URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID6
Thread Number: 19848
[ Go back to previous page ]

Original Message
"Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Molaholic on 04-19-05 at 00:32 AM

OK, we had the "add a new Amendment" thresd. So let's go the other direction -- what current Amendment (or part of the US Constitution) would you eliminate?
Mine, the ever popular Electorial College. Let's make it straight plurality to elect. Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004 have proven this stinking fish needs to be buried.

Yet another Syren gem © MMV
Now siggie-comment free!

Table of contents

RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,dabo, 01:07 AM, 04-19-05
- RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,mysticwolf, 01:56 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,dabo, 10:27 AM, 04-19-05
- RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,HistoryDetective, 08:51 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,newsomewayne, 10:44 AM, 04-19-05
    - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,dabo, 10:55 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,newsomewayne, 11:02 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,HistoryDetective, 01:32 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,newsomewayne, 02:34 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,HistoryDetective, 02:42 PM, 04-19-05
- RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,mrc, 09:10 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Devious Weasel, 10:47 AM, 04-19-05
    - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,mrc, 12:19 PM, 04-19-05
This is easy....,iatovttotx78, 01:28 AM, 04-19-05
- RE: This is easy....,desert_rhino, 01:37 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: This is easy....,dabo, 01:45 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: This is easy....,iatovttotx78, 01:46 AM, 04-19-05
    - RE: This is easy....,newsomewayne, 09:28 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: This is easy....,iatovttotx78, 10:03 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: This is easy....,newsomewayne, 10:37 AM, 04-19-05
RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,mysticwolf, 02:17 AM, 04-19-05
- RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 09:01 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,iatovttotx78, 09:05 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,landruajm, 09:06 AM, 04-19-05
    - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 09:18 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,landruajm, 09:23 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,ExInterper, 09:27 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,landruajm, 09:29 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,ExInterper, 09:34 AM, 04-19-05
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 09:34 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,landruajm, 09:42 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,HistoryDetective, 10:18 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Spidey, 10:20 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 10:27 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,desert_rhino, 10:36 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,dabo, 10:39 AM, 04-19-05
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,badger, 10:49 AM, 04-19-05
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 10:51 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 11:17 AM, 04-19-05
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,syren, 11:40 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Spidey, 10:43 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 10:58 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,landruajm, 11:01 AM, 04-19-05
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 11:19 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Wheezy, 12:19 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 12:34 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Wheezy, 01:17 PM, 04-19-05
        
        And Back in the Fact-Based Universe...,landruajm, 10:59 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: And Back in the Fact-Based Universe...,TechNoir, 11:20 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 11:07 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Spidey, 11:19 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 11:22 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Spidey, 11:28 AM, 04-19-05
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,landruajm, 11:31 AM, 04-19-05
        
        Ahem,Devious Weasel, 11:26 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,J I M B O, 12:59 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,frisky, 11:43 AM, 04-19-05
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,iatovttotx78, 12:06 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,landruajm, 12:49 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,iatovttotx78, 04:27 PM, 04-19-05
        I stand corrected.....,iatovttotx78, 05:19 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: I stand corrected.....,PagongRatEater, 05:37 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: I stand corrected.....,TechNoir, 05:55 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: I stand corrected.....,PagongRatEater, 06:55 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: I stand corrected.....,dabo, 05:57 PM, 04-19-05
        RE: I stand corrected.....,desert_rhino, 07:34 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: I stand corrected.....,PagongRatEater, 10:31 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: I stand corrected.....,dabo, 01:56 AM, 04-20-05
        
        RE: I stand corrected.....,landruajm, 07:25 PM, 04-19-05
RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 09:01 AM, 04-19-05
- RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 09:04 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,landruajm, 09:08 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 09:32 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,newsomewayne, 09:33 AM, 04-19-05
    - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 10:21 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 10:31 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,dabo, 10:37 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Spidey, 10:46 AM, 04-19-05
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 12:11 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 12:43 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 12:49 PM, 04-19-05
      - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,newsomewayne, 10:48 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,dabo, 11:02 AM, 04-19-05
RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,SurvivaBear, 09:25 AM, 04-19-05
- RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 09:28 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,iatovttotx78, 10:15 AM, 04-19-05
    - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,PagongRatEater, 10:29 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,iatovttotx78, 12:11 PM, 04-19-05
    - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,newsomewayne, 10:50 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,iatovttotx78, 12:12 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,newsomewayne, 12:45 PM, 04-19-05
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,TechNoir, 02:31 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,dabo, 02:34 PM, 04-19-05
- RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,iatovttotx78, 10:08 AM, 04-19-05
- RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,desert_rhino, 10:54 AM, 04-19-05
- RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,J Slice, 12:24 PM, 04-19-05
RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Bebo, 10:55 AM, 04-19-05
- Hey!,Devious Weasel, 11:01 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: Hey!,Bebo, 11:45 AM, 04-19-05
    - RE: Hey!,landruajm, 11:49 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: Hey!,Bebo, 12:59 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Hey!,landruajm, 01:00 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: Hey!,newsomewayne, 01:36 PM, 04-19-05
22nd,Devious Weasel, 11:03 AM, 04-19-05
- RE: 22nd,PagongRatEater, 11:12 AM, 04-19-05
  - RE: 22nd,Devious Weasel, 11:16 AM, 04-19-05
    - RE: 22nd,PagongRatEater, 11:24 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: 22nd,Devious Weasel, 11:27 AM, 04-19-05
      - RE: 22nd,landruajm, 11:33 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,PagongRatEater, 11:44 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,landruajm, 11:47 AM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,Devious Weasel, 12:02 PM, 04-19-05
  - RE: 22nd,TechNoir, 12:14 PM, 04-19-05
    - RE: 22nd,Wheezy, 12:34 PM, 04-19-05
      - RE: 22nd,landruajm, 12:46 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,Bebo, 01:00 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,landruajm, 01:02 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,Wheezy, 01:25 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,landruajm, 01:32 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,Wheezy, 02:02 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,desert_rhino, 04:49 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,landruajm, 07:26 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,desert_rhino, 07:34 PM, 04-19-05
        
