• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate likely to pass FBI spying bill after Orlando shooting

Lafayette said:


In a truly free country I'll complain about whatever I want, particularly in a public forum, where the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Especially the patent conservative political nonsense that plagues the nation presently regarding Income Disparity - just one of so much drivel from that quarter of public opinion ...
____________
Click to expand...

Sure you have the right to disagree, but disagreement is where your rights end.
 
Lafayette said:
Not all is rosy in America, but I disagree with your appreciation of its legal functioning (as tyrannical).

Anyway, the Replicants could screw-up a free lunch. They screwed up the economy with flat-rate upper-income taxation. They screwed up the war over in the sandbox, that Obama was unable to end. (ISIS is the direct descendant of Saddam Hussein's Sunnite officers, who - as soon as they were let out of prism - started ISIS and skedaddled off to Syria.)

They got a Supreme Court to unleash megabucks upon the body-politic to pay for TV commercials - and it seems most Americans cannot come to an opinion without watching the "BoobTube" (which is why it is called in that manner).

Civics is now taught as a high-school degree course-requirement in only 8 states in order to graduate?

Have we got a long way to go ...
_______________________
Click to expand...

What was done to the Constitution, patriot act and NDAA amendment, were done with bipartisan fervor and treachery in the Executive and Legislative branches, silence by the august body.
 
Thoreau72 said:
What was done to the Constitution, patriot act and NDAA amendment, were done with bipartisan fervor and treachery in the Executive and Legislative branches, silence by the august body.
Click to expand...

You are reaching back to a Constitution written at another time under other conditions.

Our founding fathers had no idea that Kalachnikovs would be on sale to all-comers, and be employed to butcher innocent civilians. (Which seems to coincide with scenes of such butchery common Hollywood movies. Shame on Hollywood!)

Had that been the case, I suspect they would have abridged considerably the "Right to Bear Arms" in order to prevent the mass-murder going on in the US nowadays.

See here - Homicide by Firearm Rate per 100K population:
US - 2.97
Canada - 0.51
Australia - 0.14
England & Wales - 0.07
Germany - 0.19
France - 0.06
Holland - 0.33
Sweden - 0.41

In the above countries with much lower HR rates, the obtaining and use of arms is strictly regulated. Note also that in these countries, the Right to Bear Arms exists, but it is seriously constrained in terms of who, what, where, when and how.

Wake up, will you ... !
____________________
 
Last edited:
Celebrity said:
Well, it's not an attack on the Constitution when a bill is passed by lawmakers who represent the interests of their constituents, now, is it?
Click to expand...

Any law that that circumvents the constitution is a attack, regardless of any law makers and their constituents demands.
 
Lafayette said:


In a truly free country I'll complain about whatever I want, particularly in a public forum, where the freedom of speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Especially the patent conservative political nonsense that plagues the nation presently regarding Income Disparity - just one of so much drivel from that quarter of public opinion ...
____________
Click to expand...

Income disparity is not owned by conservatives alone.
 
Celebrity said:
Senate likely to pass FBI spying bill after Orlando shooting | Reuters

Prepare yourself for the surveillance state! This post may be monitored or recorded, for "training" purposes.
Click to expand...

If more checks and continuous recording of all FBI personnel above G9 is introduced obligatory and semi-public and case by case judicial decisions are implemented, we can increase supervision under one condition. The Constitution may not be reinterpreted as it is being in so many cases of late. But in a situation, where the controls on government and the protection of minorities are so shifty, I do not think a sane citizen good agree to more supervision or state power in general.
 
Lafayette said:


You are reaching back to a Constitution written at another time under other conditions.

Our founding fathers had no idea that Kalachnikovs would be on sale to all-comers, and be employed to butcher innocent civilians. (Which seems to coincide with scenes of such butchery common Hollywood movies. Shame on Hollywood!)

Had that been the case, I suspect they would have abridged considerably the "Right to Bear Arms" in order to prevent the mass-murder going on in the US nowadays.

