 
2012-05-28 04:57:25 PM

mrshowrules: My post is relating to flushing the 2nd amendment. To used the same old tired arguments referencing/interpreting it doesn't apply. If I successfully repeal the 2nd amendment, have a gun is no longer a right. Rights-based arguments become instantly moot. You have to come up with new arguments as to why you should have the right to bear arms and I will simply say that you are silly to demand this as a constitutional right.


The reason the 2nd is in there is to protect citizens not only against invaders, foreign and domestic, but also from the government overstepping it's bounds. History is flush with examples of tyrannical governments removing arms from citizens and then running roughshod over those citizens that the government finds distasteful. Are we at that point here in the US? No. But the 2nd amendment has gone a long way to prevent us going that way. The 2nd Amendment goes a long way to protecting the other 9 contained in the Bill of Rights. I'd much rather the protections stay in place and have 'gun accidents', than strip those and be vulnerable to all those who would wish to control us by force.

My analysis of the Second Amendment, based on the literal reading, from a previous thread:

1. "A well regulated militia"

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are-
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This regulation defines militia.

2. "being necessary to the security of a free State"

In order to keep the State (in this instance, the 'state' being the country as a whole, using the classical definition of state = country) free an secure.

3. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"


People have the right to keep arms. Not a specific class of arms, but all arms. As the word is capitalized, it does not mean the appendages attached to the torso, but a class of tools designated as Arms.

4. "shall not be infringed."

Dictionary.com link to the word infringe. Cannot encroach or violate the right to bear arms. Period.

Now.. if you want to remove the Second Amendment, go ahead and follow the same process used to repeal the 18th amendment. If that is done, and passes (highly unlikely) then, yeah, do whatever you want to guns. But until that happens, the Second Amendment is law and is inviolate.
 
2012-05-28 05:00:24 PM

Goodfella: - Rescind Citizen's United ruling

- Reinstate Glass-Steagall act

- Abolish the Federal Reserve (aka the new 2nd Bank of the United States) and have the US Treasury begin printing America's currency again like it used to be. This power should be in the hands of the people, not in the hands of greedy bankers that are unanswerable to the people.

- Make voter suppression a capital crime

- Make war profiteering a capital crime.

- Abolish Gerrymandering/redistricting. All districts to be redrawn as (as much as possible) equally sized squares. Lets watch the congress critters scamper around trying to figure out what to do then.

- All elections to be publicly financed. This allows the best candidate to get the job, not the best fundraiser to get the job.

- White collar crimes costing taxpayers more than $1 million will be considered capital crimes, and the perpetrators executed accordingly.


This is a good start.


THIS is how you get favorited.
 
2012-05-28 05:09:02 PM
Corporations are people.
People are canned goods.
Canned goods are legal tender
Bank notes are corporations.
 
2012-05-28 05:09:37 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: This is not a Theocracy. You can practice your religion right up to the point that it involves using any government resource - including schools, buildings, courts, jails, the Military...


I understand your point, but I have an issue with your totalitarian response. Where I live, the schools sit empty for more than half of every day, all weekend and for nearly 3 months in the summer. The all year school concept failed to work. So why not use those facilities for something else especially if it would generate revenue? So what if some church rented the gym to have their service every Sunday? None of the students are around to be contaminated, or what ever you're afraid of. This applies to other government buildings as well. So the library can rent space to the KKK social club, but God forbid a church should taint their premises. No for profit organization would be as profligate with their buildings as the government is.

And some church groups do some pretty god work in jails. The government has given up on rehabilitation and our jails are just training grounds for advanced criminal training and gang recruitment. The Sally Ann and others at least give guys a chance to turn their live around.

Your Constitution sounds like a hate document. I thought freedom was for everyone? Or just those that agree with you?

That said, I do agree that churches should pay taxes. It's the price you pay to complain about the quality of government. If you want to try to influence the government, at least pony up to the bar. And many churches are just businesses anyway.
 
2012-05-28 05:19:54 PM

Palooka_Joe: What about liters?


Someday the liters will rise up against the TFer overlords, and when we do people will be judged by the number of posts they have and their join date, not the contents of their bank accounts. They will be judged by the number of 'funny' and 'smart' votes and times quoted, by the number of links they have submitted, not the number of greenlights they have received by giving h.j.'s to moderators (just kidding don't tase me bro!). I have a dream!
 