        RE: 22nd,landruajm, 08:16 AM, 04-20-05
        
        RE: 22nd,desert_rhino, 08:22 AM, 04-20-05
        
        RE: 22nd,landruajm, 08:25 AM, 04-20-05
RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?,Estee, 03:43 PM, 04-19-05

Messages in this discussion

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by dabo on 04-19-05 at 01:07 AM

"Ever popular" is indeed the correct term. Throughout the history of the US there have been many proposed amendments introduced in the houses of the congress, and fully 10% of them have involved the Electoral College. Yet in all that time only one of those amendments (#12) was ever passed an ratified.
You may get a lot of arguments in favor of retaining the EC, it is process and there does have to be process, and supposedly the less populated states would be entirely ignored or something in national elections were it not for the EC.
But the reality is that in a situation where every vote would actually count the same as every other vote, it wouldn't much matter what the state borders happen to be, candidates would be forced to go after every single vote they could possibly get. And, without a fixed total EC vote tally, reporters and networks would not be able to call a national election before the polls were closed everywhere. In fact, barring a popular vote landslide, they wouldn't be able to state an absolute outcome until all the votes were actually counted, however long that might take.
There would still have to be some official process, of course. But expect to hear some BS about how the big cities and more populated states will be the focal points of elections while rural and less populated areas would be entirely ignored. Don't swallow any of it, just don't be surprised when it comes up. Because some people don't want to contemplate the prospect of a reality where every vote actually counts the same as every other vote.
SMILES ARE FREE

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by mysticwolf on 04-19-05 at 01:56 AM

I will not disagree with what you have written, assuming you realize that that would mean the effective end of states rights. If you happen to live in a state that is less populated (read: picking grounds for other states wanting to dump their trash, forrest your areas, drill in your preserves, etc.) I have no objections. If you don't live in one of these areas (and I don't) then, yes, direct vote might be the best prospect. However, I've visited these less populated areas and would prefer that they have at least some collective representation. Since eliminating that would mean that we were something other than "United States", what would you suggest our new name to be?
Modification of the EC might be in order, however. I'm not averse to that.
As for which one I'd change, it will have to wait for tomorrow when I can consider it a little further. My DH is already PO'd that I haven't come to bed. (I've already said on another post that taking things seriously is one of my failings. I love thought challenges like this.)

No B.S. intended. I try not to pre-emptively characterise opposing points of view.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by dabo on 04-19-05 at 10:27 AM

... assuming you realize that that would mean the effective end of states rights. If you happen to live in a state that is less populated ...
No, I don't realize that at all. The various states would still have authority within the states, it would just be how the votes in the national election are "counted" which would be changed if we chucked the EC counting system for 1 vote = 1 vote like we use for everything else. The Democrats and Republicans, in national presidential campaigns, basically ignore a lot of states anyway, making at best a few token campaign stops in states they assume to be solid red or solid blue, while focussing the majority of their attention on a few key battleground states. Most of us are already being completely ignored, how could they even more completely ignore us if all our votes counted equally? They couldn't. Change the math, force them to go after every single vote they can get, that would absolutely change how national election campaigns would have to operate.
SMILES ARE FREE

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 04-19-05 at 08:51 AM

Yeah, I'm all about the one person = one vote thing, not any of these weighted votes that the EC establishes.
Why should my vote count any less just because I happen to live in an urban area?
Plus, I'd like to see the candidates relate to voters as voters more often instead of just doing the electoral math. I did not see a single Bush/Cheney or Kerry/Edwards commercial on my television (and I watch a fair amount of television) last November because we all knew which way Maryland was going to go. (I know that many of you are saying how lucky that made me.) I think that was a big FU to voters of both parties in Maryland that we can just be depended on to vote a certain way and there is no need to engage us in the issues or speak to our specific needs because there were states that were actually in play that deserved the attention more. There should have been VOTERS that were in play in every state.
It's also carp that the EC is weighted according to the population size of the state rather than the number of voters (or percentage of that population) that actually does their civic duty and shows up to vote.

a sig by syren (I had mine before you had yours!)

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 10:44 AM

I'm just gonna take issue with this one part of your post. The rest I won't argue with. Not agreeing/not disagreeing, just not argueing.
It's also carp that the EC is weighted according to the population size of the state rather than the number of voters (or percentage of that population) that actually does their civic duty and shows up to vote.
Not a bad thought, but I think this would do even more damage to our current problem with lack of voter participation. If you knew your state/region had poor voter turnout history and thus less impact/weight on the outcome, would you be more or less inclined to take time out of a busy day and vote? An indvidual decision to be sure, but based on waning voter interest anyway, I'd say ~~most~~ -can't use the word most anymore- a majority that normally might vote would decide not to vote.

Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by dabo on 04-19-05 at 10:55 AM

Maybe more people would turn out if they knew their vote would actually count. I vote in every election, I think everyone should, but how many don't bother because their candidate is absolutely assured of either winning or losing the state before the polls even open?

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 11:02 AM

In large voter turnout areas, yes. But what about those who's areas don't have large turnout. If vote weight went by % of voter turnout, even though I vote, my fifty neighbors don't so my vote counts very little. That would be very dicouraging to me and might persuade others in my situation to just stay home.
But not me. I vote in every election I can, no matter the postion, from Dog Catcher to POTUS.

Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 04-19-05 at 01:32 PM

Which is part of my reason for wanting to get rid of the EC. If one vote equals one vote and nothing else, then it doesn't matter if your neighbors vote or how thhe majority/most in your state vote because your one vote will count toward the national election in which all other active voters have cast their one vote.

a sig by syren (I had mine before you had yours!)

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 02:34 PM

Okay, I think I get what you're saying now. Two points, not one. First, dump the EC completely. But if not, then second, weight it by % of active voters, not plain population. Right? It was this second point I was bringing issue with.

Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 04-19-05 at 02:42 PM

I know, I know. I was trying to say that the second one wouldn't even be an issue if we just did the sensible thing and dumped the EC completely. But yes, you are right that it was two separate points.

a sig by syren (I had mine before you had yours!)

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by mrc on 04-19-05 at 09:10 AM

I've written some of that BS here, but I'll pass this time.
A Nefarious Dice Creation

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Devious Weasel on 04-19-05 at 10:47 AM

Mind if I sit here with you on this one? I will say this - considering the effect the top of the ticket has on races down the line, I think it was a huge mistake for Kerry not to run a national campaign last time.
This, of course, would be one of many huge mistakes Kerry made.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by mrc on 04-19-05 at 12:19 PM

Pull up a chair Dweezil. We'll watch this convo, AI, TAR, and the new Pope's appearance in one marathon sitting.
A Nefarious Dice Creation

"This is easy...."
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 01:28 AM

If I could single-handedly get rid of any one constitutional amendment, I would get rid of #2. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Its completely antiquated and no longer applicable to today's situation. I don't like guns. I would never allow a gun in my home. And if I could get rid of all guns I would.
What makes guns worse than other weapons? Well for one their only purpose is to kill or maim another living thing. Knives have benign purposes, such as buttering bread. So although they are sometimes used for evil purposes, their purpose is not evil acts.
Guns have a long range. You can shoot something without knowing exactly what it is. Its entirely possible to shoot someone 100 yards away, I don't know that its possible to stab some one with a knife from that distance.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" On the surface its a well duh statement, but I see this statement as also suggesting that killing someone with a gun is the same as stabbing them to death. Not so. Stabbing someone much more intimate. Not only is it done from a much closer range. It also requires more effort. To shoot someone all you do is pull the trigger, the bullet does the rest. Stabbing someone requires that you provide the penatrating force. It's much harder work. Stabbing is not for the lazy.
~Tim~

I realize that this will not be a popular view point. I am prepared to deal with the consequences. Bring it on.....

"RE: This is easy...."
Posted by desert_rhino on 04-19-05 at 01:37 AM

It's not so much that it's an unpopular viewpoint, just that it's inutterably naïve. You can't possibly get rid of all guns, and if you DO ban them, the only people who give them up are the people who aren't causing any trouble with them in the first place.
Honestly, if guns don't have any positive value, why do police use them?
Oh well. We all have our fantasies. I just wouldn't waste any of my 3 wishes on THAT one.

"RE: This is easy...."
Posted by dabo on 04-19-05 at 01:45 AM

bang

"RE: This is easy...."
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 01:46 AM

Let me live in my fantasy world. The question (as I interpreted it) was what Amendment would you like to get rid of. There was no condition that it had to be logistically or practically feasible. Just what would you like to get rid of. And what I would like to get rid of in the second amendment. Will it ever happen: no. I realize it's not possible.
Honestly, if guns don't have any positive value, why do police use them? What bearing does this question have on the issue of the positive aspects of guns. Police use them so they must be good? Please?! I don't believe that the ends justify the means.
~Tim~

In my world, cops would not carry guns,as there would be no need for police.

"RE: This is easy...."
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 09:28 AM

What about bows and arrows? Would you ban those, too?

Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005
Not a deer hunter, are you Tim?

"RE: This is easy...."
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 10:03 AM

Following my logic, bows and arrows (especially cross bows) would also be banned, as would any weapon whose only purpose was to inflict harm.
~Tim~

I'm not a hunter of any kind.

"RE: This is easy...."
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 10:37 AM

LAST EDITED ON 04-19-05 AT 10:38 AM (EST)
But like knives, bow and arrows require a lot of effort. Strength to draw the bow, steadiness and precision to aim the arrow and hit your target.
As for knives, butter could just as easily be spread by one of those flat rubber things used to spread icing on a cake. Same principle, so lets get rid of all sharp objects with pointy ends.
I remember a scene from "All in the Family." Gloria says, "Daddy did you know that (78)% of all murders in this country were committed with hand guns?" To which Archie replied, "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was pushed outta windows?"
Edited because you don't really need to see 5 sigpics on one post.

Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by mysticwolf on 04-19-05 at 02:17 AM

LAST EDITED ON 04-19-05 AT 02:29 AM (EST)
O.K. I guess it's "tomorrow" (DH has, for the moment, gone back to sleep & left me alone). The ammendment I'd eliminate is:
AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The tax code needs to be fully reconsidered and, repeatedly, our elected representatives refuse to do so in the grand sense. Repeal of the 16th ammendment would, if nothing else, force the issue.
edited because I realized saying my DH had left me to my "own devices" opened me up to all sorts of supposedly witty ripostes...

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 09:01 AM

Wolf? I'm REALLY starting to like you.
I agree 100%. How the Constitution could be so unclear on the single most important and impactful issue it addresses is beyond me.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 09:05 AM

>I agree 100%.
>How the Constitution could be
>so unclear on the single
>most important and impactful issue
>it addresses is beyond me.
>
I don't know that I'd say taxes are the single most important and impactful issue. In my book that distinction would have to go to the 1st Amendment.
~Tim~

fighting for peace is like fvcking for virginity.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 09:06 AM

Mom/Dweezil/Pepper.
I'm in a really, really bad mood today, so I'm going to limit this to two things: WTF? Unclear? And: WTF? Most important and impactful? Okay, a third thing: WTF?

