Discussion about hot topics trending today

[SoulReaver]

But what do you feel needs to get amended in the 4th and 8th amendments??

apparently citizens' 4th & 8th amendment rights - among others - are too often circumvented by government

this means the wording in those amendments ain't exactly "ironclad"
so all those amendments would have to be (slightly?) reworded to eliminate any ambiguity

[Britta]

apparently citizens' 4th & 8th amendment rights - among others - are too often circumvented by government

this means the wording in those amendments ain't exactly "ironclad"
so all those amendments would have to be (slightly?) reworded to eliminate any ambiguity

Anything can be reinterpreted if the will is great enough, no matter how ironclad the wording may be.

[aretood2]

I don;t own a copy of the bible.. And its been a good 25 years since i last read some of it..

But since you do have conservative views (well, I see them as right winged populist views) people will always see you as a white bible thumping Christian

Agreed.
14th needs to be clarified to remove the language for Anchor babies.
But what do you feel needs to get amended in the 4th and 8th amendments??

Good Lord, all that energy and time to fix a problem that doesn't exist, at least not to the extent that you believe it exists.

And "requiring 'skin in the game" might actually help that situation, as we wouldn't have politicians and government in general worshiping the feet of voters who vote based solely on how much that politician promises to hand out.

That's based on the premise that it is because voters will blindly vote for welfare because...they're greedy whatevers. But if that premise is false, then you will end up with no solutions to current problems and a whole big ugly host of new problems.

[SoulReaver]

Anything can be reinterpreted if the will is great enough, no matter how ironclad the wording may be.

then at least narrow the wiggle room

edit> taking the 2nd amendment for instance (since that one's popular atm) here's an ironclad example: "2nd amendment: the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

try twist that one (other than "cut off a bear's arms & graft them onto oneself")

[garhkal]

It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a requirement to have "skin in the game" in order to vote, the idea being that if you're just riding on the cart, you don't get a say in where it goes. Only those that are pulling the cart decide where it goes.

I have heard people say that for a while now.. No vote for those on welfare, only for those who own their property. BUT since quite a few people who work Prefer to lease (RENT) rather than deal with the hassle of buying a place, that would imo create more issues than it solves.

apparently citizens' 4th & 8th amendment rights - among others - are too often circumvented by government

this means the wording in those amendments ain't exactly "ironclad"
so all those amendments would have to be (slightly?) reworded to eliminate any ambiguity

Just like they have done with the 1st and 2nd amendments.

But since you do have conservative views (well, I see them as right winged populist views) people will always see you as a white bible thumping Christian

I see my self as Fiscally conservative.. Not right wing.

Good Lord, all that energy and time to fix a problem that doesn't exist, at least not to the extent that you believe it exists.

If Anchor babies were not that big of an issue, why do so many people agree with Trump that we need to change that part of the 14th?

[Gatefan1976]

But since you do have conservative views (well, I see them as right winged populist views) people will always see you as a white bible thumping Christian

Nearly anyone over 40 will be seen as Christian (In places like the USA) if they hold such views, because for a lot of the time their first introduction to the abstract concept of morals is via either religious education, or because holding anything other was very much frowned upon by their parents generation, so they get them as children. Breaking the religious indoctrination of children is a -very- hard proposition, even if people do not claim it. "I don't worship god, but the morals make sense, cause I learned them as a kid".

Good Lord, all that energy and time to fix a problem that doesn't exist, at least not to the extent that you believe it exists.

Of course it doesn't.

That's based on the premise that it is because voters will blindly vote for welfare because...they're greedy whatevers. But if that premise is false, then you will end up with no solutions to current problems and a whole big ugly host of new problems.

The premise is false, period.
Most politicians say very little about social support/welfare because the fact is, it's not the -amount- of people who need social support that is really the problem, it is the inefficient use of resources that balloon the cost out to an untenable and disagreeable amount. The last data I saw on the cost in USD on the taxpayer to support a family on -all available benefits- places the burden at around 64,000 USD per year.
HOWEVER:- This cost includes all administrate costs of over 100 separate entities to provide this support. It is not like the people -on- the support actually see anything close to this figure. Not only that, it has been shown to provide very little opportunity for people to find a way -out- of poverty (which is the people who would be eligible for all of these benefits).
This is where I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of smaller government. Streamlining these services to a larger "catch all" service (which would still be smaller than the 100 odd programs), would aid in directing the money in a far more useful way, and lower the overall cost.
In short, social services are not a waste of money per se, but the implementation of such programs, as they stand certainly is. So much money is "wasted" on admin costs instead of getting help to the people who need it, that what could be a reasonable set of programs to help people in need becomes a waste and a burden.
Of course, the other side is, you actually streamline the system, and you will put many, many people out of work.

[Gatefan1976]

I have heard people say that for a while now.. No vote for those on welfare, only for those who own their property. BUT since quite a few people who work Prefer to lease (RENT) rather than deal with the hassle of buying a place, that would imo create more issues than it solves.

Ahhh.
The "but I contribute" argument begins
You are right, it will cause more problems than it could ever solve, which is why the system has been slowly, but systematically dismantled. People just get their knickers in a knot when "their thing" puts them out of having some "skin"
I have kids, does that mean I have more skin because when you die, you don't care what happens, but I have a vested interest because my family will continue?

Just like they have done with the 1st and 2nd amendments.

Eh??
What do you mean?

I see my self as Fiscally conservative.. Not right wing.

Given the Republican spread of candidates, and the likelihood of any of them being the republican candidate, who would you vote for?
Just remember, just because you may agree with their fiscal stance, does not mean you agree with the rest of the baggage they bring along.

If Anchor babies were not that big of an issue, why do so many people agree with Trump that we need to change that part of the 14th?

Because they are trained to be afraid despite all evidence to the contrary?
They forget that America is a nation of illegal immigrants?
They forget that which made America a great land to begin with?

[Annoyed]

I have heard people say that for a while now.. No vote for those on welfare, only for those who own their property. BUT since quite a few people who work Prefer to lease (RENT) rather than deal with the hassle of buying a place, that would imo create more issues than it solves.

I agree, it shouldn't key on land ownership. The key should be self-supporting; employed and supporting themselves, or (legitimately) retired, having put into the SS system throughout their working lives.

[Falcon Horus]

What about people who chose to stay at home to take care of the children? They haven't worked, or put into the social security system? Their other halves have, but they haven't -- so they wouldn't get a vote.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

I agree, it shouldn't key on land ownership. The key should be self-supporting; employed and supporting themselves, or (legitimately) retired, having put into the SS system throughout their working lives.

You only want the "right' people to vote If you start down that road you might find the group of 'right' people getting smaller every time..

You really want to go back to the dark ages, don't you?

What you really need is a monarchy. No need to bother with any of this voting or 'will of the people' democracy nonsense

Or better yet, a dictatorship!

[jelgate]

A monarchy and dictarship are basically the same thin

[Britta]

I agree, it shouldn't key on land ownership. The key should be self-supporting; employed and supporting themselves, or (legitimately) retired, having put into the SS system throughout their working lives.

That way any group can be denied the right to vote. All you need to do is refuse to hire/do business with them.

[Annoyed]

The details can be worked out. But the idea is valid, and we should be doing that.
In order to vote, you have to be or have self supporting; if you're just riding on the cart, you go where the people pulling it decide to go. If you don't like that, get off the cart and start pulling it, then you get a voice.

[garhkal]

This is where I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of smaller government. Streamlining these services to a larger "catch all" service (which would still be smaller than the 100 odd programs), would aid in directing the money in a far more useful way, and lower the overall cost.

Very true Gatefan. When you have 10 government entities all doing the SAME thing, there is way too much overlap and thus waste/abuse/fraud..

I have kids, does that mean I have more skin because when you die, you don't care what happens, but I have a vested interest because my family will continue?

I have heard a few people argue that point before.. That since single folk don't have any 'vested interest' in the future cause they have no offspring for that future to matter to, their vote shouldn't count as much as those married with kids (or single with kids) should..

Eh??
What do you mean?

Making stupid laws such as the one in Maryland where all guns 'made in the state' must "Submit a Firearm "Fingerprint" for a database. Or the recent CA situation where they are wanting to ramp up taxes on the AMMO for guns, as an end run around gun restrictions.

Given the Republican spread of candidates, and the likelihood of any of them being the republican candidate, who would you vote for?

Cruz, Trump and Carson are my current top 3.

[Gatefan1976]

Very true Gatefan. When you have 10 government entities all doing the SAME thing, there is way too much overlap and thus waste/abuse/fraud..

Right, so when you -actually- look at the problem, it's not so much the government handouts that are costing the taxpayer stupid amounts of money, it is the waste found within the system. You could conceivably knock a 3rd off the cost of social services (some 230 billion dollars based on my info) and deliver better and more effective services.
Yes, Social Services are expensive still, but I would say they are worth it. As Womble said, investing in your people and their future is investing in your countries future as well.

I have heard a few people argue that point before.. That since single folk don't have any 'vested interest' in the future cause they have no offspring for that future to matter to, their vote shouldn't count as much as those married with kids (or single with kids) should..

It's a stupid point really, I brought it up to -be- stupid at least...........

Making stupid laws such as the one in Maryland where all guns 'made in the state' must "Submit a Firearm "Fingerprint" for a database. Or the recent CA situation where they are wanting to ramp up taxes on the AMMO for guns, as an end run around gun restrictions.

What is wrong with either of these things?
You submit to a licence for a car, and vehicle registration with the state, and upping the cost of ammo is hardly a bad thing is it? Most responsible gun owners probably only use 20-60 rounds per month if they keep their training in would you not think?

Cruz, Trump and Carson are my current top 3.

Machine gun Bacon, "Don't worry about details I am the bestest at everything" Trump, and Carson "liar liar pants on fire" (seriously man, Carson is a whack job, just look up some of the BS the man has said about himself, boggles the mind)