2012-05-28 05:20:01 PM
This thread is proof that the constitution should be left as it is. There are a lot of bat shait crazy things written here.
 
2012-05-28 05:23:47 PM

werekoala: 4. Universal conscription. Peacetime, you do 2 years of any kind of service, or work on public projects, or whatever. Offers job training & a good start. Any time more than 5% of active duty military engaged in conflict area, automatically draft enough to cover the hole left by that deployment.


Universal conscription is backwards, to my way of thinking. You are in essence saying "Congratulations, you are automatically a citizen! Now, here is the service that is required of you."

Better would be the Heinlein solution "So, you want to serve your country. Congratulations, you are now a citizen, with the right to vote and run for public office." The draft option has no choice at all. The service-by-choice option keeps the basis of our all-volunteer force, and gives the choice to the person who may be risking his or her life. You are rewarding someone who wants to serve their country, rather than punishing someone who does not.

/It's also a nice way to fix the issue of politicians putting other people's sons and daughters in harm's way -- if their sons and daughters aren't serving, they don't get to vote or follow in their father's (or mother's) footsteps in politics. It's also a good way to prevent abuse of the 4-F classification by radio blowhards with pilonidal cysts.

//Okay, technically that blowhard was 1-Y rather than 4-F.
 
2012-05-28 05:27:50 PM

kukukupo: This thread is proof that the constitution should be left as it is. There are a lot of bat shait crazy things written here.


To be fair, the Constitution was bat shiat crazy at the time it was written. Though you are right, a lot of what people are suggesting are popular ideas, but should not be written into the supreme law of the land. Unless, of course, that a high enough majority of the population believes it necessary, thus opening up for a constitutional amendment. There's a damn good reason that the threshold for an amendment is so high. The tyranny of the majority is something that you have to prevent.
 
2012-05-28 05:41:29 PM

kukukupo: This thread is proof that the constitution should be left as it is. There are a lot of bat shait crazy things written here.


John Stuart Mill believed all arguments should be heard - not always for their intrinsic worth but so that they can be refuted in a logically sound way...Otherwise how do you know they are wrong and you are right? I believe this this line of thought to be true. It's also the reason I believe our constitution should never be settled upon but always contested. Things could be much much better and so far humanity has always strived for improvement even when failure would bring heavy costs.
 
2012-05-28 05:45:24 PM

MayoSlather: kukukupo: This thread is proof that the constitution should be left as it is. There are a lot of bat shait crazy things written here.

John Stuart Mill believed all arguments should be heard - not always for their intrinsic worth but so that they can be refuted in a logically sound way...Otherwise how do you know they are wrong and you are right? I believe this this line of thought to be true. It's also the reason I believe our constitution should never be settled upon but always contested. Things could be much much better and so far humanity has always strived for improvement even when failure would bring heavy costs.


Pretty much this.

As loony as black panthers, KKK and national front members are, I think their voices in public are important so people can see them for what they really are.
 
2012-05-28 05:49:27 PM

clambam: lisarenee3505: 1) Every American citizen is required to own a firearm and to practice with it at least bi-weekly, putting a minimum of 30 rounds downrange, plus semi-annual marksmanship qualifications of at least 60% in center mass of a human-sized target at 30 meters (it is high time we joined the rest of the world in recognizing the metric standard).

2) Two-term limits on all state and federal congresspersons and senators, non-transferable if one jumps from congress to senate or state to federal, or vice versa.

3) No naturally-growing plant or its unprocessed byproduct may be prohibited from possession.

4) Political lobbyists representing any major business or industry are absolutely prohibited from having any direct or secondary contact with legislative representatives, nor are representatives allowed to have any form of contact with such groups except under terms of open and adequately advertised public meetings with their direct constituents.

/an armed society is a polite society
//totally liberal, registered Independent
///oh yeah, and the pension program for congressmen and senators is transferred to all military veterans instead.

So a bunch of stoners with guns? Call this the Hunter S. Thompson amendment. I'm leery of terms limits too. Do we really want a new bunch of legislators relearning the ropes every four years? You may say yes to that but the upshot would be that not much gets accomplished. You may say yes to that too, but in that case why have a legislature at all? You have to be realistic. It's nice to imagine a government run completely at the local level, but be prepared to pay tolls every five miles on the interstate and hunker down for the war between Iowa and Nebraska.