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 09:18 AM

What impacts MORE people on a DAILY basis that taxes? In terms of actual and practical reality how many people petition the government for a redress of grievances ever?
Not to say that our country wouldn't even BE America without ALL of the other liberties guaranteed by the Constituion - but my point was that from a mundane perspective that taxes have the single biggest impact on our daily lives.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 09:23 AM

I think that's a narrow and politicized view. Don't freedom from a police state, freedom from being invaded by foreign powers, the knowledge that if you are charged with a crime you will be tried by jury and (theoretically) truth will out, the ability to engage in interstate commerce (like, for instance, posting on this site), and the ability to partake in free information exchanges (like, for instance, posting on this site) have at least an equally great impact on your daily life?
Singling out the 16th Amendment as more impactful than the rest of the Constitution strikes me as silly. And you still haven't told me what's "unclear" about it.
Bad mood. Adverbs excised.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by ExInterper on 04-19-05 at 09:27 AM

I'm just guessing, but I would wager that he means that it just gives a broad grant of power to Congress to tax with no guidance, giving the federal government too much power. Am I on the right track PRE?
(c) Slicey 2004
Mmmm...blog.... Because after all, the federal government should only be given broad grants of power when interfering with family's medical decisions and whether people can get married. Obviously.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 09:29 AM

I expect you're about right, in which case my quibble will be semantic in nature, but I'd never, ever, ever put words in PRE's mouth. Especially when I'm in a bad mood. Right, PRE?
Or who you can have sexual relations with, and when, and how. Or on what constitutes a medical decision. Or...well, I think we're on the same page here.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by ExInterper on 04-19-05 at 09:34 AM

That's why I figured I'd check for confirmation from him. I like to think of myself as fairly intuitive, but still.
(c) Slicey 2004
Mmmm...blog.... I think we may even be on the same sentence.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 09:34 AM

You would both be correct - especially when you consider the Golden Rule. Whoever has the gold, makes the rules.
I won't take up the other gauntlet except to point out that I think BOTH of those are States issues. The last thing I need today is a pissed off satan breathing down my neck.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 09:42 AM

This is me, not taking bait.
You are a well-conditioned rat.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 04-19-05 at 10:18 AM

Well, wehere's the fun for the rest of us in that?

a sig by syren (I had mine before you had yours!)

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Spidey on 04-19-05 at 10:20 AM

What impacts MORE people on a DAILY basis that taxes?
My guess? Lack of insurance and quality health care.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 10:27 AM

We have, without question or rival, the finest health care in the world and only 5% of people are working without health care.
100% of us pay some form of taxes.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by desert_rhino on 04-19-05 at 10:36 AM

only 5% of people are working without health care
Consider yourself "called" on this one. Show some figures/sources.

For bonus points, you can illuminate for us from what orifice that number came.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by dabo on 04-19-05 at 10:39 AM

And how many people are unemployed without health care?

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by badger on 04-19-05 at 10:49 AM

17% of Oregonians are uninsured. Of course, although I am in the lucky 83% that has health insurance, my family is about $10,000 away from our annual benefit cap. So I don't think quoting statistics about insured or uninsured always accurately depicts people's struggles.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 10:51 AM

I don't feel like digging too much today, but let's just go ahead and use the Census Bureau numbers of 44M or about 15% of the population. Now this number is very misleading because it includes people who did not have health insurance during the course of that year but may currently be covered.
That being said, even if you 100% accept the number that the Census Bureau uses for uninsured (15%), at least half of those are unemployed or dependants of the 5-6% of people who are not employed.
Additionally, there are free clinics, mandatory ER treatment policies, government funded health care for the poor and other forms of coverage for that 44M without private insurance.

Putting aside the argument that the reason health care is less available, expensive and generous than it once was is because of the exorbitant cost to employers for offering that benefit. In no small measure to many economic factors that the administration is trying to address.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 11:17 AM

No, let's use the numbers I posted below, much more like 20% of the population. And that is not how they were counted.
Then you go on to imply that some of those have government funded insurance ... that is simply not correct. That nearly 20% is the number with NO health care, private or public. They are uninsured. Period. Do you really think that 20% of the population can get adequate health care by going to free clinics and emergency rooms?
And if you actually want to have a discussion about the cost of health care and the reasons therefore, have at it. I think you should do some homework first, though, because the facts that you have offered thus far leave a lot to be desired.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by syren on 04-19-05 at 11:40 AM

"I don't feel like digging too much today, but let's just go ahead and use the Census Bureau numbers of 44M or about 15% of the population. Now this number is very misleading because it includes people who did not have health insurance during the course of that year but may currently be covered."
What about the ones that had health care then and do not now. I am one of those. We have a free clinic, but it does not cover the necessary things a woman has to have yearly. A friend has a tumor on her pituitary glad, but she cannot even get the treatment that she needs for it.

Plus my dad makes to much to receive any type of state sanctioned help, but his prescriptions run about $1200, and his prosthetic leg needs replaced every 5 years or so. With his meds, he has to choose which to get and which not to get. Forget the drug company rebate crap, he does not qualify for them.
Coherent perceptions or reckless rambling

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Spidey on 04-19-05 at 10:43 AM

only 5% of people are working without health care.
I don't know where you got that statistic, but it is misleading at best. Very misleading.
According to the AMA, A national study released Aug. 3 by the Center for Studying Health System Change stated that the percentage of Americans under 65 who have employer health insurance from 2001-2003 dropped from 67 percent to 63 percent.
As of this past summer there were 45 million uninsured Americans, including 11 million uninsured children.
45 million uninsured Americans is...
• 4 million more than the number of small business employees (41.0 million in 2001)5
• 20 million more than the number of military veterans (25 million)6
• Nearly 12 times more than the number of millionaires (3.8 million) -- although the growth in millionaires outstripped that of the uninsured (14 percent versus 3 percent)7

The finest health care system in the world doesn't matter a whit if you have no access to it. It matters, perhaps a lot more to others than to you.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 10:58 AM

It matters a LOT to me, as a father of two children, I have extremely high medical costs annually. Besides paying about $6000 a year in premiums, I also have lots of out of pocket for co-pays, non-covered expenses, drugs, medicines, ER visits etc (probably in excess of $1000 so far this year).
But I know that you get what you pay for and free health care is hardly worth having at all. I also know that doctors go to school for 10-12 years, have a significantly lower life expectancy and do a job that many of us are not willing or equipped to do - so I have no problem with their charging a fair rate for their services and time.
Honestly, I sometimes wonder if insurance isn't as much a part of the problem as the solution. Insurance companies continue to increase their premiums by double digits every year, giving you less and less coverage for more and more money. Unless you have a catastrophic situation, sometimes it seems like it might be cheaper to pay as you go rather than have to deal with those b*stards.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 11:01 AM

Yeah. Sounds like "without question or rival the finest health care in the world" to me.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 11:19 AM

But I know that you get what you pay for and free health care is hardly worth having at all.
Wait! Didn't you just tell me that there were free clinics for folks who couldn't afford health care?

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Wheezy on 04-19-05 at 12:19 PM

Well, those folks can't complain--they should just find a job with health care bennies then...or work harder! And stop having kids if they can't afford it. Besides, 'hardly worth having' is better than nothing. And when they have the gold, they can make the rules.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 12:34 PM

I'd say "Damn Christian of ya" and you'd get it, but lots of folks wouldn't. So I won't say it.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Wheezy on 04-19-05 at 01:17 PM

*grin*
I mentioned somewhere else that sarcasm is working quite well for me today
Wheeze * lunch?

"And Back in the Fact-Based Universe..."
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 10:59 AM

Where exactly do you pull these assertions from? How can you possibly assert that kind of superiority? How do you measure "the finest health care in the world"?
Let's see, let's compare the death rate with spending, that ought to give us some admittedly loose idea of health care quality? So we were 100th in the world (out of 208) in 2000, according to the World Bank's World Development Indicators. We were number one the same year in per capita health care spending (measure of total spending, both raw and as a percentage of GDP). Which sure doesn't suggest value for money.
By the way, that doesn't measure public-sector health care spending--we were 27th there.
WDI doesn't have spending numbers for 2002, so I can't do the same comparison there, but it's gonna be similar.
Okay, that was a sampling. Where are you getting your assertion from?
I? Would be part of the five percent you allege.

"RE: And Back in the Fact-Based Universe..."
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 11:20 AM

Where exactly do you pull these assertions from?
Do you know how tempted I am to alert you for baiting me? You know that I'm in just the kind of mood to answer that question. Graphically.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 11:07 AM

only 5% of people are working without health care.
Man, if that isn't one of the most misleading, disingenuous uses of statistics I've seen in a long time. You must have thought that I was either absent or in some sort of fog.
Yes, you are absolutely correct. Those 5 year olds who do not have health care are, in fact, not working. And the 6 year olds too. You know what? Lots of other poor people, sick people, old people aren't working either.
In 2002 (the data I can find right now) 11.7 percent of children had NO health insurance. The percentage of all children under age 18 with private health insurance coverage decreased from 71 percent in 2000 to 66 percent in 2003.
Now overall "an estimated 15.6 percent of the population,or 45.0 million people, were without health insurance coverage in 2003,up from 15.2 percent and 43.6 million people in 2002. Oh, and more recent children's stats: The proportion of children who were without health insurance did not change,remaining at 11.4 percent of all children,or 8.4 million, in 2003. With an uninsured rate at 19.2 percent. And, no surprise here, "children in poverty were more likely to be uninsured than all children." (All from Current Population Reports)
Not only that, but this old canard about us having the finest health care in the world? Nonsense. I've been letting folks get away with that one for much too long. Let's take just one statistic, infant mortality. We are 36th in the world, 6.63 deaths per 1,000 live births behind such nations as Cuba and Canada and Slovenia and Singapore.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Spidey on 04-19-05 at 11:19 AM

Let's take just one statistic, infant mortality. We are 36th in the world, 6.63 deaths per 1,000 live births behind such nations as Cuba and Canada and Slovenia and Singapore.
Yeah, but this includes the poor american babies. They apparently don't factor in when PRE is choosing the facts.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 11:22 AM

LAST EDITED ON 04-19-05 AT 11:32 AM (EST)
ETR: This post was out of character for me, so I'll just drop it rather than getting P.O.'d.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Spidey on 04-19-05 at 11:28 AM

I never said you hate them. I implied you use "facts" and "statistics" to support your points, and these "facts" and "statistics" fail to include these people.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 11:31 AM

I'm not trying to bash you here, dood (even in the face of the monstrous temptation posed by a really foul mood). But you're making assertions at odds with facts, and you're not even citing to facts. Don't like our "facts"? Fine, come up with sources for the ones that are backing your assertions, and we can spin on that--or not. But you appear to be arguing from the hip here, and I think you'll concede that gives us something of a rhetorical edge. You made a powerful and completely unsupported assertion--you gotta expect something of a strong reaction.

"Ahem"
Posted by Devious Weasel on 04-19-05 at 11:26 AM

Why must I keep reminding people we only care about the health of fetuses? After they are born, or otherwise naturally exit the womb, we don't care what happens to them, unless they get pregnant or fall into a PVS and their parents are absolute DAWs who are willing to go to any extreme to keep them alive even though it has been determined that they would not want that. But that's a different thread. Or twelve.
It's so much easier when you don't actually care about the health and well-being of anyone other than your immediate group.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by J I M B O on 04-19-05 at 12:59 PM

Wow is that depressing. More than 1 out of 10 children with no health insurance. Reminds me how many things I hate about capitalism. (Not that I know of any better system.)
Thanks for the info Tech.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by frisky on 04-19-05 at 11:43 AM

>We have, without question or rival, the finest health care in the world
'Scuse me, but I have to crawl out from under couch to briefly question and rival this claim.
Look to the north.
I'm not going to post statistics because I'm too lazy, but up here we all have free access to health care regardless of our social class. The government foots the bill. For everyone. Seniors and lower income families have drug assistance through the government. Those of us who work have drug insurance through work. When we need medical care, as Icey did yesterday, we don't have to stop and think about insurance and cost and caps. We just have to worry about getting a ride to the doctor or hospital and making sure we have our little card handy that proves we are Canadian.
Our docs also go through 10-12 years of med school depending on specialty. We have public clinics for people who are unable to get into their doc's office and who need non-urgent medical care and these are staffed by family physicians. We don't pay for immunizations or for birthin' babies. Yes, of course the cost is there in our taxes, but the benefits of being a sick person in my country far outweigh the benefits of being a sick person in the US.
The one major flaw in our system, although I still don't think it makes us worse off than the States, is that the government doesn't pay our doctors as much out of our taxes as the American doctors make from the pockets of US citizens and businesses, so each year we lose a small percentage of our grads to the US.
We also had some problems a couple of years ago with health care fraud, because desperate Americans were coming over to Canadian emergency rooms for care with fraudulent health cards because of the lack of access to health care in their own country.

