|
Here is a poll I am interested in for TL'ers
We all know that Republicans will be gaining seats in both houses and that this will be a bad night for Democrats so:
Poll: Your feelings on the likely Republican gains:Afraid to see Republicans win (41) 53% Excited to see Republicans win (21) 27% Excited to see Democrats lose (13) 17% Sad to see the Democrats go (3) 4% 78 total votes Your vote: Your feelings on the likely Republican gains: (Vote): Excited to see Republicans win
(Vote): Excited to see Democrats lose
(Vote): Afraid to see Republicans win
(Vote): Sad to see the Democrats go
|
On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts its purpose completely.
|
On November 03 2010 03:00 Sumsi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely.
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
|
Too many people expect that you can just fix the economy. As if, because he's been in power for 2 years, Obama should have brought the US back to a pre-Bush economic state. There really hasn't been a president that took office after a financial collapse and returned the country to pre-collapse state on their own. Even FDR couldn't (until the war of course, which wasn't him as much as circumstance that).
|
On November 03 2010 03:00 Sumsi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts its purpose completely.
Liberals in the USA refer see the Constitution as a "living, breathing document." Conservatives do not.
|
On November 03 2010 03:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:00 Sumsi wrote:On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts its purpose completely. Liberals in the USA refer see the Constitution as a "living, breathing document." Conservatives do not. makes sense, when you consider yourself somehow "progressive" you don't really need any restrictions written about 200 years ago
|
On November 03 2010 03:01 LOLtex wrote:
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times.
I'm not an originalist, but this is by no means true, as the anti-Federalists would have never agreed to adopt it if they thought it was that vague.
|
On November 03 2010 02:57 Savio wrote:
Here is a poll I am interested in for TL'ers
We all know that Republicans will be gaining seats in both houses and that this will be a bad night for Democrats so:
You need a "don't care" option.
|
On November 03 2010 03:03 Lobotomist wrote:
Too many people expect that you can just fix the economy. As if, because he's been in power for 2 years, Obama should have brought the US back to a pre-Bush economic state. There really hasn't been a president that took office after a financial collapse and returned the country to pre-collapse state on their own. Even FDR couldn't (until the war of course, which wasn't him as much as circumstance that).
Maybe Reagan?
This:
+ Show Spoiler +When President Reagan took office in January of 1981 he was faced with a recession, double digit inflation, weak economic growth, a Fed Funds rate of 19% (its highest level ever), and an unemployment rate of 11% (the highest since World War II). At the end of his Presidential term in January of 1989 the rate of inflation had fallen from 12% to 4%, he had succeeded in helping the economy begin to grow at a rate of 6% annually, and unemployment was down to 7%. ![[image loading]](http://www.icmarc.org/ImageCache/rc/content/marketview/chart/2004/20040610reaganslegacy_2ectt/v2/image_5b_40id_3d_22chart_22_5d/1/chart20040610.gif) --http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketview/chart/2004/20040610reaganslegacy.html
Led to:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://uspoliticsguide.com/images/Presidents-history/1984-electoral-map.gif) 2nd Term FTW!
|
On November 03 2010 03:01 LOLtex wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:00 Sumsi wrote:On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely. Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times. mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered.
|
On November 03 2010 03:13 Sumsi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:01 LOLtex wrote:On November 03 2010 03:00 Sumsi wrote:On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely. Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times. mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered.
This is correct. Making a constitution able to be changed in meaning on mere political or judicial whims, destroys the purpose of a constitution.
|
On November 03 2010 03:13 Sumsi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:01 LOLtex wrote:On November 03 2010 03:00 Sumsi wrote:On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely. Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times. mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered.
No.
|
On November 03 2010 03:11 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:03 Lobotomist wrote:
Too many people expect that you can just fix the economy. As if, because he's been in power for 2 years, Obama should have brought the US back to a pre-Bush economic state. There really hasn't been a president that took office after a financial collapse and returned the country to pre-collapse state on their own. Even FDR couldn't (until the war of course, which wasn't him as much as circumstance that).