===============================

You're reading more into it than what is there in my initial comment, and you are talking about extreme cases. No the legislators would not have to "relearn the ropes" every four years, because the legislative process in this country is set up to be pretty damned simple. It is the professional politicians, with their years of influence-peddling and political maneuvering that make the process so complicated. Without the benefit of all those years to set such things up, legislators would have to stick to the basics of listening to their constituents and engaging in compromise.
 
2012-05-28 05:51:22 PM

coeyagi: Wouldn't it just be easier to have the right wingers stop their anti-contraception crusade so that idiots (you) and criminals are less prevalent in the world?

//Root Cause Analysis - Three words you'll never find together in the GOP playbook™



And yet you failed to address the pesky little things called facts that I mentioned regarding private firearm ownership. I wonder why that is... Hmmm...
Is there a reason you have your panties in such a bunch over the thought? There are 80+ million law abiding (emphasis added) gun owners in this country, yet you are acting like the simple act of owning a firearm makes us no better than the drug dealers that kill each other. Think about that. 80,000,000 people that own firearms didn't shoot anybody today. That's a big number, so I wrote it out to assist your comprehension.

And btw, I'd love to end the anti-contraception crusade. They are a bunch of idiots.
 
2012-05-28 05:59:06 PM

doyner: As corporations are people, any crime committed by a corporation shall be adjudicated as a conspiracy of all individual members and owners thereof; each to serve the personal punishment of any such violation of law and carry the subsequent record and abrogations of rights prescribed by law to any similarly convicted private citizen.



as Corporations are people , (according to our esteemed, flawless U.S. Supreme Court), Texas should be executing one any time now.
 
2012-05-28 06:01:28 PM

Farkage: coeyagi: Wouldn't it just be easier to have the right wingers stop their anti-contraception crusade so that idiots (you) and criminals are less prevalent in the world?

//Root Cause Analysis - Three words you'll never find together in the GOP playbook™


And yet you failed to address the pesky little things called facts that I mentioned regarding private firearm ownership. I wonder why that is... Hmmm...
Is there a reason you have your panties in such a bunch over the thought? There are 80+ million law abiding (emphasis added) gun owners in this country, yet you are acting like the simple act of owning a firearm makes us no better than the drug dealers that kill each other. Think about that. 80,000,000 people that own firearms didn't shoot anybody today. That's a big number, so I wrote it out to assist your comprehension.

And btw, I'd love to end the anti-contraception crusade. They are a bunch of idiots.


Does it really matter statistically how many people die each day from firearms? I don't like this argument as a defense of owning such weaponry.

You can use the same argument regarding nuclear weapons....How many people died today from nuclear weapons? 0. Then why does it matter if every country gets a dozen? It's the potential for harm that is there. Hunting firearms are one thing, but just about everything else that is made is made for the purpose of killing human beings. Do we really need that much potential killing power?
 
2012-05-28 06:02:36 PM
i got a good one: Lobbying by ANY group, company, union, or organization of OUR Legislators in the Congress is strictly prohibited.
 
2012-05-28 06:06:20 PM

Frontspac: The base-10 metric system shall be the sole official unit of measure of the United States of America and it's dependents, protectorates and properties.



\Not American
\\Base-12 is stupid.


Screw that. Go to the binary / Hexadecimal system only. Base 10 is stupid. If we are going to live in an electronic world, it is really the only way to go.
 
2012-05-28 06:06:27 PM
oh, and Linux is the only true, real, universal Operating System and Linus Torvalds is God.
 
2012-05-28 06:07:06 PM

cman: Make it a death penalty offense for spitting on the ground



what does pooping on the ceiling get me?
 
2012-05-28 06:12:11 PM

MayoSlather: Does it really matter statistically how many people die each day from firearms? I don't like this argument as a defense of owning such weaponry.

You can use the same argument regarding nuclear weapons....How many people died today from nuclear weapons? 0. Then why does it matter if every country gets a dozen? It's the potential for harm that is there. Hunting firearms are one thing, but just about everything else that is made is made for the purpose of killing human beings. Do we really need that much potential killing power?



