Favorite President

[ffta707]

Interesting. That was a bit scary when I saw it on TV. I worry about my parents, and myself too. XD

[Zaen]

Yeah, Social Security is set until 2030... BECAUSE of the fact that we sold bonds to ourselves to pay it off. That's the 50% of our National Debt. The two tax cuts really didn't affect the deficit because as I recall, they were put up a bit in the Clinton presidency, and the unpaid wars... are most likely unpaid, but nowhere near the size of the SS deficit. It's like this: 50% SS, 25% to foreign countries, 10-12% of which is China, I recall, and then the rest to various other expenses, the biggest being welfare and Federal Health Insurance/Healthcare. This is all pre-Stimulus(which horrifically flopped... our unemployment went up, I recall?), so who knows how close the 50% is to 50% now...

Also, I completely agree with Wizzy's statement after the video clip. Establishment Republicans are pretty much as bad as Establishment Democrats, just in different ways. Equally as rotten. Hopefully some rotten leaves for either less rotten or decent people. I do know, though, that the Congressional race for my district has a trustworthy candidate who posts all votes, what they are in a nutshell, and why he supports/doesn't support/votes no on them. He reads all bills that get sent his way, and if not allowed enough time or isn't completely sure of them, he votes no. He has also taken into consideration what people thinks. And let me tell you, there's a lot of garbage being passed in the Michigan legislature. Finally something useful in my Facebook feed...

[ffta707]

Can you imagine waiting till the age of 80 to get SS. Probably not that old, but close I'd assume. If they are going to change it, it will be by a lot. Also, 2030! I'll be 46! This is not good.

[Zaen]

I honestly hope it stops before then. I don't want to be shovelling out my money to other peoples' SS! Especially if I won't get any. That's called the ultimate crime, if you ask me. I say end it ASAP so more people aren't victims. If it saves money, go for it. Yeah... that sounded a bit too Dutch.

[ffta707]

It bugs me - The constitution takes no effect in our daily lives anymore.

[Kaijyuu]

It bugs me - The constitution takes no effect in our daily lives anymore.

Should it? It's not the bible or some other religious text.

[ffta707]

It bugs me - The constitution takes no effect in our daily lives anymore.

Should it? It's not the bible or some other religious text.

I agree with most of the scriptures of the constitution. Now days, Obama is coming up with useless gun laws. Gun laws will only make the death rate climb. Criminals can easily guzzle guns off the black market, unlike us normal civilians. We will have no protection.

[Zaen]

I agree with most of the scriptures of the constitution. Now days, Obama is coming up with useless gun laws. Gun laws will only make the death rate climb. Criminals can easily guzzle guns off the black market, unlike us normal civilians. We will have no protection.

Exactly. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

[ffta707]

I agree with most of the scriptures of the constitution. Now days, Obama is coming up with useless gun laws. Gun laws will only make the death rate climb. Criminals can easily guzzle guns off the black market, unlike us normal civilians. We will have no protection.

Exactly. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Seems like we have some of the same political views. The way I see it, things will only get worse. In fact, I am predicting a civil war XD.This is why I wish I lived in Canada.

[Dominic NY18]

It bugs me - The constitution takes no effect in our daily lives anymore.

You're going to have to explain this one...

I agree with most of the scriptures of the constitution. Now days, Obama is coming up with useless gun laws. Gun laws will only make the death rate climb. Criminals can easily guzzle guns off the black market, unlike us normal civilians. We will have no protection.

and this one. Especially after District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago

[Zaen]

What he means is that you have people saying things such as Free Speech should be limited when people are saying "irrational" things. (Clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr3FXnfEQZc)

If you look, opposition was in the more liberal court members. The general liberal standpoint is limiting or banning gun carrying laws, and more specifically, limiting the Second Amendment. So... I don't see why that statement needs explanation.

[Dominic NY18]

What he means is that you have people saying things such as Free Speech should be limited when people are saying "irrational" things. (Clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr3FXnfEQZc)

The only thing I gleaned from the video is that Arianna Huffington thinks it's irrational for the wife of a Supreme Court justice to call Obama a tyrant. And at the end, she doesn't disagree that she has the right to do so (or at least doesn't think she should be thrown in jail).

Not that this vid had anything to do with the question anyway. ffta said the Constitution has no effect on our lives anymore. I don't see how a video of someone saying it's irrational to call the President a tyrant = the Constitution has no effect on our lives. It doesn't even support the point you think it does.

If you look, opposition was in the more liberal court members. The general liberal standpoint is limiting or banning gun carrying laws, and more specifically, limiting the Second Amendment. So... I don't see why that statement needs explanation.

...Huh?

So ffta says Obama has been making useless gun laws that will lead to only criminals having guns:

I agree with most of the scriptures of the constitution. Now days, Obama is coming up with useless gun laws. Gun laws will only make the death rate climb. Criminals can easily guzzle guns off the black market, unlike us normal civilians. We will have no protection.

My response is to ask him to explain his post, since the Obama Administration hasn't done much of anything regarding gun control (among other problems I see with the post). I pointed out the two most recent Supreme Court rulings related to the Second Amendment which clearly support to right to bear arms, or least strike down restrictions on that right.

And your response is to point out that more liberal members of the court opposed the majority ruling and then state what the "liberal" stance on gun control is? Don't take this the wrong way, but your post doesn't really explain ffta's post at all.

[DaveSW]

My favorite president was Josiah Bartlet, mostly because of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

(Yes, I know he isn't real).

[ffta707]

What he means is that you have people saying things such as Free Speech should be limited when people are saying "irrational" things. (Clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr3FXnfEQZc)

The only thing I gleaned from the video is that Arianna Huffington thinks it's irrational for the wife of a Supreme Court justice to call Obama a tyrant. And at the end, she doesn't disagree that she has the right to do so (or at least doesn't think she should be thrown in jail).

Not that this vid had anything to do with the question anyway. ffta said the Constitution has no effect on our lives anymore. I don't see how a video of someone saying it's irrational to call the President a tyrant = the Constitution has no effect on our lives. It doesn't even support the point you think it does.

If you look, opposition was in the more liberal court members. The general liberal standpoint is limiting or banning gun carrying laws, and more specifically, limiting the Second Amendment. So... I don't see why that statement needs explanation.

...Huh?

So ffta says Obama has been making useless gun laws that will lead to only criminals having guns:

I agree with most of the scriptures of the constitution. Now days, Obama is coming up with useless gun laws. Gun laws will only make the death rate climb. Criminals can easily guzzle guns off the black market, unlike us normal civilians. We will have no protection.

My response is to ask him to explain his post, since the Obama Administration hasn't done much of anything regarding gun control (among other problems I see with the post). I pointed out the two most recent Supreme Court rulings related to the Second Amendment which clearly support to right to bear arms, or least strike down restrictions on that right.

And your response is to point out that more liberal members of the court opposed the majority ruling and then state what the "liberal" stance on gun control is? Don't take this the wrong way, but your post doesn't really explain ffta's post at all.

I'm not here to piss anyone off. It's a matter of republican vs. Democrat. Sorry dominic.

[GeneralStrife]

damn democrats

[Kaijyuu]

Damn two party system.

My entire family voted straight down party lines in the elections a few days ago. They didn't read up on the issues so just voted for the party they most often agree with.

Democracy at its finest.

[Samuraiblackbelt]

George Washington spoke about the dangers of factions in government in his farewell speech, nice to know people listened.

[ffta707]

damn democrats

I'm republican as well.


On second thought, maybe I'll start my own fucking party. That will show all you Motha....

[Wiz]

This is my news source (the YT user i.e.): One of the few well-versed in politics also.

spoiler

spoiler

[Dominic NY18]

I'm not here to piss anyone off. It's a matter of republican vs. Democrat. Sorry dominic.

...I'm not pissed. I was just pointing out that Zaen didn't really clarify what you said. I don't see how it's a partisan matter either because I never mentioned what my party identification is and it doesn't really have any bearing on your statements being unclear as they are.

Not that it matters since I'm no fan of either party.