Maybe Reagan? This: + Show Spoiler +When President Reagan took office in January of 1981 he was faced with a recession, double digit inflation, weak economic growth, a Fed Funds rate of 19% (its highest level ever), and an unemployment rate of 11% (the highest since World War II). At the end of his Presidential term in January of 1989 the rate of inflation had fallen from 12% to 4%, he had succeeded in helping the economy begin to grow at a rate of 6% annually, and unemployment was down to 7%. --http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketview/chart/2004/20040610reaganslegacy.html Led to: + Show Spoiler +2nd Term FTW!
No..... The 80-81 recession was caused by the Fed on PURPOSE to head off inflation. Paul Volcker raised the fed interest rate drastically to kill the massive inflation (13.5%). This recession we are in now and the recession of 80-81 are completely different beasts.
|
On November 03 2010 03:16 L wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:13 Sumsi wrote:On November 03 2010 03:01 LOLtex wrote:On November 03 2010 03:00 Sumsi wrote:On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely. Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times. mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered. No.
You always provide such deep analysis and really add to the thread.
|
On November 03 2010 03:19 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:16 L wrote:On November 03 2010 03:13 Sumsi wrote:On November 03 2010 03:01 LOLtex wrote:On November 03 2010 03:00 Sumsi wrote:On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely. Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times. mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered. No. You always provide such deep analysis and really add to the thread.
I did respond however 
|
On November 03 2010 03:16 L wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:13 Sumsi wrote:On November 03 2010 03:01 LOLtex wrote:On November 03 2010 03:00 Sumsi wrote:On November 02 2010 23:34 ey215 wrote:
The beauty of our political system really comes down to one thing, the Constitution is a living breathing document that evolves constantly, even if not amended because of how it is interpreted.
Something tells me that this view on the constituiton corrupts it's purpose completely. Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times. mmh, I always thought that the purpose of a constitution is to set some principles in stone that should never be altered. No.
It should (and does) require a super-majority to amend the Constitution when it's required.
The problem is that we have members of the judicial branch effectively creating laws through the power of precedence, while the legislature just makes up whatever laws they feel like regardless of if the constitution granted them power over the item they're legislating. Meanwhile the executive branch (when either party is in power) is piling up an obscene amount of debt.
|
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2YvXTEZIY7Q/THGIu_sC2PI/AAAAAAAAA98/SeHq7L_6eoQ/s1600/1+-+Bush+Obama+Jobs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2YvXTEZIY7Q/THGJFA3p-xI/AAAAAAAAA-E/QgC5twSnKc4/s1600/1+-+Reagan+Jobs.jpg)
+ Show Spoiler +Original data comes from Bureau of Labor Statistics. Text of interventions added in by 3rd party "LibertyWorks.com"
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
|
On November 03 2010 03:10 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 03:01 LOLtex wrote:
Not at all, it's specifically written to be an organic document. It's vague on purpose, so it can change with the times. I'm not an originalist, but this is by no means true, as the anti-Federalists would have never agreed to adopt it if they thought it was that vague.
Depends on who you ask
Personally I'm a big fan of the organic document theory, but it does need amendments from time to time. I like to think that it's the judicial branch's responsibility to agree/disagree on the interpretation, and if we aren't happy with the outcome (or want it further solidified), that's where amendments come in.
|
On November 03 2010 03:28 Savio wrote:
Some interesting images contrasting Bush and Obamas response to current recession vs Reagan's response to his recession. Both looking over a 31 month period:
Bush and Obama: Bailouts, and "jobs bills"
Reagan: Tax cuts
Why are you not responding to what I wrote? Reagan's recession was CAUSED BY THE FED. Stop comparing two recessions that were caused by completely different things.
Also Reagan RAISED taxes in every year other than 81, what planet are you on?
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1632/reagans-tax-increases
Btw Bartlett was part of Reagan's economic dept.
|
The only problem with elections nowadays,anywhere in the world including US is that the economy is now global.
Any candidate saying that he'll fix it is either delusionnal or straight up lying.If the world is sick,you might have the best elected people at all offices,you'll still be sick,two years into a new administration or after two terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