Hooray for hyperbole! That being said, I'd love to see a good majority of our nuclear arsenal converted to fuel for nuclear power. As long as someone else has one, I sure as hell want us having one. The best way to avoid getting hit with a stick is to have one yourself.

By your logic, we can ban anything that you dislike the argument for. What about the things I dislike the argument for? Do we not have equal voices?

The 2nd Amendment will require a lot more than the majority to repeal. Which means that a lot of people by an overwhelming margin will have to feel the way you do, which is something I do not see happening in my lifetime.
 
2012-05-28 06:15:37 PM
I say that more power should go to the states and that I think it would actually help. I'll give a small and absurd example...

Let's say Alabama wanted it to be white only. If they get a, say, 66% vote to enact that, provide for a safe means of egress, pay for the moving of those displaced, and whatnot then, by all means, they should be able to make such absurd choices.

What benefit will it have? Isolationism isn't always a bad thing, when it prevents violence and promotes harmony among those involved then it is a good thing. If they, in the above example, wanted to do so then they should be allowed. I'm sure they'd get more of the racists to move there. Black folk could band together and vote to be black only. Larger populations of those displaced would result and they'd be able to tailor their laws to their own needs in time.

Is it right to hate? Nope... It is what we do though. (I'm mixed racially, I'm black and native.) I'm sure that we'd end up with some bizarre states, each with their own representatives, and then we can worry about limiting the federal government to important things like defense of the boarders and providing the authority to ensure that no states actually warred against one another. It's a hard pill to swallow using my example but, well, I suspect it would reach a point where life was balanced again and we could move on. So long as nobody was physically mistreated it could work. If you're kicking them out you MUST provide for them.
 
2012-05-28 06:26:29 PM

Linux_Yes: oh, and Linux is the only true, real, universal Operating System and Linus Torvalds is God.


No, I'm sorry. Lemmy is God.
 
2012-05-28 06:30:47 PM

tgambitg: By your logic, we can ban anything that you dislike the argument for. What about the things I dislike the argument for? Do we not have equal voices?


How so? This is a discussion regarding weapons. We're not talking about banning cheese graters because they can be used as torture devices. We're talking about something that is engineered specifically to kill people and has no other utility.

You're obviously against the proliferation of nuclear weapons but why? Because they can potentially kill many people (or am I wrong here?). It's the same reason I'm against most gun ownership. The only difference in the analogy is the amount of people you kill. It's still a tragedy though if dozens die from automatic weapons...it's just a far greater tragedy if hundreds of thousands die from a nuclear weapon. There is no need though to create the potential for harm in either case.
 
2012-05-28 06:33:42 PM
1. Eliminate age restrictions for running for office

2. The president/VP doesn't have to be a natural born citizen

3. Abolish the death penalty

4. Clarify the second amendment

5. Congress cannot directly or indirectly attempt to regulate the minimum age for alcohol consumption

6. A clause about equal treatment/anti-discrimination

7. Allowing limits to free speech on political and commercial advertising
 
2012-05-28 06:46:25 PM

MayoSlather: tgambitg: By your logic, we can ban anything that you dislike the argument for. What about the things I dislike the argument for? Do we not have equal voices?

How so? This is a discussion regarding weapons. We're not talking about banning cheese graters because they can be used as torture devices. We're talking about something that is engineered specifically to kill people and has no other utility.

You're obviously against the proliferation of nuclear weapons but why? Because they can potentially kill many people (or am I wrong here?). It's the same reason I'm against most gun ownership. The only difference in the analogy is the amount of people you kill. It's still a tragedy though if dozens die from automatic weapons...it's just a far greater tragedy if hundreds of thousands die from a nuclear weapon. There is no need though to create the potential for harm in either case.


Guns are engineered specifically to send a projectile down their barrel and downrange. No more, no less. It's what people do with that projectile that is key. Some people choose to send it at an animal for food, some use it to kill pests. Some people send it to paper or other suitable material targets. Some people use them to kill others in malice. You are discounting them based on one use out of many.

I am not against nuclear proliferation, at least not in the way you think I am. I don't like the idea of people dying to nuclear weapons. But I recognize the reality of the world. If we don't have them as a deterrent, someone else will use them. Not every country shares our values. Same with guns. I don't like the idea of people dying to firearms, but I see the reality of the situation that it happens and in some cases is necessary. Banning guns will not get rid of gun violence, it will just remove the ability for law-abiding people to meet force with the same force.