See here - Homicide by Firearm Rate per 100K population:
US - 2.97
Canada - 0.51
Australia - 0.14
England & Wales - 0.07
Germany - 0.19
France - 0.06
Holland - 0.33
Sweden - 0.41

In the above countries with much lower HR rates, the obtaining and use of arms is strictly regulated. Note also that in these countries, the Right to Bear Arms exists, but it is seriously constrained in terms of who, what, where, when and how.

Wake up, will you ... !
____________________
Click to expand...

You missed the point of the 2nd, and then you add assumptions to make an argument?

Yeah....the government had muskets back then.

Yeah.... the government has semi auto's now

So what is different?
 
A DYNASTIC CLASS SUPREMACY

RetiredUSN said:
Income disparity is not owned by conservatives alone.
Click to expand...

If my reading of the history of income taxation is correct, yes, it is.

Here is the Effective Individual Tax Rates (2012), in place since Reckless Ronnie changed it in the 1980s*:
0100_tax-rates-crop.gif


Now, how that is calculated depends upon a complicated procedure, meaning there are various versions of that "quintile representation". Nonetheless, the highest I have seen still shows "flat-taxation" in the upper fifth quintile at 30%. That's not enough at the income-levels in question that create and sustain mega-millionaires.

A taxation must be progressive, which means it can be slightly progressive or hugely progressive. I would suggest the latter. Why?

Because Wall Street Finance is a "game" that people play in order to "win" very large sums of money. That game is incentivated by low flat-rate taxation. Moreover, whilst no one should be prevented from becoming a millionaire, as a nation we must decide the upper-limit. Whyzzat?

Because if we don't, we revert to the colonial days of monarchic rule, when the greater part of a nation's wealth was owned by a monarch and his/her aristocracy. Colonial rule was based upon land-grabs by European Monarchs, since both mineral and agricultural exploitation of land was the source of their wealth.

That period came to an end in the 19th century with anti-monarchic revolutions both in the US and France, followed by Industrialization that allowed other means of developing enormous Wealth. Nonetheless, the European monarchs are still a wealthy bunch. However, the difference is that, in Europe, in order to maintain their title, they have accepted to be entirely divorced from the Political Order of a nation.

No, we don't need Dynastic Monarchs in the US. But that is exactly, de facto, what we are developing. A nation of dynastic rich who manipulate the political process. Thus, they "buy" political outcome by funding both parties. And, then, they influence the political agenda of those parties.

Admittedly, we, the sheeple, allow that to happen because we vote for our politicians in office. But, when, as I have indicated, either Chamber of Congress refuses to change Income Taxation, then flat-rate taxation will remain the norm. Only the voters can change the system of Income Taxation by insisting upon it in a political platform - which is what only Bernie did. Why?

Because, unlike all the other candidates, he felt he did not need to be beholden to the "rich" for getting elected.

Couple that with weak Inheritance Taxation, and what we have is an American Dynastic Supremacy that perpetuates the grossly unfair Inheritance Mechanism!

Now show me how I have misinterpreted above American political history, and with specifics please ...

*See that fact corroborated here.
_________________
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
A DYNASTIC CLASS SUPREMACY



If my reading of the history of income taxation is correct, yes, it is.

Here is the Effective Individual Tax Rates (2012), in place since Reckless Ronnie changed it in the 1980s*:
0100_tax-rates-crop.gif


Now, how that is calculated depends upon a complicated procedure, meaning there are various versions of that "quintile representation". Nonetheless, the highest I have seen still shows "flat-taxation" in the upper fifth quintile at 30%. That's not enough at the income-levels in question that create and sustain mega-millionaires.

A taxation must be progressive, which means it can be slightly progressive or grossly progressive. I would suggest the latter. Why?

Because Wall Street Finance is a "game" that people play in order to "win" very large sums of money. That game is incentivated by low flat-rate taxation. Moreover, whilst no one should be prevented from becoming a millionaire, as a nation we must decide the upper-limit. Whyzzat?

Because if we don't, we revert to the colonial days of monarchic rule, when the greater part of a nation's wealth was owned by a monarch and his/her aristocracy. That came to an end in the 19th century with anti-monarchic revolutions both in the US and France. Nonetheless, the European monarchs are still a wealthy bunch. However, the difference is that, in Europe, in order to maintain their title, they have accepted to be entirely divorced from the Political Order of a nation.