The world is my litterbox.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 12:06 PM

Actually the distinction of best medical system in the world, belongs to Canada.
~Tim~

fighting for peace is like fvcking for virginity.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 12:49 PM

Not to argue, but facts, please?
Sorry. Gotta hold you to the same standard as I hold PRE.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 04:27 PM

I'll see if I can't dig up statistics tonight, but I remember seeing it on some CNN world report segment.
~Tim~
Thanks to Rolly for legalizing my mouse!
that's perfectly okay, actually, I'd have it no other way. When I find the report, I'll let you know. If I recall correctly the u.s. is #2,and Japan is #3?- I mostly remember that Canada was number 1 because I was shocked, I thought it was the US for sure

"I stand corrected....."
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 05:19 PM

LAST EDITED ON 04-19-05 AT 05:25 PM (EST)
A commentary published in the July 26, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association notes that in a comparison of 13 countries based on 16 health indicators, the U.S. ranked on average 12th. The countries included in the study were, in order from the top-ranked (best health care) to the lowest-ranked, as follows: Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Australia, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Belgium, the U.S., and Germany. Of the 13 countries compared, only Germany ranked lower overall than the U.S. In fact, the U.S. ranked dead last for three indicators. These were low-birth-weight percentages, neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall, and years of potential life lost. The U.S. ranked 11th for life expectancy for females at one year and 12th for life expectancy for males at one year. These rankings do not paint a picture of a country that has the world's best health care.
On June 21, 2000, the World Health Organization released the World Health Report – Health Systems: Improving Performance, which is accessible at http://www.who.int/whr/ (World Health Report). The World Health Report ranked the U.S. 37th out of 191 countries. According to the World Health Report, the objective of a health care system is to be both good and fair. Thus, a health care system should strive to achieve the highest possible average level of health with the fewest disparities among individuals and groups. Americans must face the fact the U.S. health system is not good and fair as so defined. (See The Health Care Fairness Act of 1999 at http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlawperspectives/HealthPolicy/991118HCFAct.html for a discussion of the lower health status of minority populations in the U.S.)
According to the World Health Report, of the 191 countries in the study, the U.S. spent the highest percentage (13.7%) of its Gross Domestic Product on health care but still managed only to achieve an overall ranking of 37. The World Health Report also found that private (non-governmental) health expenses as a percentage of total health expenses in most industrialized countries average only 25% because most have universal health coverage. In the U.S., however, private (non-governmental) health expenditure runs 55.9%.
How can anyone say that a country with health care/status that ranks 37th of 191 and 12th of 13 truly has the best health care in the world? The U.S. may actually have the best health care in the world for some Americans -- for those with the resources to pay for their health care, for those with access to primary care physicians and specialists. But for every American receiving this elusive best health care in the world, many more Americans receive woefully inadequate care. After all, over 40 million Americans lack health insurance. Numerous factors (from the structure of the U.S. health system to the American lifestyle) contribute to the low rankings of the U.S. compared to other industrialized (and some non-industrialized) countries. It is clear, however, that to say Americans are experiencing the best health care in the world is to buy into a myth.
~Tim~
ETA a link to another interesting article http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
Thanks to Rolly for legalizing my mouse!
fighting for peace is like fvcking for virginity.

"RE: I stand corrected....."
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 05:37 PM

The U.S. may actually have the best health care in the world for some Americans -- for those with the resources to pay for their health care, for those with access to primary care physicians and specialists.
That was exactly my point.
You may see it as grossly unfair, but ACCESS to health care is not the same thing as QUALITY of care.

"RE: I stand corrected....."
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 05:55 PM

You may see it as grossly unfair, but ACCESS to health care is not the same thing as QUALITY of care.
Nuh-uh. They are, in fact, different measures of the exact same thing. Zero access = zero quality. Perfect access = Best quality.

"RE: I stand corrected....."
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 06:55 PM

The Soviet Union had perfect access to health care, yet I never noticed the thousands who traveled there for sophisticated medical proceedures.

"RE: I stand corrected....."
Posted by dabo on 04-19-05 at 05:57 PM

Don't worry then. With the disaster of escalating out of control medical costs going unchecked, pretty soon no one in this country will be able to afford healthcare but it will still be the best healthcare system in the world I suppose.

"RE: I stand corrected....."
Posted by desert_rhino on 04-19-05 at 07:34 PM

That was exactly my point.
You may see it as grossly unfair, but ACCESS to health care is not the same thing as QUALITY of care.
This? is the kind of post I like to see from you. It's always better to know exactly what kind of person/priorities you're dealing with.

Was Marie Antoinette a relative, by any chance? (Yes, I know, misunderstood, libelled, yada yada yada, but you get the point, I'm sure.)

"RE: I stand corrected....."
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 10:31 PM

At least I'm honest about the "dangers" of living in a capitalist meritocracy.

"RE: I stand corrected....."
Posted by dabo on 04-20-05 at 01:56 AM

I'm certain that will be a great comfort to you when your health insurance premiums leave you with no actual take-home pay.