In a perfect world, we would not need guns. We would not have hunger, we would not need money, we would not have any real need. We do not and will never live in a perfect world. It's not in our nature.
 
2012-05-28 06:53:04 PM

MayoSlather: Farkage: coeyagi: Wouldn't it just be easier to have the right wingers stop their anti-contraception crusade so that idiots (you) and criminals are less prevalent in the world?

//Root Cause Analysis - Three words you'll never find together in the GOP playbook™


And yet you failed to address the pesky little things called facts that I mentioned regarding private firearm ownership. I wonder why that is... Hmmm...
Is there a reason you have your panties in such a bunch over the thought? There are 80+ million law abiding (emphasis added) gun owners in this country, yet you are acting like the simple act of owning a firearm makes us no better than the drug dealers that kill each other. Think about that. 80,000,000 people that own firearms didn't shoot anybody today. That's a big number, so I wrote it out to assist your comprehension.

And btw, I'd love to end the anti-contraception crusade. They are a bunch of idiots.

Does it really matter statistically how many people die each day from firearms? I don't like this argument as a defense of owning such weaponry.

You can use the same argument regarding nuclear weapons....How many people died today from nuclear weapons? 0. Then why does it matter if every country gets a dozen? It's the potential for harm that is there. Hunting firearms are one thing, but just about everything else that is made is made for the purpose of killing human beings. Do we really need that much potential killing power?


I don't think it's really necessary for us to possess weapons capable of indiscriminately obliterating entire cities and populations off the face of human history.

However, it is necessary to possess small arms weapons to protect against individuals who would do actual, serious harm to others.

So, in regards to pistols, rifles and the like.....yes, we need that much killing power, but only with specific rules of engagement.

I'll gladly keep my .357 revolver, TYVM.
 
2012-05-28 07:04:13 PM
We need to remove more power from the states so they will stop acting like assclowns and pass extreme laws based on conservative dogma. That power is being used by the states to harm people in the name of politics.
 
2012-05-28 07:47:03 PM

kukukupo: Frontspac: The base-10 metric system shall be the sole official unit of measure of the United States of America and it's dependents, protectorates and properties.



\Not American
\\Base-12 is stupid.

Screw that. Go to the binary / Hexadecimal system only. Base 10 is stupid. If we are going to live in an electronic world, it is really the only way to go.


Binary is fine for computers, but I would say it is too unwieldy for humans. I guess a case could be made for hexadecimal -- it's certainly better than decimal.

IMO, though, senary (base 6) notation is the most useful. It's the product of the first two primes, and adjacent to the next two primes, which means that common fractions almost always terminate or have very short repeating sequences when converted into numbers with a radix point.

For example, 1/7 (decimal) is equal to

0.001 (repeating)
0.142857(repeating) in decimal
0.249(repeating) in hexadecimal
0.05(repeating) in senary

If a fraction has a denominator divisible by 3 or 7, it will be easier in senary than decimal, if it's divisible by 2 it will be equally difficult (or easy), and if it's divisible by 5 it will be only marginally more difficult -- 1/5 (decimal) = 0.1(repeating) in senary rather than 0.2 (decimal)

Plus, prime numbers other than 2 and 3 always end in a 1 or a 5 in senary notation. It's really quite cool.
 
2012-05-28 07:50:40 PM

Snarfangel: kukukupo: Frontspac: The base-10 metric system shall be the sole official unit of measure of the United States of America and it's dependents, protectorates and properties.



\Not American
\\Base-12 is stupid.

Screw that. Go to the binary / Hexadecimal system only. Base 10 is stupid. If we are going to live in an electronic world, it is really the only way to go.

Binary is fine for computers, but I would say it is too unwieldy for humans. I guess a case could be made for hexadecimal -- it's certainly better than decimal.

IMO, though, senary (base 6) notation is the most useful. It's the product of the first two primes, and adjacent to the next two primes, which means that common fractions almost always terminate or have very short repeating sequences when converted into numbers with a radix point.