No, we don't need Dynastic Monarchs in the US. But that is exactly, de facto, what we are developing. A nation of dynastic rich who manipulate the political process. Thus, they "buy" political outcome by funding both parties. And, then, they influence the political agenda of those parties.

Admittedly, we, the sheeple, allow that to happen because we vote for our politicians in office. But, when, as I have indicated, either Chamber of Congress refuses to change Income Taxation, then flat-rate taxation will remain the norm. Only the voters can change the system of Income Taxation by insisting upon it in a political platform - which is what only Bernie did. Why?

Because, unlike all the other candidates, he felt he did not need to be beholden to the "rich" for getting elected.

Couple that with weak Inheritance Taxation, and what we have is an American Dynastic Supremacy that perpetuates the grossly unfair Inheritance Mechanism!

Now show me how I have misinterpreted recent American political history, and with specifics please ...

*See that fact corroborated here.
_________________
Click to expand...

Since Ronnie...........................16 years of democrat control in DC refutes any of your nonsense of making it a republican issue alone.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Since Ronnie...........................16 years of democrat control in DC refutes any of your nonsense of making it a republican issue alone.
Click to expand...

I agree! Because both parties are dependent upon BigMoney in order to elect their own "class of politicians"

Which is central fact that has corrupted American politics. Still, it is not the Dems who were refusing a second-helping of Stimulus Spending to get us back to an Employment-to-population Ratio of 63%! That inanity was purely Replicant in nature!

Wakey, wakey ...
_________________
 
Lafayette said:


You are reaching back to a Constitution written at another time under other conditions.

Our founding fathers had no idea that Kalachnikovs would be on sale to all-comers, and be employed to butcher innocent civilians. (Which seems to coincide with scenes of such butchery common Hollywood movies. Shame on Hollywood!)

Had that been the case, I suspect they would have abridged considerably the "Right to Bear Arms" in order to prevent the mass-murder going on in the US nowadays.

See here - Homicide by Firearm Rate per 100K population:
US - 2.97
Canada - 0.51
Australia - 0.14
England & Wales - 0.07
Germany - 0.19
France - 0.06
Holland - 0.33
Sweden - 0.41

In the above countries with much lower HR rates, the obtaining and use of arms is strictly regulated. Note also that in these countries, the Right to Bear Arms exists, but it is seriously constrained in terms of who, what, where, when and how.

Wake up, will you ... !
____________________
Click to expand...

OMG, do you mean life is risky and dangerous?!?!?! I had no clue! ;)
 
Lafayette said:


I agree! Because both parties are dependent upon BigMoney in order to elect their own "class of politicians"

Which is central fact that has corrupted American politics. Still, it is not the Dems who were refusing a second-helping of Stimulus Spending to get us back to an Employment-to-population Ratio of 63%! That inanity was purely Replicant in nature!

Wakey, wakey ...
_________________
Click to expand...

Stimulus.................as in the Wall Street Protection Slush Fund? They should have went to prison, but they got a bailout. Nice!
 
ODORIFEROUS FECAL MATTER

RetiredUSN said:
Stimulus...as in the Wall Street Protection Slush Fund? They should have went to prison, but they got a bailout. Nice!
Click to expand...

Obama, a lawyer, figured that he could not get a conviction due to the lack of evidence in his first term. (Why do you think the Banksters mounted SubPrime mortgaging. They wanted to go where banksters had never gone.)

So, he stalled and hit "them" with multi-megabuck fines in his second term - a mere slap on the hands. Which was due (I surmise) to his AG at the time, who has since left to open up his own plush Law Attorney offices in Las Vegas.

You and I both know America's Golden Rule: "It's all about da muney ..."

All else, eg., human lives, is purely secondary. Why?

Because we, the sheeple, do not have any real-courage (in an election year) until a Bernie Sanders happens by an stirs the odoriferous fecal matter.

Then we get all hot 'n bothered in a PotUS election year - until Christmas when all is forgot for another 4-years. We still do not understand that we live in a country of tripartite governance. Just control any one of the other two instances, and you've got the PotUS by the you-know-whats ...
_______________________
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom