putting it into numbers

[montesa]

I'm out on the history thing. Its cool to know, but does not have any validity in todays social issues. NONE.

Current social issues starting with LBJ is where we need to start the discussion. The break up of the American family by democratic hand outs that allowed mothers to pump kids out for additional benefits by not having a male part in the picture started the issue.

The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the United States launched by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964–65. The main goal was the elimination of poverty and racial injustice, and it was an abject failure. That one piece of legislation is the start of where we are at now.

That is just the beginning.

Looks like Spike Lee came up with an idea that could curb violence a bit.
http://youtu.be/rGTuuj-aTJs

 

[SoonerP226]

Looks like Spike Lee came up with an idea that could curb violence a bit.

As if there were an original idea in his head. It's a retelling of Aristophanes's Lysistrata.

 

[Poke78]

It seems to me that required Senate confirmation of Presidential appointments is properly in check. If the Senate isn't doing their part, then that's not on the President.

Nope, that got hosed when the progressives of the early 20th Century insisted on popular election of the Senate rather than the more republican form the Framers used in the Constitution with the state legislatures selecting the Senators. We know this today as the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The balance between the states and the federal governments was upset in that move as was the balance between House and Senate. What remains is merely a shadow of what the Framers envisioned and it has taken a century to slowly take down the US.

 

[dennishoddy]

Nope, that got hosed when the progressives of the early 20th Century insisted on popular election of the Senate rather than the more republican form the Framers used in the Constitution with the state legislatures selecting the Senators. We know this today as the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The balance between the states and the federal governments was upset in that move as was the balance between House and Senate. What remains is merely a shadow of what the Framers envisioned and it has taken a century to slowly take down the US.

My point exactly. Thanks for the proper explanation of how we no longer have separation of state.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Nope, that got hosed when the progressives of the early 20th Century insisted on popular election of the Senate rather than the more republican form the Framers used in the Constitution with the state legislatures selecting the Senators. We know this today as the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. The balance between the states and the federal governments was upset in that move as was the balance between House and Senate. What remains is merely a shadow of what the Framers envisioned and it has taken a century to slowly take down the US.

That may be true, although I'm not totally convinced it is. But that doesn't matter much me because it doesn't make it the president's fault, nor does it un-fu!ck us if the Supreme Court reinterprets the 2nd.

 

[dennishoddy]

The point is that currently, appointments to the supreme court rely on the political party in charge at the time that make the appointments. That takes away from how our government is supposed to run with checks and balances.

 

[YukonGlocker]

The point is that currently, appointments to the supreme court rely on the political party in charge at the time that make the appointments. That takes away from how our government is supposed to run with checks and balances.

I get that point. But my guess is if the Supreme Court reinterprets the 2nd, the authorities aren't going to accept this as a reason to keep our guns. For now we'll have to work within the constraints of our current government. If Congress passes gun control legislation, it won't matter. Congress has nearly a year left with Obama, so it wouldn't surprise me to see this tried.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Here's a great example of what we have to deal with. Wow.
https://www.facebook.com/TheLiberalredneck/videos/1659346807676573/?pnref=story

 

[Dale00]

Here's a great example of what we have to deal with. Wow.
https://www.facebook.com/TheLiberalr...3/?pnref=story

Most people will see Joe Lee, the Liberal Redneck as the loon he is. Bernie Sanders supporters will love him.

The danger is someone with "credibility" who spouts false numbers.

 

[YukonGlocker]

Most people will see Joe Lee, the Liberal Redneck as the loon he is. Bernie Sanders supporters will love him.

The danger is someone with "credibility" who spouts false numbers.

This Bernie Sanders supporter doesn't love him, and I know several others that don't either. In fact, many of Joe's ideas are contradictory to Bernie's.