"RE: I stand corrected....."
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 07:25 PM

Y'know, I've got the last three WHRs in my desk drawer at the day job and didn't think to look, I went straight to the automated stuff. I'll try to remember to go look tomorrow and see if there's a trend.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 09:01 AM

Article II, Section 1 says "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected . . ."
Change that to ""The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased during the Period for which he shall have been elected . . ." so that we can reduce his salary if he does a really crappy job.
Also. How about changing all of the male pronouns to gender neutral or to be presumed to include folks of either gender.

"The center of human nature is rooted in ten thousand ordinary acts of kindness that define our days." Stephen Jay Gould

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 09:04 AM

Are we really going to start "editing" the Constitution for political correctness now? Seriously?
Although I suppose that you could probably get a judge to strike down the election of a woman to the Presidency on that basis.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 09:08 AM

Seriously: are we really going to start editing the Constitution because you don't like the checks and balances system?
Bad mood. Backing away, hands in the air. Bad mood.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 09:32 AM

I don't think you'd be saying that if you were excluded.

"The center of human nature is rooted in ten thousand ordinary acts of kindness that define our days." Stephen Jay Gould

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 09:33 AM

Although I suppose that you could probably get a judge to strike down the election of a woman to the Presidency on that basis.
Good thinkin' PRE!
I am now no longer worried about the 2008 elections.

Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 10:21 AM

You should be worried.
Y'all keep hoping we'll be stupid enough to nominate Hillary so y'all can keep talking about sex. But we're not gonna let you do that.

"The center of human nature is rooted in ten thousand ordinary acts of kindness that define our days." Stephen Jay Gould

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 10:31 AM

Not to thread-jack this discussion, something that I would NEVER do, but if your nominee isn't Hillary who do you think it's going to be?
Personally, if I were a betting man I'd take the field, but if I had to put my savings on one Dem candidate it would probably be her.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by dabo on 04-19-05 at 10:37 AM

Personally, I hope General Clark will try again in 2008 and get the nomination. If nothing else, he is articulate and speaks in complete sentences.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Spidey on 04-19-05 at 10:46 AM

But his head is too small for his body.
And I just can't get over that.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 12:11 PM

But much too wimpy for my taste. I want him to be SecDef.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 12:43 PM

Bill Richardson

"The center of human nature is rooted in ten thousand ordinary acts of kindness that define our days." Stephen Jay Gould

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 12:49 PM

Good choice.
And I think would offer you a better chance to win.
Would he actually run is probably more the question?

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 10:48 AM

It was a JOKE, Tech(e). Jeez. Personally, I would never try to link Hillary and sex in the same discussion. *cue rimshot* But seriously, right now, I don't care who the Dems or the Repubs nominate. It'll be who it'll be. I'll worry about it come Spring of 2008.

Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by dabo on 04-19-05 at 11:02 AM

I've always thought Hillary quite attractive, I mean in the sense of she's a finelookin' woman, yes indeed. I thought it was only construction guys that worried about pregnancy brain.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by SurvivaBear on 04-19-05 at 09:25 AM

Sign me up for getting rid of AMENDMENT XXI. Bring back prohibition. Yea, I know it would impact the economy and people really like their drugs, but we have to do something about all the young people killed by alcohol-related accidents.

^ Makes as much sense as repeal AMENDMENT II, to me.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 09:28 AM

You're using the exact same rationale. How could any reasonable person object?
After all, it IS the governments job to protect us from ourselves.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 10:15 AM

"After all, it IS the governments job to protect us from ourselves."
Its not that at all. I'm not worried about you, I'm worried about me. Its the governments job to protect me from all the gun toting wack jobs out there.
When's the last time you read about a drive by knifeing?
~Tim~

Hell with your logic why don't we give everyone nukes, its not the governments job to say that a person can't have a nuke if they want it. They need to feed their families afterall....

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 10:29 AM

Nobody said anything about "free". We're not giving away guns or anything else in this here capitalist paradise *I* envision.
But if you build your OWN nuke to protect you from Big Brother....

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 12:11 PM

I didn't mean free as in costing no money, I meant free, as in freedom.
~Tim~

fighting for peace is like fvcking for virginity.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 10:50 AM

When's the last time you read about a drive by knifeing?
Or a drive by bow and arrowing?

Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 12:12 PM

bow and arrows allow for killing from a distance, so if guns were outlawed, they'd probably move on to crossbows, then bows and arrows.
~Tim~

fighting for peace is like fvcking for virginity.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 12:45 PM

are you a vegan?

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 02:31 PM

Here is me, the good liberal, admitting that crossbows make me hot.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by dabo on 04-19-05 at 02:34 PM

Tech getting Medieval makes me hot. Just sayin'.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by iatovttotx78 on 04-19-05 at 10:08 AM

I was in fact going to suggest repealing this one too....
~Tim~

But I figured I only get to repeal one Amendment, better make it the big one.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by desert_rhino on 04-19-05 at 10:54 AM

Last time, it led directly to the rise of the Mafia.
This time? It'll be different. Just like the "War on Drugs" has had a different effect than Prohibition. What's that you say? It's just fueled a massive (like, making the Mafia look like a bit player) underworld of Very Bad People? My bad.
Those who fail to learn the lessons of History are doomed to repeat it.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by J Slice on 04-19-05 at 12:24 PM

I wrote my AP US History term paper about the rise of crime that prohibition brought about.
Like JV said, Mafia. Gangsters. Needless criminal records.
Not oddly at all, like the current "drug war."

Are you familiar with the old robot saying, 'DOES NOT COMPUTE'?

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Bebo on 04-19-05 at 10:55 AM

Can we get rid of the one that gave women the right to vote? Then I could spend that day more productively. Maybe I could do lunch with some friends instead. Or go shopping.
And I wouldn't have to waste my time trying to figure out which candidates and parties I want to support. If my forced answer is none of the above, then I can focus on more important things, like keeping my apron clean. Or whether I have a coupon for my favorite detergent.
Talk about making my life easier.

"If there was ever a time you wanted permission to run over a clown . . . ."