For example, 1/7 (decimal) is equal to

0.001 (repeating)
0.142857(repeating) in decimal
0.249(repeating) in hexadecimal
0.05(repeating) in senary

If a fraction has a denominator divisible by 3 or 7, it will be easier in senary than decimal, if it's divisible by 2 it will be equally difficult (or easy), and if it's divisible by 5 it will be only marginally more difficult -- 1/5 (decimal) = 0.1(repeating) in senary rather than 0.2 (decimal)

Plus, prime numbers other than 2 and 3 always end in a 1 or a 5 in senary notation. It's really quite cool.


You need to get laid. Luckily, nerdy guys are in.
 
2012-05-28 08:16:29 PM

MayoSlather: Farkage: coeyagi: Wouldn't it just be easier to have the right wingers stop their anti-contraception crusade so that idiots (you) and criminals are less prevalent in the world?

//Root Cause Analysis - Three words you'll never find together in the GOP playbook™


And yet you failed to address the pesky little things called facts that I mentioned regarding private firearm ownership. I wonder why that is... Hmmm...
Is there a reason you have your panties in such a bunch over the thought? There are 80+ million law abiding (emphasis added) gun owners in this country, yet you are acting like the simple act of owning a firearm makes us no better than the drug dealers that kill each other. Think about that. 80,000,000 people that own firearms didn't shoot anybody today. That's a big number, so I wrote it out to assist your comprehension.

And btw, I'd love to end the anti-contraception crusade. They are a bunch of idiots.

Does it really matter statistically how many people die each day from firearms? I don't like this argument as a defense of owning such weaponry.

You can use the same argument regarding nuclear weapons....How many people died today from nuclear weapons? 0. Then why does it matter if every country gets a dozen? It's the potential for harm that is there. Hunting firearms are one thing, but just about everything else that is made is made for the purpose of killing human beings. Do we really need that much potential killing power?


Okay, let's go the inevitable "But it's for the safety of the children" route, shall we?
Regarding children and guns versus swimming pools, a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.
In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States. Approximately 550 of those drownings - about 75 percent of the total - occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.
About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.
Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.
So, shall we change your argument to banning all ownership of these Death Pools? You don't needsomething like this, right? Where is the manufactured outrage? Oh yeah...they don't look scary. Carry on then...
 
2012-05-28 08:29:54 PM

Tyee: The constitution was designed to be changed and that is far better than finding "new" meaning in it. We have neglected changing it in favor of reinterpreting and that has hurt the courts, and citizens ability to see clearly what it is saying.


Please show me the definition of "due process" in the constitution.

Do you believe your lack of ability to find such a clause means the definition of "due process" was well defined at the time of the writing or was to be left up to some other method?

Do you believe that method was amendment?
 
2012-05-28 09:12:12 PM

LiberalWeenie: Gay marriages and abortions mandatory for all.


Dude! If Abortions are mandatory, and all marriages are too except that they be gay only, then who on earth is breeding so that they can have forced, mandatory abortions? Gays can arrange to become pregger I suppose, and then they can abort the little tykes as mandated by law. Huh?

/Wait. I am starting to like this.
 
2012-05-28 09:16:25 PM
I started calling it the Gaily Show, since I haven't heard them stop talking about gay stuff for the past month. Stewart and his writers must be closet homosexuals. I'm in for fairness, but if I had to hear the f-Word as much as the gay word, i would stop watching that show too. Time to get back onto a second topic.
 
2012-05-28 09:24:10 PM
Aside from legal weed, 'shrooms, and other relatively harmless super fun time drugs (no, this does not include Meth, Krokodil, etc.), I'd like to see something put into play to stop the discrimination against introverts and more importantly, against those who have done their time and paid for their crime, yet are still being punished. How about after 5-7 years (without further crime) sees misdemeanor charges and less get wiped from your record, and you can sue the ever-loving shiat out of companies who don't update this fact (those clods who sell personal information) as well as the discriminatory hiring company in question. This would really help everyone get a job.

/Dual ten-year-old petit larceny charges as late teen
//Pushing 30, and not only have lots of difficulty finding a job, can't live in student dorms now that I'm back in school.
///WTF, society.
 
2012-05-28 09:30:29 PM
HeartBurnKid:
And right now, Ohio and Florida always choose the President and fark the rest of us. I hardly see how the current solution is better.

As a native Ohioan who lives in Florida, I'm getting a kick out of this.
 
Displayed 50 of 592 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report