"Hey!"
Posted by Devious Weasel on 04-19-05 at 11:01 AM

I was going to make that joke.

"RE: Hey!"
Posted by Bebo on 04-19-05 at 11:45 AM

But it's a lot funnier when made by a hot b!tch who never does housework.
No time, with my whip-handling on the forums, y'know.

"If there was ever a time you wanted permission to run over a clown . . . ."

"RE: Hey!"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 11:49 AM

Are those shoes you're wearing?
*snort* Like it took you any time at all the last time you flayed me.

"RE: Hey!"
Posted by Bebo on 04-19-05 at 12:59 PM

the last time you flayed me
That's cuz u r my favorite.
I almost mentioned the shoes. I prefer wearing bunny slippers.

"If there was ever a time you wanted permission to run over a clown . . . ."

"RE: Hey!"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 01:00 PM

*snorffle*
Don't let those slippers anywhere near that Wayne guy.

"RE: Hey!"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-19-05 at 01:36 PM

Hey, that was an accident. I swear.

Laziness Suggested by Syren, 2005

"22nd"
Posted by Devious Weasel on 04-19-05 at 11:03 AM

Applied retroactively, allowing the Big Dog to run again. He'd mop the floor with anyone the Republicans nominated in 2008.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 11:12 AM

Reagan's corpse would give him a run for his money, though.
Actually, I agree on this one. If we can't vote for who we want to, what kind of democracy do we have? Although I would add a change to allow foriegn born citizens to run as well - after 20 years as a US citizen.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by Devious Weasel on 04-19-05 at 11:16 AM

So the zombies got him?
I agree in principle, but I can see the other side's argument. And I think I might go for 36 years instead of 20. (The idea being that you require an immigrant to be a U.S. citizen for as long as a person born here has to be alive to run.)

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 11:24 AM

After 36 years you might be like 70-something though. (Wouldn't that be the case for Michigan's Canada born Senator?)

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by Devious Weasel on 04-19-05 at 11:27 AM

Perhaps. But I'm really thinking more in terms of people who come here as young children and grow up here. Those are the ones I am most interested in allowing to run. Older immigrants don't hit my radar as much.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 11:33 AM

you might be like 70-something though
Which bothered you how much when you voted for Reagan?

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by PagongRatEater on 04-19-05 at 11:44 AM

Dood, how old do you think I AM?
Definitely not old enough to vote for Ronnie except in mock elections.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 11:47 AM

See? I can be a chauvinist too. Sorry about that.
I'm old enough to have voted against him twice.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by Devious Weasel on 04-19-05 at 12:02 PM

The great thing about having open primaries is that I got to vote against him four times...

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by TechNoir on 04-19-05 at 12:14 PM

Although I would add a change to allow foriegn born citizens to run as well - after 20 years as a US citizen.
Of course you would. And my folks would be running those Leni Riefenstahl films on the teevee. And we could nominate Jennifer Granholm.

"The center of human nature is rooted in ten thousand ordinary acts of kindness that define our days." Stephen Jay Gould

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by Wheezy on 04-19-05 at 12:34 PM

I dunno...I'm still mad at her for upping the cig tax in Mich, making it the second highest cig tax in the country (and the highest is New Jersey, if that tells you anything *ducks*). I wrote her a nice letter suggesting fat people should pay tax on potato chips and ice cream instead, but she never replied.

Ah, but I'm not one to hold grudges. There's no cig tax when you order them online. Oh wait--that's getting mucked up too, isn't it.
Wheeze * lunch?

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 12:46 PM

High cigarette taxes are an extremely effective public health measure. Straight line relationship--the higher you jack taxes, the more deaths you avoid.
Just sayin'.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by Bebo on 04-19-05 at 01:00 PM

Which explains why we have so many freakin' idiots living long unhealthy lives in NC.
Second lowest cig tax.

"If there was ever a time you wanted permission to run over a clown . . . ."

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 01:02 PM

What'd you say about my mother?
Yes. I stock up when I'm there, myself. At least I used to, back before I pretended to cut down.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by Wheezy on 04-19-05 at 01:25 PM

So too would taxes on junk food. Like, bacon egg and cheese sandwiches from McD's, maybe.
posters? credit card? I'm puzzled.
Wheeze * lunch?

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 01:32 PM

I am in the massively intellectually superior position of having seen comparative analyses of the relative merits of such different kinds of financial incentives for better health-related behavior (from a cost-effectiveness perspective). I am sorry to have to tell you that science does not bear out your theory. There's very little scientific/economic evidence that diet-related behaviors are as directly related to financial incentives as are addictive behaviors.
But thank you for playing. We'll try to think of an appropriately lovely parting gift. Or just any old appropriately lovely gift, since we're not encouraging you to part or anything like that.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by Wheezy on 04-19-05 at 02:02 PM

Gawd, you ARE cranky today.

some people would argue that food is addictive, but not me.
Wheeze * lunch?

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by desert_rhino on 04-19-05 at 04:49 PM

Cranky's relative. He hasn't gotten a formal warning yet today.

Food withdrawal is always fatal.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by landruajm on 04-19-05 at 07:26 PM

I haven't gotten a formal warning, ever, actually.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by desert_rhino on 04-19-05 at 07:34 PM

See?

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by landruajm on 04-20-05 at 08:16 AM

Are you attacking me?
FTR: I'm perfectly clear on the notion that when JV's attacking me, I'll know it.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by desert_rhino on 04-20-05 at 08:22 AM

Are you THREATENING ME?
Indeed.

"RE: 22nd"
Posted by landruajm on 04-20-05 at 08:25 AM

Huh-huh-huh. Cornholio. Huh-huh-huh.
Although I might not be sure if it's you or Bob attacking.

"RE: Amendment cutting, anyone?"
Posted by Estee on 04-19-05 at 03:43 PM

Number Thirteen. We'd solve competitive labor issues measured against other nations, homelessness, job training issues, and the education budget in one fell swoop.